I have spent most of my life trying to cut taxes. Back in 1977, while a staffer for Congressman Jack Kemp, I helped draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which was endorsed by Ronald Reagan and enacted into law in 1981. According to the Treasury Department, this is the largest tax cut in American history.
So one might assume that I was out protesting taxes along with many of my friends on April 15. But going to rallies is not my thing; I thought my time and skills were better spent analyzing tax burdens to see what evidence justifies the sudden appearance of mass protests against taxes.
The first thing I did was look at the U.S. tax burden compared to other similar countries. Vast amounts of such data are compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris and easily available on its web site.
The first thing I did was look at total revenues — federal, state and local — as a share of the gross domestic product. This percentage is the best summary measure we have for the burden of government on the economy.
The latest complete data are for 2006. They show that governments at all levels consumed 28 percent of GDP in the U.S. Of the 30 OECD countries, we ranked 26, just slightly above Japan and Korea. Only Turkey and Mexico had significantly lower tax burdens.
The most heavily taxed countries are Denmark and Sweden, where government takes 49.1 percent of GDP. On average, the OECD countries of Europe had a tax ratio of 38 percent — 10 percentage points higher than the U.S.
Since the level of taxation here is already considered tyrannical by tea party organizers, any tax level approaching that in Europe would surely constitute slavery in their eyes. Of course, anyone who has ever traveled to Europe knows that the people there are no less free than we are.
For the most part, Europeans just prefer to pay higher taxes for universal health care, while Americans have the cost deducted from their paychecks by their employers. If Americans took all the money they pay for health insurance and added it to their tax bills, getting free health care in return, our tax/GDP ratio would be about the same as that in Europe.
Keep in mind that Americans have always been willing to pay higher taxes when they got something they need in return. Every family with children looks carefully at the quality of local schools when buying a house and almost all are willing to pay higher property taxes to get good schools. States and localities with the lowest taxes are seldom the best places to live because of a concomitant lack of services.
I published my analysis at Forbes.com and sent it around to some of my conservative friends. The universal reaction was, “So what? Why should Americans care if foreigners are even more overtaxed than we are?”
I thought this was a fair point, so I did another analysis looking only at taxation in the U.S. Even if our taxes are low compared to those in other countries, tax protests might be justified by a rising tax level.
The first thing I did was look for more recent data on taxes as a share of GDP on the website of the Congressional Budget Office. It says that total federal revenues will consume 15.5 percent of GDP this year, down from 17.7 percent last year, 18.8 percent in 2007, and 20.9 percent in 2000.
This is a very sharp reduction in the tax/GDP ratio. As a consequence, the federal government will take less out of the economy in the form of revenue than any year since 1950.
But what about the average American, I wondered? Is it possible that the tax code has changed in some way that makes families worse off even though the aggregate level of taxation has fallen?
To answer this question, I went to the website of the Tax Policy Center. It has a table that looks at federal income taxes on the median family’s income. The median is the exact middle of the income distribution—half of all families make more, half make less.
In 2007, the latest year available, the median family paid 5.91 percent in federal income taxes. In every year from 1958 — the first year available — through 2002, it paid more. In 1981, before the Reagan tax cut took effect, the federal income tax rate on the median family was 11.79 percent—twice what it was in 2007.
Many commentators complained that these data are meaningless because they are skewed by the large and growing number of Americans that pay no federal income taxes. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 43 percent of federal tax returns filed in 2007 had no income tax liability.
My critics, however, misunderstood how the Tax Policy Center data are calculated. They are not affected in any way by the number of people not paying taxes. The data simply look at the median family’s income and use current tax law to estimate its tax liability.
In response, my tea party-attending friends said I had left out payroll taxes. But there has been no change in the payroll tax rate for many years and most people will get back cash benefits equal to everything they pay in Social Security taxes plus a lot more. Anyway, I didn’t see any signs at the various tax protests complaining about payroll taxes.
But what about state and local taxes, my critics replied? This is always a problem area, analytically, because they vary widely from one place to another. However, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers, the aggregate amount of state tax increases this year amounts to just $1.5 billion; all of that accounted for by one state, California. Two-thirds of states either cut taxes or had no increase.
Moreover, in surveying the location of tax protests compiled by a group called FreedomWorks, which organized the demonstrations, the bulk of tea parties appear to have taken place in Texas and Florida, which have no state income tax, or states where there has been no tax change. Few protests occurred in high-tax states; most were in states where they are low.
Finally, in desperation, my critics said that it is not actually the level of taxation today that they are protesting. It’s the implicit tax resulting from large federal deficits that really concerns them.
I might have been willing to buy this argument except for the fact that these same people justified a huge tax cut in 2001 on the grounds that large budget surpluses, which had arisen toward the end of Bill Clinton’s administration, were proof of over-taxation since the government was taking in more revenue than it needed to pay its bills.
Furthermore, the conservative line for the last eight years was that budget deficits don’t matter, as Vice President Dick Cheney famously remarked when Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill raised concerns about them at a cabinet meeting in 2002. (O’Neill was fired shortly thereafter for not being on-message.) It’s at least a bit disingenuous for conservatives to suddenly change their view on deficits simply because their team is no longer in power.
In my opinion, these tea parties had little, if anything, to do with current or projected tax levels. They were just partisan pep rallies designed to make out-of-power conservatives and Republicans feel better. Secondarily, they were about building audiences for Fox News and right-wing talk radio hosts.
But I will grant that some of those attending tea parties are now genuinely concerned about our fiscal future even though they weren’t during the George W. Bush Administration. (Where, I wonder, were the protestors when Bush and a Republican Congress massively expanded Medicare in 2003?) But it’s not enough just to complain; specific proposals need to be developed that go beyond cutting foreign aid and earmarks — just about the only spending that conservatives ever talk about cutting.
In particular, anti-tax activists need to explain how we are going to cut Medicare by tens of trillions of dollars when its beneficiaries already represent the largest voting bloc in America and its ranks will grow sharply as the baby boom generation retires. Because of rising Medicare costs, we would be facing massive budget deficits in the near future even if Barack Obama had not been elected, Republicans still controlled Congress, and there had been no economic crisis.
Still, all movements must start somewhere. If the April 15 tea parties are really about more than just electing Republicans and increasing Fox News ratings, I may join them next year. In the meantime, protestors need to do a better job of figuring out what they are protesting and devise a real plan for dealing with our nation’s fiscal problem. Otherwise, their efforts will amount to nothing more than hot air.
65 responses so far
1 joemarier // Apr 24, 2009 at 11:25 am
The dog that didn’t bark in this article? Bailouts.
2 joemarier // Apr 24, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I thought there were some good points, mind you. But, it’s still like saying in 2001-2002 that the anti-war protests are just about reviving the Democratic party and boosting The Nation’s circulation, because Afghanistan was a just war and where were these people during Bosnia??
3 Mike K // Apr 24, 2009 at 12:11 pm
“In my opinion, these tea parties had little, if anything, to do with current or projected tax levels. They were just partisan pep rallies designed to make out-of-power conservatives and Republicans feel better. Secondarily, they were about building audiences for Fox News and right-wing talk radio hosts.”
Perhaps if you had attended one or two, as I did, you would have learned they were about spending and were just as anti-Republican as anti-Democrat. You completely missed the significance, along with the CNN lady, and should get out of your DC bubble once in a while.
With leaders like you, the Republicans, moderate or conservative, are doomed. Maybe the New Whigs will get going.
4 mlindroo // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:12 pm
> Perhaps if you had attended one or two, as I did,
> you would have learned they were about
> spending and were just as anti-Republican as
> anti-Democrat. You completely missed the
> significance, along with the CNN lady, and should
> get out of your DC bubble once in a while.
Um, isn’t “LOWER TAXES!” pretty much one of the overall top 2-3 justifications for the whole exercise, along with less government?? And you have to concede that Bruce Bartlett’s facts-based critique of THAT side of the equation is pretty devastating, isn’t it?
(You *MAY* of course respond that there is also some justifiable concern about soon having to pay much higher taxes for Obama’s new initiatives since the current budget does not add up).
MARCU$
5 Mike K // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“Um, isn’t “LOWER TAXES!” pretty much one of the overall top 2-3 justifications for the whole exercise, along with less government?? “
Did you attend one of the rallies ?
I saw two messages mostly. I saw some signs about taxes that seemed to be the only well printed ones. I saw far more that were individually made, often with some effort, that emphasized spending and the enormous debt that will be created by Obama’s “stimulus” and budget spending. I have some photos on my blog and there are many sites with lots of photos. Why don’t you look?
6 mlindroo // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:47 pm
So Mike K., you are saying that “Taxed Enough Already” has little to do with TEA parties then?
MARCU$
7 danbmil99 // Apr 24, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Clearly, the protests were about quadrupling the deficit for the forseeable future, and doubling our national debt in the coming decade. Calling it a “tax protest” was a simplification, and perhaps bad marketing.
It’s a very legitimate concern, and as a smack-dab-middle independent who voted Obama (like many of us), I can tell you that this issue is the ONE wedge issue the GOP could use to win my vote. But their position has to be thoughtful and constructive. Putting in proposals for massive, regressive tax cuts doesn’t cut it. You have to explain how you, as a party, will deal with ballooning health costs and entitlements. How will you solve the problem of 20% of Americans with no effective health care? Can we really be a 21st century nation when one fifth of our citizens are walking around with diseases because they can’t afford a doctor? That sounds third world, not first.
The GOP also needs real ideas on energy and education. Vouchers? OK, how are you going to keep that system from gutting ghetto schools even further? Again, are we a top contender if a huge majority of our next generation workforce is functionally illiterate? Where are the ideas about these things? It’s not just about ideological wealth redistribution and liberal guilt; there are real, significant structural problems in our country that cannot be papered over with stale, Ayn Rand-style rhetoric about individual liberty and responsibility.
Calling this socialism is disingenuous. There is a huge difference between true socialism and a cogent, well thought out plan for government to do what government is capable of doing to help fix these problems, while minimizing government’s tendency to hamper the private sector.
I don’t agree with all his positions, but Ron Paul certainly touches a nerve with people like me. The GOP needs new ideas, and new leaders. The tax protests represent an energy that should be harnessed. At least they’re not protesting abortions and gay marriage, which would not do the GOP any good at all.
8 barker13 // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Re: Mike K; 12:11 PM –
(*SIGH*) Yep.
Re: Mlindroo; 1:12 PM –
Again… the main concern of the Tea Partiers as I witnessed it (taking part in a Tea Party) was the absolute growth in the size, scope, and power of government and the misuse of taxpayer resources in wrongheaded policy initiatives such as “stimulus” bills and “bailouts.”
Yes. There was some good old fashioned “down with taxes” protesting, but it was within the CONTEXT of protesting against irresponsible and frankly incompetent government.
Broadly, the protests were a sign of frustration corruption, mismanagement, everything from a government which under Bush screwed up all sorts of things and under Obama and the Democrats in Congress seems to be “doubling down” on many failed policies of both Bush and the RINO Congresses of 2001-2006.
The Tea Parties were anti-deficit, anti-debt, anti-increased-future-liabilities rallies. We’re talking folks who want government to balance its checkbook, not go on a debt driven spending binge – especially one Tea Partiers fear will heavily reward “insiders” and be misused for partisan political purposes.
Re: Mike K; 1:25 PM –
Doc. Unfortunately we’re dealing with two types here: 1) Those that can’t understand; 2) Those who even if they take our word for what we’re saying don’t actually give a damn; they’ll stick to their stories not really caring which picture painted is most accurate.
Re: Mlindroo; wrote 46 minutes ago –
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
Marcus. (*SMILE*) Com’n… you’re no dummy. You see the “marketing” angle, the “historical” angle; “Tea Party” just “works” as a slogan regardless of the acronym.
(*SMILE*)
Re: Danbmil99; wrote 9 minutes ago –
I’m largely with Dan. (*SHRUG*) Also… pleasantly surprised that he wrote “Ron Paul certainly touches a nerve with people like me.”
Me, too, Dan! Same with Buchanan. Same with Lou Dobbs. Heck… same with Ralph Nader! (*SHRUG*)
BILL
9 Chekote // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I was at the tea party and it had nothing to do with taxation. It had to do with unsustainable spending. It had to do with bailouts. It had to do with an out of control, non-representative federal government that keeps rewarding bad behavior. GOT THAT!
10 ThisSiteIsLame // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Typical for this site. I think what Mr. Bartlet misses is that for all his condescension, those who went to the tea parties were protesting him, and his kind. The type of people who smugly assert that they know what’s best for the rest of us, so we should merely shut up and take what we are given.
To ignore the massive proposed increase in defecits, which dwarfs anything before -and to ignore what that means in way of future taxes is decietful. Mr. Bartlett doesn’t address legitimate conservative concerns about size and scope of government, what our taxes are used for, whether the people are represented by those who levy their taxes.
Mr. Bartlett supported the abortion of a stimulus bill under the great argument that those smart guys like him had to do something. What? Didn’t matter, just do something to justify their parasitic existence. In the end we have a bill that wasn’t even read by the people who passed and signed it.
Mr. Bartlett ignores the facts that taxes will be raised when the 2001 tax cuts expired. They will most likely be raised again under the guise of paying for the massive stimulus and bailouts. They will be raised by cap & trade, or some sort of carbon reduction regime, they will be raised to pay for universal healthcare (and Mr. Bartlett’s treatment of that in the above article was disengenous to say the least). Alot of us are mad, and protesting because we no longer see any value for the money we pay out in taxes, at any amount.
11 Bulldoglover100 // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:20 pm
They made the GOP look like Idiots and uneducated morons.
12 sinz54 // Apr 24, 2009 at 3:40 pm
barker13 sez: “The Tea Parties were anti-deficit, anti-debt, anti-increased-future-liabilities rallies. We’re talking folks who want government to balance its checkbook, not go on a debt driven spending binge”
That’s exactly right.
And, just as in 1992, that stance doesn’t match the platforms of either major party right now. Which is why the “Tea Party” protesters are being scorned, both by the Dems and even by some Repubs.
In 1992, this message–”Don’t sell out my birthright”–was exactly what launched the Ross Perot third-party candidacy. He didn’t win. But he made both parties listen. Which is why we finally did get a balanced Federal budget (and even surpluses), years later.
“Balance budgets first” is alien to 30 years of Republican supply-side economics. It is a recognition that what worked in 1981 doesn’t look so applicable in 2009.
13 cb55 // Apr 24, 2009 at 4:53 pm
sinz54, I dont always agree with you, but you are a great poster. You make points very well. You own this site. thak you for the term, “Moby”, i will remember that for the future.
14 ThisSiteIsLame // Apr 24, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Re: Danbmil99
“How will you solve the problem of 20% of Americans with no effective health care? Can we really be a 21st century nation when one fifth of our citizens are walking around with diseases because they can’t afford a doctor? That sounds third world, not first.”
Somehow we’ve managed to be a world superpower for most of our existence without solving this problem. To begin with a segment of the uninsured do not wnat to be insured. They are young, healthy, and are willing to chance it in order to keep greater amounts of their own money. Another segment is those who are between jobs, and thus between insurance. Yes, there is a need to address costs. This should be done by exploring the free market, including cutting away red tape, tort reform and other measures. I’ll not pretend to have an answer, but I don’t think anyone in government does either.
Also how do you knock the “stale rhetoric” of Ayn Rand and then start mooning over Ron Paul? I like alot of what Ron Paul has to say on certain issues, but wouldn’t even flirt with voting for him. His shameful courting of the 9/11 truth movement sent him beyond the pale.
Peace Out
15 Mike K // Apr 24, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“So Mike K., you are saying that “Taxed Enough Already” has little to do with TEA parties then? “
Yes. There is a desire, by people who are plugged in to the present corrupt system, to ignore or misunderstand on purpose, what is going on. I have been involved in local government and with state government for 30 years. I served on the California Medical Association’s Commission on Legislation since 1978. I know what Bismark meant when he said “One should not watch laws or sausages being made.” I have made sausage.
The Republicans wrecked their chance for a predominant role in government after 1994. Maybe power always corrupts. My experience in local government suggests it does. There are two ways to deal with this; one is to reduce the size of government, the other is to find like-minded people who can be trusted for a while to stay honest. Which is more realistic ?
I don’t know but I am looking at the Modern Whig Party.
http://modernwhig.org/
They may be a bunch of nuts but the most sane people I know are in the military or retired military.
I have opinions on health care reform and have posted them.
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=400
16 petty boozshwa // Apr 24, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Mr. Bartlett
Please consider a couple of ideas provoked by your posting:
1) Just because Republicans and fiscal conservatives held their tongue during GWB’s administration – under the very plausible conviction that the alternative was much worse – I don’t think that bars them from voicing their pent up frustration at the direction of our country’s finances.
2) With your information on median tax burdens you back into the main frustration the tea party folks are trying to articulate. By abolishing any income tax burden on the bottom two quantiles of income, we have turned the federal government into a sugar daddy dispensing bread and circuses to the great unwashed. Any sense of rectitude or self-reliance on the part of the trailer park demographic is being melted away with these Earned Income Credit windfalls, especially since we’re borrowing the money to pay them. And now we’re bailing out the bonuses of the big shots on the other end of the spectrum. Only the chumps that produce more than they consume are getting gouged.
17 bcrago77 // Apr 24, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Bruce Bartlett, your hypocrisy argument is not bright.
It’s like arguing that a 20 year old shouldn’t try to get a job, because at 19 he was a low-energy pothead. Or that a young woman might as well become a prostitute, because, after all, last year she was living with a guy with whom she basically traded sex for her 1/2 of the rent.
Likewise, we have no right to protest Obama’s trillions of yearly debt, because we were insufficiently attentive to Bush’s few hundred billions in yearly debt. That’s what logicians call a suckass argument.
And the Tea Parties aren’t just about taxes. They’re about liberty generally, because as the public sector gets bigger, private liberty and choice is restricted. It’s a zero-sum game.
18 danbmil99 // Apr 25, 2009 at 3:13 am
ThisSiteIsLame spoke thus regarding medical reform: “Somehow we’ve managed to be a world superpower for most of our existence without solving this problem.”
The problem is, things change. Expectations are different now than they were 30, 50, or 100 years ago. Medical treatment has moved from a luxury to something necessary for social order, and thus open to Government intervention.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, this argument is already lost. It is no longer a matter of if, but rather of when, all Americans will somehow be able to walk into a medical clinic (not an Emergency Room) and be seen, without paying an exorbitant fee. Both business and the insurance industry are on board; the rest is detail.
I think it would be instructive for the GOP to look at how they failed to have much influence on how this will happen. By sticking their heads in the sand for so long on this issue, even when it became inevitable, they lost the chance to have significant impact. They should use this reality as an object lesson on coming issues like energy and education. The simple fact is, the pendulum has swung towards expansion of the government’s mandate; better to be in the tent pissing out than otherwise.
19 danbmil99 // Apr 25, 2009 at 3:24 am
also, “I like alot of what Ron Paul has to say on certain issues, but wouldn’t even flirt with voting for him. His shameful courting of the 9/11 truth movement sent him beyond the pale.”
I agree on the ‘truth’ crap. Problem with libertarians is they seem inclined to paranoid conspiracy theories. I am certainly not a true libertarian.
What I liked about Ron Paul was his principled stand on the administration’s foreign policy. We didn’t elect Bush to put himself in the history books as the man who taught democracy to the Middle East. The hubris is unbelievable. And lying to congress and the public about WMD’s to that end is unforgivable. More than torture, more than fiscal irresponsibility, or toadies at FEMA, this is what really burns me about Bush.
I worked 6 blocks from the WTC in Manhattan for years. I saw the towers out my office window. When they came down, I was ready to follow Bush and friends anywhere. That’s human nature: when the tribe is hit, you band together. But I was lied to. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. My emotions were manipulated (along with a majority of Americans) to serve the ideological ambitions of a bunch of insane neocons. They may get nailed on torture, but that’s a minor issue compared to this.
So when someone like Ron Paul says we have to be more vigilant in protecting the constitution, I am now inclined to agree. Power corrupts, and our constitution is about the only thing standing in the way of that corruption. That goes for Obama as much as Bush. These folks don’t become president because they have serious self doubts (don’t ask me to explain Nixon). We need to keep that tendency in check, or we face grave peril.
20 Churl // Apr 25, 2009 at 5:28 am
Does Mr. Frum pay contributors extra for the obligatory “Fox News / right wing talk show” remark in each posting, or is this little snark a required part of each submission?
21 ottovbvs // Apr 25, 2009 at 7:20 am
Oh dear, Bruce Bartlett gives a dose of reality and the movement conservatives don’t like it. Bartlett is one of the most intellectually honest conservatives out there. He spoke the truth about Republican excesses and incompetence three years ago and got drummed out of his usual gigs in the right wing media for his pains. Unfortunately, the GOP has lost sight of the fact that the purpose of politics is governance not the other way around. Because of this it’s no exaggeration to say the Republican party is in a state of collapse. Messages the public doesn’t buy, messengers without credibility and a retreat into juvenile tactics. Bartlett is pointing out some simple realities which conservatives need to to come to terms with if they are ever to be perceived as a governing party. Federal and state spending in this country even before Obama took office totalled about $4.5trillion. This is by a factor of several times greater than govt spending by any other country in the world. It’s not going to change to any substantial extent and it has to be paid for. Furthermore talking about small govt in this context is absurd. The American public recognizes it has to be paid for, is willing to pay for it provided it perceives its money is being spent for the public good, and it’s very attached to many major govt programs. It also want’s something done about healthcare and recognizes there’s a cost to it. The big news this morning is that the Dems are going to pass healthcare on reconciliation if they have to and it will pass even if every Republican votes against it. Once passed the American people are never going to want to let it go anymore than they want to let go social security, medicare or unemployment insurance. The Republicans know this as well as I do and yet they are quite happy to be on record forever as resisting the passage of this measure which is going to happen. They need to re-learn that the aim of politics is governance not the other way around.
22 sinz54 // Apr 25, 2009 at 7:26 am
ottovbvs: “The Republicans know this as well as I do and yet they are quite happy to be on record forever as resisting the passage of this measure which is going to happen.”
I guess you answered your own question from another discussion thread about whether Blue Cross-Blue Shield could influence the GOP to go against their own base on the health care issue. In that other discussion thread, I told you why you were wrong.
And in this discussion thread, you have admitted why you were wrong: The GOP conservatives, particularly in the House, are committed to ideology rather than the pragmatics of governance. Remember that back during the financial crisis last summer, these conservatives said PUBLICLY that if massive Government bailouts were the only way to save the U.S. economy, then “let the economy burn” rather than bail it out.
23 sinz54 // Apr 25, 2009 at 7:37 am
ThisSite: A free market in health care is impossible, since the supply-demand curves will never intersect at a point that is acceptable in a humane society. There is no point on the supply-demand curve where a patient will reject live-saving treatment simply because it costs too much to save his life.
That’s the difference with other types of insurance–there is no limit on demand. If it costs too much to fix the roof of your home or remediate the mold from your home, you have the option to just walk away and file for bankruptcy. If it costs too much to repair your car, you have the option to junk it and buy another one. But no matter how much medical care costs, you’re not going to agree to die rather than get that medical care. You can’t junk your body and get another one, like you can do with cars.
Further, in a totally free market, the poor would be turned away from Emergency Rooms for inability to pay. We’ve already passed laws that prevent that–the cost of caring for them then gets passed back to the rest of us.
I favor market based solutions to health care reform. I live in Massachusetts which has such a plan. But I recognize that it is far from a free market.
24 ottovbvs // Apr 25, 2009 at 9:01 am
sinz54
7:26 AM
…..Actually if you read my posts I’m nowhere near as black and white about what might happen with the voting by Republicans as you suggest. However, I do take it as a given that a bill will pass and that Blue Cross Blue Shield will have much more influence on the outcome than Fred Barnes. On balance the evidence suggests that Republicans will be united against it given they seem to be in the “NO” groove. As against that if they don’t participate the bill will have masses of stuff they and the healthcare industry doesn’t like. There will thus be a lot of pressure from the industry to join the process. An even more powerful inducement are the midterms. Do these guys really want to be facing massive advertising campaigns telling their voters they voted against universal healthcare. I doubt it. Particularly the senators when the Dems have the chance to pick up several seats. Less so in the house because of gerrymandering but apparently there a slew of seats in CA and the southern part of the NE that Dems are going to target so those guys may be feeling the heat. We’ll see.
25 sinz54 // Apr 25, 2009 at 9:56 am
ottovbvs: These right-wing House Republicans come from the staunchest right-wing districts in America. (Some of the folks in these districts still honor Confederate Memorial Day.) These representatives have far more to fear from an outraged GOP base that will revolt against being sold out, than from any Democratic attack ads.
So that’s not the problem. The GOP hard core will survive anything. The problem is that the GOP is, once again, going to be isolating itself from the mainstream of the electorate.
26 24AheadDotCom // Apr 25, 2009 at 10:31 am
The tea parties are worthless for the reasons described at this link and in the listed posts:
http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties
For one example, almost all of the major forces behind the “movement” support massive immigration, and that will primarily benefit the Dems. Those millions of new Dems will then vote to raise the taxes on the tea partiers. Useful idiotism, meet irony.
What the “partiers” should be doing instead is confonting politicians with the flaws in their policies on video as described here:
http://24ahead.com/s/question-authority
One nationally-known politician being vigorously “cross-examined” about the stimulus on video would get hundreds of thousands or millions of views on Youtube and would have a far greater impact than a million “tea parties”.
27 ottovbvs // Apr 25, 2009 at 11:22 am
sinz54
9:56 AMottovbvs: “These right-wing House Republicans come from the staunchest right-wing districts in America.”
…..I thought that was more or less what I said….little room for movement in the house where it doesn’t matter anyway because the Dems have a huge majority…but a somewhat different situation in the senate where it’s a statewide electorate and there are I believe some 18 Republicans up for re-election and four or five are open seats because the incumbent has retired…..Basically given gerrymandering the Dems have won almost everything they can in the house but there are seats in California and the southern NE where there is some Republican exposure because of shifts in the electorates within these gerrymandered districts….As to the GOP being a captive of the far right in the house couldn’t agree more…it’s very dangerous.
28 JTinNC // Apr 25, 2009 at 12:47 pm
My ‘protest’ was not for the current tax policy but for the impending one, as yet defined by Obama, that will give me tax breaks now in exchange for much higher taxes later on my children and grandchildren. While Europe may not be ’slaves’ their unemployment rates generally are much higher than ours even during prosperous times. If Obama had been forthright in telling people this was the ‘change’ he intended then we could have all voted for it if we liked it, but our liberty will be impinged on as he lowers the standard of living for us all. Now we have a new healthcare proposal that will be passed without debate or public consent by hiding it in the stimulus bill and using the ‘nuclear option’ to prevent debate and amendment. So much for transperency! Bush started our creep toward this with bailouts, and Obama has put the accelerator down and had the brakes removed.
29 danbmil99 // Apr 25, 2009 at 1:27 pm
sinz54: “But no matter how much medical care costs, you’re not going to agree to die rather than get that medical care. You can’t junk your body and get another one, like you can do with cars.”
Great analysis. I tried to say something like this on another thread but you put it better. The example I like to use is a new treatment which extends life 5 years but costs $10M a year to produce. That’s sort of what medicine is starting to offer. Everyone wants to live an extra 5 years, but few of us can afford $50 million to do it. How do you solve that conundrum?
The free market approach says simply, “rich people get to live an extra 5 years; rest of you can go suck it. You should have tried harder to get rich.” That simply doesn’t fly in today’s society. Ergo, health care will be at least somewhat ’socialized’.
The GOP has to get with the fact that things are changing. On a pragmatic level, they must know it, since they spent 8 years spending us into the hole we now find ourselves. Why on earth would I believe that if I elect them into power again, they’re going to do anything differently?
See, with the liberals, expanding government is part of their agenda. That means they admit what they’re doing, so I can kind of predict where they will go.
The GOP is like Communist China’s leaders, who profess a belief in communism but push a radically capitalist agenda. The GOP professes a conservative, small-government approach, but if you elect them, they go as crazy as any liberal — but without any ideological position, it’s just random. Like crazy wars, last-minute Medicaid bills to get the elderly vote, and pork, pork, pork.
What in the world could possibly convince me to back the GOP, given their hypocrisy?
30 sinz54 // Apr 25, 2009 at 5:44 pm
danbmil99: Thank you! You reminded me of another point that I had thought about once: A totally free market in health care must necessarily lead our society to Social Darwinism–the survival of the fittest, where “fittest” is defined by moneymaking capacity, because survival may well depend on how much health care can be paid for.
Interestingly, President Jimmy Carter (!!!), of all people, came close to this idea in one of his very first press conferences in 1977: A female reporter had asked him about government financing of abortion. Carter said that he was opposed to it. The reporter followed up by asking Carter whether without government subsidies, poor women would be unable to get abortions that wealthy women could afford. Carter replied:
“There are a lot of things that rich people can afford that poor people cannot. That’s why it’s better to be rich than to be poor. The question always is whether government has the obligation to mitigate those differences, particularly when there is a moral issue involved.”
He really, really said that. I’ll never forget it.
31 danbmil99 // Apr 25, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Sinz54 — this issue is really quite interesting, as it represents a perfect case study in collective vs individual responsibility, rights, and/or entitlements. We’re already seeing it play out globally with the HIV drugs issue.
I’m a free market person at heart, but I don’t see this issue surviving in a truly free market for long. It’s just not sustainable in today’s cultural environment to push this social darwinism POV to its logical end.
What if Government had never gotten involved in things like roads, plumbing, electricity or phones? Would we live in a world where every road costs a $50 toll, and only the rich drive? Would poor people live without plumbing and television? Medicine is not quite like these things, but it’s getting more like it with each passing decade.
My biggest fear is the situation you have in Canada, where it’s basically illegal to ‘traffic’ in medical procedures or even a visit to a doctor without it all moving through the socialized bureaucracy. There is no incentive for anyone to buy an MRI and set up a clinic, because the existence of an MRI machine immediately puts you on the rationing list, and you get some prescribed amount of money, which is apparently not enough to make a profit because the wait time for an MRI scan is something like 6 months.
One day a few years ago I woke up with a droopy eyelid. I thought little of it, but called my Doc anyway. He told me to go immediately to the ER and get an MRI scan. Turns out there was a substantial chance I was about to have a stroke (wasn’t the case, but coulda been…) In Canada, I would have been SOL.
I suspect the US will never go that far — we have too much respect for the free market to completely throw it overboard. But the GOP’s attitude of NO NO NO is going to take them out of the decision-making process, which inevitably means the final outcome will lean farther left than it has to. I feel like they are abrogating their moral duty to be the loyal opposition. It’s more like they’re saying “We’re going to take our guns & religion and go home!” As they petulantly toddle off the playground.
-dan
32 dhlii // Apr 25, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I can not comment on your statistics but they do not jibe with my life. Whether we talk about Property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, or miscellaneous government fees, cuts are rare to non existant, increases are the rule. Maybe you are right and I would be happy to pay more for more or better service, but again in my life the benefits of government have decreased as cost has increased.
You make a point that as parents we often seek out better schools and are willing to pay more for them. I live in an area with schools ranking near the top of the nation. Those pubic schools are extremely expensive, and while they might be better than other parts of the country their expensive education is criminally poor. Maybe I would accept a public healthcare system that was better and cheaper than our current quasi-public one, but do you honestly expect me to beleive a government that at exhorbitant expense can not educate my children is going to do a good job with health-care ?
If you believe this is all some Fox or GOP ruse you have not been paying attention. This nation is increasingly angry. Sen. Obama rode populist anger to the White house. But he has failed to grasp that choosing to depose the party in power is not a mandate for socialism. As to the “plan”, that is to continue to return the political class to the private sector, until the grasp that we are not continuing to pay more and more for less and less.
33 jchristensen07 // Apr 26, 2009 at 6:26 am
Yet one more clueless individual trying to figure out the motives behind the tea party protestors. Why would anyone attempt to write an article about the motivations of any protest without going to it and talking to the protestors themselves?
As a protest attendee, I can assure you it’s not the level of taxes we pay that we’re protesting.
Every person protesting at a tea party understands (with the exception of the 2% weirdos that show at any protest) that it will once again be the responsible people who foot the bill for the unresponsible. Add that to having our taxes fund the most progressivly left liberal administration and you have yourself a conservative revolt.
34 foutsc // Apr 26, 2009 at 7:10 am
Mr Bartlett states: “Of course, anyone who has ever traveled to Europe knows that the people there are no less free than we are.”
Of course, anyone who has LIVED in Europe knows just how ignorant this statement is. Speech, cars, guns, and religion are all much more regulated than in the US. Their societies are less egalitarian and less socially mobile than the US. Energy costs are crushing, constricting one’s freedoms.
He also writes: “anti-tax activists need to explain how we are going to cut Medicare by tens of trillions of dollars”
I’m tired of hearing politicians say this. I don’t have to explain anything. We The People pay the politicians we elect to solve these problems. If they would stop grandstanding and actually do some serious work, perhaps they could solve the fiscal problems that bedevil us.
I agree with danbmil99, Tax protest was an oversimplification. People are angry at the out of control government, regardless of who’s in charge.
35 foutsc // Apr 26, 2009 at 7:15 am
Mr Bartlett states: “Of course, anyone who has ever traveled to Europe knows that the people there are no less free than we are.”
Of course, anyone who has LIVED in Europe knows just how ignorant this statement is. Speech, cars, guns, and religion are all much more regulated than in the US. Their societies are less egalitarian and less socially mobile than the US. Energy costs are crushing, constricting one’s freedoms.
He also writes: “anti-tax activists need to explain how we are going to cut Medicare by tens of trillions of dollars”
I’m tired of hearing politicians say this. I don’t have to explain anything. We The People pay the politicians we elect to solve these problems. If they would stop grandstanding and actually do some serious work, perhaps they could solve the fiscal problems that bedevil us.
I agree with danbmil99, Tax protest was an oversimplification. People are angry at the out of control government, regardless of who’s in charge.
36 bartlettb // Apr 26, 2009 at 7:40 am
Foutsc: “I don’t have to explain anything. We The People pay the politicians we elect to solve these problems.”
This is why the tea party movement is unworthy of respect and will go nowhere. Until the protestors take some responsibility for leadership by talking about specifics they will be treated as crying babies incapable of communicating why they are crying. To paraphrase foutsc, “It’s mommy’s job to figure out why I am crying and do something about it!”
I would point out that the reason why the tax revolt of the 1970s was successful is because it was tied to very specific legislative initiatives: Proposition 13, Kemp-Roth et al.
37 barker13 // Apr 26, 2009 at 8:21 am
Re: Sinz54; 4/24/2009 3:40 PM –
“…we finally did get a balanced Federal budget (and even surpluses), years later.”
Actually not, Sinz. Recall… the politicians were still stealing… er… “borrowing”… (*SNORT*)… from Social Security surpluses (while filling up the “lock box” with IOUs) to “cover” what would have otherwise been imbalances between federal revenues vs. spending.
Not being nit picky… but it’s an important distinction.
(*SHRUG*)
Re: Mike K; 4/24/2009 6:01 PM –
“The Republicans wrecked their chance for a predominant role in government after 1994. Maybe power always corrupts. My experience in local government suggests it does. There are two ways to deal with this; one is to reduce the size of government, the other is to find like-minded people who can be trusted for a while to stay honest. Which is more realistic?”
I didn’t speak at “my” Tea Party on April 15th, but I plan to speak at the next Tea Party. My proposal will be that the only way to translate the grass roots Tea Party movement into a viable political force is via “taking over” the two Parties.
For instance…
Let’s say “we” again get 3,000… 3,500… let’s just say a LARGE number of people attending the next Tea Party. (And of course magnify this across the nation, the entire Tea Party movement.) What I will suggest is that in order to have a real impact, people like us need start at the bottom rung of the “insider” grass roots ladder and take over the local Republican AND Democratic Committees.
See… THAT’S the key… don’t focus on JUST the Republican Party, but also focus – in tandem – on the Democratic Party.
We need “our” people as registered Dems as well as registered Republicans so that BOTH “our” registered Republicans and Dems can run for Committee seats and upon winning enough seats… take over the committees.
Will the establishment elements in BOTH Parties fight such an attempt? Sure. But folks… Nixon (or was it Agnew) was right… there is a “silent majority” of our fellow citizens out there who really do want real “change” and really do want to have “hope” that politics as usual can be successfully challenged.
Well… WITHIN this “silent majority” is… the Tea Party movement – call it… “The NOT SO Silent Majority.”
(*SHRUG*)
Moving conservative ideology to the TOP of the agenda… “conservative” not so much in the sense of social issues but in terms of fiscal responsibility… seems to me the best way to move BOTH Parties “rightward” when it comes to “common” conservative beliefs regarding fiscal policy, adherence to constitutionality and the rule of law, etc.
If even just 5%-10% of Tea Party boosters – people roughly within what one might call a “traditionalist” framework – were to actually start getting involved in “Party” politics within BOTH Parties… well… I’m not saying that the Party establishments would be toppled in a day or month or year or even years… but it would move BOTH Parties in the right direction.
And wouldn’t that be a victory in and of itself?
(BTW… the answer is YES for anyone who is confused.) (*GRIN*)
BILL
38 barker13 // Apr 26, 2009 at 8:40 am
Re: PettyBoozshwa; 4/24/2009 6:02 PM –
“By abolishing any income tax burden on the bottom two quantiles of income, we have turned the federal government into a sugar daddy dispensing bread and circuses to the great unwashed. Any sense of rectitude or self-reliance on the part of the trailer park demographic is being melted away with these Earned Income Credit windfalls, especially since we’re borrowing the money to pay them. And now we’re bailing out the bonuses of the big shots on the other end of the spectrum. Only the chumps that produce more than they consume are getting gouged.”
BRAVO!!!
Yep. Remember back in 2000 when GWB was campaigning and one of his signature “compassionately conservative” social engineering goals was to remove the federal tax “burden” on a family of four making below… what was it… $45K or so.
(Anyway… you guys surely recall the Bush concept even if I’d slightly off on the details…)
Such thinking turns my stomach.
Jeezus… imagine six or eight of us who regularly chat here at NM were to meet up in person to go out for dinner and drinks. At the end of the evening the waiter brings the check. Along with the check he notifies us that it’s management’s policy for guests to split the check according to income… so if one of us makes $100K and another makes $120K the latter will pay 20% more of the bill and so on and so forth.
Now, hey… I have no problem with a wealthier friend going a bit “above and beyond” now and then simply because… well… he or she can and it’s a nice thing to do; but imagine if such largess is no longer a gesture of free will, but a governmental dictate; imagine every time you’re out in a group the bill is divided not equally, not even by “dutch treat” rules of the value of what you as an individual have actually consumed, but instead the bill is divided according to who makes the most money.
(*SIGH*)
I’m talking philosophy. I’m talking values. Heck… I’m talking what used to be known as self-reliance and PRIDE.
I was raised that it was honorable to GRAB that dinner check… not to slink off to the bathroom right before the waiter brought it.
When my wife and I go on vacation with our friends, couples who make two, three, four times income, we pay our share – and every so often more than our “fair” share if by “fair” we’re talking “dutch treat.”
(*FROWN*)
Yep. I’m with PB. Forgive me if I’m gone off on a bit of a tangent, but I’m trying to use everyday common examples of what Americans like myself consider “fairness” in contrast to this collectivist “to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities” mindset.
BILL
39 barker13 // Apr 26, 2009 at 8:57 am
Re: Danbmil99; 4/25/2009 3:24 AM –
“What I liked about Ron Paul was his principled stand on the administration’s foreign policy.”
Agreed. Allow me to add, Ron Paul is principled pretty much down the line.
As to Bush having “lied…”
(*SNORT*)
How many times do we have to slap such nonsense down? (*SIGH*) If Bush “lied” then Clinton “lied” then French Intelligence “lied” then…
(*SIGH*) You get the idea. Shheesh… talk about “conspiracy theories.”
“We didn’t elect Bush to put himself in the history books as the man who taught democracy to the Middle East.”
Fair enough. HOWEVER… let me ask you something, Dan… PRIOR to 9/11 when folks like… oh… say Pat Buchanan would say things about that regarding… oh… say Clinton’s interventions in Haiti or the former Yugoslavia… were you one of those guys on the “Buchanan is an isolationist and isolationism is wrongheaded” bandwagon…???
Again… going back to “principles”… this is why I like folks like Buchanan, Dobbs, Beck, NADER (on the left), etc. They have principles and those principles tend not to float around depending upon whose partisan ox is getting gored. (*SHRUG*)
“So when someone like Ron Paul says we have to be more vigilant in protecting the constitution, I am now inclined to agree.”
Dan. Again. Question: When you write “now” are you being literal? (Or even ballpark literal… say… you’ve felt this way since 2003…2004…2005… perhaps?)
I’m not a member of the bar…
(Though I drink there often…) (*CYBAL CRASH*) (*GRIN*)
…but if you haven’t known since at least your senior year of high school that the Constitution has been… umm… “adjusted” a bit from the Founders intent over the years…
(*SMILE*)
Anyway… I’m still glad you respect Ron Paul to an extent. (*WINK*) Good man!
BILL
40 Mark A. Sadowsk // Apr 26, 2009 at 8:59 am
In the past several months all of the substantive public policy debates have happened within the Democratic Party. Democrats are deeply engaged in this debate and largely approve of the directions things are going. And why shouldn’t they be? The President is merely following through on the campaign promises that Democrats voted for.
And this monopolizing of specifics in the public policy debate is unlikely to change after the midterm elections. Given the early 2010 Senate election polls and fundraising totals, Democrats are likely to pick up a few more seats giving them a filibuster proof majority. The signs point to the Republicans becoming even more politically marginalized after the 2010 elections..
All of political history is cyclical. This is just the right’s turn to be “in the wilderness.” As I see it, the Tea Parties are less about specific public policy proposals and more about political and cultural alienation. It seems as though the right is currently going through their own “tune in, turn on, and drop out.” They are less a “Silent Majority” than an boisterous alienated minority (think of the sixties radicals). This is indeed a beginning of course, the beginning of a long time in the political wilderness.
41 Mark A. Sadowsk // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:11 am
In the past several months all of the substantive public policy debates have happened within the Democratic Party. Democrats are deeply engaged in this debate and largely approve of the directions things are going. And why shouldn’t they be? The President is merely following through on the campaign promises that Democrats voted for.
And this monopolizing of specifics in the public policy debate is unlikely to change after the midterm elections. Given the early 2010 Senate election polls and fundraising totals, Democrats are likely to pick up a few more seats giving them a filibuster proof majority. The signs point to the Republicans becoming even more politically marginalized after the 2010 elections..
All of political history is cyclical. This is just the right’s turn to be “in the wilderness.” As I see it, the Tea Parties are less about specific public policy proposals and more about political and cultural alienation. It seems as though the right is currently going through their own “tune in, turn on, and drop out.” They are less a “Silent Majority” than an boisterous alienated minority (think of the sixties radicals). This is indeed a beginning of course, the beginning of a long time in the political wilderness.
42 sinz54 // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:22 am
barker13: I didn’t see anybody at those Tea Parties who wasn’t already part of the bedrock GOP base, or who wasn’t part of some fringe party like the Constitution Party. I didn’t see any disaffected Dems there. I’m willing to bet you that the number of Tea Partiers who had voted for Obama is close to zero.
Hence the GOP already had the votes of the Tea Partiers, for years. The GOP could lose those votes if it alienates them further. But so far, there is no evidence that the Tea Parties can expand beyond the traditional GOP base into a larger force that can take over either party.
You certainly can’t take over the Dem Party with loyal Republicans from the GOP base. They just won’t let you in there.
43 sinz54 // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:32 am
Mark: A lot can change between now and 2010.
In May 1993, nobody–NOBODY–expected that the GOP would win a sweeping victory in the congressional elections one year later. But after the failure of HillaryCare, events moved quickly in that direction.
Obama’s presidency is still young. He hasn’t had to make any hard decisions that might alienate the public. (Although, if he agrees to show trials for Bushies over the enhanced interrogations, that just might do it.)
Furthermore, it’s rare for a party that holds the White House to actually gain seats in the next congressional election. Bush managed to do it, but he was riding on the public unity after 9-11. Usually, the incumbent party loses seats. The Dems even won seats in 1982, despite Reagan’s landslide win two years earlier.
44 sinz54 // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:36 am
barker13: The Social Security finagling is always going on, in every administration, so it’s a non-issue in comparing Clinton’s track record to his predecessor and successor.
The fact is, Clinton really did manage to eliminate Federal deficits. And from 1995 to 2000, we had a period of prosperity and soaring technological advancement. And I’m going to continue to give Clinton a lot of credit for that.
By Reagan’s test, Clinton left the country in better shape than at the time he was elected.
45 barker13 // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:41 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 3 minutes ago –
“I didn’t see anybody at those Tea Parties who wasn’t already part of the bedrock GOP base, or who wasn’t part of some fringe party like the Constitution Party. I didn’t see any disaffected Dems there. I’m willing to bet you that the number of Tea Partiers who had voted for Obama is close to zero.”
Oh, definitely you’re right when it comes to Party id.
(BTW… I’m a registered Democrat; I formally left the GOP – put paid to my GOP registration – in February or March 2006 to re-register as a Democrat – effective post-election – in an act I consider the ultimate protest of RINO actions by the Bushies and RINOs in Congress. I’m still a registered Dem.)
Now… just because I AGREE with you that very few Tea Partiers “did a Barker” and formally “left” the GOP (re-registered non-GOP) doesn’t preclude my belief that at the philosophical level the vast majority of my fellow (our fellow?) Tea Partiers were about as disenchanted with the GOP as an Ron Paul supporter.
Are you following, Sinz…? What I’m saying is at a basic level most Tea Partiers are “Republican” more in the sense of considering themselves “anti-Left” (Left as defined by the Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party… the wing in CHARGE) than as feeling a connection to the GOP establishment.
Putting all that aside…. what I’m saying is that as an organization, the Tea Party movement should push my line that since BOTH Parties require massive reform from within, WE as self-identified “Tea Partiers” sharing common fiscal (and yes… I’d stipulate… likely in large part social) beliefs should “divide” ourselves – while staying true to our IDEOLOGY… our ideals… our priniciples… – into “Tea Party DEMOCRATS” and “Tea Party REPUBLICANS” so as to have influence within BOTH Parties, so as to move BOTH Parties “rightward” on fiscal “capitalistic vs. socialistic” policies.
In other words… we’ve got to work from within… and by within I mean within BOTH Parties.
Think of it as… umm… a “hostile takeover” longterm strategy. (*WINK*)
BILL
46 barker13 // Apr 26, 2009 at 9:50 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 5 minutes ago –
Sinz. Take my word for it… or look it up… the “balanced budgets” and “surpluses” you noted the other day simply never existed.
This is just a matter of fact. Sure… you can say they did as an accounting gimmick… and I’m not arguing that we’re talking consistent “gimmicking”… but what I’m saying is that regardless – what we’re left with when looking at the “books” in REAL concrete terms of REAL assets, REAL expenditures vs. REAL income, REAL FUTURE LIABILITIES BEING ACCRUED… there were no “Clinton/GOP” surplus years – not in real terms.
“By Reagan’s test, Clinton left the country in better shape than at the time he was elected.”
O.K. Fair enough. Except… why leave the GOP congress’ out of the equation?
Just out of curiously, do you truly believe without the Republican Revolution of ‘94 that the country would have been left in the same shape (budget wise) by 2000?
(Just curious…)
BILL
47 sinz54 // Apr 26, 2009 at 10:14 am
I don’t leave the GOP congress out of the successes of the 1990s. But they overreached too, in the budget battle that led to a partial government shutdown. Clinton successfully faced down Gingrich, leading to Gingrich’s resignation. Clinton won that fight.
Nevertheless, Clinton had to respect the small-government sentiment that brought the Republicans to power in Congress, and his Administration was better for it.
But the seeds of the prosperity of the 1990s had been laid earlier, by the Grand Bargain that Clinton had struck with Greenspan: Keep spending low and keep interest rates low. That was the real formula for success.
48 Mark A. Sadowsk // Apr 26, 2009 at 10:30 am
@sinz54,
In order for the GOP not to lose more seats in the 2010 Senate elections they’ll need viable candidates that poll well and can raise money. With all of their retirements that isn’t happening. The 2010 Democratic Senate candidates raised $31 million vs $12 million in the first quarter alone. And I could go down the list of contests state by state and based on the polls the GOP is going to lose a net of six seats give or take a seat. That’s just reality. It would take something enourmous to change this outcome.
49 Realist // Apr 26, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Mark, a Texas Republican is suggesting the state break up into 5 states (unconstitutional, of course) to get more conservative senators. Is there no responsible adult available to speak up sensibly for conservative values these days? RIght now it seems the College Republicans are in charge.
50 Jeffersonian // Apr 26, 2009 at 3:50 pm
First to deal with realist. It’s not unconstitutional, you can only say such a thing because you have never read it. Try Article 4, Section 3. The only question would be whether by the consent of the 29th Congress their division is permissible, or if it would need to be by the present Congress. Gotta love such a dogmatic statement..(unconstitutional, of course) put forward that is so easily proven wrong. Of course Realist is himself a “responsible adult”. Responsible enough to put forward a truthful and unbiased statement.
51 Jeffersonian // Apr 26, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Mr, Bartlett I wonder why would you even concern yourself at all with the comparibility of other countries tax burdens? The issue is not burden but legality. Does the Constitution grant the federal government the authority to “tax” for the purpose of redistribution? NO! NO! NO! That ios what Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare are. It is taking one person’s property and giving it to another. It is this illegal taking that decreases one’s own resources to benefit another that creates an undeniable sense of injustice, which in response to people rise up and protest.
It is also the illegal use of the taxing power to favor certain agendas, without such agendas having gone through the amendment process. For this, look to the proposed cap and trade. As you yourself said, “A movement has to start somewhere”. You would do better in the future to first analyze the legality of that which taxes are taken for, and then to contrast the return given to the taxed, first for true federal benefit, and then even if the use to which said monies are put actually benefit society as a whole, because then an argument can be made for actually granting the federal government the authority for social legislation also.
52 krove // Apr 26, 2009 at 5:32 pm
The viewers of Fox News may not agree, but the no one can fudge the numbers from the network’s own polling (.pdf) showing that Americans like Barack Obama, and to a lesser extent the Democratic Congress, and want to see both reelected.
In the next congressional election in 2010, are you more likely to vote for the Democrat to help Barack Obama pass his policies and programs or vote for the Republican to provide a check on Obama’s power? [question slightly reformatted]
Democrat: 46 percent
Republican: 33 percent
If the 2012 presidential election were held today, would you definitely vote to reelect Barack Obama, probably vote to reelect Obama, probably vote for someone else, or definitely vote for someone else?
Vote to reelect Obama: 52 percent (37 percent definitely, 15 percent probably)
Vote for someone else: 31 percent (23 percent definitely, 8 percent probably)
There’s very little good in these numbers for the GOP. Starting first with the 2010 data, fewer Republicans (78 percent) than Democrats (86 percent) want to vote for a congressional candidate of their own party, and Independents lean slightly towards the Democrats (33 percent to 26 percent, with a large 34 percent plurality saying it’s too soon to be pushed in one direction or the other).
The 2012 numbers look even worse for the GOP, with President Obama maintaining a robust +21 reelect number, including a +14 number among those definitely supporting or opposing him. Digging deeper into the weeds, 13 percent of Republicans would vote to reelect the President, compared with the 9 percent support he received from Republican voters in 2008, and Independents line up in favor of a second term by a 15-point margin, nearly double the 8-point victory he scored within such voters last fall.
You might think that this would lead the GOP to change it’s failing ways. But judging from the past few months, as well as the latest posturing from the party, I don’t know how likely that outcome is.
53 Cforchange // Apr 27, 2009 at 8:58 am
In the analogy here, do you consider street economics? From my view, the underground cash world is blatently flourishing beyond the middle class. It’s clear from the cars, the corner kids each w/ $10k in their pockets, the AK’s, the $500 sneakers, the bling, the outerbanks beach houses. Just try and legimately remove 10K from the bank – see the effort that takes.
Would it make sense that as the street economy grows, the GDP would remain stable despite a national downtrun but tax collections would plummet.
On a more innocent scale – just check out the commercials or news stories for bartering your services to make it through these tough times. I’ve heard only one media presentation that includes the fact that these are taxable affairs.
Besides the lowering of tax rates, I think we have developed a culture where not paying taxes is OK. The tax code needs to be simplified and it should be enforced.
I agree that the recent tea party’s were in part fantasy. The participants didn’t stay on message nor did the message strictly pertain to taxes. However the frustation from the honest folks trying to be good citizens is very valid. Our tax system is broken.
54 vadum // Apr 27, 2009 at 11:43 am
With all due respect to Mr. Bartlett, his latest op-ed is a festival of nitpicking. He was one in a chorus of Chicken Littles demanding that the TARP program be instituted. His argument was based on little more than the “fear ” he claimed he could see in the eyes of Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke. (NY Post, Sept. 27, 2008)
He was wrong about the fall bailout and he’s wrong now. The market collapsed anyway and the current bear market rally will be over soon enough as investors are disabused of their desperate optimism. The various bailouts are not working now and will not work. The bailouts simply put off the day of reckoning and will end up prolonging the pain for everyone.
Moreover, the recent tea party protests were not just aimed at protesting the current tax burden but the future tax burden as the bills come due for the government’s profligate spending. It makes no sense for Bartlett to focus exclusively on the U.S. tax burden –present and future– without taking into account the other things being protested including the fundamental unfairness of using tax dollars to subsidize industry and the Fed’s reckless, Weimar-like expansion of the money supply. The tea parties may not have been as grandiose or focused as some would have liked –protests rarely are– but they are a start and they represent the beginning of a bona fide backlash that will build over time.
55 bartlettb // Apr 27, 2009 at 4:29 pm
It is true that I supported TARP and would do so again in the same circumstances. Financial markets were in free fall and I believe that this legislation helped stabilize the economy even if it was implemented far less competently than I anticipated. Chalk one final screw-up to the administration most conservatives worshiped for 8 years.
I think those that criticize TARP are wrong in assuming that the economy would be no worse today–or even better–if nothing had been done last fall. I think they are Johnny-come-lately deficit hawks who said nothing for 8 years while Bush-the-idiot–their guy–was in power and only decided deficits were a problem once it was clear that a Democrat would be our next president.
Nitwits like vadum need to understand that credibility, like respect, must be earned. Going to one stupid tea party does not compensate for looking the other way for 8 years just because a Republican was in office.
56 barker13 // Apr 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Re: Bartlettb; wrote 12 minutes ago –
“It is true that I supported TARP and would do so again in the same circumstances.”
Strike one!
“Financial markets were in free fall…”
Oh, please… I don’t even know what that statement means! Financial markets were reflecting the underlying reality of losses. That’s what they’re supposed to do!
“…and I believe that this legislation helped stabilize the economy…”
Respectfully… based upon what – what besides a crystal ball based announcement that “things would have been worse without TARP.” See… the crystal ball works both ways… mine said “long term, things would have been better if TARP had been rejected.”
“Chalk one final screw-up to the administration most conservatives worshiped for 8 years.”
Now here you’ve totally lost me.
Bush was never a fiscal conservative. Never. Beyond that, while true conservatives were indeed willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and their support in his first term, the moment he started losing it in his second term… attempting to appoint his third grade music teacher to the Supreme Court… (something like that, right?)… allowing Hamas to bid on West Coast port security contracts… (again… something like that, right…?)… and especially before the surge when it looked like he had screwed up the Iraq War beyond repair… at that point true conservatives started deserting him in droves. I myself actually left the GOP in early 2006.
(BTW… not blaming “just” Bush; obviously the – literally in some cases – corrupt and/or RINO elements in Congress drove true conservatives off the GOP reservation too – perhaps even more so than Bush.)
“I think they are Johnny-come-lately deficit hawks who said nothing for 8 years…”
I don’t know who you’re referring to, Bruce, but I was screaming for Bush vetos (which never came) all during Bush’s first as well as second term.
I don’t know, Bruce… I’m not trying to tag team you, here, but you sure do seem to be creating one strawman after another as well as painting with a pretty broad brush.
Finally… calling Vadum a nitwit was uncalled for. Sarcasm and snark is fine… being abusive – without cause – not so much.
BILL
57 bartlettb // Apr 27, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Barker13, you must have been screaming for vetoes with the teeniest, tinest voice–typical of Johnny-come-lately deficit hawks who claim, with no evidence, that they were opposed to Bush’s deficits as well as Obama’s. Did you organize any tea parties against Bush’s deficit? No. If you had you would have been the only one there. All the rest of these fair-weather conservatives that were out protesting on April 15 were home on April 15, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Why? Because they are partisan Republicans, not deficit hawks. They ONLY care about Democratic deficits; Republucan deficits are okay.
58 vadum // Apr 28, 2009 at 1:44 am
Mr. Bartlett, who actually does excellent work, should develop thicker skin and avoid writing op-eds as therapy. This limited government enthusiast stopped cheering for the Bush administration years ago.
59 barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:20 am
Re: Bartlettb; 6:17 PM –
“Barker13, you must have been screaming for vetoes with the teeniest, tinest voice–typical of Johnny-come-lately deficit hawks who claim, with no evidence, that they were opposed to Bush’s deficits as well as Obama’s.”
So… let me get this straight… because I’m just a regular citizen and not a well known politician or columnist my word is suspect?
I mean… you’re actually calling me a liar.
Not only are you lashing out with the name calling – first attacking Vadum as “a nitwit,” but now you refer to me as a “Johnny come lately” (with absolutely no evidence to back up such a claim) and then proceed to call me a liar.
Now as my fellow “regular” posters know, I’m all for freedom of speech and find it extremely distasteful and frankly creepy that the managing editor of this site, Meghashyam Mali, makes it a habit to remove posts at random leaving “blanks” in the conversation, but if there was ever a poster whose obnoxious and intemperate writings warranted a public rap on the knuckles… it’s you, Mr. Bartlett.
You ask “Did you organize any tea parties against Bush’s deficit?”
No. Though, again, as regular posters/readers who read my posts may recall, I was so fed up with the RINO Congress and Bush after five years of unprincipled incompetence that I actually left the GOP in early 2006 and re-registered as a Democrat to protest what I considered “betrayal” by the GOP.
What… you want a political resume? I need to “prove” myself to you….? (*CHUCKLE*) OK. Turned 18 in 1980. Voted for Ronald Reagan. 1984 – student (NU – Boston) volunteer for Reagan/Bush. 1988 – Supported Bush-Quayle. After GHWB broke his “no new taxes” pledge and then allowed the Kurds to be slaughtered post-Gulf-War-One I was active supporting Perot.
(Recall… back in 1992 folks like me also engaged in “Tea Party-like” grass roots citizen rallies and such…)
(BTW, from ‘92-’94 I became a registered Conservative here in NY but once GHWB was retired and after two years of Clinton I returned to the GOP, re-registering as a Republican in advance of the ‘94 elections where I strongly supported Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution.
From the mid-’90’s till 2004 I was an extremely active volunteer with the Orange County NY Republican Committee though not formerly a member… a committeeman. Why? Simply because I treasured my independence and want to retain (and did use on occasion) my freedom to buck the Party when I felt the need and even support non-Republican candidates against RINOs when there was the whiff of corruption and/or sheer non-ideological (money driven, personality driven) cronyism tainting a Republican candidate.
Oh… stepping backwards… back in 1999/2000 I was a Forbes supporter. (Yeah… got the Christmas cards and everything.) (*CHUCKLE*)
Anyway, Bruce, wake up and smell the coffee. While you may disagree with someone, questioning their motivations and basically calling them a liar, fraud, or poser with absolutely no evidence is… pretty lame.
To be perfectly honest… I’m shocked. I’m appalled that a “name” columnist whom I’ve always respected has turned out to be such a shrill, thin-skinned, obnoxious person in “real life.”
Bill (William R. Barker, Harriman, NY)
60 barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 5:47 am
Bruce Bartlett originally wrote:
“Back in 1977, while a staffer for Congressman Jack Kemp…”
Yeah. I met Kemp. Once. Back in ‘96, before Dole put him on his ticket.
Again… real life is often a disappointment.
At the time I was working as a driver for Boston Coach, the livery arm of Fidelity Investments.
Anyway… I was assigned to pick up Kemp at a midtown Manhattan hotel and take him to LGA. I was very excited. Kemp was one of my political icons.
Well… not after that ride.
First of all Kemp’s staff had apparently double-booked so I was greeted by the sight of Kemp having to pay one driver for a ride that wasn’t going to take place…
(Oh, yeah… he was abusing his staffer over that one…)
So much for fiscal conservatism, huh – even fiscal competence. Oh, well… stuff happens. (*SHRUG*)
Well, back to Kemp and his staffer…
Kemp’s staffer rode with us. God… to this day I wish I hadn’t witnessed this! It was like a scene out of “Spin City.” Seriously… Kemp came across as a guy who was all facade whom I doubted could wipe his nose without help from staff.
(In a way it made sense though… I’m guessing coddled jock – football star all through school and then a stint in the pros – then on to coddled congressman and coddled national political figure.) (*SHRUG*)
Kemp also came across as a fairly nasty, self-absorbed kind of guy. (Hey… it was only a 20-minute ride… he was either talking with his staffer or on the phone… but it was enough “contact” to gain an impression.)
Me? To Kemp I wasn’t even there except when he literally barked at me to “watch out, man” when some bike messenger almost got himself run over while “jaybiking” in front of us.
Anyway… just a brief anecdote.
BILL
61 dalukas // May 1, 2009 at 3:06 am
This is an Interesting article. I did attend the Tea Party here in Little Rock to check it out. The author obviously did not attend one. The tea party rallies werent as much about over-taxation, as they were about the out of control spending our federal government is engaging in. I am sure there were many different political views at the Little Rock Tea Party Rally. One thing is for sure, the people there were fed up with the bail outs and the huge deficit spending in Washington.
I do agree with the article regarding the silence of conservatives, when G. W. Bush was massively expanding the role of the Federal Government. How hypocritical. I guess that was the New Tone that Bush campaigned on.
However, Obama appears that he will Trump even G.W. With a 3.55 Trillion dollar proposed 2010 budget. Our tax revenue is approximately half that. Just to fund our federal budget the U.S. is borrowing at a cost of around 900 billion in interest payments in 2010 alone. Most of the money is being borrowed from Communist China, who buys a large portion of our Treasuries.
I fear that history will repeat itself. Yes the last CPE numbers that were released were tame inflation numbers; however, Mark my words, when the economy does turn around and we have some positive GDP growth, it is inevitable that we will see hyper-inflation. I fear this will lead to a return to double-digit interest rates and out of control inflation. Inflation is the arch-enemy of fixed-income investments. This will drive yields up, just to keep up with the pace of inflation.
Our Federal Government simply cant continue to spend trillions more than it collections in taxes without it having a long-term negative effect. We have something like 70 Trillion Dollars in unfunded liabilities (Federal Programs like Social Security, etc. etc. ). There are really only three ways to fund the Federal Governments activities: 1. Raise Taxes 2. Continue to borrow and pay billions in interest payments to countries like China, or just print money . All of the aforementioned is happening now and it will continue to have a negative impact on our economy.
What they really need to be doing in Washington is cutting spending. Imagine that, spending less than you make. What a novel Ideal. I did find this a little comical: President Obama presented his fiscal year 2010 budget (i.e., the 12 months from 10/01/09 to 9/30/10) on 2/26/09. The budget projects that government spending will be $3.55 trillion, equal to $9.7 billion a day or $100 million every 15 minutes. At his 1st Cabinet meeting, the president asked his 21-member staff to identify $100 million in budget cuts (i.e., in total, not per Cabinet member) over the next 3 months (source: White House, AP). I guess thats a start, 100 million. (Remember, 100 million is spent every 15 minutes by our federal gov.). Possibly they can start by looking at the $200,000.00 allocated in the 2010 budget for a tattoo removal program in CA.
Just because someone now regrets their tattoo doesnt mean the tax payer shouldnt chip and pay for the removal of that outdated body art, right? I am only kidding of course. The tattoo removal program along with thousands of similar programs should be cut.
I believe it was the former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who said, the only problem with Socialisim is the Goverment keeps running out of other peoples money. Well Said Maggie………….
62 Moe Lane » Funny: I’ll believe that Bruce Barlett is serious about helping the GOP recover… // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:51 am
[...] Sure, you can join the Tea Parties next year, Bartlett. Just don’t expect to be given a task more involved than [...]
63 Funny: I’ll believe that Bruce Barlett is serious about helping the GOP recover… - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:09 am
[...] Sure, you can join next year, Bartlett. Just don’t expect to be given a task more involved than “make a [...]
64 Did he come to bury or praise Suppy-Side Economics? « The Confluence // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:37 pm
[...] Also worth a read are two Bartlett’s pieces from the blog new majority. The first is Tax Tea Party Fantasy from last spring and Why I Am Anti-Republican from late this summer. It seems Old dogs do [...]
65 Did he come to bury or praise Suppy-Side Economics? « Sky Dancing in a Man’s World // Oct 13, 2009 at 8:40 pm
[...] wisdom. Also worth a read are two Bartlett’s pieces from the blog new majority. The first is Tax Tea Party Fantasy from last spring and Why I Am Anti-Republican from late this summer. It seems old dogs do [...]
You must log in to post a comment.