Senate Tea Party Caucus: "We Hate Transparency and Efficiency"

The Senate used to have a process where one senator could place an anonymous secret "hold" on any nomination or bill to prevent it from coming to a vote.  It represented all that was wrong with the Senate.  It was undemocratic, anti-transparent, and cowardly.  The Senate voted to end secret holds by a 92-4 vote.  Who were the four opposed?  The Senate Tea Party Caucus, of course, with Utah's own baby-faced tea-party senator, Mike Lee, included.

Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint (all founding members of the TPC), and John Ensign voted against ending secret holds.  They voted against democratic procedures, against transparency in our legislative process, and for cowardliness.

Why I Can Kind of Sort of Support the Tea Party

I don't like the Tea Party, which should come as no surprise.  I don't like the fear-mongering and implicit racism that it invites in some (not all), I don't like the complete breakdown of civility, and I just don't like the politics of taking caring for the poor and elderly out of the government's hands.  I think the government has a valuable role to play in helping the underprivileged and underrepresented and in kick starting the economy when it tanks.  But they are doing pretty well this primary season (here is a list of their major victories).  Despite all of that, I find myself rooting for them, in some small way, for two reasons.

First, in the ulterior motive category, they give Democrats a better shot at holding on to seats that the Democrats otherwise would have certainly lost.  As a caveat let me just say that Democrats, as a party, are no great shakes.  But they are closer to what I espouse in politics than Republicans, so that's where my tentative loyalty lies.  So when I see races that should be Republican blowouts actually close and winnable for Democrats, I'm glad the Tea Party is doing well.  Some examples of this are the Nevada senatorial race, the Kentucky senatorial race, the Delaware senatorial race, the Colorado gubernatorial race, and a slew of house races around the country.  The primary voters are electing ultra-conservative candidates that moderate voters want no part of, and it's hurting their party.  If the Republicans fail to win back the House and Senate, you can point to the Tea Party as the reason why.

Second, *deep breath* I actually think they are good for democracy.  Most or all of those Tea Party primary wins came against the party-backed, system-approved incumbent or insider.  These are the type of candidates that expect to win because they are supported by the institution.  Reelection rates in America are somewhere north of 90%.  Politicians get comfy and complacent and power-hungry.  As a result we get a political class whose main goal is to continue to get reelected, as opposed to doing the work of the People.

So when a movement comes along which starts booting some of them out and putting the fear of the People in their hearts, I'm kind of on board.  I wish it was a movement of moderates or something more benign, and I hope they win as few general election contests as possible, but I see their intrinsic value nonetheless.  So, rock on, anti-establishmentists, vote out the stupids, but remember that I have a very different idea of what is stupid than you.

Lets Take the Government Spending Rhetoric Down a Notch

In the wake of the recent Tea Party Convention, I infiltrated the Tea Party Nation website by obtaining a username and password. My life may or may not be in danger if I am found. You have to be a member to poke around and see what they are up to. I've made my feelings known before, and I renew those sentiments now, that I will not sully the good name of the original Boston Tea Party with this movement. I fully support the current government protesters' right to organize and protest, but don't equate it with the original Boston Tea Party, they are not similar.

One of the things that I don't understand about the government protesters is how they were overwhelmingly likely to support huge government expenditures to rebuild a foreign, non-threatening nation, but protest like mad against government expenditures to rebuilt our own nation in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Iraq War has now cost over $700 billion, with much of the cost deferred to where the total cost will end up in the trillions. And yet when a similar amount is spent by our government to shore up the financial system, assist the millions that have lost their jobs, and spur new growth, Sarah Palin has to show up and read off her hand that government is destroying our liberties.

It may surprise you to learn, though, that I am concerned about the spending and debt of the federal government. I don't think this is an ideological concern, I think most Americans are at least uncomfortable with our national debt. Some Americans are downright angry about it, which I don't understand, but I think it is important to understand the problem and react appropriately. Unfortunately, the government protesters, with all the vitriol and hyperbole, have made it difficult to discuss the issue intelligently.

And as far as I'm concerned, here is the problem: Americans don't want to pay for what we demand. As a result, politicians from both parties promise the benefits of government without requiring the requisite sacrifices from the public. This is no shocking revelation, of course, but consider the following facts, taken from a Washington Post article from last year:

• The average family pays only nine percent of its income to taxes (down significantly from previous decades).
• The middle fifth of taxpayers pay only three percent of their income to taxes (again, down significantly).
• A majority of Americans considers their tax burden either too low or about right.
• About a third of all taxpayers pay no taxes at all (excluding Social Security and Medicare).

Here is a nifty image from wikipedia which shows the marginal income tax rate over the years, demonstrating that it is about at its lowest since the years leading up to the Great Depression.

Also note that, contrary to popular belief, corporations in America actually pay less taxes than in the average developed country (average 16.1%, US 13.4%), largely due a graduated tax rate and generous business deductions.

I am among the many Americans that want health care insurance for all Americans, programs to help low and middle income Americans pay for college, Social Security for low income retirees, a safety net for the poor that cannot find any work or cannot find work that pays for the basic necessities of life, etc. I'm a liberal, therefore I want programs that help level the playing field. That is not to say that everyone should make the same amount of money or that we should pay for people to be lazy, but that everyone should have equal opportunity to get ahead if they so desire.

Remember, as we've pointed out here many times in the past, only a very small, minuscule fraction of Americans are intentionally lazy and living off the government for years on end. Most Americans are hard-working and have self-respect and pride, and try their best to survive on their own. But the system (i.e. market) is set up for poor people to become more poor, no matter how hard-working or talented they are, and for the rich to become more rich, no matter how lazy and incompetent they are. The rags to riches story is a heart-warming exception to the rule. So we turn to the government to make some new rules which are more equitable.

But we stopped paying for it. We give corporations huge tax breaks and promise the middle and upper classes lower and lower taxes until they are hardly paying any at all. And then we borrow money to pay for the things we want. So we have two choices to lower the debt: we eliminate those playing-field-leveling programs or we require more taxes from Americans.

Liberals and conservatives alike can agree that we should require more accountability and efficiency from the federal government. Pres. Obama has said that he is going through the government now and looking for ineffective programs to eliminate, and I hope that this is true. There should absolutely be pressure on him, once the economy is righted, to balance the budget and eliminate waste, like Pres. Clinton did. But Pres. Obama is right that we first have to stabilize the economy, and that requires spending. Then, in prosperous economic times we should have every expectation that government will scale back its spending, again, like what Pres. Clinton did.

We shouldn't let the government protesters hijack a meaningful and important conversation about government spending and deficits by injecting vitriol and absurd arguments about how government spending equals a lack of personal liberties. Everyone can agree that fiscal responsibility is best in the long term, but right now is the time for the government to build our country up again after a terrible economic disaster. If we are committed to doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should be committed to doing it in America.

The Great 2009 Tea Parties

I am going to fight every urge in my body and refrain from turning the subject of today's Tax Day Tea Parties into a verb. I'm not going to do it as it would be crude and puerile. I will, however, point out the ridiculousness and offensiveness of it all.

As of 3:00 pm MDT, KSL wins the award for most mind-numbing coverage in Utah. The story starts off on the right foot by stating, correctly, that as part of the stimulus the vast majority of Americans, 95%, got a tax cut. Then the proverbial train comes off the proverbial tracks:

Not everyone will be seeing those tax cuts though. People making more than
a quarter of a million dollars will be seeing a tax increase, and that is
leading to a number of protests across the country, including several here in
Utah.

Now, either KSL has completely lost its sanity, or the tea protesters have. People would really go out of their way to organize little tea parties all over the country to decry the tax increase for people making a quarter of a million dollars or more? I would be astonished if not every single one of those protesters got a tax cut. So the jist is: get a tax cut, protest against the one who gave you the tax cut. Brilliant. This simply is too good to be true for Democrats.

One such protest is happening in Salt Lake. It's just like the Boston Tea
Party more than 235 years ago. They're protesting taxes, but these people are
upset with the Obama administration.

It is so not like the Boston Tea Party 235 years ago. It is, in fact, diametrically opposed to the Boston Tea Party 235 years ago. The Boston Tea Party was a protest mainly against taxation without representation. The colonists believed it was their right to be taxed only by elected representatives, not the British Parliament which did not allow representation from America. Today tea partiers have no such qualms.

They just don't like President Obama. Which is fine, I didn't like Pres. Bush. They have every right to protest, that is the American way. In fact, we should encourage more peaceful protests to raise public awareness on certain important issues. But please don't insult us by equating today's highly organized, weak turn-out* protests with one of the most iconic patriotic acts in American history.

*I'm fully aware that the pathetic turn-out in Utah is at least partly due to the horrendous weather. I like to think it was a higher power crying over the lameness of the event, but it could just be dumb luck. But turn-out was weak all over the country, so maybe it was just a contrived idea that failed to meet impossibly high standards.