There is a lot of anger and hatred around the internet about the Tax Day Tea Parties. There is also a lot of misinformation. Most of it started as a deliberate mis-information campaign to discredit the movement, but it has taken on a life of its own, being repeated as fact by people who really don’t understand small government conservatism.
I want to try to clear a few things up, if I can, for people who don’t understand what these protests were about. (This is from my own perspective. Obviously, there are other perspectives out there.)
Myth: Tea Party-goers think taxes are bad.
Taxes have been the scapegoat for expanded government because taxes are the part of a big government that directly affect our wallets – and our ability to spend our money the way we want to, but taxes are not the problem.
I read on Twitter yesterday the comment, “I proudly pay my taxes, the cost of a free society.” Aside from the fact that taxes are also the cost of an un-free society, this statement is true. Most conservatives are more than willing to keep the government running, performing the functions that a government should perform.
There’s the hitch. A conservative view of which functions a government should perform is very different from the functions currently being performed by our government. Under President Obama and the Democratic Congress, those functions are growing, and growing, and growing, way beyond what conservatives believe a government should be doing.
That is what the tea parties were about – growing government power, growing government spending.
The loss of freedom comes, too, but the loss of money via higher taxes comes sooner and is more tangible. That is why many of the protesters focus on higher taxes.
Which brings me to…
Myth: Most Tea Party-goers will not even see a tax increase.
Maybe, maybe not. The projections of this country’s debt are so enormous – nearly 100% of projected GDP by 2012 – that it is likely that everyone will have to pay for it.
But let’s say that it is true that most of the people at the tea parties will not see an increase in taxes. What are the reasons, then, to protest?
First, freedom. As I said above, this is not just about taxes. Arguably, taxes are not even the real issue. The issue is the loss of freedom.
With every expansion of government power, there is a loss of freedom.
Unlike the connection between executive pay and yours, this actually is a zero-sum game.
In any given set of activities, the more the government regulates those activities, the less power you have.
The stimulus and other bills have expanded the government’s role and the government’s power, therefore, it has lessened our roles and our power over our lives.
Who cares whether or not we, personally, have to pay for it? It’s still something to be concerned about.
Second, just because we are not paying it ourselves is no reason to ignore an injustice. Expecting 5% of the people to fund government programs that put their money into our pockets is wrong. Expecting 5% of the population to pay for the services we all use is wrong. Everyone should pay something to support our society.
If paying taxes is patriotic, as Vice President Joe Biden says, why are we letting 43% of the people pay no income taxes at all? Are they not part of this free society?
Finally, over-taxing the “rich,” ie. the people who create jobs and produce goods and services, is bad for all of us. Think about it. When your company gets hit with higher and higher tax burdens, do you think that will not affect you? When the producers of products you buy are spending more on taxes, do you think that will not affect prices?
As with many political causes, this is not just about what affects us personally, but what affects us all.
Myth: A majority of Americans support expanded government.
This was a misrepresentation of a poll coincidentally released the day before the tea parties and touted by Huffington Post and others as proof that the tea partiers were not representative of America.
It was as close to a lie as you can get without actually lying.
While it is true that the poll found a narrow majority of Americans (53%) support the government expansion to aid the economic crisis, a majority (55%) also said it was too expensive.
The more telling piece of polling data came when people were asked if they support the expansion of government being permanent.
Only 13% said yes. The rest either oppose it altogether, or want it rolled back when the economy is no longer in crisis (if it even is).
Another way to say that is that 83% of Americans do not want permanently expanded government power.
83% rejects the progressive left’s vision for centralized power and a government that is involved in shaping our economy.
This makes the Tea Partiers very much representative of America.
There is so much more to cover here, but I will stop with these few for now. I will have more posts like this over the next week. Feel free to jump in with your comments, questions, etc.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I think we can agree on one thing: the most important thing is freedom. You said, “With every expansion of government power, there is a loss of freedom.” Really? Interesting theory, but certainly not a fact. Are you saying we become less of a democracy the bigger our government gets? Are you saying everything our government does (on our behalf through our elected representatives) takes away our freedoms so therefore our government should do less? We, the people, give the government its power so I’m not sure how the government having more power takes away our power. If you’re claiming our elected representatives aren’t being held accountable then I’m 100% with you – let’s hold them accountable! But I don’t buy that “bigger government means less freedom.” The government could run 100% of everything (no, I’m definitely not advocating for that!) but if it were 100% accountable to the people, how would we not be free?
You said, “Under President Obama and the Democratic Congress, those functions are growing, and growing, and growing, way beyond what conservatives believe a government should be doing.” Is it growing faster than it has been over the last 8+ years? I doubt it. Why are conservatives only starting to complain now? And, if the real issue is freedom, why didn’t the conservatives stand up against the massive erosion of civil liberties that occurred over the 8+ years? If the issue is freedom, where are the conservatives fighting against the very real threats of corporate feudalism in this country? I’m much more afraid of my rights being taken away by corporations today (yes, with government participation).
Yes, we’ll be paying for generations for the bailout. But, we had no choice. And, when we give money to these corporations, we shouldn’t take an ownership stake – we should just give them the money no-strings-attached? I don’t think so. Where’s the anger over what led up to the bailout? Where’s the anger towards the massive fraud and corruption that occurred? Where’s the anger at the lack of government regulation and oversight? This “Tea Party” is a distraction from the real issues organized by those who caused those problems to be begin with.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Bradley, thanks for your comment. I will be happy to address your questions.
Democracy and freedom are not synonymous. Democracy is a form of government; any form of government can be free or oppressive, or anywhere in between.
If democratically electing our law makers made us free by the nature of the fact that we can choose to not re-elect them, we would not need our Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers knew that a democracy can be just as tyrannical as a dictatorship. That is why they placed limits on the government’s power – limits that are no longer adhered to.
Yes.
Merriam-Webster.com defines freedom as, 1: the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
Anytime the government is regulating or otherwise controlling any activity we experience individual constraint in choice or action. The more the government is involved with, the less freedom we have. It actually is a fact. The only thing in dispute is how much freedom we are willing to sacrifice in return for having things done by the government. The amount of freedom I am willing to give up would no doubt be a lot less than you, but more than an anarchist or full-fledged libertarian.
Well, it is in fact growing at a faster rate than it was the last 8 years. Even by CBO estimates, Obama is spending at a faster rate than Bush did.
But that is neither here nor there. There were plenty of people complaining about Bush’s spending and expansion of government, including me. I didn’t spend so much time on national politics as I do now, but I opposed the doubling of the Department of Education, the prescription drug benefit, and the stimulus checks, to name a few.
I didn’t include defense spending because that is a legitimate function of government, enumerated in the Constitution, and this post is about the government doing things it is not supposed to do.
There were others on blogs and on websites like Town Hall. And Freedom Works, which is being called the “corporate sponsor” of the tea parties, has been hammering on this stuff for years. This is not new. It’s just that more people are seeing the light since Obama has taken government spending to an extreme. (And the GOP is jumping on the bandwagon because they have no other alternative.)
Honestly, I do not even know where to start with this. Without the government, how can anyone take away your rights? The law protects your rights. Corporations cannot take away your freedom.
Yes, we did.
We shouldn’t be giving them money. That was what the protesters were saying (before and after the bailouts).
April 17th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Charity, thanks for responding.
Good point. Would you agree that, of all forms of government (or lack of government) that have actually existed, democracy is the form of government that has proven to be the most free?
If the government controls activity, it should only be towards the goal of freedom. Paradox A: if everyone were truly free no one would be free. Am I “free” to kill someone if I don’t like them? Absolutely not! That would take away someone else’s freedoms. Paradox B: It is necessary to restrict freedom in order to preserve freedom.
I am only willing to give up as much freedom as is necessary to keep everyone free (e.g. regulations on banking to make sure people aren’t defrauded). We’re actually not as far apart on this issue as you may think. You may find this surprising, but I actually really like a lot of the anarchist’s ideas (specifically, federated small groups).
Which limits are no longer adhered to? All of the examples I can think of started many years ago, so it’s a bit odd that people are just starting to complain now and are focusing their complaints at Obama. People should be complaining, but a little perspective and thought about where this anger should be directed is in order.
Really? I find it intriguing that most conservatives don’t oppose cutting spending in the one area where we are most obviously spending way too much money. We’re still funding defense as if we’re in the cold war. The amounts of money we spend on defense are obscene and much more than what’s realistically needed to defend our national interests.
I admit this point was a bit off-topic in this discussion. I’m talking about the ever growing power of corporations over our lives (aided by the government). For example, one or two corporations pretty much control everything we eat. Again, this is probably a whole other discussion: I was simply pointing out that there are bigger threats than just, “the government.”
My main point is that the anger should be directed at those who got us into the situation where we “needed” (yes, we could debate this) to bailout these companies. Why did we have companies that were too big to fail? Why did we have massive deregulation that led to massive fraud? Why wasn’t the news media exposing this fraud?
April 19th, 2009 at 7:54 am
“a majority (55%) also said it was too expensive.”
What a suprise that the American people want someone to fix the massive problems that our country has, but they don’t like paying for those fixes. That’s what’s *really* been wrong with a huge amount of the GOP policies of the last 8 years…it’s all “gain” with no pain.
“This ‘Tea Party’ is a distraction from the real issues organized by those who caused those problems to be begin with.”
Exactly…I couldn’t have said it any better!
“Democracy and freedom are not synonymous.”
Charity’s (and much of the rest of the Right-wing’s) “apprehension” when it comes to democracy is well-know at this point, and I’m trying to be nice here. The fact is that the “big, bad govt.” is a merely a group of citizens just like you & me. It really is nothing to be inherently feared in the long run IMO.
“And Freedom Works, which is being called the ‘corporate sponsor’ of the tea parties, has been hammering on this stuff for years.”
No, it really hasn’t. They haven’t said one, single solitary word about the hundreds of billions of dollars that has been overspent on futile Wars like the one in Iraq. They spend more time whining about earmarks, which are down both in numbers & in total cost under the Democratic Congress. FreedomWorks is well-known for conducting numerous “astro-turf” initiatiuves, and this is just the latest (and apparently most popular) one so far. They are nothing more than yet another Right-wing, “supply-side” economic hack website…who last I heard has shut down the comments on their blog right before the 2008 election because they were being hammered “too hard”.
“I find it intriguing that most conservatives don’t oppose cutting spending in the one area where we are most obviously spending way too much money. We’re still funding defense as if we’re in the cold war. The amounts of money we spend on defense are obscene and much more than what’s realistically needed to defend our national interests.”
Exactly, and you’ll never hear a peep from much of the Right-wing on this. It’s called being pennywise & pound-foolish…
“Why did we have companies that were too big to fail?”
We shouldn’t have let that happen, and now we have the opportunity to correct that sitaution from ever happening again. A lot of the mergers that the govt. allowed to go through in the past should have never happened in the first place.
“Why did we have massive deregulation that led to massive fraud?”
Because the GOP (along with certain key Democrats to be entirely fair) wanted that massive deregulation in the late 1990s so that their buddies in big business could make some quick bucks…at everyone else’s expense of course…