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.
I was in Montpelier today for one of two tea parties in Vermont. The crowd was a little bigger than the “23 confused looking folks” predicted by VDB.
Here’s a look at the crowd, via video. I have to warn you, it is a little shaky. I was trying to navigate my way through the crowd, without saying “excuse me” on camera.
No word yet on the turn out in Rutland, where Tea Party participation was expected to be even greater.
I put together a little montage of the protest signs, in case you missed it.
Just a reminder that there will be a tax day “Tea Party” protest tomorrow in Montpelier. She’s Right will be on the scene taking video to post.
The event will be taking place on the State House lawn from noon – 2:00.
From the facebook page:
Matt Cropp, of VT Campaign For Liberty, American Socialism for the Rich and the Bank Users Strike Team will talk about credit unions and how they benefit users and the communities they serve.
Jim Hogue, blogger, farmer and radio host will be discussing the Federal Reserve and how this private banking cartel took control of the American Taxpayer.
Stewart Skrill, farmer and former VT and US House of Reps. candidate, will be speaking about the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Vermonters For Economic Health will also be providing us a speaker.
Please bring at least 3 tea bags with you to the rally. We will have 3 crates set up near the Federal building in which you should deposit your tea bags. The crates will then be delivered to the offices of Rep. Welch and Sens. Leahy and Sanders. I am asking for volunteers who would be willing to make these deliveries (especially to Welch as his office is in Burlington).
**UPDATES**
Be sure to pack a lunch and bring a blanket or chairs to sit on. There is no vending on the State House Lawn, though the cafeteria will be open. Again, this is a peaceful, family-friendly event. No pets allowed unless they are service animals.Vermonters For Economic Health will be making a presentation “Vermont’s Unsustainable Future” immediately following the Tea Party at 2pm in the AIV conference room. This presentation is free and open to the public. Having seen this presentation before I highly recommend making time to attend. For more information please visit http://www.vermontersforeconomichealth.org/
The “We The People” Food drive at the Tea Party will benefit the Salavation Army Emergency Food Shelf. TJ Michael’s will be helping me coordinate this effort. Please make sure to bring a non-perishable food item.
Again, we have a website www.vermontteaparty.com and comments can be made at this site: www.taxdayteaparty.com/vermont
And don’t forget– the Legislature is in session! Be sure to allow time for yourself to stop in and say hello. Let your Representatives and Senators know where you stand!
Hope to see you there!
(Except you, Ryan.)
Tomorrow is the season finale of Terminator: SCC. I meant to blog about last week’s episode, but I never got around to it. I really hope FOX renews this show. They would be foolish not to. This summer’s Terminator movie could very well spark interest in the series, especially if FOX could snag a commercial during the trailers before the movie.
If you did not see last week’s episode, skip this paragraph because there is a spoiler coming up. Holy crap! Can you believe they killed Derek? And it was so sudden. He didn’t even have dying words.
Did you know that Catherine Weaver (the Scottish Terminator woman) is Shirley Manson from the band Garbage? I didn’t realize that until last week. I could not place her, but I knew she looked familiar. I used to listen to Garbage back in my alternative days. I was always more of a radio listener than a video watcher, though.
I still get the song “Only Happy When It Rains” in my head whenever we have a really rainy day, for some reason.
Tomorrow is also my birthday. My mom got me a Flip. It is so cool. I can’t wait to make and post videos!
Speaking of getting older, GeekDad has a fun post about Growing Old as a GeekDad.
Changing technology does have a way of making one feel old. Every time I play video games with my kids, I complain that there is too much going on and I can’t focus. I grew up with pretty basic graphics and these rich 3D scenes are too busy. They call me old. I guess I am, to them, but the real problem is the 15 year break I took between playing video games as a teen and playing them with my kids. A lot has changed, and I missed the transition.
Check out this video of the game Mario Kart on Super NES, Nintendo 64, Game Cube, and Wii. It’s kind of neat to see the quality of the graphics progress over the years.
I got a Nintendo DS for Christmas and I was looking for a new game for it. I have a bunch of the brainy games the DS is known for, but I want a game you play. The problem is that I like the old 2D side-scrolling platformers, like classic Super Mario Bros., but there are not too many of those being made these days.
Don’t suggest New Super Mario Bros. for DS. My son got that for his birthday and I already conquered it three times, collected every star coin, found every alternate exit, and unlocked every hidden level/mushroom hut. I pretty much exhausted its re-play value.
Okay, why do I suddenly feel like kind of a loser?
Anyway, Bob has the day off tomorrow for Good Friday. Since it’s my birthday and Easter weekend, you probably won’t be hearing much from me for the next few days, unless I type up the Easter post that has been swirling around in my head.
Have a wonderful weekend and a happy Easter!
I was just reading a couple of summaries of a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens on the existence of God.
One of the arguments against the existence of God that Christopher Hitchens kept coming back to boils down to: God would have done things differently.
Just as there are really bad arguments that Christians should never use to justify the existence of God, there are really bad arguments that atheists shouldn’t use. This would be one of them.
You are not God, so it stands to reason that you don’t know how God would have done things.
Really, it only serves to reveal your arrogance when you make the claim that you know how God would have done things.
Basically, you are saying, “If I were God, I would have done X. God did Y. Ergo, God does not exist.”
Are you sure you want your name associated with that faulty logic? Seriously.
If you were interested in the debate itself, which this post was not really about, here are the links.
It’s a strange day when Ace of Spades HQ and Vermont Daily Briefing both have posts expressing the same opinion on an issue. But then, it’s a strange day when Congress is trying to give the president power over the internet.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, indeed.
There is one notable difference between the two blogs, though. VDB doesn’t like the idea because it doesn’t pass the “Dick Test.”
All of which fails the Dick Test, in our opinion: would you want this law on the books if Dick Cheney were the Shadow President? Epic fail, Rockefeller and Snowe.
The Ace of Spades crew doesn’t need to imagine a power-abusing, boogy-man “Shadow President.” The current power-abusing president is cause enough for concern.
Either way, no one wants this type of power bestowed to some Dick in the White House. And that is one of the few things you will get conservative and liberal bloggers to agree on.
Burlington City Councilor Bill Keogh (D-Ward 5) wrote a balanced summary of IRV in Burlington, summarizing the different opinions that are out there. Here’s what he had to say, in his own words, reprinted with permission from his post on the Front Porch Forum.
Did you like the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) last month in deciding the next Mayor of Burlington? Tell me what YOU think, please.
That oft asked question brings a variety of answers, backed up with some degree of rationality. It took three runoffs for the ballots to give incumbent Bob Kiss-P the victory over Kurt Wright-R. Andy Montroll-D finished third. Both Dan Smith-I and Jim Simpson-Green Party finished out of the money. (Candidate Simpson never voted!)
Wright supporters could claim victory because he had 33%, 37% of the first place votes in the first two rounds. Not enough to get the needed 50% though.
Montroll got more first and second place votes than anyone else. He could claim victory. But he finished 3rd.
It was Kiss who won the job because all his 1, 2, 3, votes gave him more than the required 50%. He is the winner. But, only 29% of those votes for Kiss were for first place! A long way from a mandate.
Aha, but according to the IRV rules, Kiss won another term of three years.
Folks seemed confused and unchanging.
The unchanging were those who want to vote for only one candidate for Mayor. (Called “bullet voting”) In that case, if their candidate fell off the bottom rung of the ladder, their other selections were not recorded, thus lost. Remember, it was Montroll’s 2nd and 3rd place votes for Kiss which put Kiss over the top and beating out Wright.
Some of those bullet voters wanted to vote only for the Prog/Dem/Repub/Green/Indy, and no other. Those voters didn’t like IRV.
Then there were those who were confused by the whole process. They could vote their 1st choice, 2nd choice and so on to 5th choice. But that kinda baffled them.
Solid effort was made to reduce the confusion. A website explained it all. Newspapers described how the process worked. And Channel 3 News had an excellent graphic description.
Many folks still didn’t get it.
There were other claims about the “I’m OK; You’re OK” attitude of the candidates toward one another during the campaign. Yes, the debates were very respectful but with a notable lack of toe-to-toe battles. The challenges to the lack of Kiss leadership were persistent but soft.
There is now a move afoot to seek a Special City Election to get rid of IRV and go back to the old way, the 40% way. The old way is to require a candidate to get at least 40% of the vote and, if not, have a runoff between the two top scorers.
For Mayor, that has never happened. It has happened in three City Council races, including the one last month.
In order to do that, at least 1,500 signatures will be needed on a petition seeking the repeal be put on the ballot.
It is unlikely that the City Council will want to spend some $10,000 or so on a Special Election when the issue could wait until the next March election. Especially when the IRV wouldn’t go into effect until three years from now.
Having said that, reversal of the voting process would have to again go back to the Legislature. Looking at the calendar, a March 2010 City approval would probably be considered by the Legislature convening in January, 2011. Should the lawmakers give the green light, then implementation could take place in the Mayoral election in March 2013.
Make no mistake. No election is perfect. Each method has its serious drawbacks.
Had this past election been under the old 40% rule, Kiss and Wright would have had a run-off election.
There would be three problems with that scenario. One, would be an expensive campaign for the candidates running and the City’s cost operating another election. The other issue would be a three week delay in preparing a City budget. A third problem – and a serious one – is that far fewer people vote in a runoff, thus fewer voter make the Mayoral selection.
Be that as it may, we may get another bite at the election apple and to, once again, vote IRV up or down.
Tell me what YOU think, please.
Tell Bill what you think, if he’s your city councilor, or call your own councilors and let them know.
The Burlington School District designated the two city schools in the high-poverty area of the city to be magnet schools, intended to draw students from other parts of the city from a higher socio-economic class.
I think magnet schools can be a good thing, though I am disappointed that they chose to have a “sustainability” academy, rather than one that focused on math, science, and technology.
The Free Press had an article the other day about the magnet schools, which open in the fall, and how the applications are coming along.
So far 85 students have applied to the magnet schools from elsewhere in the city and “about three” students who live near the two schools have applied to go to other city schools. (Gee, with such a small number, one would expect the superintendent to be more exact.)
The schools seem to be achieving the goal for which they were created. Both schools have a 90% population of children who qualify for free or reduced lunch. In contrast, the incoming kindergarten class for Barnes will have a “poverty” rate of 50%, Wheeler 63%. (I have quotes around poverty because the free and reduced lunch guidelines are not poverty level, though those terms are used interchangeably in the article.)
Here’s what caught my eye, though.
Wheeler has slots in several grades, including kindergarten, for students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunch.
In other words, if poor kids – which, by the way means under $39,220 for a family of four – will be turned away based solely on the fact that they are too poor.
Sorry poor kids, no Academy for Integrated Arts for you. Try again next year.
That seems kind of, I don’t know, discriminatory.
The school district calls this criterion: socio-economic balance (reflecting the diversity in our community).
That’s funny. If it reflected the diversity in the community, then it would not need to be artificially engineered.
I am not opposed to the schools themselves. I think an integrated arts school is a great thing. We do integrated arts here in my home school and it is a wonderful way for kids to learn.
I do think it is unfortunate that the children are being selected based on their parents’ income level.
The school district wants to feel good about its poverty numbers, so it is adjusting the numbers solely for that purpose, without regard to the benefit this school would provide to kids of all income levels.
Conservatives and libertarians around the country have been organizing protests against the government bailouts and stimulus plans – and mounting trillion dollar debt obligations – called “Tea Parties,” in homage to the Boston Tea Party. The mainstream media is for the most part not covering them.
There are tea parties planned all over the US for tax day, April 15. Take a look at this map. It takes a few seconds to load, but when it does the map shows flags indicating everywhere there will be a tea party.
I’m not so crazy about the name, but I think it’s a good idea for people to get together and let the government know that it is not on the right track. We do not want enormous debt, expanded government powers, and loss of freedom.
There will be tea parties in Montpelier and Rutland on the 15th. More info on the Vermont tea parties here.
I’ll be at the Montpelier event.
You can find out about tea parties in other states at taxdayteaparty.com.
The mantra of the Obama administration.
And they don’t intend to let the AIG crisis pass without using it to justify expanding the powers of the federal government.
“Our system failed in fundamental ways. To address this will require comprehensive reform. Not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game.”
So said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner before the House Financial Services Committee.
“The days of light-touch regulation are over,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Frank said the financial and economic catastrophes of the last 18 months had created a new political consensus in favor of tighter financial supervision. Mr. Frank said he hoped to pass a bill “very soon” to give the federal government “resolution authority” to seize control, restructure and shut down troubled financial institutions.
The public has been worked up into a frenzied outrage over the AIG retention bonuses, resulting in protests and death threats, and is waiting for the government to remedy the injustice.
What a perfect opportunity to expand government’s power.
Even President Obama has expressed outrage over the AIG bonuses.
As it turns out, it was the Obama administration itself that requested language in an amendment that would allow for these bonuses to be paid after the company received a government bailout.
But we don’t know who knew what, and Treasury Secretary Geithner has already been caught lying about the matter to Congress.
Then we find out that some of the people getting these bonuses – people who were not involved with the credit default swaps that caused the crisis at AIG – have been putting in 14 hour days for no pay, despite other offers from more stable companies, with the understanding that these bonuses would come.
Don’t expect the mob to care. It’s time to hate the rich. They deserve whatever happens to them. They are greedy and responsible for all of your problems.
We’re in the middle of a crisis!
And you can be sure that your government will not waste it.
