In a Facebook discussion, Abdul suggested that the Tea Party was at war with the Libertarians, blaming them the Libertarians for Electoral defeat. Some in the discussion suggested that the Tea Party had forgotten its libertarian roots.
I’m not sure how libertarian the Tea Party ever was. The problem was, even from the beginning, with taking money from “us” and giving it to “them.” Remember Santelli’s Rant?
Why don’t you put up a web site to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages, or would we like to, at least, buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water, instead of drink(ing) the water.
In his case, it was the winners versus “the losers.” “Us versus Them” was always, in my mind, the motivating force of the Tea Party. Government regulations that sent money to “Us” was o.k. (That’s why, for example, Medicare always needed defending instead of defunding.) Now, defining the “Us” and defining the “Them” can be an interesting debate, but almost never a pretty one.
I agree, Doug. I never saw too many libertarian leanings among the teaparty, but I never searched their manifestos and only generally laughed at their positions. I do see a lot of evidence of the tea party here in northeast Indiana. More that a few farms flew Gasdsen flags and sported Mourdock signs. How frequently farmers forget the government largesse that stuff’s their pockets and protects them foreseeable loss.
I think the Tea Party creed sounds a lot like you suggest, US versus Them, mean old white people v the new face of America, the we are opposed to government waste unless the government wastes it on us crowd.
At its core, it seemed anti-immigrant, rural vs urban, exceptionally American. Get government off our back, leave the checks in our back pockets, and put government into the heads of vaginal ultrasound devices.
More than a whiff of the Know Nothing Party of the 1850s.
Doug, good one!
Reminds me of the remark, “I love my Medicare, so I don’t want socialized medicine!”
The Tea Party makes no sense. It’s nothing but far right republicans trying to wash off the stink of George Bush.
T.E.A. Party. Taxed Enough Already. After Obama cut taxes for 95% of working Americans. Give me a break.
Ridiculous.
I wasn’t aware the President had any authority to cut taxes. Isn’t that Congress?
How do we address the fact that the federal government continues to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that it spends?
Raise taxes to median historic levels would probably be a start. Random PolitiFact article supporting the propositions that taxes on the wealthiest are at or near historic lows.
So, the impact of doing that will be to reduce the high level of deficit spending?
I’m not concerned about whether ‘taxes on the wealthiest are at or near historic lows’ – what do we do to eliminate deficits and cut debt?
How much clearer can Doug say it. Raise revenue and deficits fall. Less borrowing, less debt.
Will raising taxes raise revenue? Is there a point of diminishing returns there? If so, where is it? Could we already be past it?
And, what about “cut spending and deficits fall”? This seems to get a lot more chin music than traction.
I’m sure there is a point of diminishing returns, but there is no evidence we’re at it or anywhere close. We had deficits under some control, then we cut taxes and they started ballooning. We’re at or near historic lows in terms of the federal tax burden. (At least in modern times — we revamped our financial system during the Great Depression for obvious reasons.)
Will raising taxes raise revenue? Is there a point of diminishing returns there? If so, where is it? Could we already be past it?
The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second quesiton is yes.
The third question is a rough restatment of the Laffer Curve. Who knows? The Laffer curve is a construct that is not testable. The answer to the fourth question is almost certainly no.
Your last point is whether cutting spending will reduce deficits? Yes. Tell us what category of current government spending that personally benefits you would you be willing to cut?
I’ve got one that doesn’t seem to provide any net benefit to anybody – let’s deep six the Department of Education.
I’ve got two questions about them –
1) If we shut down the Department of Education today, are there any schools that could not open tomorrow?
2) Are there any schools that would miss them? If so, why?
I’d give up the home mortgage interest deduction, too.
If we’re getting out the budget ax, what would you throw up on the killing block?
Sure. Taxes are to a government what a paycheck is to a family. If a family budget is in trouble, sure you ditch the country club membership. But you still have to eat. Our current tax structure is kind of like Dad took a part time job so he could follow his dream of writing poetry. Nothing wrong with poetry when times are good, but if the family is borrowing money to pay the mortgage, then it’s probably time for him to get a real job.
I don’t think the taxes to paycheck metaphor works – other than being wealth transfers I don’t think they are strongly parallel. Anyway, our peerless representatives seem to be hanging onto the country club membership, the Porsche, and their own separate pension and health care schemes even if the metaphor does hold.
On a related note, what individuals do you know that you would trust with the combined powers to tax, borrow, AND print money?
I wouldn’t trust YOU with that – and you seem like a fine fellow. The overloaded clown cars we call Congress and the Executive Branch seem to be doing a worrying job of it.
How do we address the fact that the federal government continues to borrow 40 cents of every dollar that it spends?
Reduce military spending (which, when its share of debt service is added in, constitutes 60% of the federal budget) to what a rational country would spend. Instead of what the next fifty rational countries combined spend.
Not including the debt service, we spend 41% of the world’s total on “defense.” As the Kinks noted, “paranoia may destroy ya.”
Much of our military resources exist to keep the middle eastern sea lanes and other maritime choke points open. And to impose American political war most everywhere in the world.
And we cannot forget maintaing overwhelming military force so Israel does not have to use theirs and pay a price militarily for their adventurism and system of apartheid in Gaza and the West Bank.
By 2017, however, the US will reemerge as the largest producer of oil in the world. It will be interesting to see if the military mission contracts because of less need to keep oil transport sea lanes open or expand to waive the US stick in China’s face.
In the last election, it was pathetic and comical to hear Romney and his party call for a large military expansion in times of huge deficits. But it evinces the political capital to be gained by squandering the economic capital of the nation.
I’ve got one that doesn’t seem to provide any net benefit to anybody – let’s deep six the Department of Education.
I’ve got two questions about them –
1) If we shut down the Department of Education today, are there any schools that could not open tomorrow?
2) Are there any schools that would miss them? If so, why?
If you are such a strong propnent of elimination of the DOE, briefly describe what it does, delineating what tasks are neccessary and which are not, and how the tasks could be done more efficiently by other entites. Its very existence since 1980 demonstrates to me that it has value in the political system that is demonstrated by its survival over 32 years. And it has a percursor, DHEW. Other than elimination of the DOE being part of Republican platforms over the last few years, what is the big megillah? The Republican party opposes the teaching of evolution, but it cannot change reality.
As far as the mortgage tax deduction, I do not benefit from it. I would consider eliminating it. Start a PAC and try to overcome the Realtor lobby, the mortgage loan lobby and the home building industry. You start the PAC, register it, and I will send you $250 show my good faith.
As far as what I would cut, I believe I have said the elmination of all farm subsidies that still exist, including subsidized crop insurance. Pay the market rate like most other industries. And substantial cuts to the military.
Those would dwarf the elimination of the DOE and its 68 billion dollar budget.
Somehow I replied to the thread rather than to your comment – see comment below.
I’m with you on the farm subsidies – I’d add in the federal disaster insurance for homeowners in high-risk areas. About the third time someone rebuilds a house in a flood plain I’d like to stop helping to pay for it.
As for the DOE, I’ll start my homework assignment if you will take a shot at answering my questions about it.
I don’t find the duration of its existence to be compelling – lots of bad things have persisted for far longer than that, and they are (or were) still bad things.
The trouble with an agency like this is that anyone who spends 68 billion dollars a year will have some truly good things to point to, some of which will provide appealing photo ops and sound bites – which neatly lets them duck the question as to whether the organization provides any NET benefit.
But, if you ask that question you are heartless, anti-education, anti-child, and probably eat kittens. Live ones.
Still, if you put down your kitten sandwich and look at education spending vs. student achievement since 1980 – it is not supportive of the argument that money spent is bringing any good result.
You would save the 68 Billion per year by eliminating DOE, and you’d also save the compliance costs on the part of our educational institutions, which may well be as much or more, and would let them focus on their function. Remember the great congressional quote that ran something like ‘a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money’.
Not sure about starting a PAC against the Home Mortgage Interest deduction – but its not a bad idea. I’m thinking that we could agitate for a twenty year phase out – drop the allowed deduction by 5% a year and you would make the impact manageable (and the screams softer…). You are right that this is a tough hill to climb – its made even worse by the wonderful work of our beloved ruling class in the area of home mortgages over the last generation or so.
Kitten sandwiches! OM*NOM*NOM*NOM!
I know nothing of what the DoEd(not to be confused with Energy) does. I just don’t understand why it would exist at all, since it seems most states do all of the decision making when it comes to what they teach. I’ve love to learn more of why it should exist.
Speaking of “why”, I think that is a fair question for any spending, or any time you’re looking to make a change. “That’s the way we’ve done it for years” is the absolute worst answer to “why?”. That is a fair question for farm subsidies, military spending, space programs, etc.
I’m pretty sure I could explain why space program spending is worthwhile, so it doesn’t bother me for someone to question it.
http://lolcat.com/samichkitty.html
To whom will the administration of federal student aid programs be shifted?
Preferably, they go away – having done their work in increasing the cost of education at three or four times the rate of inflation, but transferring lots of tax dollars to admin-heavy educational institutions that are providing less value than ever.
Win win!
So “A college degree costs $5000, and only 10% of people who would want and are capable of achieving one actually have access to it” is a preferable situation to “A college degree costs $20000 (constant dollars, and I have no idea if that’s the real ratio but that’s really not important here), but 90% of people who would want and are capable of achieving one now have access to it thanks to subsidies”?
No student aid. Why not just completely cut off the ladder to the middle class for kids in the lower class or kids in the middle class that do not have family businesses to inherit?
Colleges are human resource intensive. They will always cost a lot of money to administer. And colleges are always in competition with other insitutions to hire the best educators and develop the best facilities.
The relationship between the expansion of student loans (not aid, which has decreased) and college costs is not causal. But reduction in state subsidies to colleges and universities and the concomitant increase in costs is causal.
So, if the federal government does not provide student aid, it does not happen? Interesting thought.
Also, looking at your assertions vs. the rising costs of education vs. the rising proportion of administrators to educators vs. the dropping effectiveness of our institutions of higher learning has me convinced – we should get our educational institutions from YOUR planet.
What color is the sky there? Does Spock have a beard? And has anyone there even heard the phrase “Higher Education Bubble”?
“The relationship between the expansion of student loans (not aid, which has decreased) and college costs is not causal.”
Well, since you’ve asserted it, it must be so – what a relief to find that the fact that schools seem to be able to hoover up all the additional money that loans and aid make available is just a coincidence.
Well, back to my kitten sandwich…
So, another far-right troll. You start posting seeming to have a resonable intellect and a balanced picture on reality. Then the real Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio come out when pressed to develop an argument that takes more than an eight-bit buffer.
You need to develop an intellect, learn the basics of civil discource, and go back to Little Green Footballs. But of course if you do the first two things, no one will recognize you in that vast wasteland.
Aaaand, we have the unsupported ad hominem in lieu of a response. Thanks for playing – sorry if the snark was too strong.
And – Little Green Footballs? Really?
That’s just cold.
I’m a little late to the dance here, but my first take is that the Tea Party is no monolith. In Indiana alone, the Tea groups are very fragmented and some can tend to be very libertarian, while others show no comprehension of the word or concept whatsoever.
There was Tea Party activity here in Indiana that well preceded the national movement, having its roots in property tax protests in 2007, where property tax bills were gathered up and dunked in a tea bag in the canal. At that point, and in Marion County in particular, there were a lot of libertarians involved.
Fast forward to 2009, it is much as you describe, Doug, with a whole lot of folks who were stridently anti-Obama. Santellil’s rant was a galvanizing moment for many. None of it caused broad translation to libertarianism. And, if you were subject to the kind of abuse Tea/GOP types heaped on capital-L Libertarians in the run-up to the election, you instantly knew the difference without a single policy discussion.