Some sobering thoughts. I was discussing this with a very pessimistic friend at dinner last night.
[Late morning update]
Some reports from protests around the country, and thoughts about the implications.
39 thoughts on “What Does The Tea Party Mean?”
Comments are closed.
Obama just gave a very good speech at camp Lejeune. It didn’t sound like anything his base would appreciate.
He’s already made his power grab (with the stroke of a pen) and there’s no indication he intends to slow down.
I don’t think the protesters understand the true nature of this reality. I’m not hearing any Republicans that get it either. The sober reality is coming. Too little. Too late.
How about we revisit secession? If it’s the most productive, wealthiest 44% of the nation, concentrated in the region with the strongest ties to the military, it might turn out quite differently.
Let the blue state folks then try their experiment. Tax themselves like crazy, expropriate all those eeeeevil business tycoons, funnel trillions into “education” and “clean energy,” universalize their health care, and then — ha ha — watch the economic prosperity just roll in, while the miserable low-tax small-government liberty fetishists in the seceded states line up at the gates begging to immigrate.
Or maybe not. ‘twould be a lovely experiment.
I too can see the probability of mass unrest and protest against the Federales. With massive job losses, bank failures followed by a banking holiday, many states passing sovereignty laws upholding State’s rights guaranteed by the US Constitution its no hard to see a tipping point coming leading to a breakup of the US of A into the Regional States of America.
I haven’t seen any Tea Party protests here in Raleighwood. But the PLO is keeping a corner of the NC Capitol grounds busy. (No link as there is NO local coverage)
Seems they’ve been wronged by the U.S.
How is beyond me.
Maybe they’d like to work and pay taxes as a conservative or libertarian here in the U.S. to see some real political suppression, oppression and lack of voice. I doubt Limbaugh will call for the Dittoheads to launch rockets into D.C. as a show of disgust though. I don’t think those groups will call for a jihad or threaten to kill all the liberals as a “race”.
I do think things will get MUCH worse before they get marginally better in the country. The current powers better turn this truck around too, or 2010 will be a big loss for them. Good. I hope the current CinC never has to order troops into the streets, ala Hoover, I’m not sure they’d go. And we need a military coup like we need a hole in the head.
Carl, are you suggesting that the US splits along the lines of the 2008 presidential race? So, basically, the Union would get most of the old Union plus Virginia, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida, while the Confederacy would pick up Missouri, Kentucky , and West Virginia, and then the two sides battle it out economically instead of with guns? That doesn’t sound fair to the Confederacy! But on the other hand, I didn’t understand your reference to the most productive, wealthiest 44% of the nation? I don’t think that aligns with the 2008’s presidential election. I bet I didn’t understand your proposal.
Ooops, I forgot a bunch of Western red states. Still doesn’t seem fair.
Bob, you have to admit, though, that there wouldn’t be much of a military for the blue guys. Lots of money and no guns – how are they gonna win again?
;-}
Well, the Navy and Marines have a lot of assets in Virginia and California, right? And in particular, if you want to launch an amphibious assault, you’re relying on people based in those two states, right? On the other hand, should California fear North Dakota’s nuclear deterrent, or call their bluff?
But I think (and I hope) that the competition was supposed to be economic, not military…
Oh, and I forgot Hawaii. Hmmmm. Hawaii vs Alaska – who. would. win?
Last “oh, and” post: I forgot Ft. Bragg is now in a blue state.
Tourism vs. a mountain of oil?
Gee, I wonder…
>Oh, and I forgot Hawaii. Hmmmm. Hawaii vs Alaska – who. would. win?
A State where a majority is armed and hunts vs caters to tourists….
I’d like to see Texas exercise its option….
I just hope they would let me immigrate…
I was thinking in terms of the Air Force bases of Alaska vs the ships at Pearl Harbor….
Ignoring the silly premise that the respective states will control the federal war-making equipment stationed within them, we do know what happened the last time Pearl Harbor ships were attacked by air. The battle went decisively to the aircraft.
Carl, what about the founders solution… federalism? I heard Ron Paul at CPAC and he didn’t sound like a nut case. Would it be possible to push back the centralized federal power grab and put it back in the states where it belongs?
Perhaps we may have to eliminate the IRS to get it started. Why send state money to the government for them to redistribute?
Ken,
Sure, federalism could work. Cut Federal tax rates to 4-6%, cut all programs except Defense, State and Justice, and let the States reinstate any programs they think are missing.
It’s just not popular. The Fed has all the answers to our problems, don’t you know?
Gentlemen,
never forget, in the succession talk, that the Southern States, especially, are filled with CIVILIANS who have millions of guns. It’s not just a joke for comedians or movies made by Hollywood, it’s true. Not to mention that many of those people also have a CB radio, or two, stashed in the attic or garage. Outside of the big, liberal, cities, those things are pretty much the rule not the exception everywhere I’ve lived.
It sounds cliche as hell, 4WD trucks, guns and CB radios, but welcome to the country, boonies, sticks, whatever you want to call it.
The federal military is WAY out gunned.
I am by no means abnormal for NC where I now live, or for KY where I grew up. I don’t consider myself a survivalist or a good ol’ boy hunter. But there is a Boy Scout / Be Prepared attitude many of us were raised with. An attitude, BTW, that I don’t see in “city folks” or northern, or left coast liberals.
I have a “survival kit” that includes, guns, ammo, knives, CB radios, GMRS and FMR radios, food and water, camping gear and the will to protect all the above. And I live in a small city, Raleigh. If you get 30 minutes out of town, I become “city folk” and seem unprepared to the “country people”.
My Point?
I know this is true in the southeast. But if 10% of small town mid westerners, great planites, south westerners, north westerners, etc, etc, etc. are prepared like this, it’s a potential under ground army that would be damned near impossible to stop or control. And never forget Texas.
L.A. and NYC may sway the votes in their state because of population, but there are millions of guys like me OUTSIDE the city bastions of liberality who might not want to go along with the cities in remaining in the Union.
And none of what I’m talking about concerns CA having Camp Pendelton and 32nd Street in San Diego. Millions of armed civilans in the Central Valley or desert won’t care that 30,000 Marines might be aimed at them. It’s a numbers game.
The VA state government can’t control the state, because of the federal military stationed in the state, if armed civilians say, “Nope, not gonna listen”. There aren’t enough soldiers or Marines to do the job.
The Air Force, like the Navy, is useless for controlling an armed civilian uprising. Yes there are Army and Marine bases in many states, but they are out gunned many times over. They may have the air support and armor, but the civilians have the overwhelming man power. And I think THIS scenario is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written. Not to protect us from foreign powers, but to protect us from our own overzealous government. The Founding Fathers gave us the whole crazy revolutionary idea,
When in the course of human events…
Its not that the Army and Marine bases exist in blue states. It’s that most of the soldiers and marines were recruited from red states.
But I really think things will never get that far. The 2010 campaign has already begun. In 1993 Clinton didn’t just increase taxes as soon as he took office. He retroactively instated them to begin October 1st 1992, when he wasn’t even President-elect yet. The Democratic Congress passed a bill that sealed their fate for 12 years. Hopefully they did it again for a much longer period.
Getting back to the actual subject of the post, as one who organized his share of protests back in the day, I can state with some confidence that the organizers will encounter two major difficulties if, as I expect, the “tea parties” continue at weekly intervals:
1. Particularly if they begin obtaining live TV coverage, they will attract single-issue cranks and people with agendas (eg, border fence, human life amendment) that entail profound increases in Federal activity/power and thereby significantly dilute the original libertarian message of the protests. Any unsympathetic media outlet will have only to focus on a handful of obviously authoritarian (or even racist) “protesters” who are parasitizing on the main event in order to largely discredit it with the general public.
2. As an outgrowth of the above, they will eventually attract counterdemonstrations. I guarantee that a counterdemonstration of 10 people will get as much, and as favorable, coverage as the 1,000 anti-stimulus people across the street.
These are not insuperable difficulties, but it will require an iron commitment to discipline and good media relations in order to keep them from getting out of control.
> 2. As an outgrowth of the above, they will eventually attract counterdemonstrations.
There are two kinds of counterdemonstrations.
(1) The peaceful loons chanting “you owe us”.
and
(2) The violent thugs screaming “we know where you live and we’re coming after you”.
Carl’s secession idea points out one silly part of this “revolt.” The blue states are net contributors to the federal budget; the red states are net recipients of federal spending (see: http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm). So Bobby Jindal can talk trash about stimulus funding for passenger rail, and then turn around and ask for federal money to build a line between Baton Rouge and New Orleans (Louisiana gets $1.85 in federal spending for every $1 in taxes). Or Sarah Palin can complain about those terrible earmarks (Alaska gets $1.83).
If red states want to secede in order to protest federal taxes, they can start by not accepting federal spending beyond their tax bill. They might conclude that it’s nice being subsidized by the rest of the country.
I’d like to see more recent data than FY 2005. Also, I think a lot of the concern is — somewhat ironically — driven by the perception that California, in particular, is about to become a net recipient. Indeed, given the well-known concentration of the housing downturn in just 5 states, we may be seeing a whole new divide that replaces red vs blue.
But, yeah, secession is silly. Though I do think expulsion has its merits …
Jim assumes that federal spending is necessarily beneficial. He’s wrong.
A lot of federal spending is a payoff to keep various folks in office. Confusing that with a general benefit is “curious”.
Where did I say it was beneficial? I think we can conclude that federal dollars are generally desired, for good or ill, and that red states are more successful at attracting them. For those same states to then complain about their (subsidized) tax burden, and about Democrats using federal funds to reward their blue state supporters, takes a lot of nerve.
It takes somewhat less nerve when Federal spending goes up 25% in one year, and the entire increase is concentrated in a handful of states and the DC metro area.
Jay: please show us where the entire stimulus plan (which is less than 25% of the budget) is concentrated in a handful of states and DC.
Errr, CA-NV-AZ-FL-MI? Housing and auto bailout? Where else is it getting spent? Though I suppose NYC should be on the list.
And 7 out of the top 10 richest counties in the country are already in a little circle around DC. It’s Versailles on the Potomac.
Funny, I thought concentration of wealth was supposed to be a bad thing …
Funny, I thought concentration of wealth was supposed to be a bad thing …
No, Jim only thinks it’s a bad thing if it happens naturally, and not as a result of government largesse and “spreading the (confiscated) wealth around.”
Bob is having trouble keeping his arguments straight.
He started with:
> The blue states are net contributors to the federal budget; the red states are net recipients of federal spending
This is relevant only if being a net recipient is, wait for it, beneficial.
I pointed out that it wasn’t.
Bob agreed and responded
> Where did I say it was beneficial?
Now that I’ve quoted one instance, maybe he can find it, and others.
> For those same states to then complain about their (subsidized) tax burden, and about Democrats using federal funds to reward their blue state supporters, takes a lot of nerve.
Actually, it doesn’t.
Bob is probably one of those folks who thinks that if you think that a given program is a bad idea, you shouldn’t take advantage of its benefits.
He’s wrong. Being opposed to a system does not obligate one to be a sucker or a chump.
Playing the game if you’re not allowed to quit is merely cutting one’s losses.
Note that Bob never allows opt out.
Bob is having trouble keeping his arguments straight.
I think you mean “Jim.”
Andy: you seem to have trouble keeping your arguments (and other commenters) straight. First you contend that federal spending is not beneficial. Then you say that states would be suckers or chumps to not take advantage of its benefits. So which is it?
The thrust of this thread is that red states are put upon by the tax demands of the rest of the country, when out here in the real world it’s the other way around.
First you contend that federal spending is not beneficial. Then you say that states would be suckers or chumps to not take advantage of its benefits. So which is it?
It’s not beneficial to the nation as a whole, or to the economy. Obviously it’s beneficial to the recipients of the transferred (and reduced) wealth.
Andy’s argument was that being a net recipient of federal spending is not beneficial. At the same time he says that not accepting that spending makes one a chump. I suppose it takes that sort of cognitive dissonance for red states to keep seeing themselves as victims.
Maybe all liberals look the same to Andy. I’m still wondering what would happen if the US forces stationed in Alaska attacked the US forces stationed in Hawaii (and there was no outside intervention). You know how they say the military always plans for the last war? Just imagine how much thought by now the Navy must have givento defending Pearl Harbor from an air attack.
Oh, sorry, please continue.
I understand the argument, Andy.
The money is taken from the citizens of the states. It is then redistributed to the states for extraneous reasons. If you disagree that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in some of those reasons, then what are your options?
You can’t refuse to provide taxes to the federal government.
You can’t prevent others from taking federal tax money for local purposes.
So until the federal government can be contrained and limited; the only option is to refuse to except federal money. The rational solution is to take the money until you can solve the root problem. But once you do this, you are considered a hypocrit and can no longer argue the principles.
> The thrust of this thread is that red states are put upon by the tax demands of the rest of the country, when out here in the real world it’s the other way around
Bob is, as usual, babbling. State and local govts don’t pay taxes to the federal govt. Also, when one talks about “states” getting federal money, we’re actually talking mostly about payments to individuals and companies, not to state/local govts.
WRT the recipients, maybe they’re net-beneficiaries or maybe they’re just getting back partial compensation. The folks who aren’t getting are being hosed.
Note that someone who is a net beneficiary is well within sanity to point out that the system is stupid.
> But once you do this, you are considered a hypocrit and can no longer argue the principles.
Such people are not hypocrites. They’re merely refusing to be chumps.
I agree Andy, but politically opponents will call them hypocrites, which is essentially what Jim is trying to do with your argument.
There is one other aspect though to refusing to be a chump, and a few people have caught on to it. Accepting TARP or other federal aid comes with way too many strings. It is the free drug sample the dealers give to get someone hooked and keep demanding more. Then they have control.
Yesterday, the BoA CEO admitted taking $20bln in TARP was a big mistake. I still recall several weeks ago Wells Fargo getting hammered for excessive CEO pay while taking TARP funds; but they actually refused TARP funds and were forced to take the money (though I’m curious what the force was). Obama used the Wells Fargo incident to push through his plan to limit CEO pay. Idiots suggested it was great and would never be used across the board. Only to be used for those who took the bailout… but Wells Fargo didn’t want the bailout.
On the government side, we have a couple of state politicians in Texas suggesting to the governor that he should be careful what funds are accepted. For instance, many are suggesting rejecting additional federal welfare funds, which come with entitlements that may get paid at the federal level now, but likely won’t be later.
So I’m not exactly sure if refusing the money makes one the chump.
> I agree Andy, but politically opponents will call them hypocrites, which is essentially what Jim is trying to do with your argument.
They’re going to argue something no matter what you do, so you’ve got to go with what’s best for you. Pointing out that they’re making baseless charges has its advantages.
> we have a couple of state politicians in Texas suggesting to the governor that he should be careful what funds are accepted. For instance, many are suggesting rejecting additional federal welfare funds, which come with entitlements that may get paid at the federal level now, but likely won’t be later.
Yup – you have to look at the strings.
The folks from Great Northern Bank are learning that. They didn’t need TARP money but were talked into it by regulators and govt saying “we need everyone in the program”.
Then govt turns around and slams them for doing things that they’ve always done.