How will the Tea Parties solve the nation's economic problems?

Posted Apr 16th 2009 3:40PM by Joseph Lazzaro
Filed under: Politics

What's a good way to gauge the economic relevance of Wednesday's Tea Parties?

Use a question University of Connecticut Political Science Professor Howard Reiter asks his students to deploy: "What practical impact will this policy have on the typical person's daily life?

We know the practical impact of President Obama's policies. Since the Tea Parties expressed concern about taxes, let's focus on that issue. Obama's tax policy will cut taxes on 95 percent of Americans and raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year, with some exceptions for small businesses.

Tea Partiers: no viable plan

Now ask yourself, what practical impact will the Tea Parties have on the typical person's daily life? It was hard to detect a constructive, coherent, viable plan to address the nation's problems from Wednesday's events. But then what did the Tea Parties feature?

People who were mad that their candidate or party had lost the election, and that President Obama and the Democratic Party won. They seem angered at the fact that the times call for collective action to address financial and economic problems, which favors solutions and polices advocated by the Democratic Party, and not their party / candidate / philosophy.

People who opposed government spending for financial stabilization and fiscal stimulus. One problem here: without the financial stabilization measures, the very market-based economy they support - or at least they say they support - would have slowed to a crawl, if not become completely incapacitated. Frozen capitalism: now, that would have been a postcard example of the wonders of the free market. On the fiscal stimulus, here's another bit of education: more stimulus will be needed to fill the GDP hole created by the recession, which began under President Bush.

An anti-intellectual strain mixed with an anti-education strain. This view is irrational and contradicts much of what the United States stands for, not the least of which is the primacy of science and the virtue that smart, talented, and educated citizens should govern and make public policy.

People who appeared to be opposed to all taxes. Fine. Join the club. So is everyone else. The problem is, taxes are needed to fund government services.

People who were opposed to 'big government,' so in that sense the rallies had a libertarian strain. Let's logically extend what the Tea Partiers advocate. Which aspect of big government do they want to dismantle first? The U.S. Department of Defense? Perhaps Social Security? Perhaps Medicare? Perhaps the National Parks Service? To cite a phrase popularized by tennis legend John McEnroe, "You can NOT be serious!" The reason we have big government again is that we have a big problem: the financial crisis. And without the intervention of that big government there would have been a very big financial and economic disaster.

Who or what are the Tea Partiers? Well, they aren't big enough to be a coalition, and they certainly aren't big enough to be a political party. They looked like an economic faction that drew from the fringe, perhaps representing 10 percent of the nation, perhaps slightly more. It was hard to spot any African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, and members of other minority groups among the Tea Partiers, but these minority groups comprise a substantial and growing percentage of the United States voting population.

If the Tea Partiers represent the Republican Party, it's in a sorry state. They had no coherent message, no leader, and too few voters. Again, they looked more like an alienated fringe than any constructive base that you can build a movement on. If the Republican Party tries to use this faction as its base, it's making a huge mistake: this faction, and the views they expressed, will have little appeal to the electorate at large in this era. The events looked liked a loose-knit gathering of people earning over $250,000 per year who will pay more in taxes under Obama's budget, and/or people opposed to President Obama, and the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, who does President Obama represent? Well, to cite an answer popularized by the late, great New York Governor Al Smith: "In addition to the nation's commercial interests, the President represents workers, the poor, women, families, children, senior citizens, college students, young professionals, young couples, those with disabilities, immigrants, the marginalized, the injured, the hospitalized. Thank you. God bless you."

Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. presidency and the U.S. economy.

Tags: taxes, tea parties, U.S. Government

Print this

Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)

4-16-2009 @ 8:42PM

Vlad S said...

A good email I recently got seems to be a pertinent reply to this post:

Divorce agreement

THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two Ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide Other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, McDonald's, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep The hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. But we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach The World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

4-17-2009 @ 3:48AM

dirque said...

I'm not sure about what to comment on first.

It seems odd that tea parties are popping up within 3 months of a new president in office while NOTHING happened when the old president was in office.

Let's look at a graph of national debt...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Please notice the periods of time where deficit spending had their sharpest increase... 1980 and again in 2000. Reagan and George W. Bush, I believe.

1980- 1990 The national debt went from 33%- 55.9%. When Clinton was in office 1992-2000 the national debt went up 3 points to 58%. When Bush went into office it went from 58-74.

Now this doesn't include appropriations for the Iraq war. Those were classified and off the records under the previous administration.

Also remember 700 billion dollars was also set aside by the Bush administration under TARP by Hank Paulson under complete secrecy of terms and agreed by Bush that the terms were not able to be reviewed.

While Obama's administration still holds half of the 700 billion - the economy is hardly his fault.

As for cutting everything out of the budget. I think you're a bit naive. For example, do you like clean water and safe food? How do you think inspectors are being paid if not from your taxes?

Would you like more or less people inspecting your peanut butter and meat?

Would you like your roads maintained? Or would you rather pave only the bits of road you use?

Obama raised cigarette taxes to fund health care not for illegal aliens but for children. Children who can't just get a job to get health care. Granted illegal alien children are also covered. Boo hoo. I suppose I'm a bleeding heart liberal for thinking this isn't a terrible thing.

As for the fair tax. The fair tax is anything but fair. It's a horrible tax for people who can't do math. Not only does it double tax the elderly and the disabled but they play with the numbers.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

Asking the elderly who already paid their fair share of income tax to then pay a 30% national sales tax is just cruel. Also if you're over 40 and past the half way point to retirement - you are so screwed as it's unlikely your income tax savings for the future will catch up to your sales tax spending.

I find it incredible that many republicans- (Ironically I'm a republican as well) found it okay to waste billions of dollars and soldiers lives in Iraq and Afganistan but the moment someone wants to spend some money at home to improve roads, achieve energy independence, our water supply etc... they throw a tantrum.

Like you, I don't believe in food stamps. But I believe in mass transportation- because if I expect people to work, they have to get to work somehow.

If I am against abortion, I have to make sure children can get medical care at hospitals- illegal or not.

Good Luck with your protests. But it's going to take more than 3 months before I suddenly lose faith in the current administration. I may join you in another year - but to throw a tantrum now is ridiculous.

4-23-2009 @ 5:27PM

The Freedom Thinker said...

This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. It was so dumb I just had to write about it.

This goes down as the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life to date!

4-23-2009 @ 5:31PM

The Freedom Thinker said...

Of course it didn't post the hyperlink to my response in the last comment of this article...

It's here...

http://thefreedomthinker.com/2009/04/23/pervasive-ignorance/

5-16-2009 @ 8:16PM

Linda said...

Let's not give up the momentum we've gained with the Tea Parties! Attendance was awesome and should continue to grow.

In the meantime, check out article at AmericanThinker site, "How to Stop a Healthcare Hijack" by J. Robert Smith. Mr Smith's premise is tea parties CAN do something about slowing this train down that the Republican party can't due to disparate numbers in Congress and the Senate. I think I'd choke saying "yes we can" but we are learning that our gatherings are getting notice.

Has everyone signed up for the next event on July 4??? We learned much from April 15; time to close the gaps, clarify our goals.

Just sayin'

7-05-2009 @ 12:21AM

Gary Smith said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Please notice the periods of time where deficit spending had their sharpest increase... 1980 and again in 2000. Reagan and George W. Bush, I believe.

1980- 1990 The national debt went from 33%- 55.9%. When Clinton was in office 1992-2000 the national debt went up 3 points to 58%. When Bush went into office it went from 58-74.

Now this doesn't include appropriations for the Iraq war. Those were classified and off the records under the previous administration.

Previous 20 Comments