Tag: Tea Party

Categories
national politics & policies porkbarrel politics

It’s the Season

Ho, Ho, Ho. It’s that time of year again. Shopping. Selecting the right gift. Thinking of those special someones.

Yes, it’s Omnibus Spending Bill time, the Satan Clause time of year, when politicians fill up the stockings of their naughty friends in the lobbying business, and give generously.

With our money.

This year, Harry Reid went all out. He pushed an omnibus spending package that included so many earmarks that Congress had to use its whole box of Crayons just to keep some order to the bill’s marked corners. Yes, there were over six thousand “special holiday gifts” for special interests.

As I said, “Ho, Ho, Ho.”

That’s not an elfin chuckle, that’s a popular euphemism for what the politicians are who cooked up this list without checking it twice.

But an unseasonable gust took the wind out of Reid’s sails. Pressured by folks back home, the bill was soundly defeated. As Daniel Mitchell put it, it was the American people — not the special interests — who got the Christmas present:

[F]iscal conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Partiers have won an important battle, but this is just one skirmish in a long war. If we want to save America from becoming another Greece, we better make sure that we redouble our efforts next year.

At last, special interests get a lump of coal. It’s something to celebrate. And repeat. Ho, Ho, Ho! Like that ol’ elfin chuckle.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Categories
porkbarrel politics

Bribing Our Way to Bankruptcy

Many of the voters who swept so many Republicans into Congress only a few short years after having swept so many Republicans out of Congress are trying to tell all politicians: “Stop your wastrel ways.”

Republican newcomers often get that the GOP is on probation. But many Republican incumbents don’t. GOP Senators Bob Bennett, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and George Voinovich all recently voted against a ban on congressional earmarks.

Is their recalcitrance no big deal? We often hear that earmarks are just a sliver of the overall bloated budget, so fiscal conservatives should therefore stop harping on them.

Well, first, it’s not as if all the individual million-dollar or billion-dollar expenditures don’t add up to the multi-trillions in ballooning budgets and debt now sinking the republic. But, second, assertions about the triviality of earmarks also ignore the fact that rationalizing earmarks and boondoggles as the price of power also makes it easier to rationalize larger-scale incontinent federal spending.

The Heritage Foundation points to a strong correlation between high numbers of earmarks and high spending overall. This isn’t mysterious. The congressman who trains himself to be indifferent to what he does with taxpayers’ monies in “small” ways also learns to inure himself to greater temptations.

Those who can’t resist such temptations enter the current realm of mutual bribery: To get their earmarks, they’ll endorse bills with spending they nominally oppose.

Sweat the small stuff. Including the millions and billions in earmarks.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

Issue No. 1

It’s pretty clear that the big issue this election was spending. Not high taxes, or the lowering of taxes. Not war. Not illegal immigration. Not regulation. Not abortion. Above all these issues has emerged one supreme: high spending, over-spending.

According to increasing numbers of Americans, it’s the level of spending by government that must decrease. We must balance budgets. Soon.

One could play sloganeer and say “It’s the spending, stupid”; or, twist that, to say “It’s the stupid spending.” But however you formulate the problem, what the new Republican House must do is find a way to cut spending.

And, as I argued last week, it’s the House that has the constitutional duty to decide money matters.

But talk by the Republican hierarchy, about returning to 2008 levels of spending, will hardly cut it.

Indeed, that idea, of just returning to 2008 spending levels, seems to be a subconscious repudiation of the best thing that Republicans said on Tuesday, that “we’ve been given a second chance.” But to go back to 2008 levels merely takes government back to “before Obama,” and reflects an attempt to let themselves off the hook for the Bush-era spending extravaganza.

There are reasons why I put so little hope in politicians as such, and more in the direct actions of citizens. Even the best politicians tend to lack real convictions.

If the GOP offers any hope, it depends entirely on continued pressure applied to them by the people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture

Hitler, Ha-Ha

Monday night on E! network’s late-night chat show, Chelsea Lately, British comedian Eddie Izzard got laughs with partisan hyperbole:

  1. Izzard identified the Tea Party as “extreme right wing”;
  2. He said, oh-so-amusingly, that Sarah Palin and Tea Party folks want to take things back to “1773 when slavery was legal”;
  3. He thanked America for helping Britain out when “we had a problem, in the Second World War, with extreme right-wingers in Europe”;
  4. He identified the Democrats with the people who’ve pushed progress and “caring about other people” since the beginning of civilization.

He went on. But you get the idea, you see how partisans treat their opponents — in this example, somebody vaguely on the left attacking Tea Party folks as right-wingers of Hitlerian proportions.

Now, Izzard is a funny guy, and not just because of his funny name. But politics is allegedly serious, and you’d think he would know that Hitler was not a right-winger. Hitler was a “national socialist” whose policies don’t resemble Tea Party policies at all. He knows that the number of American activists who look back before 1776 and think fondly of slavery is pretty close to zero.

He may not know, however, that “caring” as such, without follow-through and principles and a rule of law — and balanced budgets, just to avoid mass insolvency — does the opposite of good.

Except in short-run politics. And on Chelsea Lately.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

The Upcoming Game of Chicken

In Europe, populist response to government policy looks a lot different than in America. The French are rioting in the streets . . . because President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed to raise the retirement age by a mere two years. But, as The Economist notes, America’s Tea Partiers “are the opposite: they exhale fiscal probity through every pore.” The French, on the other hand, “appear to believe that public money is printed in heaven and will rain down for ever like manna.”

This appraisal, “The good, the bad, and the tea parties,” recognizes that the Tea Party is not violent, doesn’t even litter much. In sum, the Tea Party is “[n]ot French, not fabricated and not as flaky as their detractors aver: these are the positives. Another one: in how many other countries would a powerful populist movement demand less of government, rather than endlessly and expensively more?”

Interestingly, The Economist pushes the practical point, arguing that if Tea Party “Republicans capture the House, they need to move past ideology into the realm of practical policy.”

This echoes what I argued this weekend on Townhall: “[I]f Republicans in Congress are serious about restoring fiscal sanity to Washington, they will hold all the cards necessary to do so. The Obama Administration simply cannot spend money the U.S. House refuses to raise or appropriate.”

This will lead to a game of chicken with the Obama administration, threats of a government shutdown.

So, who will blink first?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture

Tea Readers

According to a New York Times article by Kate Zernike, the “Movement of the Moment Looks to Long-Ago Texts.” A strange way of saying that Tea Party folks are reading, learning, and studying ideas older than those of, say, Paul Krugman.

Tea Partiers are reading classics . . . but ones not recognized as such by the New York Times:

  • Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
  • F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
  • Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Huh? That third book serves as an oddity on the list. It’s a handbook on street-level ways to effect political change. The left’s loved it for years. Now it’s in the hands of people with scant interest in mass expropriation or heavy, vindictive regulation, or a vast, tax-funded gimme-gimme state.

The article cites the “Austrian School of Economics” — a brand of economics that includes many of the most important free-market thinkers — as an important force, but merely mentions its 20th century leader, Ludwig von Mises, as if a duty. Bastiat, a French economist who died before the school was founded, is lumped in with Mises and Hayek, perhaps because he’s so radically anti-taxation that the Times hopes by mentioning his ideas over and over, readers might dismiss him as a nut.

That could backfire. Some of the Times’s smarter readers might become curious, reading Bastiat and Mises and Hayek with the notion of learning something.

Maybe they’ll even read the Constitution.

Wow. What a revolutionary thought.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

King’s Dream, Tea Party-Style

In the Washington Post’s Book World segment, surprise was noted how quickly Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe’s Tea Party manifesto, Give Us Liberty, fell off in sales. Why? Perhaps “Tea Party folks . . . already knew who they were and what they believed?”

Good guess.

But what do they believe?

Alveda King is the niece of Martin Luther King, whom she refers to as “Uncle Martin.” Fielding questions from CNN’s Larry King after she had participated in Glenn Beck’s recent Washington rally, Ms. King insisted that “It’s not so much about the man as the message.” The “issues” she emphasized were the ones that Beck, to the surprise of many, had also emphasized: Faith, hope, charity, and honor.

“My uncle said we have to live together as brothers — and I add, as sisters — or ‘perish as fools.’” If Ms. King is not out of place in Beck’s wing of the Tea Party, then what of all the noise about racism? Could widespread opposition to Obama be mainly about policy?

When Rev. Sharpton talked about “going all the way in civil rights,” Ms. King clarified something that might be useful in helping left-leaning folks understand Tea Party folks’ attitude towards policy: “My uncle was not teaching that we needed the government to take care of us.”

His main message had something to do with liberty. And respect for all.

Tea Party people appear to be in the main stream of modern American culture in claiming such ideas as theirs, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture insider corruption

Lott of Chutzpah

Some people you can always count on. Like former congressmen and current lobbyist Trent Lott.

Count on Lott to confirm that he’s a true-blue partisan of gravy-train politics-as-usual, a dyed-in-the-wool establishmentarian committed to extinguishing each faint, flickering chance to downsize Leviathan.

The man is a rock.

“We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott with calm, sneering authority recently told the Washington Post, as his granite-hard jaw jutted with stern, rectitudinous integrity. “As  soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

What kind of creature is a “Jim DeMint disciple”? What terrible deeds will these zombie-like Jim-DeMintians perpetrate if the heroic former congressmen and his redoubtable cohorts fail to co-opt them in time?

The creatures are affiliated with the Tea Party rebellion against the super-escalating scope and reach of the federal government, as manifested in the looming takeover of the medical industry, trillion-dollar annual budget deficits, etc. Senate candidate Rand Paul told the Post that the goals of Jim-DeMintian Tea Party sympathizers like himself have something to do with fighting for term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and legislation that is consistent with the Constitution.

Sounds like if they make any headway we can expect more freedom, more real wealth, less red ink, less Washington-based strangling of everybody.

Hence, Trent Lott to the rescue.

Thanks a lot, Lott.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
media and media people political challengers too much government

The Story of Our Time

The election season is heating up and challengers are making headway. So, here comes the name-calling by media hot-heads. The boiling point was quickly reached when Keith Olbermann called a Tea Party candidate a liar and a traitor, declaring that the challenger should be arrested and jailed.

This is, sadly, not unexpected.

In the 20th century, what was once considered radical and extremist became mainstream. The common sense wisdom of America’s founders was thrown out for imported philosophies like socialism and “dirigisme.” The leading intellectuals at the start of the century, many educated in Germany, took home doctrines of limitless government and added a can-do American spirit, creating Progressivism and then the New Deal.

Big Government went from the thing most feared to Our Friend.

Then, in England, a socialist noted that this alleged Big Brother could be awfully cruel, the opposite of fraternal. An Austrian economist explained how even well-intentioned government, if unlimited by a rule of law, could send us all down the road to serfdom. A backlash began.

Though increasing numbers of intelligent, concerned citizens began to doubt and then decry the growth of government, government continued to grow. And establishment opinion called supporters of limited government “extremists” and “radicals.”

Now, as government spending lurches beyond all sanity, it’s the establishment that appears extremist.

Expect a few skirling kettles to boil over this season. And then boil dry — and empty. Like the establishment’s big government philosophy itself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Will Tea Party Politics Change Party Politics?

Rand Paul’s supporters weren’t alone in celebrating his big win. The AP headline read: “Democrats relish Paul’s GOP win in Ky. Senate race.” Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chortled over the “stark contrast between Rand and his opponent, state Attorney General Jack Conway.” He thinks Paul’s easier to beat come November than the establishment opponent Paul clobbered.

That used to be the rule. The more radical a candidate, the more likely to be trounced by the status-quo alternative.

But something’s different this time, right?

Not long ago Rand’s father Ron Paul was regularly ridiculed for being too extreme and “nutty.”

Now it’s the centrists who look nutty. Or, as Rand put it, “The tea party message is not . . . an extreme message. What is extreme is a $2 trillion deficit.”

Across the country in Washington State, a state representative is being challenged by Tim Sutinen, who is running explicitly under the “Tea Party” banner. A local paper quoted Sutinen as advising the legislature to declare a fiscal emergency and renegotiate state employee contracts.

The Democratic incumbent showed less glee than his Kentucky colleagues: “Those folks that represent the tea party are obviously good folks who have a view of government and they are frustrated. A lot of people are frustrated about the economy.”

My reading? It’s not just the economy. Continued dishonesty and self-dealing by politicians even in the midst of the crisis — that’s what’s frustrating.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.