Tea Party Patriots

Years ago I learned of groups all over our great nation who were organizing Tea Parties on April 15th to protest income taxes. I hated taxes and I thought it was a great idea. I used to talk about doing one of my own, but like many things in life it turned out to be one of those things I guess I didn’t really care enough to do.

Several years have past since then and my opinions have changed a bit. I still hate paying taxes and I still think the market is the best place for ideas to win or lose. I’ve learned a great deal, however, about the responsibility one citizen has to help his fellow citizens. I’ve spent time reading the writings of our nation’s founders and I’ve learned a couple of things. One, some of them were more liberal than your conservative friends would like you to believe. Two, sometimes their ideas were just plain wrong. I think many of us like to take an idealized view of these men but we must remind ourselves that they fought about the issues for a reason – they were not right about everything.

The evolution of my thinking on these matters has led me to the point where I am surprised by movements like The Tea Party Patriots. According to their website, they hold three core values – Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. As I’ve written many times, I believe in all of these things. My problem with this movement is the extreme to which they carry these points and the emphasis on financial concerns. I’ll discuss each of the core values separately.

Fiscal Responsibility

Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

I’ll admit that I agree with much of this one, but the first sentence really gets me. They start with an assumption that is incorrect – two actually. One, that any individual has the freedom to do with her money what she wants. I disagree. The other, that the government should honor and respect that freedom. If such a freedom existed, I’d agree wholeheartedly.

Why do so many of us believe that we have the right to control something simply because we earned it, created it or have some other claim to ownership? This reminds me so much of the two year old who continually screams “Mine!” Do we not have a responsibility to use our wealth in a way that benefits others? Am I really free to do with my possessions as I wish?

I guess the point is that no other person has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my property. I agree, but that doesn’t mean I can do what I want. The question, then, is whether a government “of the people and by the people” has the authority to tell me what I can and cannot do. Like any good libertarian, I would argue that the government does not have the right to restrain my freedom except to protect the freedom of another individual or group of individuals. Much of the poverty we see around us is most certainly caused by a callous disregard for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. If _we_ don’t watch out for others, who will?

Constitutionally Limited Government

We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states’ rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Once again, I have no issue with the substance of anything but the first sentence – which I’ll get to in a moment. Where I would disagree is in the application. I think the Constitution grants more power to the federal government than members of this movement would admit. My assumption is that they interpret this phrase – “those powers not expressly stated” – much more strictly than I would or than was intended. Before you get all “English teacher” on me, I know what expressly means. My argument is not with that word. In my opinion, Section 9 and Section 10 of Article I expressly grant the power to enact quite a bit of legislation – even though the specifics of that legislation is not expressly stated.

Now for a look at the first sentence. Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land? Yes and No. Yes, it is the final authority in matters of law. No, it is not the final authority on all matters. This, in fact, is why it is necessary to amend it from time to time. We must be careful not to hold the Constitution in such high regard that we neglect the importance of natural law and the rights of the individual. The U.S. Constitution is a wonderful document precisely because it helps gaurantee our rights as individuals. It is easy to assume that those rights are granted to us by the Constitution. It may grant us some rights, but other rights were ours before the Constitution was drafted.

Free Markets

A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government’s interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

This is a matter of great sadness for me. I believe in the power of the free market. Always have, always will. The operative word, however, is FREE. Our current economic system is very far from free in many regards.

I can hear the Tea Party Patriots yelling now. “That’s right. That is precisely what we want to see changed.” Okay, I hear you and I agree. Our current system may be broken but let’s not assume the answer is the unfettered permission to do as we please. This is a common misconception of freedom and it all seems to be rooted in the first sentence of the first core value – I have a right to do with my possessions as I see fit. This is simply not the case. In many cases the actions I take have a negative impact on the freedom of others. This is why we don’t allow businesses to behave in certain ways.

So What?

I was drawn to this topic today because of the reading I’ve been doing about the health care reform that was signed into law yesterday. If you’d asked me 15 years ago I would have been very much against this proposal. Today, I may not agree with everything proposed by the new legislation but I am happy something is happening. As a society we have turned a blind eye to policies which are not fair to all citizens while they pretend to be conservative and based on free enterprise.

Like I’ve written and said many times – if the government is going to tax us and dictate policy, it is about time they begin to pass legislation that is fair. I know this proposal is far from perfect. I’m confused, for example, why it still involves employers in the equation. I’m sure I’ll have something more to write about that.

March 24, 2010 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

Daily Links

February 12, 2009 | Filed Under Links | Comments 

Daily Links

January 23, 2009 | Filed Under Links | Comments 

The Corporatocracy

When I first picked up Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,I found myself having a hard time believing the story being told. It certainly read much more like a work of fiction. It is a story of the American Empire and the quest to protect U.S. interests at all costs – even in the face of dire consequences for much poorer nations.

A point the author tries to make – and I think many readers miss – is that there is not some sinister, back-room conspiracy at work in all of this. America is run by what the author calls the “corporatocracy” (a government dominated by corporate influence, banks, and governments). He writes:

corporations, banks, and governments (collectively the corporatocracy)

It is an eye opening read. While I do believe some of the author’s tales seem contrived and hard to believe, I have no reason to doubt the legitimacy of his overall claim. There have been many other books written about this subject and I think many people assume that the U.S. government does not always have the interests of the weak in mind. Very few doubt that any government should look out for its own interests, but it is not necessary to prey on the weak in order to make the strong stronger.

This book also reminded me that most of us operate following a misconception that human progress can be measured in strictly economic terms. We speak of poorer countries as being “underdeveloped” as if they are somehow inferior in every way because they do not produce as much as we. It seems to always be about production – for the sole purpose of more consumption. Perhaps we should look at the world through a different lens.

If you’d like an intriguing, fast-paced read that makes you question your old assumptions, you should pick up this book. If you need a “just the facts” approach, you may want to look for another.

January 22, 2009 | Filed Under Books, Reviews | Comments 

Daily Links

January 22, 2009 | Filed Under Links | Comments 

Obama’s First 100 Days

Since FDR, it is common for Americans to judge a president’s effectiveness based on his productivity over the first one-hundred days of his presidency. It’s interesting to note that the “100 days” of FDR were actually not the first one-hundred days of his presidency but the first one-hundred day session of Congress. Congress was convened on March 9, 1933 – five days after the inauguration, and they adjourned on June 16, 1933 – 100 days later. This period of time was the most productive in American legislative history.

I think most Americans understand that it is unfair to judge a President based on what he can accomplish in less than 7% of his term – and at the beginning of it – yet we all still seem fascinated by this arbitrary measure of productivity. There are websites where one can see the progress other presidents made and others that will track President Obama’s progress (here and here) and still others with lots of advice for our new President.

Businessweek has advice on how to be productive in the first one-hundred days and the Washington Post warns that Obama should not make the same mistakes Clinton made.

As official Washington turns its attention from the transition to Obama’s plans for the first 100 days, Clinton’s difficult experience in his own first 100 days can again serve as a cautionary tale for Obama.

Clinton sought to move on a number of major policy fronts — an economic stimulus package, an overhaul of the health care system led by Hillary Clinton — that were eventually abandoned, and was buffeted by unforeseen controversies (gays in the military/”don’t ask, don’t tell”) and unpredictable events (the Branch Davidian stand-off in Waco, Texas).

“I think there was a great deal of exuberance by the president in terms of what he’d be able to accomplish immediately, and, no, he couldn’t match it all,” said Democratic pollster Peter Hart of Bill Clinton in the spring of 1993.
Obama’s First 100

So, what should Barack Obama do in his first one-hundred days?

Scientific American says

Energy security is the greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity of our time. But lack of action has put the U.S. at risk. America needs a bold plan that ignites our collective imagination, sparks innovation, and creates economic and national security. The starting point? A call to action from our new president in the first 100 days of his administration.
Obama’s First 100 Days

and it is clear that many others care about peace and the environment.

I think most people believe that the biggest challenge we face at this point is the economy. Commenters on the WP piece seem to agree that the economy is most pressing (followed by Isreal, and energy). Gerald F. Seib, Executive Washington Editor at the Wall Street Journal says that the top five items on the to-do list are economy, economy, economy, economy, and economy. This guy says the top issue is the economy (followed by Guantanamo, the Middle East, energy, and healthcare) and one of his commenters points out the following:

Barring any event of the magnitude of 9/11 or something approaching it, the bread and butter issue of American politics is, as it’s always been, the price of bread and butter.
link

and others agree

Though presidential historians say it’s an arbitrary Рand in some ways unfair Рmeasurement, they say Obama’s early actions will set the tone for his administration and establish his priorities and leadership style.

“It’s an unreasonable expectation that we put on all our presidents, just because it worked that way in 1933 for FDR. They shouldn’t be held to that” said Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked for several presidents.

Obama’s advisers and outside observers say it is clear that fixing the economy and creating jobs will dominate his agenda in the early days, just as it did Roosevelt’s.
Shades of FDR

Alan Murray, Deputy Managing Editor at the Wall Street Journal, says that even though President Obama faces “a significant number of foreign policy problems” (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East) of which any one could hijack the President’s agenda, the economy is the biggest issue “bar none” and that the stimulus plan he pushes through Congress will “probably be the defining product of his presidency.” In a video preview of the next one-hundred days, he says that Obama will be considered successful if he can recover the economy and tackle just one more of the important issues on his agenda. Another commentator in the same video reminds us, though, that every day spent on the “short term agenda” is a day not spent on healthcare, climate change, or taxes.

President Obama’s campaign website has a list of issues that also puts the economy at the top, though the list is actually in alphabetical order. :)

The President himself had this to say:

“The first hundred days is going to be important, but it‚Äôs probably going to be more like the first thousand days that makes a difference” he told a Colorado radio station in an interview shortly before Election Day. “Most of the big challenges that we face, whether it’s making college more affordable, or fixing our health care system so it works for everybody, or making sure that we’ve got a serious energy strategy, or winding down the war in Iraq, all those things are probably going to take longer than three months to complete.”
Shades of FDR

Actually, I am not sure I’d agree that the economy should be the point of focus over the next one-hundred days. I must admit that I feel a certain sense of unease at the present state of our economy but I am in a different position than most – I have very little debt and 80% of my income comes from recession resistant sources. I’d like to think that my opinion would be the same even if that were not the case. Our economy has thrived for years on over-consumption and that has led us to this point. In order to solve our environmental problems and improve our stature in the world, we need to cut back on our consumption. I think a sluggish economy is a necessary evil and I am not sure we need to jump in and save it.

That being said, I believe that something must be done to help those who desperately need to survive during these hard economic times. My biggest concern, and the number one reason I voted for President Obama, is social injustice in the world. There are many in our own country who cannot afford to put food on the table and that ought not to be so in a place like this.

So, I guess in a sense it all comes back to economic concerns again.

What do you think?

January 21, 2009 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

Daily Links

January 21, 2009 | Filed Under Links | Comments 

The Time for Change Has Come

As I mentioned yesterday, I’ve waited a long time for this day.

There is no need to focus on all the things I didn’t like about our previous president – others have done that well. It’s time to focus on the positive things that can happen now.

I have no illusions that all we be well in America now, nor do I believe President Obama will do things as well as he should. In fact, I fully expect him to make decisions with which I do not agree. Nonetheless, I expect the next four years to bring about significant changes to our way of life in this country.

There are many who wish him harm, pray that he fails, or look to the future with paranoia and fear; but I’d argue that even those who disagree with his policy should hope for the best. Like our President said yesterday and at other times, “there is no such thing as false hope.” We should all hope and pray for our great country and our new leader.

We should also not forget the significance of his election to power as an African American. We can not all be free until we are all free. The fact that these two men can stand on the platform together is a testament to how far we’ve come.

January 20, 2009 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

Bid to give Bush the boot

“Therefore, the voters of the town of Newfane ask that our representative to the U.S. House of Representatives file articles of impeachment to remove him from office.”All in favour?: 129. All opposed?: 21. Meeting adjourned.Bid to give Bush the boot

Wow!Thanks to Fountainhead: Bid to give Bush the boot

March 12, 2006 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

Economic Hit Man

I’ve joined a book club.

I figured that since I never have anything to do, I would sign up. :)

Anyway, our first book is Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and I have found it fascinating. While the details in the book are not really a surprise to me (I’ve assumed this kind of thing was happening), it does seem a little hard to believe the way the story unfolds.

I will get back to you when I am finished.

February 18, 2006 | Filed Under Books, Fun | Comments 

Religion and Politics

Should churches discipline members because of their politics?Actually, I am inclined to agree with Albert Mohler on this. Churches probably should draw the lines in extreme cases like with Hitler.Of course, we all know Hitler was more like a republican than a democrat.Interesting.

November 13, 2005 | Filed Under Faith, Freedom | Comments 

Harriet Miers

A lot of people have a lot to say about the nomination of Harriet Miers.George Will doesn’t like her because she is a woman. We can dismiss his opinion as what one would expect from someone with his view of women.Many have raised issue with her involvement in her evangelical church, including a few writers at The Washington Post and The New York Times. David Kuo, a former White House staffer, likes her and points out that her involvement with her church is a good thing. Her church membership indicates character and “character matters,” according to Kuo.Reading all of this just makes it more and more clear to me that her qualifications, experience and mastery of the law will make her a good justice (or a bad one). Her involvement in her church may make her a bad justice, but maybe it makes her a good justice. We simply do not know. We do know, however, that qualified lawyers with experience and good mastery of the law usually make good judges. Seems very simple to me.Of course, we all know the question is really about abortion. Many people feel that her involvement with a church that is vocally pro-life will influence her interpretation of the law. The fact that she will not answer questions about how she would rule in a case seems to concern many. The fact that many people feel as though she should ‘tip her hand’ indicates that they do not understand how decisions are supposed to be made in court, which incidentally points out how poorly they would do as judges. Making a decision on a case without the benefits of the facts is bad judgement, plain and simple. I don’t want a justice who knows how she would rule on a case ahead of time. Do You?In the midst of all this confusion many fail to realize that being a Christian, evangelical, or even a pro-lifer does not mean you would overturn Roe. Justice Nathan Hecht, a member of the Texas Supreme Court and a close friend of Miers (‘on-again, off-again boyfriend’ according to the Washington Post) who describes Miers as ‘pro-life’, said this:

You can be just as pro-life as the day is long and can decide the Constitution requires Roe to be upheld

Absolutely.

October 26, 2005 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

Miers Focused on Policy

Everything I read convinces me she is a good lawyer, and will probably make a good judge.

“She appeared to have an innate sense of fairness,” recalled lawyer Sam Baxter, who lost the Microsoft case to Miers. “She was not doctrinaire.”from the Washington Post – As a Lawyer, Miers Focused on Policy

I found one paragraph of the Post article particularly interesting:

Her one foray into the controversial social subjects that can animate the high court was her work as a member of the ABA to get the organization to withdraw its official support for abortion rights. Her colleagues said that stemmed from her belief that the national association of lawyers should not take a stance on abortion and other issues that are matters of personal conscience.

I have nothing here to go on except her colleagues opinion of her intentions. If this is her opinion on the matter, I agree. Certainly, lawyers should not take such a stand. Judges, on the other hand, should support abortion rights for the same reason – it is a matter of personal conscience.

October 14, 2005 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

Not what the lawyers will allow, but what the public deserves

President Bush promised to give us what we deserve.I guess now we know what he thinks of us, don’t we.Scandals Take Toll On Bush’s 2nd TermGreat quotes from the article:

“It looks like a perfect storm,” said Joseph E. diGenova, a Republican and former independent counsel, who noted that so many investigations can weigh on an administration. “People have no idea what happens when an investigation gets underway. It’s debilitating. It’s not just distracting. It’s debilitating. It’s like getting punched in the stomach.”

“The one that people are most worried about is Abramoff because it seems to have such long tentacles,”

“The Abramoff thing is a lingering nuisance to everybody,” said GOP lobbyist Charles Black. “I don’t know who else might be caught up in it.”

and my favorite:

The current atmosphere is not what Bush envisioned as a candidate in 2000.

Speaking of Abramoff. I think I remember him.

October 14, 2005 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

Covert Propaganda!

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated “covert propaganda” in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.

What next?Buying of News by Bush’s Aides Is Ruled Illegal – New York TimesIn a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated “covert propaganda” in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.

October 11, 2005 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

The Electoral College

I’ve always been a supporter of the electoral college. Probably because I understand the founders’ intent. Maybe it, like other good ideas, is no longer a useful thing. Perhaps it does more damage than good. For 16 of the 21 years I’ve been voting age, I’ve lived in states where I felt as though my vote would not count one bit. That’s not right, is it?This is one of those topics I would love to post more about, but probably won’t. Chris Bowers and Ruy Teixeira provide some good analysis of a study on the subject. See also Chris’ interesting partisan index chart.

August 11, 2005 | Filed Under Freedom | Comments 

Am I the only one?

Just finished watching a piece on ABC’s NightLine about lobbyists Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlone. Abramoff was paid millions of dollars by one native american tribe to protect its interests in DC. He used some of that money to hire Ralph Reed to stop a native american casino in Texas. Then when the casino was shut down, he moves in at the last minute to offer his ’services’ to them.Am I the only one who thinks this a classic technique of organized crime? This is despicable.Follow the story at Indianz.com

June 22, 2005 | Filed Under Faith, Freedom | Comments