Today is the day for the big Tea Party protest in Atlanta, Albany and many cities. I have good friends deeply involved in this movement to protest the Obama Administra`tion and Congress big spending and massive bailouts. It’s always good to hear the people speak up.
I am a little concerned with the “revolutionary” nature of emulating the “Boston Tea Party” but I don’t think the supporters are equating President Obama to King George III because the next step in the radical process would be similar to the Boston Massacre and eventually Lexington and Concord. Was Obama recently elected legally and wasn’t it clear that heavy spending was in order to recover from the mess he inherited. When bloggers and Talk Radio guys intelligently debate concerns about our fiscal future, we are witnessing democracy in action; a beautiful thing.
But we must be careful about signaling sick-minded individuals who when worked up take unthinkable actions in the name of patriotism. Protest, get mad was hell, and vote out leaders you dislike but don’t provoke open rebellion and the illegal overthrow of the American government. Remember, that many Americans view the southern obsession with the Confederacy as near treason.
Have a health protest and hopefully the elected officials will hear your productive concerns.
http://www.atlantateaparty.net/
http://swgapolitics.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/albany-tea-party/
Project Logic Ga 
Completely agree, and thanks for the mention of SWGA Politics! 🙂
I’m not sure it was clear spending was necessary; I think that is why you see these Tea Parties popping up. Remember, some people voted for McCain and some voted for Barr, etc. Nearly half the voters obviously did not completely agree with spending being the savior.
Not to count the eggs that didn’t hatch, ie: the people who didn’t vote out of distrust of both major candidates.
I don’t think anyone, besides fringe groups, are moving to start a revolution – Tea Party is just a familiar term that draws more people in. Call them Anti-Tax rallies and you get less people.
Should have mentioned that I disagreed with the spending as well, as I DID make it a point to note when responding to your comment at SWGA Politics.
On that note, I tend to side with Ronald.
I do wish they would focus more on the up-country/northern tea parties though. There is always that concern that the South is trying to jolt again.
But you know, I’m just glad the DHS won’t be there writing down names . . . hopefully.
The Tea Parties are more of a ‘protest’ per se for excessive government spending (in general), which started over 100 days ago. I think the masses have reached a ‘tipping point’ thus the reason for these events all over the country. I hope that the young people involved will stay engaged in the political process, continue to pay attention as most of the decisions our politicians are making together directly impact them even more than most of us.
Helen:
You have my word that both SWGA Politics and SWGALP WILL continue to stay active.
In fact, I bet we’ll be butting heads with sly here occassionally, but we look forward to the debate! 🙂
Ron: you know this blog considers you “leader of the new school” and if you say the protest methodology is cool, then it is cool. As I have meationed on this blog in the past, it gets me when people are upset with C and D without acknowledging A and B. While the dramatic (some would say traumatic) step President Bush, President Obama and the Congress are hard to take, I hope these protest include solutions and admission that we were all “asleep at the wheel” for years.
As a congressional staffer, I believe the banking and finance sectors in the 1990s when they pushed for deregulation under the guise of paperwork reduction. Removing the firewall that restricted firms offering loans, insurance and stock products was a mistake.
I hope just hope the protest includes what should have been done and where do we go from here. While I generally like President Obama, those congressional leaders pushed for the Christmas-like spending or “investment” and he owed them politically like Bush and Cheney owed Corporate America. But, I have a feeling that Obama will be heading to the center sooner rather than later.
sly:
Ummm… I’ll believe THAT when I see it.
I hit hard no matter who it is. I question everybody from President Bush to President Obama, from Rep. Gingrey to Rep. Marshall and even Rep. Bishop. Even Jeff has felt my sting at this point.
Part of me hopes you are right about President Obama; I feel moving toward the center is in the best interest of the country – the other part knows he has to do such to remain politically viable, which I am not sure I want.
I think a lot of the Tea Parties will fizzle out soon. That’s natural, but if we look where they can from – the Ron Paul crowd/Campaign for Liberty crowd – I can’t help but think back to 1992. For the record, I was six. But the whole Perot charge followed by the Contract with America and then the Reform Party just seems so reminiscent of what is going on now.
People are tired of irresponsible government. No matter who is in charge – that means better candidates must be found.
I think the spending will hit the limit soon too. I have yet to meet anyone who wasn’t, at heart, a fiscal conservative. They may not know it, but if you ask them if they would like to be in debt they all say no. You just have to wake the people up.
The circa 2009 Tea Parties seem more reactionary than revolutionary.
I wouldn’t worry about fears that the Parties are “Southerner” and therefore bad (eg, sparking memories of the Confereracy, etc). I think this is seen as a national thing.
Here is my problem with the Parties: they are a protest against SOMETHING that offers no solution for ANYTHING.
I can accept that they don’t like spending. But then: what is there solution for the recession? Is the answer to do nothing?
As the blog entry suggests, people elected Obama because he promised to do act aggressively on the economy, and not just sit back and wait for something.
I do have one big problem w/Obama’s communication on his plan. He doesn’t mention tax cuts nearly enough.
The stimulus plan contains one of the biggest tax cuts (the biggest?) in US history. But you never “get” that in Obama’s public discussions.
And there is a reality disconnect in the Tea Parties who are protesting taxes, even as Obama and Congress are cuttting taxes as established by the previous administation/Congress.
Doing nothing is in fact a viable option. Lot’s of people at Tea Parties support alternative Tax plans such as the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax.
To say that no alternative is being presented is poor research.
Ron,
Just to be clear: I see no plan for handling the recession. Obama’s spending plans are designed to deal with the recession; that spending seems to be a major complaint of the Partiers.
Is doing nothing about the recession a viable alternative? I haven’t seen that articulated as a viable option. But of course, if Obama were to do nothing and the economy stays in the doldrums, then Obama would be blamed for doing nothing to fix the economy.
One other thing on taxes. Again: the stimulus plan has one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tax cut in American history.
If the Republicans had made this kind of tax cut, they’d be thumping their chests in a primal pride.
So what are the Parties about? If they’re about taxes… how is it that Obama has made of the biggest tax cut in history, and there is NO discussion of that by the Partiers?
You see, an Economist will tell you that with Capitalism – in the long run – the market will clear. This means the answer to a recession is to, that’s right, do nothing.
Policy Analysis of FDR New Deal programs indicate that the programs had minimal positive effect on the depression, in fact several of them caused things to get worse.
I’m not going to sit here and play patsy for anyone – it’s quite clear you are convinced that only Republicans go to tea Parties. The “chest thumping” line can not be meant any other way. So let’s try this, “all Democrats do is run up the budget deficit.” See, I can make over generalized statements too! Stings huh?
These people are not Republicans, they are fiscal conservatives – people who are tired of the government growing larger and demanding more money from it’s people. That transcends party lines.
You know why those same people could careless about the Obama tax cuts? Are you aware were the Obama tax cuts went? These same people at these parties are angry at George W. Bush for spending. These same people are angry at Clinton, so on and so forth. Your argument is a bucket without a bottom, and holds no water. The Partiers are tired of out of control spending. Explain away that.
Ron: like many Americans, I did not know what was being plan and planners did not know how positive the outcome would be.
As you can see, HBA spoke at the Augusta Tea Party and called me with glowing comments.
Lunch and Ron: I am loving this exchange. That’s what I am talking about; after all that campaign stuff, people are questioning policy rather than waiting for the next election.
Great.
RE: my comment on GOP chest thumping: as a matter of fact, Republicans did proclaim that the Bush tax cuts would be a boon for the economy. (The facts show otherwise.) I absolutely do believe that if McCain had been elected and pushed through the same tax cuts that Obama did, they’d be singing the praise of that loudly to high heaven. So I stand by my remark (even as I admit to the embellishment of it.)
RE: What economists say: as a matter of fact,Keynesian economics do in fact say that “private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and therefore advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle.” Keynesian theory has been accepted, and used by both Democrats and Republicans.
I have seen MANY sources that say that fiscal stimulus was in essential for America to get out of the Depression. This is an issue where it amazes me that the two parties have such disagreement over this.
But here is something that is true: both parties have used Keynesian policy. One of the biggest users was Ronald Reagan. Federal deficits totaled $252 billion under Mr. Carter. By the end of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, federal deficits totalled over 1.4 trillion. Also under Reagan, the national debt nearly tripled, from $1 trillion to $2.9 trillion.
But the economy did improve, thus establishing that government spending in excess of its receipts – Keynesian fiscal policy – can stimulate and improve the economy.
So this is where I ask: Ronald Reagan added almost twice as much to the national debt in 8 years ($1.9 trillion) as was added in over 200 years ($1 trillion when his administration started).
Why no spontaneous outbreaks of Tea Parties for Reagan? A cynic would say it’s because the people who go to Tea Parties tend to be Republicans, like Reagan was. And you know what? I’m a cynic…
Ron,
With my prior comments as a backdrop, let me put my cards on the table. While I have real problems policy wise with the Partiers, I am even more upset by what I see as the unfair and hypocritical timing of their outrage.
It seems to me that when some people do things, there’s no outrage; but the same things, when done by other people, spark intense outrage. Or: positive things that are done by some are applauded, while the same positive things done by others are not even acknowledged.
So yes, I absolutely do believe that these tea parties are, at least in part politically motivated, and not just distaste over taxes and spending.
For example: you say “These same people are angry at Clinton, so on and so forth.” Bill Clinton was the most fiscally responsible president this country has had since the 1980s. His fiscal policy led to budget surpluses; Ronald Reagan did not have any budget surpluses while he was president. Why isn’t Bill Clinton’s fiscal soundness celebrated? Is it because… he’s a Democrat?
You say people were “angry” at Dubya? He inherited the first budget surplus in 20 years, and quickly turned them into budget deficits… why weren’t there spontaneous Tea Parties? Is it because… Bush was Republican?
Meanwhile, Obama passes one of the biggest tax cuts in history, and that fact is totally ignored by Tea Partiers who claim high taxes are a major concern… totally ignored. And you wonder how I can take that seriously?
Even beyond all of that: we haven’t even talked about the fact that a lot (most?) of the money and organization behind the Parties is coming from groups like Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks. So, while I’m sure there are Democrats attending Tea Parties, it is a fact that the GOP has provided a lot of the infrastructure which made these events happen (that and Fox News).
But let’s get this straight: while I’m sure there are Democrats involved, I see no evidence that these are bi-partisan or tri-partisan (Dem-Rep-Ind) gatherings. This is clearly a mostly conservative/Republican phenomenon… wouldn’t you agree?
So yeah: I think the Tea Parties get the economics wrong; I think they are hypocritical in that they criticize Democrat’s behavior while being silent about equivalent Republican behavior; and it obvious that these “spontaneous” outbreaks of representative group of “regular” people are in fact being organized and funded by GOP operatives, with the aid of Fox News; and are not “representative” at all.
But other than that, I’m fine with it.
Damn. Wish I could get this level of discussion going on over at SWGA Politics! Good job sly!
On Keynesian economics in general: A 10 yo can tell you truthfully that you can’t spend your way out of debt. Just because a guy has a PhD and is famous (and dead?) doesn’t change that.
On hypocrisy: ‘Bush did it too’ is not a real defense. Indeed, you’re opening the door WIDE open for ‘third’ parties (really, as you yourself are admitting in such a claim, SECOND parties as there is no difference in the ‘two’ parties right now) with such a claim.
That said, because I happen to be the organizer of SWGALP and soon to be its chair, I thank you for such a stance. Indeed, the LP has NEVER voted for any of this, nor have we ever supported any of it.
The Libertarian Party. THE Party of Principle.
To complain that the Parties never happened before is outlandish. Why did the Boston Tea Party not occur before? The same thing was happening for years?
It’s like a broke faucet outside your house, if you let it drip for long enough you are going to get a puddle, and then a bigger puddle. This is a big puddle.
I will concede to you this – Fox News has taken the Tea Party thing and ran with it. But they did not start organizing them, and the people they brought in are not truly representative of who started the Tea Party phenomenon. Here’s a hint, it wasn’t the GOP. Get your facts straight before you call them facts. I’ve already identified the true source of the Parties, go back and reread.
Let me ask you this, being that you love Keynesian economics so much, if you were 200,000 dollars in debt would you continue to buy expensive items every month or would you manage your budget? I have a sticky feeling you would try and cut down your debt. . .
As far as this claim that Tea Parties had to be happening prior to now for them to not be partisan. What was the 1992 Presidential election but not a mass revolt? What about the 1996 Reform Party Convention? People are waking up, that just bloats the numbers – I’m sorry it happened during Obama’s Administration because apparently you have some sort of die hard, fervent adoration of his Administration.
Let’s talk about this for a minute, you hit a nerve. In 2004 and 2006 MoveOn.org aired commercials asking “Who is going to pay for all of Bush’s spending?”(paraphrasing) Here is that commercial:
Now why are they not asking this question now?
And let me ask this; did you actually go to a Tea Party? Like the one in Leesburg, Eastman, or Eatonton? Not the highly televised ones, but the more grassroots tea Parties. Or are you operating purely off of what you have seen on TV?
Jeff: Ron and Lunch get down like that; both are brains and I am just swimming in their wake.
You might not know that HBA had Monds on her radio show last year. The LP adds something different the arena and that is a good thing.
{ Let’s talk about this for a minute, you hit a nerve. In 2004 and 2006 MoveOn.org aired commercials asking “Who is going to pay for all of Bush’s spending?”(paraphrasing) Here is that commercial:
Now why are they not asking this question now. }
That was a great commercial. Question: Why did it take a progressive organization to run that type of ad during the Bush era? Where was the outrage from the Tea Party demographic then? Is it because the Tea Party demographic is Republican, and they only protest when the “other side” does stuff they don’t like?
RE: The idea of the deficit spending in general and the idea of the ad in particular: you are mixing apples and oranges.
The ad was complaining about deficit spending duirng a period of “relative” economic stability. I think it’s a valid complaint. Indeed, you agree with that complaint,
But we’re now in a time of economic crisis. This is a time when the government SHOULD be spending. It’s that Keynsian economics thing again.
Here’s a problem I have with some of the debate coming from the Tea Partiers. (And it’s hard to have a “debate” with Tea Partiers, because it’s not like there is one single comprehensive public policy “initiative” or “plan” that speaks for all Tea Partiers… unless you want to say that the Tea Party plan = the GOP plan.)
Thr thing is this. It seems like (at least some) Tea Partiers are dismissing the idea of deficit spending out of hand (now that a Democrat is president). And in fact, no less than President Obama himself has stated that budget deficits are a grave threat to the long term prospects for this country.
But it is also true that deficit spending/fiscal stimulus is a WIDELY ACCEPTED (AND GLOBALLY EMPLOYED) method of dealing with economic crisis.
If the Tea Party people want to argue that maybe we don’t have a sufficiently large economic crisis, or that the use of fiscal stimulus is not appropriate in this case, or make some other SITUATION SPECIFIC comments on the President’s/Congress’ spending plan, it’d be interested in hearing that.
But the message I’m getting is, they’re against deficits, period. For fear of seeming like an educated elitist, I find that position unsophisticated, overly simplisitc, and difficult to take seriously.
I would add: on the left, the argument is not that there is a need for a stimulus/deficit spending program. The argument on the left is that the stimulus isn’t big enough(!), and that another round of stimulus spending will be needed before the recession ends.
So I gues this isn’t the end of Tea Parties.
Let me ask you this, being that you love Keynesian economics so much, if you were 200,000 dollars in debt would you continue to buy expensive items every month or would you manage your budget? I have a sticky feeling you would try and cut down your debt. . .
These comments boxes are not the best way to discuss economics… there are people who right doctoral theses about this stuff. But I do want to at least try to give a brief answer. This will be my last… I now have comment fatigue.
The example you gave exactly why governments turn to deficit spending/fiscal stimulus in a time of economic troubles.
Ina recession, people spend less, money. More people are unemployed, so their spending is sharply curtailed. And even people with jobs will spend less and save more. And in fact, recent reports indicate that the savings rate has climbed in the past few months.
If people stop buying clothes, sales at the clothing store go down. As the sales go down, the clothing store fires workers. As a result, those ex-workers have less to spend, which places the stores in more trouble.
It’s a vicious cycle that affects clothing stores, restaurants, construction companies, etc, etc.
This is why governments use deficit spending during times of recession. By spending more, money goes into the economy. The spending leads to more business profits and more hiring.
And the happy ending is that the traumatic effect of the recession is MUTED until the recovery comes. (Note that, the idea is to lessen the harm of the recession, not cause a recovery in and of itself.)
Note that, these are the exact same arguments made by Obama during his economic speech on April 15th… the day of the Tea Parties. James Fallows discusses the speech here:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/04/an_impressive_piece_of_explana_1.php
I don’t expect anyone to be convinced of the value of deficit spending during a recession, just because I say so in a blog comment.
But I am saying there is a logic to this, that maybe people don’t see because they are inflexibly (is that a word?) wedded to the idea that any and all deficits are bad.
Once again, did you go to a Tea Party or is your view based primarily off media coverage.
Let’s rewind back a few months, and reexamine the Ron Paul campaign – where the Tea Parties originated from – it’s quite clear that these people are not the biggest fan of Kensyian economics, but also they were very much anti-Bush. I think you are going to have a hard time proving to me that the Campaign for Liberty folk who spawned these Tea Parties did not take a stance against Bush and the ruling GOP.
Let me tell you what was talked about at my hometown Tea Party – government that had grown too large, the promotion of fiscal irresponsibility by the government, decreasing the tax burden and using tax money more reasonably, and alternative tax systems.
If you look around ,this is the type of things that were talked about at the non-televised Tea Parties. This blog’s own hba even reported a civil discussion at the Augusta event.
Now – I will concede to you that many people who flocked to these events may not share the same core values as the original founders of these events. But the anti-deficit position is far more complicated that what you are picking up. It goes back to the role of the Treasury in creating money, as when money is printed it is created out of debt. Furthermore, we are not simply talking about deficit spending – we are talking about extreme deficit spending. We are in debt to our necks, and it will strangle us. There have been many economists who have posited that our debt has caused this situation.
You consider yourself an educated person, and therefore you already know that Keynesian economics are not excepted by everyone. I tend to avoid such debates as it is pointless for me to try and prove a point, when economists have been debating this for years. I wouldn’t be so bold to do such.
If you want to boil this down to simply partisan divide, that’s fine too. We can keep up this circle of blame all day long, all week long, and all year long. Where does it get us? With you still saying Republicans don’t attack Republicans and me saying Democrats don’t attack Democrats. And I will tell you who benefits from that, politicians who do not give a crap about our country nor it’s people. Blur the issues by making it a D vs. R thing if you want. You are going to have a hard time pinning that on me, a registered Republican, who has attacked Bush and other Republicans for many years now. Who, just as recently as last week, praised a Democratic Congressman that I opposed in the last election.
Now let’s talk about those “Stop the War” protesters, where are they now? /sarcasm