And now the angst of Tea Party Politics

The Rally
I attended the Macon (GA) Tea Party during lunch this past Wednesday. It was unclear who organized it, and which organization(s) were behind it, but being loosely billed as a tax protest I felt obligated to show my support.

It was already being labeled in the media as an astroturf campaign organized by billionaires to create the illusion of a grassroots movement against government spending and taxes. Since I participated in several past "tea party" actions during the Ron Paul presidential campaign, and was aware of CNBC's Rick Santelli's impromtu call for a protest against the bailouts and how motivating that was to the libertarian/liberty groups I occasionally frequent, I assumed the media branding was more propaganda than actual truth.

There were about 300 people present when I got there, and about half of them had all sorts of clever signs that mostly reflected an anti-tax, anti-government sentiment. Signs ran the gamut from "Don't Tread on Me" to "T(axed) E(nough) A(lready) Party" to "Don't Share My Wealth, Share My Work Ethic" to "Pass the Fair Tax." I walked around and through the crowd several times trying to read all of them while hoping to recognize friends I'd met through the Ron Paul campaign. I only encountered three or four that I knew, but it was pointed out to me several others who were also involved.

I read somewhere that the state libertarian party was behind at least some of these rallies, and was aware that Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty supporters were enthusiastic about them also, but still was not sure who/what was really behind this one. Local talk radio personality Chris Krok assumed credit for organizing the event, but one of the speakers tried to attribute the organization "Americans for Prosperity" as the event organizer, and instructed people to sign up with the volunteer making her way through the crowd. Since I consider the DC-based AFP to be more concerned with redirecting government resources toward big business rather than reducing the size of government and spending, this Tea Party's significance suddenly began to wane.

I started to realize that this grassroots effort was in the process of being hijacked by those whose agenda was not entirely in sync with the crowd's. This assessment became even more pronounced when the participating elected officials began to hoist "socialist/fascist Obama" above the crowd as the single unifying target toward which all our anger should be channeled.

Prior to handing the mic over to some of the elected officials, a few regular folks made speeches that were right on point. Their speeches were focused on genuine conservative issues that included shrinking the size of government, reducing both taxes and spending, restoring freedom and returning to the principles of our country's founders (but alas no mention whatsoever of the insidious inflation tax). However, these speakers had the gall to suggest that we hold our representatives accountable by voting them out of office when their votes violate these principles (ie. the bailouts), be they democrats or republicans. And the crowd seemed to receive these remarks with enthusiasm.

But as one elected official after another took the mic, the rally shifted from its original anti-tax tenor to the primal anti-Obama (and by extension anti-liberal) rage. I commented to a friend that the rally was starting to sound more like an attempt to reinvigorate the GOP than to address the issue of taxation. A stranger overheard me and turned around to say that's correct, that's what we're trying to do. I asked him what about the tax issue, and he said they talked about the Fair Tax a few minutes ago. I just rolled my eyes and sauntered on, trying to come up with a concise rebuttal that explains how horrible the Fair Tax is and how it's designed to keep the government as corrupt and well-fed as it is now, in case the opportunity comes up again in the next few minutes.

By this time I'm no more hopeful that we'll accomplish any significant reductions in the government's size, spending or modes of taxation than before the rally started. This event had truly been overtaken by establishment party members and their accomplices intent only on deflecting all accountability and protecting the status quo.

In retrospect, I wish I'd had the guts to ask for the mic for two seconds and thank everyone for being here and especially the speakers who remained on point, turn to the crowd and empower them with their first assignment as a participant of this tea party movement: charge them with the task to impose accountability on our representatives by firing every representative who voted for any of the bailouts, and rally them as an army who's got Congress in its sights. "We're coming after you, Congress! If you voted for TARP I, TARP II, The Stimulus, the Auto Bailouts, then you're fired! Accountability starts right here, right now!" Sigh.. the good stuff always happens in retrospect.


The Groups
So "Americans for Prosperity" has gotten its tentacles into the movement; how deeply or irreversibly remains to be seen. Browsing around the web to grasp the magnitude of the event nationwide, I ran across these tidbits that only convolute the whole thing into a heaping pile of mess.

1. The libertarians have held tax-day anti-tax rallies for years, before Ron Paul's latest presidential campaign, though they weren't called Tea Parties. The libertarians are rightfully feeling a little bitter over the lack of attribution for this event, with not even an utterance of the word "libertarian" in any of the national media coverage. Thankfully, one tv station included a few words from local libertarian icon David Corr castigating the GOP for taking over and explaining the anti-tax rally origins.

National media coverage: what a joke! ... more on that later.

2. Apparently the "T(axed) E(nough) A(lready) Party" slogan is the brainchild of the American Family Association, whose theocratic extremist agenda includes more government control over all aspects of our lives, and is one of the main reasons the GOP has fallen out of favor with the masses. Come to find out the AFA, in concert with globalist Newt Gingrich and his American Solutions organization, are one of the leading sponsors of this event, which jades the movement even more. And it saddens me that I saw at least 20-30 Taxed Enough Already signs at the rally.

3. FOX News heavily promoted this event, which should give us pause to consider whether the perceived intent of the participants far and wide is genuine, since FNC's one notable consistency is its commitment to run interference for any criticism of the GOP. However, I've come to the conclusion that alot of the criticism from the left over Fox's coverage of these rallies is actually rooted in jealousy.

Over the last decade, the left held numerous nationally-coordinated rallies designed to draw attention to everything from human rights violations of corporations to the largely ignored anti-war sentiment felt across the country. But they never had the aid of a national broadcast network to bring these events into people's living rooms like they'd hoped would occur. So the mere fact that Fox promoted, and then spent ample time covering, these rallies makes them just a little upset. I think the word for that is butthurt, lol.

The Solution
My solution to preventing Newt, et al from being successful in their attempts to ride our angst back into power is to faithfully adhere to the accountability pledge, with only one condition placed on the leading challengers: no former congressmen allowed. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Newt.

"I vow to support the leading challenger of every congressman and senator who voted "yes" on any of the bailouts, regardless of his/her party affiliation, and will continue to do so until the last one of the big spenders has been FIRED."

How about you?

--

Bargains for taxes

The author of this opinion piece attempts to itemize the private sector costs for all the goods and services provided by his local and state government and concludes that the services he receives from the government are a bargain at the prices he's paying through taxes.

Several commenters to that piece pointed out various fallacies in his arguments, including his false belief that his total tax bill is only $9,000. He failed to calculate his true tax burden comprised of hidden taxes and fees tacked onto just about in every aspect of his life, ie. fuel taxes, tolls, license, franchise, travel and accommodation fees, etc.

But one of the biggest flaws in his argument is the comparison of services provided by the government vs. those available through the private sector. For instance, he estimates that a private security guard would cost him the guard's full wages for 24/7 protection, without acknowledging that he doesn't have 24/7 protection, nor a 1:1 officer-citizen ratio now under his tax-funded sheriff's department.

Furthermore, since the vast majority of the public summon law enforcement for assistance after incidents have occurred, whether it's a burglary or an auto accident, their "protection" against these incidents is non-existent. These law enforcement first responders on the scene primarily serve to establish an official record of the incident to be used by others (insurance companies, traffic court, investigative units of the police department, etc).

You could achieve very much the same response from a private security company who would be notified immediately via whatever electronic security system you've contracted to have with them. Now what happens when you decide that these private security personnel serve your needs perfectly with superior response times, cordial treatment throughout any ordeal, and full cooperation from them when your time in court rolls around? You're essentially closer to having your own personal body guard with only your interests in mind with a private security firm than you are with a stranger dispatched from your sheriff's department who hasn't the faintest idea what kind of life you live or any other background on the situation to which he's called to respond.

And you are still required by law to fund this public sector security system with your taxes even if you choose never to use them. Why should you be forced to fund an inferior system while also paying for the quality service you've chosen to contract with?

Suppose the author lives in a gated community with its own security personnel. His security costs are incorporated into his mortgage, home owners association fees or his rent, but he still pays taxes for public security while receiving no services from them at all. This is ludicrous.

I'm not an advocate of "privatization" in the sense that people still pay taxes to the government and the government contracts with individual private firms to provide services exclusively. That kind of system is more fascist than anything. I do strongly advocate free market choices, provided the choices to opt out of one service in lieu of another are maintained across the board.

Let's say a new company moves in that has an innovative way to process household garbage such that landfills are not necessary, and begins offering pickup services at reasonable rates. When comparing these rates to the available public sector service, it is important to take into account secondary costs such as landfill management and runoff control. Would you then choose to pay $200 a year freely to this company if indeed their rates were much lower taking into account the secondary costs of standard public waste services? Would you pay it while still paying taxes for the public waste services? If you choose to use the innovative company, or another one who has an even better way to manage trash, why should you be forced to pay for both by virtue of forced taxation?

In a free market approach with a truly competitive environment, private companies have to earn your trust, and then keep it by providing exceptional services or risk losing your business to the competition. This is the ultimate efficiency mechanism that keeps service quality high and prices low. Contrast that with public sector service personnel who get paid regardless of job performance. Where is their incentive to treat you with respect by providing prompt friendly service while keeping your costs low? There is none. Zero. Zilch. In fact governments have more incentives to fail because it is government's nature to throw more tax money into problems that never seem to go away. Take the war on poverty for example. We're the wealthiest nation in the world with untold billions of dollars at our government's disposal and yet poverty continues to grow. It's a vicious cycle that constantly repeats: we have more people in poverty so we need more government money to address it. Failure is almost always rewarded with more funding. There is absolutely no incentive for government to actually succeed in eliminating any problem in society.