tea party

I am not a member of the Tea Party movement, but am a curious observer, and I am sympathetic to the original objective of reigning in government spending. However, I am pessimistic that the movement will achieve this for three reasons.*

#1 Hijacking of the Tea Party

I cringe at the idea of Sarah Palin being the self-anointed voice of the Tea Party. I see (saw) the Tea Party movement as a revival of classical liberal ideas, or at least of limited government. But now I hear anti-immigration and standard social conservative rhetoric. Consequently, they’re crowing out the original objective of controlling government spending — by taking our eye off the ball.

#2 Many Don’t Want to Really Control Government Spending

Politicians in states involved in defense manufacturing won’t want to cut defense spending. States with many retirees won’t want to cut Social Security or Medicare. States with high poverty rates won’t want to cut unemployment benefits and Medicaid. Everyone has their own pet project that and they won’t agree to cut a bit for one reason: they won’t be re-elected. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Lesson learned: don’t create programs that promise people they can consume more than they can produce.

#3 Politicians’ Incentives are Not Aligned with the Nations Interests

This is a systematic problem. Two-year and six-year terms and a lack of term limits means that what matters is the number of days before the nearest election, not the next two to six decades. Each problem (such as Social Security and Medicare) doesn’t have to be worried about until it’s a problem, i.e. until it reaches a boiling point and we are left with two bad options: monetize the debt or default on it. Our fiscal ship is heading full steam for the iceberg.

The ultimate issue is that the status quo is really hard to break. It’s difficult until forces outside our control break it. The improperly aligned incentives mentioned above make perilous procrastination inevitable. I hope that the Tea Party movement will succeed, but realistically I just don’t see it happening. I think we can only bet on technology and innovation from the business sector to overcome politicians’ mismanagement during the past 80 years. I fear that it may not be enough.

*I’m sure this article will make provoke some ire. I more than welcome comments that will convince me I’m wrong — indeed I really hope so.

Illinois officials missed the deadline to mail ballots to U.S. troops overseas, but they hand-delivered ballots to inmates, without even waiting for inmates to apply.

Perhaps this discrimination can be explained by the fact that inmates vote mostly for liberal candidates, while soldiers vote predominantly for conservative candidates.

There are federal laws requiring states to send ballots in a timely fashion to troops overseas, but the Obama administration is not enforcing them, as part of its ongoing politicization of the Justice Department (such as rubberstamping unconstitutional legislative proposals, and downplaying of voter intimidation by liberal activists, while investigating Tea Party pollwatchers who uncovered rampant voter registration fraud in Houston).

Meanwhile, Virginia Congressman Jim Moran (D) has dismissed his opponent, a retired colonel who served in the military for 24 years, saying that he has not “served or performed in any kind of public service,” and had simply “taken a government check.”  (Moran himself has collected a government paycheck for many decades, first as a state official, and then, for the last 28 years, as a congressman.)

Richard Morrison and Jeremy Lott welcome Reason magazine Senior Editor Michael Moynihan to Episode 93 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We take on the high-profile congressional primaries, Chuck Schumer’s hypocritical stance on privacy, the fight for wine liberation in New York, passing the buck on debit card fees and we embark on a Tea Party Euro Trip.

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott, Marc Scribner and Lee Doren bring you Episode 89 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We chew over sin taxes, enviro attacks on Al Gore, free booze, Eric Massa’s $40,000 payoff and the recent Tax Day Tea Party protests in D.C.

In Cato’s blog today Roger Pilon takes up the Democratic left’s broad characterization of Tea Party protestors as unruly and misguided because of the taunts of a few reacting to Sunday’s health care vote. Pilon’s main points are three: (1) Pundits are making claims about some protestors’ actions in certain cases without a “shred of evidence”;  (2) even if the allegations are true, the whole Tea Party movement shouldn’t be condemned for the actions of a few; (3) and Pilon’s ending point:

“The symbolism of the Democratic left’s hostility to the ‘tea baggers’ should not go unnoticed.  The tea party movement’s roots are in the American Revolution.  These ordinary Americans are protesting the Washington ’Establishment’ – which presently is the Democratic juggernaut - much as American Patriots were protesting the oppressive British Establishment that was ‘eating out their substance’ with ‘a long train of abuses and usurpations.’  The Democratic left should think long and hard about those parallels.  The times they are a-changin’.”

I’ll second that and also offer some observations of the Democratic lefts’ behavior that was found wanting on a much larger scale.  Remember Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, with some in the liberal media overcome by emotion as they watched the huge crowds hailing the incoming president?  Was I (no fan of the Bush Administration) the only one discomfited by the crescendo of boos and cat-calls that greeted President Bush and Vice President Cheney (in a wheelchair) as they took their places for the swearing-in of President Obama?  Using the logic of the Tea Party critics, one could say that those hundreds of thousands showing such disrespect tainted all the Obama supporters as a boorish, mean-spirited mob.  But one wouldn’t say that, of course, if one were in sympathy with their sentiments or if one realized that those were individuals acting independently or if one believed in free speech.

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott and Marc Scribner collaborate to bring you Episode 83 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We cover the ever-growing deficit, the Reagan legacy, Cablevision v. ABC, the RNC’s fundraising strategy and David Paterson on scandal watch.

“The Tea Party is still taking shape,” says the front page headline in today’s Washington Post. The Post is a liberal paper, but that sounds like a fair headline. The story may or may not be fair, but there were some quotes in there that if representative are worrying.

Thus Jim Linn, an electrical engineer from San Diego, allegedly told the reporter that, in her paraphrasation, “the Constitution must be interpreted in ways that match his understanding of the Founders’ intent. That would mean scrapping a lot of the amendments, he acknowledges, but not Nos. 2, 10, 16 and 17.”

Of course, the Founders enacted all ten of the first Amendments as the Bill of Rights. That includes Nos. 1 and 3-9. But it’s possible those were just his favorites. It’s also entirely possible that the Post reported played the old game of interviewing tons of people and just quoting the most outlandish ones. Let’s just hope this fellow isn’t representative.

More worrying was this regarding former U.S. representative Tom Tancredo (Colo.), who ran for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. “When Tancredo said, ‘His name is Barack Hussein Obama,’ the audience booed loudly.”

Let’s be clear on this. Obama did not choose his middle name. He did not choose the parents who gave him that name. O! would that we could have chosen our own parents. Among other things, mine would have been wealthy.

Here’s an explanation of why that middle name is used against him.

Debbie Schlussel, self-identified “conservative political commentator, radio talk show host and columnist,” blogged in 2006 that:

Obama’s full name – as by now you have probably heard – is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Hussein is a Muslim name, which comes from the name of Ali’s son–Hussein Ibn Ali. And Obama is named after his late Kenyan father, the late Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., apparently a Muslim.

And while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that’s not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he’s a Christian, but they do not.

And her point being?

It’s true that Islam is not “the religion of peace” that Pres. G.W. Bush asserted. The Koran does in fact call for waging war upon and killing non-Muslims. But most Muslims don’t accept that as part of their belief system. It’s those who do, the Islamists, that we need worry about – not Muslims generally. I’ve had Islamist Muslims shoot at me with AKs, machine guns, sniper rifles, and mortars. Debbie Schlussel has not. So I know the difference.

Being Muslim doesn’t inherently make you evil. But in any case, all Schlussel was able to say is that Muslims consider Obama a Muslim. So what?

I’m Jewish on my mother’s side so Jews consider me a Jew. I’ve been in synagogues four times. I’m a practicing Christian. But no, the point is being a Muslim is inherently bad and that like it or not Obama is a Muslim. We know that’s her point because she titled her blog: “Barack Obama: Once a Muslim, Always a Muslim.”

Gad, lady! He was never a Muslim, any more than I was ever Jewish! If Obama thinks he’s a Christian and goes to a Christian church – which we knows he does, he has to be considered a Christian.

But apparently that’s why saying all three of Obama’s names at a Tea Party rally is a way to rile up the masses.

And that’s worrisome.

Calling all you pro-freedom, liberty-loving activists! It’s time for the 3rd annual Sammies – the awards given by the Sam Adams Alliance to the hardworking everyday folks who are trying to make this country and the world a freer place. Check the categories:

Blogger: Cover state and local issues in your blog? Broken a story recently? An award for a dedicated citizen journalist who not only breaks the story but who strategically frames the debate: $3,000.

Video: Know how to edit video? Have the skills to go viral? An award for an exceptional online video that  presents the ideals of liberty in relation to a contemporary issue: $3,000.

Watchdog: Fancy yourself a private eye? Good with FOIA? An award for an intrepid citizen investigator who uncovers government waste, abuse, patronage, and/or fraud: $3,000.

Town Hall: Give a town hall speech? Capture it on video? An award for an individual who delivered an eloquent and passionate town hall speech and, moreover, used that experience as a launchpad to speak out on other issues and work for local change: $3,000.

Tea Party: Organize a tea party? Turn that protest into concrete action? An award for the leader of a successful and ongoing local tea party movement: $3,000.

Modern-Day Sam Adams: The grand prize. An award for a remarkable individual who achieved a major political victory for freedom: $5,000.

Remember, kids – entries are due on February 17, 2010. The Sam Adams Alliance will fly the winners to Chicago (just like Oprah!) for a red-carpet presentation ceremony in April. To enter the Sammies, visit the Sammies website.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrErshmvP0M 285 234]

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJReAunlOw0 285 234]