Our Opinion: Protest ... but don't ignore facts

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

Posted Apr 19, 2009 @ 12:07 AM

No matter what your ideology, it’s good when Americans get together to air their beliefs and grievances with the government. The ability to do so separates democracies from totalitarian states.

There’s been much debate over whether the protests held throughout the nation on Wednesday were truly a grassroots phenomenon. Who cares? Hundreds of thousands rallied. When that happens, the message — anti-tax, anti-spending, small government, anti-politician — is worth examining.

At times, the rally here drifted into a hyperbolic, fact-ignoring, I’m-mad-as-hell temper tantrum, rooted in the November election defeat of the conservative and libertarian political philosophy.
There were references to the “silent majority,” the insidious term Richard Nixon used to divide the country during the late 1960s and early ’70s.

Here are a few things toconsider:

n No one likes the bailouts for people who should be punished for their misbehavior. But the process of undoing the harmful economic policies (the lack of regulation of exotic financial products, for example) by the Clinton and Bush administrations will, unfortunately, reward some for failure in order to ensure their mistakes don’t take the rest of us down with them.

n Everyone hates paying taxes, but most of us recently got a tax cut. The tax cut may seem small because payroll taxes have been reduced instead of the government cutting us a check, but it’s an extra $400 annually.

n If Barack Obama is for socialism, it’s for a version unrecognizable in any economics textbook, past or present. Real socialism means that the government would take over the production and distribution of goods and services to ensure that everyone makes the same amount of money. Obama won’t even nationalize the banks, as some liberal economists have urged, in order to end the banking crisis.

n Everyone should be concerned about the federal budget deficit and the accompanying national debt. But in this crisis, like the Great Depression, government must temporarily ramp up spending to stimulate the economy. When the economy recovers and people and businesses resume spending and stimulating the economy on their own (hopefully, in a more responsible manner than before), the government can dial back.

It’s important to remember the United States ran up enormous deficits during World War II (which had the effect of a super-stimulus package) that were eventually brought under control.

Rallies are great exercises of our democratic rights. But we wish they were done with less ranting and more consideration of the facts and totality of the nation’s problems.

_______________________________________________________________________

Larry wrote: (he's not with the sj-r)

Essentially it said (1) bailouts are bad but rewarding some failure is necessary to prevent future mistakes, (2) That we do in fact get a $400 tax cut this year, (3) That we aren't socialist because government hasn't taken over all production and distribution of goods and services, and (4) that the stimulus spending is necessary as it was during the New Deal and that when the economy revives the deficits will come under control as they did then. FInally, it wrapped the editorial with the assertion that we are ranting and raving without looking at all these facts.

The editorial doesn't at all surprise me, but I think it might be our first challenge to address as a group. We have to respond to public criticism, and immediately. I don't know if one of us should write a response to the editor, or if we should all send one and sign it as a group. It doesn't matter to me, but I am willing to compose a draft if you wish. Some quick response points I can think of to include:

We have a right to be upset when (1) our kids each have a $120,000 burden on merely paying the interest of our coming debt, (2) the Congressed passed a $700,000 bill without even reading it, (3) the coming $12 Trillion bill is unprecedented in our history, (4) We know taxes are a bit lower this year, but we are against spending, because it will result in taxes in the future, and completely unmanageable debt, (5) It is not proven the New Deal stimulus cured the Great Depression, since it lasted so long, and when the war ended we had a world that needed our exports to rebuild, which really did revive us, (6) TARP and the Obama stimulus proves neither party obeys our wishes, (7) we may not be socialist yet, but we are a far cry from the country built on the liberty of our founders, and (8) the government doesn't play by the rules, as evidenced by the Treasury Secretary being a tax cheat.

Furthermore, I think we must disagree we were on a rant or tirade, given that nobody needed tear gas, nothing was thrown, and the grounds were left immaculate. Finally, the editorial called us out for not looking at all the facts, but gave absolutely no facts of its own backing up what socialism truly is, why the New Deal spending truly did help end the depression, or just how the bailouts, in concrete terms will prevent trouble in the future.

Let me know where you all think we should go with this. I might even let the 9/12 group aware of this as well. Time is of the essence and our government and the media has to know they are going to hear from us from now on!

Larry

Categories: None

2 Comments

Reply Ashrak

03:56 PM on April 20, 2009

First, we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic within which democracy rightly functions as a check and balance, rather than the basic structure of government itself. A good read of the Constitution itself shows the truth in that statement. (Article 4 Section 4) The SJ-R editorial writers blew it in the second sentence and they sure didn't stop there, they rarely do.

Several sentences later, they declare what the message of the TEA parties is and also that what they declared as the message is worth examining. They blew it again. Intentionally, I think. If they control what the message supposedly is, then they can control the discussion about it. Old habits die hard, established media has controlled the message and the discussion for a very long time. It goes on to talk about "fact ignoring" but fails to list examples. This is an example of projection, for this editorial already engaged in fact ignoring and hyperbole of it's of it's own. Proclaiming that these TEA parties are rooted in an election loss just shows how out of touch the author(s) of this editorial really is or are - whichever the case may be.

Point 1 - Nothing is ever solved by rewarding bad behavior. No lesson is learned by those engaging in such behavior and thus the 'mistakes' will be repeated. It's called recidivism. Disallowing punishment removes personal responsibility and THAT is the real root of the problem. Until this basic premise is admitted, nothing can improve.

Point 2 - There was no a tax cut, there was a change in withholding rates (which anyone could have accomplished themselves by changing their exemptions on their w-4). There is a big difference. Folks will find this out when they file their taxes for 2009. But folks who smoke have already noticed a substantial tax increase and the great majority of them do not make over 250 grand.

Not everybody hates paying tax, many just oppose layers and layers and layers of taxes (and fees) taken and then spent on things that government wasn't tasked with doing in the first place.

Point 3 - Obama and Congress did take over General Motors. He fired the CEO and pledged to have tax dollar funded government back vehicle's warranties, not to mention making demands on production of certain kinds of products - right along with legislative mandates on fuel mileage for existing models. That is a government takeover of a private business. That is the act of a socialist. They want to exact more control over the heath care and energy industries also. The attempt to turn bailout monies into controlling shares demonstrates a willingness to take over the banks as well.

Point 4 - Government has never "dialed back". It is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise. Also, there is a BIG difference between spending what you have and spending what you don't have. If what is offered by the author(s) is actually the solution, then we should all just go out and spend more, even if we don't have it, and the problem is solved. Reasonable people understand how backwards this is. Reasonable people understand that when we write checks we not have the wealth to cover, we are committing fraud. We don't need more government spending that which this country doesn't have, we need more wealth creation. That means we need more labor, not just putting the printing presses into overdrive creating money out of thin air to leverage in the attempt to create even more money out of thin air. In addition, we need the fruits of this increased labor cycling here in this country - as opposed to seeing it instantly leave this country in the form of "remittances". But what is this administration doing? Allowing even more money to head to Cuba. More backwardness.

Using tax policy and environmental policy to force special interest agendas down everyone's throats has caused jobs and wealth to flee this country. The actual solution is to reign in this obvious abuse of power. These editorial writers regularly advocate augmenting the very power being abused. This is as backwards as backwards gets.

I sure would like examples of this "brought under control" that is mentioned. I have watched government do nothing but expand in size and scope over my entire lifetime.
Notice that the pattern is coming to light - it's all about CONTROL.

This SJ-R editorial, like so many others, is a joke. Notice the last sentence - where their underlying agenda is exposed again for all to see. They wish to control the actions of others so it suits their desires, like any good socialist does. Anyone who has read their editorials for any length of time can see that they support governmental control over citizens and the private sector as a whole - as opposed to supporting individual liberty and freedom for all.

Mike

Reply DaveMcD

08:41 PM on April 27, 2009

1. And what about the continued bailouts of the auto industry, Freddie and Fannie, who repeatedly fail, yet they still receive more and more money? How much failure should be rewarded? How about a little jailtime for the people involved in this mess? Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd are the principals behind a large portion of this mess, yet the still go to their jobs each day. Bernie Maddoff sits in his luxury condo after bilking people of billions of dollars. Send these people to the penetentiary where they deservedly belong. Not clubmed prison, but a real one. And remove their pensions. By bailing these institutions out, what incentive has the government given them so that they will never try this again? Further, what proof is there that the bailout has even begun to work? Because a Newspaper editorialist or Obama says so?

2. No one received a tax cut. The government is "allowing" you to keep some of your own money, but you will still be liable for taxes on that money next April 15th. This is not a tax cut, but a postponement of payment. Tell me all about this wonderful "tax cut" next year, when you are paying more for heating oil, electricity, food, gas - everything. Inflation is coming, people.

3. Obama is not a Socialist. He is more of a Fascist. He wants the corporations under the direct control of the government. He and this Congress have already fired executives from private businesses, tried to limit their compensation, and illegally attached a Bill of Attainder against employees who received contractual compensation. They are trying to bring all business under their direct control. None of us here, I assume, receive million dollar bonuses, so it may be hard to identify with some of these employees. Yet, you may take more notice when they tell you that your modest salary is too much for your skill level. This government wants to control every aspect of our lives, and they will not stop without the people stopping them. But hey, maybe the trains will run on time, right Il Duce?

4. Where is the proof that FDR's New Deal alleviated the Great Depression? Many economists and historians beg to differ - they offer proof that FDR's policies actually prolonged the downturn.

Yes, we are all against deficit spending, and liberals all too gleefully point out that "You didn't take to the streets when Bush was spending trillions". A somewhat valid point. Here is the difference: Up until TARP 1, that spending (actually about $800 billion), was for the Iraq war. Now, you may be for or against this conflict, but "Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. Bailout for banks, foreign banks, auto companies and their overseas subsidiaries, insurance companies, and people who bought too much house that they had no hope of paying for is not. And tripling that deficit as this Administration has done, is not the path to economic prosperity.

Finally to this point: When has the government EVER "dialed back"? Every government program ever concieved has only grown. Scaling back failed programs has never happened, because that would be biting the hand of one of your most reliable voting blocs - the government worker. We finally had the tax removed from our telephone bill to pay for the Spanish-American War - more than 100 years AFTER that war ended!

I guess thats enough of my hyperbolic, fact-ignoring, mad-as-hell temper tantrum for now.