It's Way Past Tea Party Time

[thedrifter]

The Nation's Pulse
It's Way Past Tea Party Time

By Andrew Cline on 4.15.09 @ 6:09AM

Of all the outrages that led to Americans organizing "tea parties" today to protest high taxes and unprecedented federal spending, the most serious and consequential has gone on the longest -- and has been almost entirely unnoticed.

It is best explained by a Gallup poll released yesterday. According to the poll, 48 percent of Americans said their tax rates were "about right," 46 percent said they were "too high," and 3 percent said they were "too low." On the income tax alone, 61 percent called the amount they had to pay this year "fair."

The average state and local tax burden in the United States was 9.7 percent in 2008, according to the Tax Foundation. That means that on average every American paid 9.7 percent of his income in state and local taxes alone last year. On top of that, Americans paid federal income tax rates of between 10 percent and 35 percent. On top of that, many paid federal capital gains taxes, estate taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.

What so many Americans are calling "fair" is often between 20 percent and 45 percent of their income -- not including taxes on capital gains, interest and other incidentals. President Obama wants to raise the highest federal bracket to 39 percent. If that happens, Americans earning more than about $373,000 a year will give to government roughly 50 percent of all they earn. In states such as New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and California, where such an income is not all that unusual for a dual-income couple, that already happens when all taxes are accounted for.

How did it become "fair" for an American family to give to government a third of its income? How did it become "fair" for an American family to give to government half of its income?

When Parliament passed the Stamp Act in 1765, Americans had never before experienced direct taxation. They rebelled. In 1767, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts, which levied taxes on an array of British goods. The colonists responded by boycotting British imports. Parliament repealed most of the Townshend Acts in 1770 (except the tax on tea), and in 1773 passed the Tea Act, which essentially told Americans they had to buy their tea from the East India Company through government-approved merchants. Though the act actually lowered the cost of British tea, Americans were so outraged at Britain's assertion of authority that they forbade tea-bearing ships from docking. And, of course, in Boston they threw 342 chests of tea into the harbor.

All of these taxes, by the way, were passed to finance the British Army. The newly independent United States taxed its people directly to pay off the war and ongoing conflicts with France, but in 1802, under President Jefferson, all direct taxation upon the American people was ended. That lasted for a decade, until we had to finance the War of 1812. That war was paid off by 1817, and Americans experienced no direct taxation from their federal government until 1861.

That means that "Manifest Destiny," including James K. Polk's war with Mexico, and the expansion of the country from coast to coast, was financed without a single direct federal tax being levied upon the American people.

The federal income tax imposed to finance the Civil War had two tax brackets -- 3 percent and 5 percent -- and was repealed in 1872. It remained off the books until 1913, when the 16th Amendment was ratified. The federal income tax rates in 1913 ranged from 1 percent to 7 percent. That highest rate applied to people earning $500,000 a year or more. Today, a married couple earning that much would pay a federal income tax rate of 35 percent, and with all taxes combined could pay more than half their income in taxes.

The greatest tax outrage in American history is Washington's gradual convincing of the American people that giving so much of their income to the government is just and fair.

Our forefathers rebelled over taxes that amounted to pennies per item, and two centuries later we fork over 40 percent of our income and call it "fair." The excise taxes and import duties that financed Washington for more than a century were not sustainable. A new tax system was needed. But in the century that followed its adoption, it changed the American people themselves.

Americans today are taxed at levels most of our forebears would have considered unthinkable. By our own nation's historical standards, we are outrageously, insanely overtaxed. And yet we shrug our shoulders and say, well, at least we're not France.

By the way, France's top marginal tax rate is 40 percent. President Obama plans to raise our top marginal rate to 39 percent.

As Samuel Adams, organizer of the Boston Tea Party, said in his famous speech in Philadelphia in August of 1776, "When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny."

Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Special Report
The Tea Party Revolution

By Peter Ferrara on 4.15.09 @ 6:08AM

Congratulations to the hundreds of spontaneous grassroots organizers who have successfully organized the over 300 tea party events that will take place today across the country. Such events have already been widespread, and highly successful, with sudden big crowds: 2,000 in St. Louis, 3,000 in Cincinnati, 6,000 in Orlando, as recently reported by Peter Roff in a Fox News blog.

Because these events are highly decentralized, with no significant institutional organization or funding behind them, they represent a genuine outpouring of grassroots opinion with enormous political importance. For every person out in the streets today, there are undoubtedly many more who didn't make it who share the same opinions. The bigger the demonstrations today, the bigger the rest of the iceberg under water. Moreover, this movement represents genuine grassroots organization, as names and contact information are collected, and this will be valuable for future political activity.

These people are both against and for something. They are against the left-wing extremism of the current political leadership in Washington, from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi, to Barney Frank, to Henry Waxman, and on and on. No wonder Newsweek (soon going out of business) thinks we are a nation of socialists now, as it admitted in a recent cover story.

But even more, the tea party revelers are for a sophisticated vision of economic freedom. They recognize that the more resources the government takes out of the private sector, through taxes, borrowing and spending, the less freedom that average working people have left for the pursuit of happiness. Taxes as a percent of GDP, government spending as a percent of GDP, should be taken as reverse indicators of economic freedom. The higher they are, the less economic freedom people have. The lower they are, the more economic freedom we have. In other words, the more the government takes your money to spend on what it wants, the less freedom you have to choose to spend, or to save and invest, your own money as you want. And visa versa.

Let us review the already gruesome results of the Obama economic policy to see what has the people out in the streets. Obama's budget for this year increases federal spending by an extremist 34% over the budget adopted for last year, to a total of $4 trillion, the highest ever! Since World War II, going back over 60 years now, federal spending as a percent of GDP has been stable, hovering around 20%. But federal spending for this year under the Obama budget and economic policies will soar to a shocking 28.5%of GDP, an increase in the size of the federal government in Obama's first year of 42% compared to the postwar average relative to GDP.

Over the longer run, because of exploding federal entitlements, federal spending will soar to 40% to 50% of GDP, depending on how much permanent damage Obama does. With state and local spending, the total will climb towards 60%, and we will no longer be a free country.

The Congressional Budget Office projects Obama's budget deficit for this year at a shocking $1.845 trillion, the highest ever. That would be more than seven times Reagan's largest deficit of $221 billion, which caused so much howling among liberals and Democrats. This Obama budget deficit will total an astounding 13.1% of GDP, more than one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, for the federal deficit alone!

Obama says that this is George Bush's budget deficit. But it wasn't George Bush who led adoption of a $1 trillion stimulus package in February, followed by a $410 billion supplemental spending bill the next week, with a $275 billion housing bailout plan proposed the following week, $634 billion as a down payment on a new national health insurance entitlement adopted in the budget, and another $1 trillion bank bailout plan recently announced as well. (Note: The entire economy produces just $14 trillion a year, so $1 trillion is real money.)

Obama said in his national press conference on March 24, "We're doing everything we can to reduce that deficit." But do his actions recounted above look like he is "doing everything we can to reduce that deficit"?

The deficit for the last budget adopted when Congress was controlled by Republican majorities, for fiscal 2007, was $162 billion, or 1.2% of GDP. CBO projects that by 2019 under Obama's budget, the deficit will still be well over $1 trillion.

Finally, under Obama's budget the national debt will double over the next five years, and triple over the next ten, to $17.3 trillion. The national debt as a percent of GDP will soar from 40% to a peacetime record of 82.4%, almost as large as the entire economy, and twice as high as when Reagan left office. If the economy does not recover permanently next year, as even the CBO assumes (not going to happen long term), Obama could even top the World War II record of national debt at 113% of GDP, spending mostly on welfare and entitlements, rather than on fighting the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

Does this sound like we're "moving from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save and invest," as Obama also said in his press conference last month?

Is this unfair to Obama, who needed to restore economic growth to a collapsing economy he inherited? After all, as Obama recently laughed, "What do you think a stimulus is?"

Well, ask yourself, will we restore growth through increased welfare, runaway federal spending, and record deficits and debt? Or does growth come from reducing tax rates, unnecessary regulatory burdens, and government spending, and maintaining a strong dollar? That's what Reagan did, and the result was a 25-year economic boom that spread across the entire planet, with "70 million people a year [worldwide]…joining the middle class," as Steve Forbes recently observed. What Obama is doing is the opposite of this proven formula, in every detail.

Oh, the economy will "recover" later this year, because it is still a powerful, capitalist economy that tends towards growth. But Obama's economic policies are taking America back on a long, slow, nostalgia tour to the glorious economy of Jimmy Carter, complete with gas and energy shortages, soaring inflation and interest rates, and persistent unemployment. Over the longer run, that road leads back to the liberal left glory days of the 1930s.

And I haven't even begun to talk about Obama's tax increases. By the end of next year, the top income tax rate will have risen by 20%, the top capital gains tax rate by 33%, and the tax on dividends by 33% as well, with the top death tax rate restored to 45%. Obama ran for President promising a tax cut for 95% of Americans, which turned out to be a miserable $400 per worker income tax credit, less than $8 a week, with no incentive effects to promote the economy. That will be more than offset by the $645 billion cap and trade tax Obama has proposed to combat non-existent global warming, which will be paid by everybody through higher prices for gas, electricity, home heating oil, coal, and everything produced with energy. Obviously, these sharp tax increases will trash the economy in the future, not promote growth. Higher energy costs in particular will chase remaining American manufacturing overseas.

All of this is why America will be in the streets today demanding a U-turn from Obama's road to oblivion, returning to Reagan's highway to prosperity, which Bush mistakenly exited.

But over the longer run, the tea party revelers are looking for an expanded vista of economic freedom, with less government control, lower taxes, reduced spending and debt, fewer unnecessary regulatory burdens, and sound money free from inflation. How can America achieve that?

Let me offer a few ideas. I am not claiming these as the agenda of today's tea parties. I am offering them as the best of the ideas that have been developed over recent decades, and the most promising for long-term freedom and prosperity, in the hope that many of those demonstrating today will support them in the future.

Newt Gingrich, who is speaking at the tea party in Atlanta today, has offered a 12-point economic recovery plan based on the principles of President Reagan's 1981 recovery plan. Gingrich proposes to reduce the 25% income tax rate paid by middle-income earners to 15%, which would effectively establish a flat tax of 15% for close to 90% of Americans. He would also reduce the federal corporate tax rate of 35%, the second highest in the industrialized world, to the 12.5% rate adopted 20 years ago in Ireland, which boosted that traditionally poor country to the second highest income in the EU. Our own Treasury Department says Ireland's 12.5% rate generates more corporate tax revenue as a percent of GDP than our 35% rate.

Gingrich also proposes to abolish the capital gains tax and the death tax, which both involve double taxation of savings and capital. He would also open up production of domestic U.S. energy across the board, ensuring plentiful, low cost energy supplies for the American economy. These policies would produce another generation-long economic boom.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has offered a tax reform plan with just two rates, 10% applying to the first $100,000 in income each year, and 25% applying to all income above that. Generous personal exemptions would eliminate income taxes for a family of four on the first $40,000 earned each year.

For the payroll tax, Ryan has developed and introduced legislation that would allow workers the freedom to choose to save and invest half their Social Security taxes in their own personal accounts. To the extent each worker exercised this option, benefits from the account would replace future promised Social Security benefits on a proportional basis. Because over the long run market investment returns are so much higher than what Social Security can even promise, let alone pay, working people can gain enormously from this option. But Ryan's bill wisely retains the Social Security safety net, guaranteeing that each worker would still receive at least what they would have been paid in Social Security benefits under current law. So workers can gain, but they can't lose. Experience shows, however, that few if any workers would fall into that safety net over the long run.

Such personal savings, investment, and insurance accounts should be expanded over the long run to empower workers with the freedom to substitute the accounts for the entire payroll tax, with the accounts providing all of the benefits now financed by the payroll tax. This would produce an enormous reduction in the size of the federal government.

Another good idea is the national sales tax proposal. But the 23% sales tax rate is too high. The sales tax should substitute only for the income tax, not the payroll tax as well. Better to phase out the payroll tax under the personal account proposal above. The sales tax reform also does not need to be completely revenue neutral. It would work better providing a net tax cut. This may allow a sales tax rate of only 14%, particularly considering the boost to economic growth such reform would produce.

Another major reform would involve sending the hundreds of federal welfare programs back to the states based on the model of the highly successful 1996 reform of the old AFDC program. That reform replaced AFDC with a block grant of finite federal funds to each state for their own new, redesigned, welfare program based on work. The result surprised even the advocates of the idea, reducing the number of dependents on the old program by close to 60% nationwide. This same reform should now be extended to Medicaid, Food Stamps, housing subsidies, and the hundreds of other means-tested, federal welfare programs. This would also result in an enormous reduction in the size of the federal government.

The most important Obama initiative to stop now is health-care reform. Adding another huge entitlement program, ultimately the biggest of all, to our nation's debts will hasten the explosion of big government and the ultimate bankruptcy of our country. Obama's proposal inevitably involves the same government health-care rationing as in every other country that has adopted such a government-run health care system. That is because once such a system is adopted, there is no other way to control health costs.

Such government health-care rationing means a reduction in the standard of living for average Americans, as they suffer less timely and less effective health care. A huge reduction in America's standard of living would result as well from Obama's cap and trade global warming plan, as America must then suffer with less energy costing much more. That means smaller, weaker cars, less driving and other transportation, less consumption of energy-intensive meat and dairy products, colder homes, workplaces and stores in winter, hotter homes, workplaces and stores in summer, and less of everything that uses electricity.

A safety net assuring essential health-care services can be created without a government takeover of the entire health-care system. Broader use of reforms that extend patient power and choice, such as health savings accounts and interstate sales of health insurance, would best control costs.

These reforms and ideas would create a bright future for America of freedom and prosperity. Achieving them requires active, widespread, grassroots support. That is the hope that today's tea parties across America raise.

Peter Ferrara is director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation and general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union. He formerly served in President Reagan's White House Office of Policy Development, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

'Celebrate' Tax Day
by Ernest Istook (more by this author)
Posted 04/15/2009 ET



A very rich man once told me how much he paid in income taxes the prior year. It was over $200 million. When I recovered my jaw from the floor, all I could think to say was: “Thank you!”

While the political left condemns the gap between rich and poor, there’s a better way to assess what divides many Americans: it’s the gap between those who pay taxes and those who do not. It’s a troublesome gap. As former Sen. Phil Gramm likes to say, “There are more people riding in the wagon than there are pulling the wagon.”

As Tea Party protests hit the streets, some wonder why it’s a big deal. After all, there’s no outrage among the growing numbers who pay no income taxes.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg let the cat out of the bag when he announced that half the city’s income comes from 42,000 of its residents. That’s in a city of 8.2 million. Less than half of one percent carry 50 percent of the burden.

The Tax Foundation reports that the top 1% of American tax filers paid more taxes in 2006 than the bottom 90%. The numbers were $408-billion paid compared to $299-billion. Of 136 million returns filed that year, a mere 1.4 million Americans paid more than this other 122 million combined.

The left considers this unfair. Because they want that group to pay more! The Heritage Foundation calculates that President Obama’s budget proposal would raise taxes by another $1.4 trillion, mostly from this group.

For Bloomberg, Obama and others, their wacky solution is to raise taxes. California has already raised its income taxes to 10%, and 10 more states are poised to follow. New York wants to push its top rate to 9%, plus 12.6% in New York City.

Why take so much from so few? Tax cuts during the Bush presidency removed 18 million Americans from the ranks of income tax payers. So many people are now exempted from any income-tax liability that those who are hit hard have become a small minority whose voices can be drowned out. Big spenders feel emboldened to demonize them as “rich” so they can victimize them with impunity.

But beware. Once the rich are soaked, everybody else may at least get damp. The Wall Street Journal describes the New York State plan: “The new budget raises another $2 billion or so on top of the $4 billion in income taxes with some 100 new taxes, fees, fines, surcharges and penalties to be paid by all New York residents. There are new charges for cell phone usage, fishing permits, health insurance (the "sick tax"), electric bills, and on bottled water, cigars, beer and wine.”

Who benefits? Start with government workers. As USA Today recounted last week, “The pay gap between government workers and lower-compensated private employees is growing as public employees enjoy sizable benefit growth even in a distressed economy . . . Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour -- $11.90 more than in private business. In 2007, the gap in wages and benefits was $11.31.” Oddly enough, this Left never wants to talk about this wage gap.

Also benefiting are those who pay nothing in income taxes. Many of them file a return just to get a check, the Earned Income Tax Credit which last year sent over $46 billion to 23 million Americans who paid zero in income taxes. And movements are afoot to relieve that group of the remaining taxes they still pay: Social Security and Medicare taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. About the only opposite trend is the increasing reliance by states on lotteries and gambling dollars, which disproportionately come from lower income groups.

How many Americans are pulling the wagon? The top 10% of income tax filers pay 70% of the taxes and earned 47% of the income.

So who’s being greedy? Those who pay and gripe? Or those who don’t pay but receive the benefits? The Tax Policy Center describes that the bottom 40% of income tax filers not only don’t pay anything, but get money back anyway, with “negative income tax rates” thanks to federal tax credit programs. This is what politicians are talking about when they describe “refundable tax credits.” That’s code for a government giveaway.

What’s the point of no return, when this trend becomes irreversible? If we’re not at a tipping point, we soon will be. Backed by a friendly, left-leaning Congress, the administration seems ready to rumble, with proposals that would:
Revive the “marriage penalty” for married taxpayers.

Resuscitate federal death taxes that were supposed to be eliminated in 2010.

Increase to almost 40%, from 35%, the tax rate for those making over $250,000 a year

Cap charitable deductions for the wealthy (at once reducing incentives to give to private charities, and giving government more money and more “need” to take on the tasks usually handled by charities.

Impose a cap-and-trade system that essentially raises energy taxes by $646 billion -- raising energy costs for each American household some $650 to $2,000 a year.

Give up to $400 in cash to low income adults who pay no income taxes. This "Make Work Pay" refundable tax credit would even go to able-bodied adults without dependent children.

A noble few still understand that raising taxes casts the economy into a death spiral, while lowering taxes (and regulatory burdens) stimulates economic growth. The American Option bill, introduced in the Senate by Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), would have reduced business taxes from 35% to 25%. That’s an approach calculated to spur rapid growth in wages, jobs, and business incomes. It would also leave Americans with more of their own money, increasing disposable income for an average family of four by up to $4,500 by 2013.

Such a reform may be hard to imagine in today’s political environment, but we need plans to unite around. Meantime, the Tea Parties are a great rallying point for Americans who still pay taxes. Let’s hear it for the few, the proud -- the taxpayers.
Ernest Istook calls himself a "recovering Congressman" from Oklahoma. He is now a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and chairs the National Advisory Board for Save Our Secret Ballot, www.SOSballot.org.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

April 16, 2009
Tea Parties about Far More than Taxes
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
Many writers have dubbed the Tax Day Tea Parties as inconsequential, a fad that will die quickly, and of foolish origins that have nothing to do with the American patriots of revolutionary days. Patriots dumped a ship full of tea into Boston Harbor, these folks contend, to protest one thing: taxation without representation. We modern patriots have representation and are therefore insane to protest, or so this line of argument goes.

Folks who believe that the American Revolution was over nothing but taxation -- a penny more for a cup of tea or sugar or any of the other fees and taxes that the British were constantly adding to colonists' backs -- are as dimwitted as was King George in his day. The tea tax may have been the single match that started the fire, but the British had been soaking their American colonies in tyrannical kerosene for a long, long time.

Now, the Tea Parties occurring in the present day may indeed represent a brushfire that quickly extinguishes itself. Only time will tell.

But the message in grassroots Tea Parties today is of exactly the same character as its historical inspiration. The Tea Parties represent a growing anger against encroaching tyranny by a federal government that pays far more heed to billionaire financiers, union bosses, special interest lobbyists, and those on the bottom who pay no income taxes, than it does to all the folks in the middle, who work hard to pay their taxes and all their other bills.

The Tea Parties represent real citizens' anger over watching powerlessly for the past two months as a president, who ran as a moderate to get elected, has taken the fastest, boldest leap to the far left of any president to date. Not only has President Obama upped the ante on the failed policies of FDR and Lyndon Johnson, he has gone on an apology tour of Europe, bowed to a Saudi King, and promised billions more of our hard-earned money to global entities over which we have absolutely no control.

At a time when we Americans in the vast middle write checks to our federal government as we try to balance household budgets already stretched to the max, we read about the Obamas flying in a pizza chef and Michelle hiring her own full-time makeup artist to go with her already full-time hairstylist. We're stunned by a $150-million plus price tag on an inauguration carried out at the same time this president was telling the rest of us we needed to put our "own skin into the game" of saving America from the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." We're shocked to see a president using tax dollars to pay for cocktail parties, elaborate entertainment and $100/lb. Japanese steak as he continues his campaigning from the White House.

And we're stuck with a mainstream media complex so in bed with the new administration that they fête us to nonstop commentary on the Obamas' new dog, the swing set on the White House grounds, the organic garden of the new First Lady and the exploits of the first mother in-law. We get stories on Reggie Love, the personal gopher of the president, and how this closest-of-closest intimates to the Commander In Chief, always has Nicorette gum and mints and specialized water for the self-anointed one. We are treated to prime time press conferences galore that are nothing more than scripted campaign stops, complete with pre-selected questioners and not a word spoken by our President without a teleprompting device.

Yet, from these members of the fourth estate, we see next to no interest in this administration's fumbling, bumbling, giveaway foreign policy. We see only the lamest of excuses for the ever-increasing numbers of tax cheats and lobbyists -- handpicked by this "new kind of president" -- filling up the administration. We hear no cries of collusion, even though this president kowtows to labor bosses while he imperiously fires the CEO of GM.

We're told by this same media that we're selfish and rotten if we don't support national healthcare as a new entitlement, and that we're purely fanatical anti-science idiots if we don't support our tax dollars being used to kill babies in the womb and new wave Dr. Megeles experimenting on human beings at embryo stage.

This is the media complex who gives more coverage to a paltry little group of ACORN agitators bussed to an AIG exec's house than it has to the hundreds of genuine grassroots Tea Party protests preceding yesterday's national outpouring. And to top it all off, our own tax dollars go to support the agitating work of the ACORN folks and other leftwing, non-taxpaying groups who believe they are entitled to money they have not earned.

We, in the modern-day Tea Party movement, are being billed by the leftist press as greedy, insane, rightwing zealots who not only hate the poor, the minorities, the women and all the little children, but are now seen as a terrorist threat to homeland security.

Tax Day Tea Parties may merely be the tip of a growing-by-the-day iceberg of anger experienced by millions and millions of Americans who see the overreach of a federal government drunk on its own power. The American people know tyranny when they see it and they see it all around them now, threatening to finally extinguish what little liberty we have remaining.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Obama's Recipe For Change Not My Cup of Tea
by Ann Coulter
04/15/2009


I had no idea how important this week's nationwide anti-tax tea parties were until hearing liberals denounce them with such ferocity. The New York Times' Paul Krugman wrote a column attacking the tea parties, apologizing for making fun of "crazy people." It's OK, Paul, you're allowed to do that for the same reason Jews can make fun of Jews.

On MSNBC, hosts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have been tittering over the similarity of the name "tea parties" to an obscure homosexual sexual practice known as "tea bagging." Night after night, they sneer at Republicans for being so stupid as to call their rallies "tea bagging."

Every host on Air America and every unbathed, basement-dwelling loser on the left wing blogosphere has spent the last week making jokes about tea bagging, a practice they show a surprising degree of familiarity with.



Except no one is calling the tea parties "tea bagging" -- except Olbermann and Maddow. Republicans call them "tea parties."

But if the Republicans were calling them "tea-bagging parties," the MSNBC hosts would have a fantastically hilarious segment for viewers in San Francisco and the West Village and not anyplace else in the rest of the country. On the other hand, they're not called "tea-bagging parties." (That, of course refers to the cocktail hour at Barney Frank's condo in Georgetown.)

You know what else would be hilarious? It would be hilarious if Hillary Clinton's name were "Ima Douche." Unfortunately, it's not. It was just a dream. Most people would wake up, realize it was just a dream and scrap the joke. Not MSNBC hosts.

The point of the tea parties is to note the fact that the Democrats' modus operandi is to lead voters to believe they are no more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, get elected and immediately raise taxes.

Apparently, the people who actually pay taxes consider this a bad idea.

Obama's biggest shortcoming is that he believes the things believed by all Democrats, which have had devastating consequences every time they are put into effect. Among these is the Democrats' admiration for raising taxes on the productive.

All Democrats for the last 30 years have tried to stimulate the economy by giving "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes. Evidently, offering to expand welfare payments isn't a big vote-getter.

Even Bush had a "stimulus" bill that sent government checks to lots of people last year. Guess what happened? It didn't stimulate the economy. Obama's stimulus bill is the mother of all pork bills for friends of O and of Congressional Democrats. ("O" stands for Obama, not Oprah, but there's probably a lot of overlap.)

And all that government spending on the Democrats' constituents will be paid for by raising taxes on the productive.

Raise taxes and the productive will work less, adopt tax shelters, barter instead of sell, turn to an underground economy -- and the government will get less money.

The perfect bar bet with a liberal would be to wager that massive government deficits in the '80s were not caused by Reagan's tax cuts. If you casually mentioned that you thought Reagan's tax cuts brought in more revenue to the government -- which they did -- you could get odds in Hollywood and Manhattan. (This became a less attractive wager in New York this week after Gov. David Paterson announced his new plan to tax bar bets.)

The lie at the heart of liberals' mantra on taxes -- "tax increases only for the rich" -- is the ineluctable fact that unless taxes are raised across the board, the government won't get its money to fund layers and layers of useless government bureaucrats, none of whom can possibly be laid off.

How much would you have to raise taxes before any of Obama's constituents noticed? They don't pay taxes, they engage in "tax-reduction" strategies, they work for the government, or they're too rich to care. (Or they have off-shore tax shelters, like George Soros.)

California tried the Obama soak-the-productive "stimulus" plan years ago and was hailed as the perfect exemplar of Democratic governance.

In June 2002, the liberal American Prospect magazine called California a "laboratory" for Democratic policies, noting that "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control."

They said this, mind you, as if it were a good thing. In California, the article proclaimed, "the next new deal is in tryouts." As they say in show biz: "Thanks, we'll call you. Next!"

In just a few years, Democrats had turned California into a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that was slashed to junk-bond status and a middle class now located in Arizona.

Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern. They bought the votes of government workers with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries and benefits -- and then turned around and accused the productive class of "greed" for wanting not to have their taxes raised through the roof.

Having run out of things to tax, now the California legislature is considering a tax on taxes. Seriously. The only way out now for California is a tax on Botox and steroids. Sure, the governor will protest, but it is the best solution ...

California was, in fact, a laboratory of Democratic policies. The rabbit died, so now Obama is trying it on a national level.

That's what the tea parties are about.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

April 17, 2009
Not Something We Do?
By Matt Spivey
The Tax Day Tea Parties may have been a surprise to some conservatives, but the groundwell is very real.

A few months ago, as bailouts were booming and budgets were busting, I wondered how long it would take for conservatives to actively respond. Outside of the world of talk radio and opinion columns, I felt the American public needed a voice, a venue, and a vindication for the debt-multiplying and partisan-flaunting policies imposed upon us by our new president. To my dismay, however, my questions were largely ignored.

As one conservative colleague told me, protesting is "not something we do."

But yesterday I was never so happy to see a conservative proven wrong.

At the Tax Day Tea Party in Phoenix, thousands of protesters congregated on the lawn of the State Capitol. And as the event kicked off, humor played an important role in setting an energetic tone. Former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth announced, "It's strange to see this many employed protesters." Noting the 5:30 p.m. start, one sign read, "I protest at night because I work during the day!" A mock teleprompter garnered laughs, as did a sign that read, "See what happens when you give a Junior Senator a credit card!"

But while smiles were on the mouths of Phoenix residents Wednesday night, frustration was in their eyes.

Their purposes varied, but their passions shone brightly. Many were outraged at the excessive spending on government programs, some detested the bank and business bailouts, and others simply proclaimed their love for liberty.

A concern for our nation's children also weighed heavily for many in the crowd. "I'm here for my children," a man with three young ones told me. "They don't deserve to be in debt from the failure of others. I work hard to provide for them, not to provide for the government's mistakes."

One small boy held a sign that read, "I'm only ten years old and already in financial ruin." Another one read, "Obama gives his kids a puppy and gives my kids debt."

But among the many messages supported at the rally, one common theme seemed to prevail. The protesters of Phoenix are tired of the stupor of our leaders regarding the disintegration of personal responsibility. President Obama and Nancy Pelosi cannot comprehend that people actually exist in this country that prefer to take care of themselves. There are actually Americans that believe in earning a keep and keeping what is earned. There are even Americans that -- gasp! -- enjoy helping each other without government assistance.

And those that do believe in these crazy ideals are labeled as freaks by the media. And even worse by our own government.

The crowd's disgust was palpable concerning this week's Department of Homeland Security report that warned of the "right-wing extremism" of veterans, border advocates, tax protesters, and small government conservatives. During his turn at the mic, conservative talk show host Barry Young asked, "Anybody here go to church? Anybody pro-life?" Upon hearing enthusiastic cheers, he replied, "Boy, we've got a fierce set of extremists out here!" With a more serious reaction, one man I spoke to, a serviceman of our country for 33 years, sadly commented, "I went to bed a veteran and somehow woke up a terrorist."

The painful irony of the DHS statement is that it is Arizona's own ex-governor, Janet Napolitano, heads the department that released the malicious statement. And to add insult to injury, Napolitano's replacement, Republican Jan Brewer, is planning on raising local taxes on Arizona residents. Phoenix had a lot to be angry about Wednesday.

"We're not protesting taxes," one woman told me. "We're protesting the irresponsibility of individuals, businesses, and our government." "Free markets -- not free loaders" was a common message on posters. The recent actions of the government are like a punch in the face of hardworking Americans who take pride in self-reliance.

And it is the commonness and simplicity in the lifestyle and attitude of these Americans that is truly inspiring. It is the average independence that New York City and San Francisco do not understand. It is the heartbeat of personal pride that not only drives these citizens today, but has driven citizens since the formation of our republic.

The beauty of today was found under hard hats and cowboy hats, in work boots and flip flops, on the experienced faces of grandfathers and the innocent cheeks of children. Some were draped in flags, a few wore colonial garb. But no hint of violence was found amidst the multitudes. No broken windows, no fires, no outrageous demonstrations. Civil voices with a vigorous message. Respectful protest with a passionate vision.

I saw mechanics and firemen, teachers and businessmen, long-bearded bikers and short-haired Marines all standing side by side with a united goal. All ages and all races together. The future of our nation is tenuous on a number of fronts, but today's protesters showed they are ready for the next step. "Is it 2012 yet?" read one sign. "The next election starts today," read another.

But I still needed to know if conservatives should start adding "protester" to their long list of honorable qualities. One grandmother had this to say: "We aren't angry people who normally protest things. But when the government gets out of hand, our anger will definitely be heard. We may not protest on every issue like a lot of liberals, but to assume we'll never protest is crazy. Today proves that."

A nearby sign echoed that sentiment: "First time protester, long time taxpayer. Enough is enough."

We may not have much practice at this protesting stuff, but it appears we do it pretty well.

Ellie