The Tea Party Movement is Here to Stay!

There have been many attacks on the Tea Party coalition as of late – particularly from the left leaning media – as the movement continues to gather momentum and forge itself into a well-defined political union. Recently, Judge Andrew Napolitano had a “Tea Party Summit” where he invited Ron Paul and Sarah Palin on as guests to discuss the future of the Tea Party movement.

Ron Paul and Sarah Palin presumably characterize the two seemingly opposing factions within the Tea Party movement: the libertarians verses the social conservatives. The libertarians are for a more non-interventionist foreign policy whilst also supporting the repeal of various government laws infringing on peoples’ right to do as they wish (which includes activities such as recreational drug use). The social conservatives, however, are typically in favor of an interventionist foreign policy (particularly with regard to lending a hand to Israel and other key allies) and may not be in favor of the repeal of certain laws (such as those that illegalize marijuana use).

What we saw at the Tea Party Summit, however, is that these are largely family feuds as opposed to real barriers for political unity. This is largely because all the factions in the Tea Party – indeed, this may be the essential characteristic that deems them a part of the Tea Party movement – are united on the single most important major issue of today: national debt.

The amicable exchanges between Ron Paul and Sarah Palin made it clear that despite the media’s attempts to – rather egregiously – categorize the movement as a “bunch of racist, bigoted, angry white people,” the Tea Party Movement is a legitimate political association constituted by different groups who all agree that government is too big, the country has too much debt, and the way Obama is running the country is unsustainable. This political alliance is strong because the Tea Party movement realizes what is at stake – not political power, but our ideals, people’s very livelihoods, and the future of the United States.

The Tea Party Movement is Here to Stay!

Sarah Palin says it how it should be

Heck yeah!

Sarah Palin says it how it should be

What's right with America's Right

The Economist recently published an article arguing that the right has too much anger and “too few ideas” – implying that the ‘Tea Party’ movement is an entirely reactionary movement with no substance except to discredit President Obama and cause political agitation. To this I say that the Tea Party movement doesn’t need to do much to discredit President Obama – he does that enough all by himself.

The statement that the Tea Party movement is reactionary is also largely mistaken. The Tea Party movements that have sprung up since early 2009 all have longer histories than when they got together – and further – share a common longer history which the movement’s namesake refers to – the Boston Tea Party. 

 

The philosophical underpinnings of the movement are also strong and largely libertarian; small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, maximized freedom, and a vehement dislike of any form of nanny state. The reason why the movement may be deemed – albeit mistakenly – as reactionary is because the Obama administration provides the exactly antithetical form of government to the kind of political arrangement that the Tea Partyers (along with the Founding Fathers) would like to see.

Obama plans to raise taxes (even if he didn’t plan to he’d have to just to finance the huge government deficit). The Obama administration wants to get involved in private businesses and thus introduce distortions into the market. The Obama administration has planned great government projects that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars that future generations will have to pay for (and pay back to China no less). These are all hostile to the kind of America that we want to see.

Of course we are angry – we have every right to be. This is beyond a political feud or an attempt to cause agitation for the Obama administration. This is beyond politicians playing the politics game and trying to win another term in office. Our vision is long term and right now we are afraid – afraid for how big the government is going to get, afraid for our future, afraid for our kids’ future, and indeed, afraid for the future of this great nation. This is about people’s livelihoods and our freedoms – we are not going to give these up without a fight. 

What's right with America's Right

Hilary Clinton Says High Tax-to-GDP Ratio is Healthy? Since When is Cuba Healthy?!

Hilary Clinton today amazingly argued that countries with the highest tax-to-GDP ratio are healthy. Responding to a question, she remarked,

Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what — it's growing like crazy. And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty. There is a certain formula there that used to work for us until we abandoned it, to our regret in my opinion.

With all due respect, Secretary Clinton, your opinion is just plain wrong.


Let’s talk economics. It is unclear how Clinton could infer anything from tax-to-GDP ratio because the amount of revenue a government has is entirely contingent on a particular countries resources, ideology, historical forces, social forces, and so on. For this reason, different governments have vastly different constituent revenue components and therefore to make a generalization about the relationship between tax and GDP is simply not possible. For example, if one country counts sales of oil as tax revenue and another does not, then no clear comparison can be made between the two with regard to a tax-to-GDP ratio.


There are other reasons why Secretary Clinton cannot make the judgment she is making but they all boil down to the same thing: economics says nothing about tax-to-GDP ratio. However, economics does say something about taxes in general. When a government taxes heavily, it stifles economic growth because why would entrepreneurs risk their livelihoods if their fruits are going to be appropriated by a central bureaucrat? This is one well-established economic relationship, Secretary Clinton. Try opening an economics 101 textbook sometime.


What is really implicit in Clinton’s remark is her ideological fixation on the idea of redistribution by the government. Economic science has repeatedly affirmed that meddling by the government simply introduces distortions into the market and leads to a less efficient distribution of resources.


By the way, Secretary Clinton, Brazil doesn’t have the highest tax-to-GDP ratio in the western hemisphere. Guess who does? Cuba.

Hilary Clinton Says High Tax-to-GDP Ratio is Healthy? Since When is Cuba Healthy?!

Can Someone Tell Obama This is America, NOT Europe!

The European countries – with their exceptionally large governments and social welfare programs – have finally acknowledged that their amount of spending is unsustainable. The new conservative British PM David Cameron today announced “painful” measures that will mean cutting back on fiscal spending: this means reductions in pay, benefits and pensions.

The German cabinet also backed austerity measures which plan to cut $96 billion by 2014. This is projected to cut Germany’s budget deficit by 3% of GDP.

European countries have traditionally had fiscally irresponsible national health programs, extensive welfare programs, and big benefits for government bureaucrats. The appropriation of funding from their entrepreneurs and private businesses has allowed their governments to swell beyond their size and has allowed a systemic risk to spread across all markets in the form of national debt. Is this fair?

This is not the American way. The American way is that the money you earn is yours – you do not owe anybody else the fruits of your labor. By spending money they don’t have, and taxing us and our kids to finance the deficit, the Obama administration is implicitly operating on the principle that they own our labor and own us. That isn’t right.

Our spending is out of control, much like theirs. Does this mean our country will be heading toward the same road to destruction as the Europeans, like almost bankrupt Greece? And if so, who do you think will come to our rescue? China? Do we want to be in China’s pocket?  

Bureaucrats are bureaucrats for a reason: if they had any business savvy, they would not end up working for the government. It makes no sense to trust someone as stupid as a bureaucrat with OUR money. What’s happening right now is that the government is printing money (and the more money they print the less valuable the dollar in your pocket becomes) and banking on future generations to pay for the deficit.

Any sane president would look to Europe and see that we should not be making the same mistakes they have made. Instead, Obama passes a fiscally irresponsible healthcare bill in the middle of a recession. Is our great nation heading toward bankruptcy because of the fiscal irresponsibility of those in Washington?

Can Someone Tell Obama This is America, NOT Europe!

Obama and Big Government

Yup... that sums it up!

Obama and Big Government

Rand Paul is Not Racist OR Radical – It’s About Property Rights

Many people have accused Rand Paul of being racist for arguing that the government does not have the right (and should not have the right) to tell private businesses how to do business with regard to the kinds of customers they serve. This would include the government not being able to force a restaurant to serve black clientele if it chose not to serve clientele from that particular community.

Rand Paul repeatedly argues that this kind of restaurant policy would be despicable but he goes onto argue that it doesn’t mean that the government should have a right to tell businesses how to operate. The real issue here is the difference in the conception of property rights Rand Paul has compared to those who think a government is perfectly entitled in telling a business how to operate.

For Rand Paul, and libertarians in general, a person’s liberty is of utmost importance. Furthermore, libertarians do not differentiate between private property and the property you own that you use to make money. That is, you have the same rights with regard to your home that you have with regard to your place of business. Just as it would be unreasonable to suggest that the government should force a racist white person to allow a black person into his or her home, it is as foolish to suggest that the government should be allowed to force a restaurant to serve a particular group of people the private ownership doesn’t wish to serve.

Rand Paul isn’t racist or radical: he is simply consistent. A set of property rights remains the same whether it is your home or your business. Furthermore, it would be entirely irrational for a business to set up shop and not serve to people – this just doesn’t make economic sense! In addition to this, a business that refused to serve people because of arbitrary properties such as black skin would lose reasonable patrons very quickly and go out of business. Remember what happens when governments get involved in the way businesses operate: the financial crisis of 2007. 

Rand Paul is Not Racist OR Radical – It’s About Property Rights