I've watched with amusement and fascination the emergence of the so-called "Tea Party" in our American polity. It is truly fascinating and encouraging, in a way, to see so many people fired up about any worthwhile issue.
And the topic of the future of our government's size and scope is one worth debating. When I say I am amused, it is not a condescending "Hey, look at the freaks" kind of amusement but rather the mirth of someone seeing, once again, how fictions about history are perpetrated. I laugh only to keep from crying.
What the tea party doesn't understand is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about. Let's look back.
Over the first 100 years of significant settlement in the colonies, a lot of support and protection from England and The Netherlands was provided. The Dutch helped us out more than you can ever imagine, but they never had sovereignty over the colonies to any significant degree. England supplied the "protection" for commercial trade interests and His Royal Highness's subjects on the seas and Great Lakes, rivers and territory of the American frontier.
England's Parliament and His Majesty had some quaint notions about paying for military necessities back in those days. They actually had to come up with sufficient tax revenues to pay for their various wars with France and Spain over events in and around the world. England had also just fought a very protracted, bloody and expensive war in North America to finally break the French/Indian alliance and make the new frontier safer for continued American colonial expansion.
You might have heard of this conflict vaguely in some old history lesson you had. It was referred to as "The French and Indian War".
So Parliament, again, quaintly, tries to charge a tax to the colonist to help offset this costly investment in the security and prosperity of the colonies. THIS is something the colonist do not like.
Now, don't get me wrong, the tea tax was onerous because it was so regressive. And there were many other assessments colonist had to pay for prior to this and ongoing. And "taxation without representation" is a fundamental worth standing firm against. The list of perceived slights and deprecations that T. Jefferson eventually listed in his now famous declaration were legitimate.
But let's be clear. The colonist, in revolting visibly against the tea tax, were NOT arguing necessarily for SMALLER government or less taxes, but the right to FORM THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT if they couldn't be properly given representation in the current legislature.
The Tea Tax Revolt was not about smaller government, it was about us not having a say in government. No one was saying that government was too big in the colonies circa 1760, but rather that we didn't have enough government, responsive to the colonist and their desires locally.
Friday, March 11, 2011
To back up the previous post
Don't believe me, listen to FOX news commentator Jim Pinkerton in an interview with John Villareal of The New America Foundation.
You see, Jim was there in the Reagan administration when this was all going down. Plus he just reminds people of some hard econ 101 facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plKMc-cHN3w
You see, Jim was there in the Reagan administration when this was all going down. Plus he just reminds people of some hard econ 101 facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plKMc-cHN3w
Social Security History Lesson
I'm near 53 now so I have a little experience with the ongoing battle republicans have carefully waged against Social Security. Now, at base here you have a program that since a few years after it's inception, has been accumulating more money than it pays off. In billions and then trillions. A little tweak here and there and the system does just fine.
And let's remember that SocSec money used to accumulate into a trust fund. It really was just money sitting around drawing interest while paying it's benefits. But then we had the phenomenon called "Supply side economics", the infamous Charles Laffer doodled on a napkin for Rumsfeld and Cheney and Ronnie Raygun went down in history as the guy who stimulated us out of our "malaise". Never mind that what he really did was the equivalent of feeding a supersized Butterfinger to an 8 year old at bedtime.
So St. Ronnie grants "The Great Tax Shift" and all is rosy, except, well...it's not. A few voices point out some inconvenient facts about St. Ronnie's programs. Like David Stockman, St. Ronnie's own Budget Director.
See, Mr. Stockman had the unfortunate habit of pointing out that giving tax cuts to everybody, especially those dramatic cuts at the top, combined with MORE government spending (not less government, like St. Ronnie promised) was kind of, you know, unsustainable.
So, St. Ronnie's brain trust says, "hey, we got all these monies accumulating to the SocSec Trust Fund, why don't we start just counting that as general revenues and then these huge fiscal gaps in government financing won't look so damn bad. So, they did and started issuing the SocSec Trust Fund I.O.U.'s and taking the fund's revenues away.
Flash Forward!!! Here we are today with all our old St. Ronnie legacies sitting around and telling us that NOW there is a problem with SocSec. See, they say, it's not really a trust fund, it's just a bunch of I.O.U.'s and the government has to borrow money now to pay off those I.O.U.'s and you know, we JUST ARE BORROWING TOO MUCH MONEY, so we're gonna have to cut those SocSec benefits and change eligibility and so forth. Because you know, IT'S a CRISIS!
So, there you are. The Great Tax Shift, financed by debt and other revenue streams, but not taxes at the top, oh no, those came down more under BUSH II, continues to haunt all facets of our current government financial schemes.
And the one thing that's never considered, the one thing that started the whole tower a tilting, is raising taxes on those who are paying a historical low as a percentage of income, who do not have to worry about paying more in the future because the narrative of the republicans and the tea partiers (what an unhistorical bunch) fits precisely their self-interest.
We, the proles, fight over the remnants of our middle class while the fat cats watch from the best seats.
And let's remember that SocSec money used to accumulate into a trust fund. It really was just money sitting around drawing interest while paying it's benefits. But then we had the phenomenon called "Supply side economics", the infamous Charles Laffer doodled on a napkin for Rumsfeld and Cheney and Ronnie Raygun went down in history as the guy who stimulated us out of our "malaise". Never mind that what he really did was the equivalent of feeding a supersized Butterfinger to an 8 year old at bedtime.
So St. Ronnie grants "The Great Tax Shift" and all is rosy, except, well...it's not. A few voices point out some inconvenient facts about St. Ronnie's programs. Like David Stockman, St. Ronnie's own Budget Director.
See, Mr. Stockman had the unfortunate habit of pointing out that giving tax cuts to everybody, especially those dramatic cuts at the top, combined with MORE government spending (not less government, like St. Ronnie promised) was kind of, you know, unsustainable.
So, St. Ronnie's brain trust says, "hey, we got all these monies accumulating to the SocSec Trust Fund, why don't we start just counting that as general revenues and then these huge fiscal gaps in government financing won't look so damn bad. So, they did and started issuing the SocSec Trust Fund I.O.U.'s and taking the fund's revenues away.
Flash Forward!!! Here we are today with all our old St. Ronnie legacies sitting around and telling us that NOW there is a problem with SocSec. See, they say, it's not really a trust fund, it's just a bunch of I.O.U.'s and the government has to borrow money now to pay off those I.O.U.'s and you know, we JUST ARE BORROWING TOO MUCH MONEY, so we're gonna have to cut those SocSec benefits and change eligibility and so forth. Because you know, IT'S a CRISIS!
So, there you are. The Great Tax Shift, financed by debt and other revenue streams, but not taxes at the top, oh no, those came down more under BUSH II, continues to haunt all facets of our current government financial schemes.
And the one thing that's never considered, the one thing that started the whole tower a tilting, is raising taxes on those who are paying a historical low as a percentage of income, who do not have to worry about paying more in the future because the narrative of the republicans and the tea partiers (what an unhistorical bunch) fits precisely their self-interest.
We, the proles, fight over the remnants of our middle class while the fat cats watch from the best seats.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Something has to be first
So this is my first inane entry into the world of blogging. Exciting....no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)