The Good and The Bad on Tea Parties

I hate protests.

Plain and simple, I just don’t like them. I never have. Given, most protests seem to be for liberal causes and filled with hippies; and really, who likes hippies?

So it wasn’t anything new when I was originally turned off to the idea of these Tea Parties. My first thought was “how are you going to get a bunch of free marketers to take a day off work to protest?” It is the primary reason why there are rarely any successful “conservative” protests. We have jobs. We work. We make money. We are not (generally) starving musicians, freelance poets, and smelly drum circle novelists that can afford to take time off to go yell at politicians that don’t care what we think.

But somehow they managed to do it. Bloggers and volunteers from around the country managed to stage probably the largest mass conservative/libertarian/free market/whatever you want to call it protest in recent memory. And bully for them. I actually found myself wanting to attend just to see what it was all like.

Unfortunately I had to work so I couldnt make it. But there was a sense of pride in me, seeing people that are moderately like minded, at least on the issues of heavy taxation and outrageous government spending, succeed in such a well-meaning cause. But it took me a while to actually figure out what these tea parties were really about.

Most protests have a specific purpose. They say “end this war now!” and “fur is murder!” and “keep your laws off my body!” and what not. The Tea Parties were much more broad. From everything that I read, it was a general standing of people against big government. They wanted lower taxes, they wanted less government spending, and vicariously less government regulation.

I was happy that the word “bi-partisan” was never used. I always heard the term “non-partisan,” which, I feel, is much more appropriate. These were protests against two parties that had failed in their most basic jobs. I was inspired when I found out that Michael Steele had been refused an opportunity to speak at the Chicago event. These were not supposed to be GOP events, or hell, even conservative events. They were supposed to be a bunch of people who just threw too much of their own cash into a damn garbage disposal getting together and screaming “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take this anymore!”

I was happy to hear that the Nashville Crowd reached around 10,000. But I was disappointed when I saw some of the speakers listed around the country. I was not an organizer, thus I have no right to say who should and shouldn’t have spoken. But I feel that if the spirit of the rally was to protest high taxes and government waste, than no one that voted for a single George W. Bush budget should have taken the microphone.

So many people asked me where these protests were during the last eight years. Sadly many people were trying to rationalize the behavior of the man they voted for, very similar to what’s going on now. But I ask everyone to think back to last year. The ”Republican” President worked with the Democrat House and Senate leaders to work through nearly a trillion dollars in bogus deficit “stimulus” spending, first with the initial stimulus checks, then with the Fannie and Freddie Bailouts, then with the $700Billion TARP bill. Remember specifically that last one, when so many Americans, right and left, called their congressmen and senators to say “VOTE NO!” It just may have been the most protested piece of individual legislation in US History.

I refuse to believe that the only difference between people’s opinions of the bailouts last year and this year is that last year the money was going to “rich greedy bankers” instead of every day Joes. A less-than-thorough examination of history will show that no bailout has ever saved an industry or made it more efficient. Whether it’s banks, wall street, car companies, airplanes, porn, hospitals, whatever, the money aint goin to keep the little guy employed. The only difference is the guy that’s signing the bill.

I’ve always said that Obama has more in common with Bush than he has different. And I’m right. And yeah, I was guilty of trying to rationalize some of the things 43 did because I voted for him. And that is exactly what people that backed Obama are doing today.

But I digress. There should not have been any signs out today saying “we ARE a Christian Nation.” There should not have been any “save the fetuses” or “Adam+Eve” signs. Today was not a day for that. Today was DONT TOUCH MY MONEY and LET MY BANK FAIL day. Today was PROUD HONDA DRIVER day. it was not a kickoff for the GOP in 2010/2012; because let me tell you something. If the Republican Party is the same in 2010 as it is right now, it will keep losing. 

And that’s not rhetoric.

Back to the point of the Tea Parties. I’m not sure there really was one. I’m ok with that. No elected official gives a damn what any voter thinks two years before an election. But maybe this is the start of something that could turn into something great. Maybe the people will nominate a real conservative/libertarian (and it pains me to have to separate the two) for Governor. Maybe Bart Gordon will FINALLY be removed from his seemingly permanent lap-dog House seat and replaced with a young, inexperienced, paranoid and cynical conservative who wont vote for anything that includes the phrase “discretionary spending.”

Hope.

 

 

Oh, and Grovern Norquist will answer all your questions here.

W’s last attempt to get the respect of Conservatives

Lame Duck President Bush has angered conservatives almost non stop since his entry into office. His expansive No Child Left Behind program, his $1.3 Trillion prescription drug benefit, this $700 Billion Bailout, etc. have really upset the small government sect of the Republican Party. But now Mr. Bush has one chance to leave office on a quasi-good note with conservatives. 

Congressional Democrats on Monday delivered to the White House an emergency $15 billion taxpayer bailout of Detroit’s beleaguered Big Three automakers, designed to keep the companies in business until the Obama administration can tackle the industry’s long-term woes.

But there were signs that the political wrangling over Detroit’s future was not over, with the White House voicing concerns about parts of the congressional bailout blueprint, which calls for a “car czar” to oversee efforts to revive the industry.

The White House was less than thrilled with the congressional draft over its lack of focus on long-term restructuring for the companies, even though Democrats bowed to the administration’s opposition to tapping Wall Street bailout money.

A Car Czar? Really? 

President Bush must do everything he can to prevent this bailout from happening. We cannot socialize the automobile industry. I want to write a huge explanation about why that would be a terrible thing, but I feel like it would be insulting my readers’ intelligence.

Barney Frank on Auto Bailouts

Representative Barney Frank, despite being completely WRONG in his past economic predictions, is now coming forward begging for money for US Automakers.

With new data showing U.S. employers axed more than 533,000 jobs in November — the highest monthly job-loss in 34 years – Rep. Barney Frank urged the White House on Friday to use money from a $700 billion bank bailout program to assist Detroit…

…Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said the economy would be devastated if an automaker were forced into bankruptcy or shut down.

“In the midst of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression it would be an unmitigated disaster,” he told a hearing with the CEOs.

Mr. Frank, if you remember correctly, has for the last 8 years been a staunce supporter of companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, often saying that their subprime lending practices were a good thing and the programs were an “asset.” I think that all of his economic credibility is gone. 

I think the guy just likes bailouts.

Yet another Bailout post

I am so tired of these auto execs trying to haggle with the taxpayer. 

 

AP reports, “Some members of Congress have urged the Big Three executives to take major pay cuts as part of the deal. Chrysler Chief Executive Robert Nardelli said he would work for $1 a year, and a similar commitment is expected from GM CEO Rick Wagoner. Ford plans to include a pay cut for Ford CEO Alan Mulally, although the size of the cut was not immediately available.”

Just this morning, Ford’s CEO said he would take $1 a year in pay if Ford got bailed out. Chrysler and GM’s CEOs joined the salary-reduction pledge as well.

So first its “we made a good business plan!” Then it was “we wont take our private jets!” Now its “we’ll work for $1 a year.” My question “So What?”

Taxpayer money is not something to be bartered with. All of these proposals may be great ideas, and may help the business. I’m sure GM could do quite a bit by saving $15 Million in salaries. They could do well by saving millions on private jet flights. But, like I said before, those are their business decisions they are going to have to make if they want to pull their business out of the red.

By using these ideas to try to persuade Congress to give them money, they are essentially saying “we aren’t confident enough in our business plan to actually risk our own money with it.”

If you’re plan works, find some private investors and implement it.

they just don’t get it.

I wonder if these auto execs just think the American People are stupid or if they really believe that the reason they lost the chance for a bailout last week was because they came in private jets. 

The auto executives this time made the 520-mile trip to Washington in hybrid cars. Underscoring the different approach, GM chief executive officer Rick Wagoner and other executives with his company ate lunch Wednesday at Quiznos at a Pennsylvania rest stop along the way.

Omygod Quiznos?! Really? Man these guys are skimping! things must be awful for them! Let’s give them $36 Billion!

The point is, I don’t care if they drove 520 miles or if they came in private jets. Is it wrong that they because of their poor management they have been laying off taxpayers and now demanding taxpayer money? 

Many people are offering different business strategies for these companies. “Declare bankruptcy” some say. “Sell!” say others. 

I am not in the auto business so I have no reccomendations. It’s none of my business. But my money is my business, and I do have a reccomendation for that. Let me keep it.

we want… more money

I have decided not to be angry about the bailouts anymore. They have nearly given me too many heart attacks and they are just starting to seem silly.

We were disgusted with the inital $700 Billion that Paulson requested and got (he hasn’t spent all of it yet). Then we were disgusted when we learned about AIG getting more and more money only to send their biggest earners on fancy vacations. Then we shook our heads in disgust when GM execs flew private jets to beg for money in DC. I know no person that supports any sort of bailout for private enterprise, but congress and the treasury keep approving them. So now, since $700 Billion wasnt enough, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernake have elected to fork over another $800 Billion!

The Federal Reserve and the Treasury announced $800 billion in new lending programs on Tuesday, sending a message that they will print as much money as needed to revive the crippled banking system.

Note that last clause. They will print as much money as needed to revive the crippled banking system? Please someone explain to me how printing more money will fix the banks. PLEASE explain. Anyone? Anyone ever study monetary policy? I’ve heard of Keynseyan economics (see Nixon) but it seems like these guys are on crack.