"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The anti-tax tea parties have received quite a bit of press attention this week. There has been some criticism that teabaggers (snicker) are closely linked to various right wing groups. I've refrained from commenting on the teabagging parties in general. I don't think you have to be a Republican or a libertarian -- two groups that were at loggerheads for most of the reign of the big government George W. Bush -- to question how the government is spending tax money.
I can deal with taxes, when they are used in some way to benefit the public good. I wouldn't object to my taxes going for a more sensible and cost efficient health care system like single payer.
However, I DO object to my taxes going to subsidize a fourth mansion for a Wall St. CEO. I DO object to my taxes being used as corporate welfare for the stockholders of Boeing, Blackwater and other "defense" contractors.
Anti-tax sentiment is associated with the right wing. But probably the most famous tax protester in American history was the pacifist Henry David Thoreau.
I admit to being wary of any movement that has been co-opted by people like former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey. And I am wary of getting too close to any movement that seems so attractive to anti-immigrant bigots, theocrats and to the small-minded who believe the lie (and, worse, are offended by this "fact") that Pres. Obama is a Muslim.
Some of these people were all gung ho about government spending when its focus was subsidizing "defense" contractor greed (who are more financially sympathetic to the GOP). Now they object to it when it focuses more on subsidizing Wall St. greed (who are increasingly more sympathetic to Democrats). I can't take seriously Dick Armey's ramblings on smaller government, given his record as majority leader. Some tarred any criticism of President Bush as unpatriotic treachery that was tantamount to handing a nuclear bomb to bin Laden but now lustily call Obama a fascist/communist/socialist or whatever the epithet of the day is with as much venom as they can muster.
But the truth is that there are many libertarians out there that were just as vocal about spending and taxation during Bush as during Obama. It's just no one was listening at the time. Back then, they were dismissed as loons both by establishment Republicans and mostly ignored by Democrats and the media. Now that the Republicans have been completely swept from power and they are now completely devoid of any ideas, they are suddenly glomming on to the only idea they've had in the last 30 years that hasn't been completely discredited.
The GOP elite used treated Ron Paul and his followers like escaped mental patients. Now, the establishment has stolen their ideas and claimed them as their own.
So while some of the teabaggers aren't exactly the kind of people I'd want to get in bed with politically, it doesn't mean there aren't issues to discuss. It doesn't mean we shouldn't debate how our money is spent.
That said, some of this nonsense isn't something easily glossed over.
Take an excerpt from this piece in The Post-Standard about Syracuse (NY) teabagger Joanne Wilder.
She said she retired on disability from M&T Bank three years ago after undergoing knee replacement and back surgeries. She lives on her Social Security and disability benefits. Last year, she petitioned the bankruptcy court for protection from creditors.
She said she did not have to pay federal income taxes last year because her income was too low.
"I don't want to see this country turn into a welfare, nanny state, where we stand in line for groceries, and we're in welfare lines, and in socialized medicine lines," Wilder said.
So maybe the best spokesperson for personal responsibility is not someone who reneged on her debts.
Maybe the best spokesperson for lower federal income taxes is not someone who doesn't even pay any.
Maybe the best spokesperson against the welfare state is not someone who is entirely dependent on that oldest of welfare state programs Social Security.
And in a nutshell, this embodies the hypocrisy shown by a great many people who claim to be in favor of small government or against the welfare state. I live in one of the most conservative, anti-big government regions of New York State. But the region is also poorly and heavily dependent on PUBLIC sector jobs as teachers and prisons guards.
Teabaggers are pretty vocal around here. So when New York's governor proposed closing two big prisons in the North Country now underutilized because of (gasp!) falling crime (at least the petty kind), you'd think he'd be widely praised in this small government-loving area. In actuality, many of the people who participated in the tea parties were also lobbying to keep the prisons open. The sad part is that many of them don't even realize their incoherence.
There's a serious argument to be made about how our tax money is being spent, but many of the teabaggers have far to little credibility to be the ones making it.
Update: Surprisingly, it turns out the teabagger Ms. Wilder is only the second . Don't let the door hit you on the way out. #1 goes to the folks chanting in favor of Texan secession while waving American flags.
8 comments:
Teabaggers... still can't get over that. Great post - one minor point:
The oldest of welfare state program is not Social Security, I believe it is military pensions for widows and dependents.
John,
I stand corrected. I was actually referring to the first universal social program available to all citizens. I apologize for not being clear on that.
Co-opted movements happens all too often. On Tax day, we saw government spending critics joined by religious zealots, homophobes and conspiracy kooks, to name a few. On the flip side, I recall the various groups at the anti-war rallies a few years back, arguing for causes completely unrelated to war, particularly the Mumia freaks.
Brian, the Fed does not use a single cent of our federal tax dollars for any social program including social security. 100% of our taxes go toward paying the interest on loans we take from the Federal Reserve, a private bank that borrows much of its money from wealthier foreign powers like the Saudis and the Chinese.
So, we use borrowed money to run our government. Someone not paying federal taxes doesn't stop a federal program in its tracks. It just means that more money is borrowed from the reserve.
Not a very wise way to run our affairs, I agree, but if we can all agree that allowing the fed to borrow for war and bailouts is okay, how can one argue that it can't be done for important programs, too? ;-)
A bit of an error I think in your argument - we don't all agree that allowing the fed to borrow for war and bailouts is OK. In fact, it's decidedly not OK.
I assumed Matt's argument contained a touch of sarcasm.
Yes, me too. But he's still using the idea that borrowing to pay for important programs is OK, right? Otherwise how do you pay for programs except through taxes on someone (the question is who should be paying more and isn't) - and frankly, the income tax is one of the most progressive taxes we have.
I just don't buy this libertarian nonsense that we shouldn't have to pay taxes - that's an everyone for themselves, survival of the fittest philosophy that has no place in a community of thinking and caring people running their own local government.
Of course the anti-tax crowd never wants to tell us what happens to those too old or alone to take care of the themselves, who what happens when our house catches fire, or when our children need to be educated.
I would guess that the vast majority of our local anti-tax libertarians sent their kids to public school, use public roads, and collect a variety of publicly funded benefits - and not just cash benefits.
I'll let Matt speak for himself.
" I would guess that the vast majority of our local anti-tax libertarians sent their kids to public school, use public roads, and collect a variety of publicly funded benefits - and not just cash benefits."
And don't forget the public library, where I often run into many of them.
While I have some sympathy with them on some civil liberties' issues, I don't agree with libertarians on economics. Sure, I'd love to pay less in taxes. But I'm not willing to sacrifice police protection, snow removal and other quality of life related public services to achieve that. Taxes are one half of a scale, balanced out by services. People like Reagan (who wasn't a libertarian but played one on TV) successful removed the idea of taxes from any context. Businesses use a cost-benefit analysis, not just a cost analysis.
I have no problem debating what's important to subsidize with my taxes (single payer health care, public transit) and what's not (militarism and other forms of corporate welfare). But it's only useful if it's done in a context that is so often omitted by those with an agenda.
Post a Comment