What Exactly Are They Protesting?
September 13th, 2009 . by economistmom
On Saturday the “Tea Party” movement’s “Taxpayer March on Washington” was held. According to the Washington Post (emphasis added):
Saturday’s throng appeared to number in the many tens of thousands. A sea of people surrounded the Capitol reflecting pool, spilling across Third Street and along the Mall. The sound system did not reach far enough for people at the edges of the rally to hear the speakers onstage.
“You will not spend the money of our children and our grandchildren to feed an overstuffed government,” Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) said of the Obama administration, drawing raucous applause.
“Our history is decorated by those who endured the burden of defending freedom,” Price said. “Now a new generation of patriots has emerged. You are those patriots.”
The group’s sponsors included FreedomWorks, a Washington-based group headed by former House majority leader Richard Armey (R-Tex.), and the groups Tea Party Patriots and ResistNet. They and others involved in the rally comprise a loose coalition of conservative groups that helped organize the health-care and anti-tax demonstrations in the spring and summer…
Which leads me to wonder if most of these protesters really understand what they’re protesting. I doubt these folks would object to expanded health care coverage if they didn’t have to pay higher taxes (which the Obama Administration is proposing as at least part of the way they’ll accomplish deficit-neutral health-care reform). And if these protesters are not willing to pay higher taxes and yet don’t want their existing health benefits cut, then how can they possibly argue that they’re the “fiscal conservatives” and that it’s the other side who is spending “the money of our children and our grandchildren”?
Below are some photos of the march that I found via the flickr link on the Taxpayer March website; they well illustrate that these people are clearly “caught up in the moment” and the “movement” and don’t really understand what they’re protesting. (If I were video blogging already, I would have attended and interviewed people a la Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” segments.) What’s really troubling to me is that these protesters seem especially delusional when it comes to what their “no new taxes” and (yet) “no cutting my (government) benefits” position means for the burden that’s passed on to future generations. And when you use a child as a “prop” to argue the anti-tax position that’s exactly the mentality that jeopardizes that child’s economic future–well, I think that probably qualifies as child abuse [edited 9/15:] that strikes me as poor judgment–almost as poor judgment as calling it “child abuse.”
From what I can see they seem to be predominately protesting government deficits. I am glad there are people out there protesting the enormous additions to our debt. While I think that a combination of increased taxes and spending cuts is necessary, these people are probably just wanting spending cuts, which is OK.
So what can be cut? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should be ended. Isn’t that the issue that got the Democrats back in power? How about the Federal government going through every program carefully and cutting back where appropriate? just like most of the states have to do. And cancel this ridiculous cap and trade fiasco. If you must tax something tax imported oil, not our own coal.
Just as the states have found, budgets can be balanced. These protesters are saying it is time for the Federal government to do the same. And I agree.
Where does this quote come from “no cutting my (government) benefits” ? I don’t see it in the segement of the Washington Post story you posted. Was it in the remainder of the story?
It is really somewhat tragic to see people investing their time and energy in a misguided attempt to express concern for the US fiscal situation. And yet, regardless of what they understand the messge is empriically loud and clear–they are concerned.
That is good.
Now someone has to teach them more about the fiscal dynamics that got us to this point and headding on the map, so that they can not be as easily manipulated in the future. That is the best chance this democracy has to correct it’s headding, and stay the course to long term fiscal solvency.
Citizen action good. Educated citizens better.
I thought they were protesting gov’t deficits. I would’ve thought economistmom would have been more sympathetic, but her solution seems to be to raise taxes rather than looking for (admittedly politically unpalatable) ways to cut spending.
Jason,
I think we’re splitting hairs here. It’s undoubtedly the case that in any broad protest movement, there will be a number of misinformed or ignorant folks and I submit that the same is true of the 9/12 or tea party folks.
However, at the foundation of it, I rather suspect they have it right.
1. Government spending is projected to rise to levels unseen in the history of this country (at least on a sustained basis).
2. Government intrusion into the economy and the decision rights of citizens is pretty close to an all time high. I submit the all time high was probably during the Civil War (suspension of habeus corpus) or WWII (internment) but the breadth of involvement is unseen in our history.
3. The government is on an even more unsustainable fiscal path and the party in power seems to be reacting with more government spending rather than dealing with the issue.
It’s a complex set of questions with no easy solutions. Yes, don’t raise my taxes and don’t touch my benefits is what got us into this in the first place, although I might point out that I won’t raise your taxes and I’ll give you even more benefits is what the current administration is publicly proclaiming (which is an even worse outcome).
I fully agree educated citizens are better than not but I think we may all need to think about what can pass for education among a citizenry that has little time to get educated and few media that are objective enough to educate them.
In the meantime, they are expressing a point of view that the current trajectory does not suit their views. I think that’s admirable and in the best tradition of the country.
The right has no monopoly on indoctrinating children in the art of protest. I believe that brainwashing children with politics of any sort is abusive. Let kids be kids, and let them make up their own minds when they have enough life experience.
I’m convinced that the core of these protests is fear about the level of government spending. A country in which the federal share of GDP doubles would be a very different country. Experts know that current promises will break the bank; therefore it stands to reason that adding more promises will make a huge problem even worse. It’s that simple.
If a modern Ross Perot came forth advocating breaking all past promises on spending, many of these same people would attend his campaign rallies.
The ongoing (or repitetious) story we are seeing played out is that we have one side (including the president) dishonestly claiming we can have all the really good stuff we want with no trade-offs and thus no sacrifices*, and we have another side responding with a mix of rational, well-informed concerns and objections along with poorly-informed, nutjob concerns and objections. To some extent there would be this latter element even if the president had been honest, but his dishonest was certainly conducive to it.
* A partial list http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/andrew-samwick/1055/robert-reich-having-deja-vu-too#comment-3526
“repetitious”, that is.
Diane,
One more thing. You think attaching a sign to the back of a child’s stroller (per your picture) counts as child abuse? I really hope that was a rhetorical flourish.
There’s a fair amount of genuine child abuse and neglect that occurs in this society. Stretching the word child abuse to apply to a sign on a stroller weakens all of us. You may feel that it is ill advised or poor parenting or a whole bunch of other things but I really cannot imagine referring to such an activity as child abuse.
I would also point out that in a recent televised press conference, our President took a question form a child (I believe she was 9 or 11 and the daughter or a prominant fundraiser). That wasn’t child abuse either but it was certainly using a child for political purposes.
As to your contention that an anti-tax argument is inherently inimical to the child’s future, I have a hard time being sure. An unbalanced policy in the long term is bad for all of us. You prefer an approach to increase revenue and hope that it will not produce even higher expenditures. You are certainly entitled to your view on the best policy choices for our country. To classify those who have alternative points of view as guilty of child abuse is not your normal standard for discourse.
Let’s reserve the term child abuse for more abusive things if we can.
Steve: Yes, you are right…that was intended as “rhetorical flourish” on my part, but using the phrase was probably over the top. I do understand what is true “child abuse”–and the way you phrase it (”using a child for political purposes”) is certainly more accurate. Maybe I am being punished for that indiscretion with all the spam that I seems to be hitting me lately… (My spam blocker isn’t blocking it, and I’m having trouble keeping up with it on my own.)
Diane,
I hear you. I’ve noticed the spam as well. Good luck with it and thank you for doing such a nice job with this blog.
It’s probably the most enjoyable one I’ve seen, just needs a bit more traffic without spammers or jerks.
Have a great day
reglardless of which party proposes a new government plan one can never believe that estimated cost. Some how along the way of creating the bill, amending the bill, and then finally voted in the cost goes up. That could be because the estimates were too low or things where added which increased the costs. Either way when any politician says how much it will cost, assume more. Especially when that politician explains that it wont cost anything, that it will break even.