An earlier poll found that Tea Party people support Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  The reason why may be that they tend to be old, and either receive or look forward to the payments.

PROGRAMS LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE WORTH IT? 

(among Tea Party supporters) 

Household receives Medicare or Soc. - Yes: 72%

All Tea Party - Yes: 62%

Just under half of Tea Partiers say someone in their household receives 

(THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT: WHO THEY ARE, April 5-12, 2010.   CBS NEWS/NEW YORK TIMES POLL (For release: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 

6:30 PM EDT). )

The Tea Partiers themselves likely would say that they are not at all like the Greens, whom they perceive as their political enemies, even more than the Democrats.  However, as you point out the overall growth and development of the Green Party can be a model for the Tea Party.  Moreover, as in the case of government-paid pensions and health insurance, some specific agenda items cross traditional party lines.  They both distrust central bankers; they both denounce the global capitalist ruling class.  They both oppose US military intervention in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and southwest Asia.

VSD: "What struck me as even more true is the way governments get to that power: punish those who try to live as best as they can on their own abilities and resources and give incentives to those favoring hand-outs by large organisations and political parties (the tax-break on insurance being just one of many examples). And of course conveniently forget to tell them who is actually paying for those incentives: you the tax-payer."

 

Right. Actually, no business pays taxes, but always passes the burden on their customers.  It is the ultimate consumer who pays all the taxes.  

 VSD: I think that is a contradiction in terms or at least in goals: a party is founded to gain political power, not to spread sound basic values.

 

That is why the Libertarian Party will not win major elections soon.  They do have warmed-over Republicans for presidential candidates, but at the state and local levels, the LP stalwarts keep trying to convince and convert others to their views.  That educational effort can be helpful over time.  People need to hear libertarian ideas as part of the common political dialog.

A theoretician from back home, Joe Overton of the Mackinac Institute (final c is silent: "mackinaw"), now deceased, posited a "window" within which political proposals can be discussed as reasonable.  We argue more taxes versus fewer or less taxes; but we have no discussion on taxes, per se.  Now we do.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Michael:

A TPer who advocated SS as a defined contribution plan would be scored as 'for SS' in such a poll, wouldn't they?

And yet, for sure, not the same TPer who advocated SS in its present defined benefit form.

Defined contribution SS would never go broke, would never have been a burden on Treasury.   Not that transition to would not also be a burden; just that transition to would be less of a burden on Treasury than maintianing it in its present politically arrived at benefits structure.    SS will be a burden precisely because of the way it was grossly mismanaged; there is no unringing that bell, it is a wreck long on rails.

It would also be a reduction in SS benefits, given the political nature of arriving at the current benefits structure.

So given all that, and my advocacy of transition to defined contribution, would I be scored as 'for SS' in that poll?

SS could have been intelligently managed.   It wasn't.   It was raided by idiots during a long standing period of demographic subsidy, which hid the raiding until it was too late to do anything positive about it.   That raiding not only accelerated spending and debt through hidden borrowing, it left a subsidy hole in the present budget.   The subsidy is long gone, the budget hole remains, demanding to be filled.  And that is before honoring the debt.   

That isn't a double whammy, it is actual a quadruple whammy, as follows:   the Boomers were surcharge taxed an additional 10% of earnings for their entire working lives.  That was long ago taxed and spent, reducing their ability to self-plan for their own retirement needs by exactly that extra 10%.  That is whammy 3.   Has been hidden until now.

Whammy #4: the Boomer kids, one way or the other,  be it via currency destruction as the gov't implements the Moynihan Solution("we can always just print the money and give them worthless dollars") or actual direct taxation, will be taxed a -second- time to fund the -same- asset that their Boomer parents were surcharge taxed the -first- time to 'create.'   

And, this is before paying for their current generational needs, and planning for their own retirement needs.

What felt oh so good during all the downhill spending because of the compounding of all those effects is going to feel oh so bad during the Pay the Piper part of the festivities.   It is truly difficult to grasp the magnitude of government's mismanagement of this program, but that future is here.   Clark put it in writing in 1979, its not like this was a big secret.   Just a fringe fact, now coming home to roost. 

Moynihan on the floor of the Senate way back when, on the topic of SS, referring to 'today.'  :  "God help us when they realize what we did to them."

They is us; when is now, and we is here.

Do 'we' realize what 'they' did to 'us' and do we understand who 'we' 'they' and 'us' all are?

regards,

Fred

Thanx for the explanations Steve,

just two thoughts:

if they aren't even 'a party', then I find it even more ridiculous, that 'The Tea-Party' has held America ransom for two debt-ceilings already (which isn't a bad thing, no complaint there, but surprise that they have that much influence) - I understand, that it's individuals in established parties, but that's not what's reported in the news (not that I'd trust any of them) - in the public eye they are treated not only as a movement, but also as 'a party' (which is probably why they chose that misnomer) with actual political power (again via their real individual political affiliations)

the greens started much the same way: some idealists banding together, vying for political favors with established parties, then founding their own political party (which got split twice along the way because of the grassroots idealists defecting from the political realists) and they have become what they are now: another established party

The average Tea Party person believes that government should be much smaller, not focused on redistribution of wealth, be constitutionally restrained, and operate with a balanced budget.  They tend to love their country, and grew up, mostly as optimistic about the future, and they liked the idea that their children would most likely have a better life than they did.  They believe in being productive and working for what they get.

if they manage to transform that belief into some kind of social/political reality best of luck to them - and hopefully they can avoid the pitfalls every other party seems to have walked into as if it were some law of politics that 'it has to be so'

would you see them as a precursor to your minarchist government?

VSD booted a fly in the outfield:  "... but also as 'a party' (which is probably why they chose that misnomer) ..."

Vera pretty much knows her American English and American culture.  A few days back, when she refered to "here in Germany" I read her bio page.  I just thought that she is an American.  But here we found a Shibboleth.

And Steve did point out to her that "the name came from a historical event: the Boston Tea Party..."  It was an iconic event in American history, right there with the Alamo, and Edison's lightbulb.

Vera,

"...if they aren't even 'a party', then I find it even more ridiculous, that 'The Tea-Party' has held America ransom for two debt-ceilings already"

The function of a party is to collect the most important views for sizable portions of the voting populace. They have to be a kind of coalition for a representative type of government as opposed to direct democatic form of government.

And the reason becomes clearer if you look at what would happen without a party. Candidates would not have a central theme but rather just a mish mash of what is most important to them (to the degree they are ideological) or they spout adopted talking points they believe will induce the most votes (if they abandon principles of their own to become 100% poll responders). Both of those approaches by indiviual politicians, or the giant political stew of a full spectrum of mixtures of the two approaches, would create a field that could never evolve purposely towards or away from political ends. That would result in a large political engine that would fall prey to parasites, cronys, power grabbers, and corruption. (True, that's what we see today - but without parties it would happen faster and it would not offer a mechanism for correction.)  A party is a lense through which voters can better focus their soviergnty.

It is the central theme that is defined by the logical or historical compatibiliity of the main principles from which a party is defined that generates a degree of life (from the base who are passionate about that theme). The GOP has a long history of mixing conservative principles, religious principles, and a "me-too" approach and that engenders far less excitement per capita. When the Democrats became progressives, they became better integrated around central themes that played well (granted, it's easier to do when you are willing to make dishonesty a key characteristic regarding theyour actual ends.)

The Tea Party has a much more tightly organized set of principles that speak to a large portion of the populace. AND it has no serpents head to cut off.  That's important.  This makes it a threat to both parties. That is part of the answer to why the GOP can't find a way to deal with it. To the Democrats, because is is a passionate set of principles that oppose progressive goals, they have no way to suck it in with identity politics, so they have to demonize it.  Obama's administration has played almost every single issue, not to win on a position or to achieve a concrete goal, but to demonize any opposition, and THEN, when opposition is inadequate, do what they want.  And the Tea Party is a threat to the GOP because it's passion and focus aim at power over the GOP from the grassroots - which is why the establishment tries to do end runs - like co-op the primary elections, and control campaign money. They need them as voters, they want their passion as a base in the general elections, but don't want to give them any power, and that puts the GOP in an ackward position.  I can't imagine it lasting like this.  Either the GOP moves to the right so that they become Tea Party in their establishment, or they go with the Democrats and demonize the Tea Party, which will result in the end of the GOP as an effective party.  Either way, the progressives may have already sewed up the next few decades... maybe not, people can learn and they do have choices, and future events can change perspectives radically.

The Libertarian party doesn't really factor into this equation for two closely related reasons: 1) It is more of an ideological movement that is acting like a political party. This added function (being a party) to what would otherwise only be an intellectual movement gives educational advantages, media exposure, and more of a sense of realness - people can see that maybe some of these ideas could work in the real world. In this sense it is really more of an incubator and exposer of new political concepts then a functional political party (at this point in history). 2.) Because libertarians focus on idealistic end states, and while doing so, are not always focused on what can be achieved in a short time frame... i.e., because they ignore, on purpose, the time-requirements of the Overton window, they are self-marginalized to a degree in practical politics. I don't think this is bad, just the nature of politics. It is good that we have this experimental Libertarian party, to come up with ideas, to help shift the Overton window, and to grow till such a time that it simply replaces the GOP (which can't happen till the GOP is almost, but not quite libertarian on its own.)

The Tea Party is like common folks (i.e., not intellectuals or devotees of political science issues), who happen to be Overton window sensitive (by accident), and happen to be focused on taking the next step in the direction of libertarian goals, but they don't give a damn about the specific end states - not now. For now, they just want to move in the right direction on those things that make them Tea Party people (smaller government, less taxes, fewer regulations, balanced budget, and move towards living within the constitution.) That's very different from the libertarians who are arguing, for example, about the specific details of financing the ultimate minarchy. The Tea Party doesn't want to argue about the end states, or theoretical nuances, just about the direction and getting a good bite out of going that way.

The Tea Party movement is just one of the political forces that are opposing the otherwise unfettered march of progressives to completing their transformaton into socialism. The real opponent of socialism is Objectivism's strong ethical stand for individualism and the attendent Capitalistic system - which requires a constitutional government limited by explicit statements of individual rights that form the basis for all laws. I.e., minarchy.

The war won't be won by political forces that are battling. It has to be won at a cultural level where some critical mass is achieved of individuals intellectually aware of individual rights (of Objectivist views). That means generations of educational reform. So, the Tea Party - in tactical terms - are trying to hold some of the key bridges till the main forces arrive.
-------------

Marotta says, "...only Congress has the right to create money. That kind of traditionalist anti-capitalism is common across the right wing from organizations such as Spotlight, Birchers, and others who have a nationalist orientation."  But there is nothing anti-capitalism about suggesting a move from a quasi-independent, but monopolistic agency printing money, to the more constitutional approach of having it in the hands of congress who, in theory and to a degree, are more in the hands of the voters.  I like seeing a progression of steps from auditing the fed, leading to reducing the power of the fed, then getting to elimnating the fed, and to rules against fiat currency (gold standard?), and to legalizing private currencies, and finally to ending all government participation in money creation.  And the steps are just to satisfy the psychological requirements of a kind of gradualism that is revealed in watching that Overton Window.  If the media were supportive, and the events seemed to suggest it, then skipping a bunch of step would be great.

Vera:

There was certainly sexism in Athenian Democracy, and that could be fixed(like the Israeli model of the Ephebes)but where was the elitism?

Voting eligible Citizenry by way of Ephebes/military service.   Continued eligibility dependent on not being judged an idiot.   Idiocy included, debt to the state.

Those who fight and bleed and die in the wars -should- be the only citizens eligible to vote themselves into harms way.   There would be no such cancer as Ike's MIC if we had that system of democracy. 

We have part of our tribe making billions on manipulating another part into costly expeditions that put those others into VA hospitals; not satisfied with taxing those in 'The Districts" beyond The Capitol, they have freshly found ways to simply print money by issueing bonds with zeros on them, never to be repaid.   The symbol of American Democracy these days are Ivy League weasels in three piece suits making deals in Georgetown Bistros that further their political careers, line their pockes, and send young men from rural Tennessee into the hurt locker.

That is what 'elitism' looks like in practice, and we are pasty chin deep in it.

regards,

Fred

Vera:

"...if they aren't even 'a party', then I find it even more ridiculous, that 'The Tea-Party' has held America ransom for two debt-ceilings already"

That is an odd characterization of folks against the mere printing of money.

Entities have finite credit and the ability to acumulate debt and carry debt service.   America's current capacity to carry debt service is totally dependent on record low interest rates.   When average interest rises from .25% to 1.25%, debt service increases by a factor of  x5, and so on.

Normally, bonds are paid back, and so, do not represent the mere printing of money(secretary at Treasury prints 12 zeros on a piece of paper, and voila; a trillion is spendable cash from thin air.)    So in theory (this was sometimes painted as their actual theory), we print the money in the recession, the economies 'grow' and circulate new value, and then, when the economies are growing, we claw back the funny money via taxation and repay the bonds.

But that is not what happened, and that is not what ever happens, ever since WWII.

Those bonds aren't even backed by a promise -- 'the full faith and credit of the US Treasury and its power to tax a future nation' -- to actually tax and payback the bonds.    Those bonds are backed only by a promise by Congress to raise the debt ceiling and payoff old bonds with new pieces of paper with even more zeros printed on them.

IOW, the process is exactly equivalent to simply running the printing presses.   And the -really- bad news is, what would make it not like running the presses would be for the US Treasury to enact now massive tax increased on the nation.     That sounds like it would be 'worse' than simply running the presses, but iltimately, one way or the other, both represent a massive tax on actual -value- on the nation that creates the value and fights and dies in the wars.     This ... flow of money from the printing presses benefits those close to the presses and bleeds those farther away from the presses by stealing actual value from them, when they accept payment in US dollars.

So reconsider, who is it that was holding America 'hostage for ransom' over two debt ceiling crises.

Our football playing English major (Paulson) and Asian Studies mavens (Geithner) and the rest of these Masters of the Economic Universe have led the nation into a debt trap; a cul de sac in which the only solution for them (as long as they want to cling to the present gig in DC) is the boundless printing of money by way of meaningless bonds.   They can't actually go out and find brand new willing debt holders because the SS Trust fund used to the the #1 willing debt holder, and to try and find actual debt holders would spike interest rates and overwhelm the federal budget with debt service.   And so, they do the only thing they can do in 2014, 2015, ... which is to endlessly print money and borrow it from itself, backed by nothing but zeros on paper.   This is -still- a tax on the value producing nation, just harder to see, if not feel.

The solution?   There is no solution other than to crash the pig and severely cut the size of the federal government spending.  An unwinding of all the funny money needs to occur one way or the other.   If we count on re-invigorated economies at this point to suddenly come alive, that unwinding will show up as massive inflation and continued displacement of value in the economies.   The latest free for some, a shedding of risk and pain from a connected some onto unconnected others.    We can default on our own bonds held by us(translated: stiff current and future SS benefits), but if this nation ever wants to borrow from other nations again, it must make good on the bonds held by China and others.   Or else, tear up the credit card, and fund all future government spending from current taxes only. Which, one way or the other, is going to be the ultimate terminus of all this insanity.     Cut the federal pig down to JFK era levels of spending.  (Which today, accounting for population and government caused inflation, would be about $1450B/yr, not the present near $4000B/yr).

That would require a now crushing adjustment of the federal government, which is why it is decades past ever going to be -deliberately- done by mere politicians who, in their calculus of pain now on present voters vs. greater pain in the future for merely hypothetical voters, don't hesitate for 20 milliseconds with that calculation.

So, circumstances will grind out a solution.

20 yrs ago, the required adjustment would have been far less.

5 yrs from now, it will be far worse.    The nature of modern American politics since WWII is to kick the can down the road and make it far worse on the next generation.

This isn't a crisis in America; broad America is flat on its back, crushed by what has been long going on in DC.  This is a current crisis in those trendy Georgetown Bistros, and that is where the panic is.  They are clinging to the gig until their fingers and the nation's butt bleeds.

But look, the sun is still shining.   Maybe they can keep this low interest rate thing going forever.   Maybe they can keep economies flat on their ass enough to subdue runaway inflation for another 4 years.   Maybe the balance of flyover nation in misery while DC and the coasts party is the new norm; we'll wake up flyover country when it is time to fight and die and bleed in the next war, and then we'll find a way to make them make the stuff they use to fight the wars and also die and bleed in them.   Order another round of Grey Goose at those Geoergetown Bistros while there is still plenty of not so maggoty carcass on the once beast.

regards,

Fred

Vera:

By the way, just so we understand how 'interest' paid on those bonds held by the FED works;   when the FED collects interest on the bonds it holds-- from any source -- , that isn't recycled as cuirrent accounts the next time someone shows up with a new bond.  (That is what a properly functioning central bank would do; we don't have one of those.)   All that interest -- from any source, including Treasury -- is handed over to the US Treasury to spend.   This is dutifully reported every quarter as 'profits' by the FED handed over to the US Treasury.

Nobody seems to mind much; it represents additional printing of money from nothing, spent by the US treasury.   They walk into the US economies with it and demand stuff from the people who actually make stuff.    THose aren't 'profits'.  They didn't fall from 'the interest tree.'  Those are a hidden tax on -value-.

The complete lack of economic/accounting sophistication in 99% of the electorate lets them get away with this in broad daylight.   You could spell it out with a giant crayon and folks eyes would still gloss over.   And that is the dross we are tied to.   20% of that 99% votes, and that is enough to pretend we have a choice in this nation.

So as far as interest paid to the FED on those bonds...it all comes back to US Treasury.   This 'works' as long as the balance of the value producing nation doesn't mind that our federal government is simply printing money and spending it, accepting it as a hidden tax on -value-.    Now, all you value creators out there, go bust a gut, take risk, put your skin in the game in pursuit of federal dollars, falling from the sky like rain.   Convert them to something of actual value as fast as possible, and stiff whover made that actual value by handing them worthless dollars, before they catch on.   Yes, that would normally result in runaway inflation, as people caught on...except in economies flat on their back because of record low utilization/high unemployment/high under-employment and suppresses wages.   We can keep this new form of serfdom bubbling along, skimming off the top, for as long as it takes for the many more schleps to figure it out.

Hey, 4th of July.   Freedom.  Independence.  Liberty.  Red, White, and Blue.  Hot Dogs.  Fireworks.    Back to sleep...

regards,

Fred 

Fred,

That is an odd characterization of folks against the mere printing of money.

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I think it's a good thing they postponed the 'printing of zeros' for a few months - I was just surprised that they had so much political power to do it. In an unjust state criminal action is the only rational choice - so ransom would about cover it. Not to mention that the current government felt like being blackmailed by a tiny minority, which is not a bad thing.

Maybe they can keep this low interest rate thing going forever.   Maybe they can keep economies flat on their ass enough to subdue runaway inflation for another 4 years.

Funny that the European Union has the opposite problem (too little inflation) and using the same remedy (lower interest rates) :D I'm sure there's some logical explanation for both sides - at least one the Georgetownies can agree on with the Brussel sprouts ;)

just so we understand how 'interest' paid on those bonds held by the FED work

There's a nice quilting pattern that's very similar to that: 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' :D but thanx for explaining in more technical terms :)

The actual value is what I've been missing in just about any economy in the world. Everything seems to exist in fantasy numbers: in bonds (can't even buy bondage with those), in loans (with no interest - the rational kind, not only the financial rate), in stocks (which used to mean physical wares) and shares (which is just as illogical: how can you share sth you don't even have), in bits and bytes in computers that can become zeros in more ways than one.

The only remaining question is, what is the breaking point?   Because it is not going to be fixed by our political process.

Agreed - however it does not matter what or when or where the breaking point will be. HomoSaSa has survived several such breaking points at high cost. Currently that cost will be political and social - lets see what the next wave brings after the breaking point. I think it was some university professor (don't remember the details) who argued, that mankind needs disasters / breaking points, to evolve, so we should actually strive for those so humanity can evolve faster. If I look at history I cannot deny a certain grain of truth in that - which makes me shudder at a species that requires self-destruction to evolve.

Vera,

When I spoke of the function of a political party I meant the PROPER function of a political party. I'm well aware of the failings of the various parties (which should be apparent from what I've written).

As a side note, you mention that the Republicans and the Democrats have become virtually the same. There still is a great deal of truth in that, but it has been changing and the dynamic of the change is important. This idea of them both being the same is such a striking and important observation that we are tempted to keep focusing on it even after its expiration date - it is an idea that is starting to disappear - and that's happening just as most people are becoming aware of it.

Once there was a significant difference between the parties and then the GOP me-too'ed its way into becoming Democrat-lites.  But now, the Democrats of old are gone and we have Progressives which moves them into a new category and only some of the GOP have followed to keep alive the RINO (Republicans In Name Only) segment of the party.  At the same, reacting to progressivism the libertarian conservatives wing of the GOPs formed, and they have pulled the rest of the GOP a little bit towards liberty.

So, they aren't exactly the same any more - especially in direction. Direction is important because when they are both just the same party, the only difference is how fast they move towards an erosion of liberty. The gridlock we have now is, at least partially, evidence of each side trying to move in opposite directions. It a large, messy collection of mixed motives and mixed ideologies and always in motion - changing - and for those reasons it is important to pick out the different principles at work.
-------

"...isn't that how democracy should work: from the grassroots?"

Yes.  And, with the Tea Party pushing at the GOP representatives it is how a representative government should work. It is the politicians that don't like that and want to pretend they are serving democratically while the facts show that they talk one way and act another.
--------

you'd need two branches in such a party: one to clean up and deal with current problems and one that holds true to the final end state ...

Good point.  Maybe the Libertarian party will develop in that way.... over time.  But I don't think so, it has too many internal issues to deal with. And because politicians respond to what activates their voters, I'd see the libertarian conservatives  of the GOP being the first of the mainstream politicians to drag the GOP in that direction, because their voters will be the most responsive to hearing the intellectual roots of good politics.  Currently the progressives are the most effective at 'cleaning up the mess' left by capitalists - they attack it on their altruistic moral grounds, pragmatic social (collectivist) grounds, revisionist history, etc. - it is one of the reasons why they have been winning.

----------

Here is one of the problems with having anything other than a minarchy for a government - the political parties end up, of necessity, trying to decide what to do on a massive number of issues and this results in a government that attempts to micromanage the world.  Think about that.  It is a situation where individual voters are thinking that part of their political role is to make decisions regarding what percent of a budget should go to NASA, what should the government to in the area of health care, should we take in unaccompanied minors that arrive at the border, how long should the be held, should the federal government fund ethanol in the fuel, etc., etc., etc.  No organization would survive that kind micromanagement on that scale.  Once elected the officials can't implement their constituent’s wishes because there are too many and they are too confused.  Gridlock is almost a blessing since each side can point at the other.  The more a culture becomes Objectivist in it's primary principles, the smaller the government it will have and that government will be easier to manage, but what would especially melt away in size would be the influence of political parties.