Topic: Tea Party Wins

[recceguy]

Tea party favorite wins Delaware GOP Senate nod

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39170344/ns/politics-decision_2010/

WASHINGTON — Virtually unknown a month ago, Christine O'Donnell rode a surge of support from tea party activists to victory in the Delaware Republican Senate primary Tuesday night in an upset as stunning as any other in a season of recession and political upheaval. A second insurgent led for the GOP nomination in New Hampshire.

O'Donnell defeated Rep. Mike Castle, a fixture in Delaware politics for a generation who campaigned with the strong backing of party officials in his state and in Washington.

More on Link

So I have to wonder if people have finally had enough and this is a portent of things to come. There is a lot of anger directed at Washington, not just Obama, but Washington in general. The Republicans thought they could co-opt the Tea Party and the Tea Party just shoved their nose in it. She smoked Castle. I think it would be great to see a three party system in the US.

[Journeyman]

As has been mentioned in some other threads, I think this only further divides the the political right, which may lead to a string of Democratic election victories until the Republicans/Tea Party sort themselves out.

[recceguy]

As has been mentioned in some other threads, I think this only further divides the the political right, which may lead to a string of Democratic election victories until the Republicans/Tea Party sort themselves out.

There is that, of course. However, the Tea Party has started to appeal to middle America, not elephants and jackasses in particular. It may take some time as any new party likely would, but eventually they can likely siphon enough from both parties to come up the middle and unbalance both. Maybe not this time, but if they can maintain this kind of momentum, the race in 2012 will be really interesting.

[Thucydides]

The TEA party seems to be consuming the Republican party from within (capturing wards and the party machinery, and nominating their own candidates).

As a practical matter, I doubt the TEA party will become a separate political entity, but the number of TEA party Republicans will initially be very small, limiting their influence in the House and Senate. They will become important as "swing" votes iin the Congress, and eventually the balance will start tipping in their favour, although we might have to wait for 2014 and 2016 to get enough numbers in the Congress to see a real difference.

[muskrat89]

Tea Party has started to appeal to middle America, not elephants and jackasses in particular.

I am fairly active in our local Tea Party - the person that usually sits next to my wife and I is an African-American lady that is a Democrat. Many people are fed-up with both sides.

One of the targets of many Tea Partiers are RINOs. The strategy is to get active within the party of your choice (granted, most are Republicans) to nominate and elect candidates that more closely reflect their values. For us, that means Conservative candidates.

My local group does not endorse candidates for any race. Their goal is to educate members and let them make their own choices. There are many misconceptions about the Tea Party movement; the biggest in my opinion is that the Tea Party is a party; it has no desire to be a party. It's a grassroots movement to shrink government, reduce spending, and hold all elected representatives accountable.

[jollyjacktar]

I am fairly active in our local Tea Party - the person that usually sits next to my wife and I is an African-American lady that is a Democrat. Many people are fed-up with both sides.

One of the targets of many Tea Partiers are RINOs. The strategy is to get active within the party of your choice (granted, most are Republicans) to nominate and elect candidates that more closely reflect their values. For us, that means Conservative candidates.

My local group does not endorse candidates for any race. Their goal is to educate members and let them make their own choices. There are many misconceptions about the Tea Party movement; the biggest in my opinion is that the Tea Party is a party; it has no desire to be a party. It's a grassroots movement to shrink government, reduce spending, and hold all elected representatives accountable.

Perhaps, it is partly stemming from using the word "party" in your movement's name.  I realize it's roots in the Boston Tea Party incident, but .....  Also, for one who does not really follow the American political system's process (I find it at times bloody confusinga and too lengthy) it gives me a good quick thumbnail of your aims and direction.  I'll admit, I thought it was a whole new party too that aimed to change things ala' Reform Party.

[E.R. Campbell]

I wonder if the most recent dissent in the GOP's ranks indicates the birthing pangs of a new political party. Is the Tea Party ready for independence?

It appears, to me, that there is too little common ground between the traditional or establishment Republicans and the new Tea Party Republicans to sustain their fragile unity beyond 2012.

(I doubt that either the establishment or the Tea Party Republicans will want to divide before the next election ~ neither group would gain anything from giving control of the House of Representatives back to Nancy Pelozi's Democrats.)

But what about the campaign, proper? As far as I can see the establishment Republicans still control the party apparatus and the purse strings. Will the establishment Republicans accept the Tea party incumbents for re-election, as Republicans, or will they run an establishment candidate and create three way races?

In the near and maybe even mid terms that scenario only serves the Democrats, but I wonder if that is top of the mind for either the establishment or Tea Party Republicans. It appears to me that the culture wars are being waged, right now, between the “hard right” (Tea Party) and the “soft right” (establishment Republicans) ~ the aim being to determine who carries the banner against the Democratic “left.”

There have been many "third party" stillbirths over the last century, perhaps this is just another, but the divisions between the Establishment Reppublicans and the Tea Party seem very deep.

[Brad Sallows]

I have doubted since the midterm elections that the Republican party will remain as it is.  It will either be turned over from the inside or there will be a factional splintering.  The US does not need a party which is just a slightly slower Democratic party.

[cupper]

The bigger problem is the misread of the 2010 midterm elections. Both parties seem to have missed the message that the electorate is angry with the dysfunctional status quo, where neither party is willing to work with the other. Overall, the GOP is stuck on doing everything possible to prevent Obama from winning a second term, regardless of how beneficial the policies may be for the country. The Dems have no backbone to stand-up to the GOP. So they just sit back and do nothing. And Obama, until recently acts as the observer in chief instead of trying to act as the mediator and / or leader that is needed to move the US out of this mess.

And what has gotten lost in this whole charade is that the problem isn't the debt and deficit, but the fact that unemployment is stuck at 9%+, and that cutting spending won't do a damned thing to improve the situation. Historically, the solution to get out of a recession has been to spend and invest in the economy. This is what creates jobs.

I think that both parties are going to see a voter backlash in 2012. The Tea Party may throw up more candidates in the primaries to dislodge the less conservative incumbents, but will find themselves defeated as the independent vote pulls the electorate back to the center.

Thank your luck that Canada has a much simpler election process, that lasts only 30 days or so. Since the Bush era, the process south ofthe border has become a non-stop spectacle, which causes the voters to tune out, and become wholly apathetic.

[Brad Sallows]

Overall, the second most important problem facing the US (after their dysfunctional budgeting) is to replace Obama.  Preventing a second term is an extremely beneficial policy aim for the country.  Obama is basically a guy who is handy at reading prepared speeches to uncritical audiences.  Beyond that, he is an ego in a suit.  You know what a "walt" is?  Obama is a presidential "walt".  He wants the prestige and admiration of the position, but shows little inclination to do the job or, in some ways, even to act the part of "presidential" (eg. a higher level of graciousness and congeniality in the face of opposition and opprobrium).  Unfortunately, you can't just walk out and buy a costume and trappings and craft a background lie that will make people think you are/were president; you have to win the office.  Obama has the skills and desire to win the office but not to execute it.  He is still an "observer"; I see no real shift to "mediator" or "leader".

Cutting spending will improve the situation because the gap is so large.  The bigger the gap, the faster the approach to the point at which borrowing at reasonable rates is impossible.  That rate of speed must be slowed to allow time to develop other contributions to the solution.  Lost in all the hand-wringing over the bad things that will happen when the US rating moves from AAA to AA+ (or whatever) while the US borrows 40% of every dollar it spends is any conception of what will happen when the US can not borrow at all, or can only borrow at Greek rates, when it must borrow 45% or 50% or more of every dollar it spends.

What creates jobs is business expansion and hiring.  Businesses expand and hire when they predict improved prospects (improvement in the revenues/costs balance).  Recent legislative changes in the US are expected to increase the "costs" side of the equation; political rhetoric of a certain party leads people to believe there may be future changes which are also reasonably expected to increase the "costs" side of the equation.  The amount of increase is uncertain.  It is possible to create jobs in the US without doing very much at all to revenues or expenses: eliminate the uncertainty.  Not every drag on businesses has to be removed; entrepreneurs are willing to work on very small margins of profit, but to do so they need to be certain those margins will not disappear.  Not everyone is a progressive-minded lawyer or consultant with 20-30% margins; some, like oil companies, make do with <10% margins; some people operate small businesses with <5% margins.

Ultimately the TP is going to win its main objective.  If they win in primaries and elections in 2012, they will be able to execute a controlled rebalance.  If they don't, then a dead stop will be reached more quickly (Democrats are incapable of solving the problem except by taxing an increasing share of  a shrinking GDP) and a rebalance will still happen.

Lao Tzu: "Do the difficult things while they are easy and do the great things while they are small. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step."

The US is past the point of doing the difficult/great thing while it is easy/small, but it will only get more difficult/larger.

[Thucydides]

You have drastically misread the situation.  Unemployment is stuck at 9% (or higher, the official figure does not include people who have given up looking for work) because stimulus spending does not work (a lesson that apparently needs to be relearned every generation or two) and because the policies and pronouncements by the administration have generated a climate of fear and uncertainty in the business community, leading to a "capital strike" where business refuses to invest or hire since they cannot be sure of being able to recover, much less profit from their investments.

This happened at the height of the New Deal in 1937 for roughly the same reasons, making 1937-38 the worst years of the depression. Indeed, modern economic research and historiography suggests the Great Depression lasted seven years longer than it "had" to because of government intervention in the economy (read this book for details).

Now the GOP is not entirely blameless; they are trying to milk the situation for political advantage and establishment Republicans are still crony capitalists (which is the real target of the TEA party movement). Few politicians have the backbone needed to put the case for deep spending cuts on the table or to actually vote for spending cuts. Even the Ryan budget passed by the House only scratches the surface.

For anyone who believes the issue is not spending, look again at the charts in this article; revenues have risen 3X since 1965 but spending has risen 4X (with a massive spike beginning in 2006 when the Democrats won the House and Senate). A controlled drawdown in spending is the only way to solve the problem in a reasonably organized fashion (and yes there will be a lot of hurt special interests and generalized pain); the alternative is an uncontrolled crash which will be far worse.

[cupper]

What about the lack of revenue?

If it was a question of freeing up dollars for the businesses to expand and invest, the tax cuts that took place over the past 2 years should have created the perfect climate for job creation. But we haven't seen any change in the unemployment rate.

There are two sides to the deficit reduction equation. Along with spending cuts, you need to increase revenue through tax increases, or elimination of unnecessary tax breaks. You can cut spending to the bone, but unless the revenue side is addressed, you will not achieve anything near the deficit reduction that is being called for.

Part of the loss in revenue is that the tax base has shrunk due to the loss of jobs, and reduction of the economy as a whole. Since revenue has shrunk, more borrowing is necessary to meet the obligations. Get people back to work, and more money will start coming in, businesses will need to produce more to meet the increased demand by a more confident consumer base, increasing economic growth.

As for the so called failure of the stimulus package, the majority of economists agree that there wasn't enough investment in actual employment and job creation programs and policies for it to be effective. The majority of the stimulus package was tax cuts which wasn't going to allow businesses to expand, but keep the current workforce employed.

A major investment (read trillions) in infrastructure renewal will go much further than any spending cut or tax reduction would have a hope achieving. The American Society of Civil Engineers has shown that spending on infrastructure at current rates will cost 870,000 jobs, and will decrease the GDP by $3.1 Trillion by 2020.

People are not spending in the economy because they are fearful that their next paycheck could be their last, that they are only a medical crisis away from going broke, or a major household repair away from losing the home. The government needs to get the economy back moving towards more significant growth, and the best way to do this is by investing in projects that will directly create employment.

[ModlrMike]

It is NOT the role of government to create jobs. It is the role of government to produce the conditions for others to create jobs. Long lasting jobs that contribute to the treasury, not government jobs that cost the treasury in perpetuity. Spending "government" money on short term make work projects is doomed to failure.


Remember, the government has no money of its own. It has lots of other people's money, and because it's other people's money, the government needs to be particularly responsible with how it is spent.

[cupper]

And the government creates those conditions by investing in infrastructure. By providing funding for the construction of new roads and bridges, the government creates the conditions where jobs can be created. For every $1 Billion invested in infrastructure renewal, 2500 new jobs are created either directly or indirectly. Many of the indirect jobs are long term jobs that will remain long past the end of the period of construction.

The jobs created, services provided and goods purchased during the period of the infrastructure program all provide larger sums of revenue back to the government. The improved transportation facility will increase productivity, reduce lost time and income due to congestion, vehicle costs, etc.

I agree that spending needs to be reviewed, and that it needs to be responsible. Government waste contributes to the problem. But unless you change the culture of the pols and their reliance on special interest dollars to get reelected, you will never come to a solution.

It is no accident that the manufacture of military hardware is spread across many congressional districts. This way companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing can ensure that any program for military equipment that gets funded, remains funded. What politician in their right mind would anger voters in their district by voting to cut funding for a system that the Pentagon neither wants nor endorses. So they keep spending money which would be better suited paying for other more essential programs, on a second alternate engine for a fighter jet that has yet to be selected for service.

Since the government cannot directly negotiate with the drug companies over drug prices supplied to government funded medical programs, cost savings are left unrealized.

What I find amazing is the vocal minority that ***** about the fact that they pay too much in taxes, even though the US is one of the lowest taxed populations in the western world. But they still expect the roads to be paved, the police to protect them form criminals, the fire department to respond to emergencies, the schools to teach their kids, and their hospitals to provide adequate care. I want it all, I just don't want to pay more for it.

Just remember, it's not the businesses and the rich that generate spending in the economy. It's the average everyday worker who spends the wages on food, clothing, housing and so on. What is left over goes to savings, or for non essential expenditures like entertainment, upgrading the lifestyle, etc. If the consumer is not certain of the future, they won't spend money on anything unnecessary. And if they aren't spending, business isn't making money, and jobs aren't being created. The only way consumers will loosen up the purse strings is if they confident that they will still  be able to put food in the table, put clothes on their backs and gas in the tank, both tomorrow and this time next year.

[E.R. Campbell]

Jobs are created by demand, a pull function. People buy (demand) what they need and want; the same people produce (supply) the goods and services their neighbours demand. Government 'stimulus' is, generally, a push system: government money goes to producers (and through them to individuals) for projects that people might want and even need but an extra, often unproductive, step is placed in the process ~ instead of you and I buying (or not) the cars we need or want, our money is used to push some cars into our driveways.

There are things that:

1. Governments can do better than individuals - building highways, for example; and

2. Should do, regardless of efficiency - the national defence, for example.

But much, perhaps even most of what governments do, today, is not 'necessary' (because government should do it or can do it better) and the people should consider "alternate service delivery." There is a difference between public service and the public sector. We might say, for example, that we 'need' a public broadcaster and we might decide to spend more than $1 Billion each year on that but we do not need a government department to run the CBC, do we? Why should the same principle not apply to say, just for argument, 50% of the departments and agencies on this list

I submit that Canada can, right now, erase its deficit in two years by cutting massively without doing any real harm to the economy or society ~ some "creative destruction," yes, harm, no. If I'm right, if Canada is massively over-governed, then so is the USA and the same desirable result, a balanced public budget, can be achieved the same way: by cutting, cutting and cutting more.
 
 

[muskrat89]

But they still expect the roads to be paved, the police to protect them form criminals, the fire department to respond to emergencies, the schools to teach their kids, and their hospitals to provide adequate care. I want it all, I just don't want to pay more for it.

Most people, even Tea Partiers, don't mind paying taxes for things like defense, schools, roads, etc. What they do mind paying taxes for are things like these (by both parties):

http://www.areddy.net/mscott/porkabs.html

http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/oinkers.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0414/pig-book-congressional-pork-hits-196-billion-in-2009

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169524/

http://www.akdart.com/pork3.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/10/water-taxis-fish-food-gop-highlights-worst-pork-barrel-projects/

Here is the list:

-- $1.9 million for "water taxis to nowhere" in Pleasure Beach, Conn. Congress approved the money after a fire destroyed the bridge to Pleasure Beach, but the area already is accessible by foot and rowboats.

-- $3.8 million for an urban art trail in Rochester, N.Y.

-- $3.1 million for upgrades to a boat owned by the New York State Museum. The boat dates back to 1921 and was originally used in canals.

-- $3 million for bicycle racks in Georgetown -- the Washington, D.C., neighborhood that is one of the wealthiest areas in the country.

-- $1.5 million to improve the streetscape in the six blocks surrounding a downtown Detroit casino.

-- $578,000 for fighting homelessness in Union, N.Y. According to a local news report, the town never asked for the stimulus money and did not even have a program through which to administer the money. The town supervisor said he wasn't aware of a homelessness problem in the town.

-- $550,000 for a skateboard park in Pawtucket, R.I.

-- $500,000 for fish food in Missouri, to help defray the costs for state fish farmers.

-- $400,000 for renovations to a vacant building in City of Jal, N.M.

-- $380,350 to encourage landowners in West Virginia to grow shiitake mushrooms and ginseng.

-- $90,000 for a communal kitchen in Watsonville, Calif. The shared kitchen is meant to help food service entrepreneurs.

[cupper]

But with this current congress, we no longer have the pork that they previously railed against. And the expenditures for earmarks (read pork tenderloin) never made up more that 1/10 of 1% of the actual budget.

Even more so, the portion of the budget that cuts are focused on can be cut to the point of elimination and it still would not achieve anywhere near the necessary reduction in expenditures to begin to reduce the deficit or debt.

What really needs to be done is an entire overhaul of the way the US Government spends, and how it raises revenues.

Medicare and Medicaid can continue to be provided, at lower costs and more efficiently by changing the working model of how it is provided and how providers are paid.

Defense needs to review priorities, and look at how much is expended on useless, unnecessary equipment, systems and policies, contracting out for service support functions, etc.

The tax code should be simplified to the point that everyone pays taxes at reasonable rates that cover all of the expenditures. What's wrong with saying that if you make from $0 to 25,000 you pay W%, 25 to 75K you pay X%, 75K to 250K you pay Y% and over $250K you pay Z%. Same with corporate taxes. No loopholes, no deductions, no reductions for any reason.

And force people running for office to use only public funds for elections. Eliminate the special interest money, and perhaps place term limits on officeholders and maybe they will start listening to the electorate.

Maybe then they can get on with the business of governing.

[muskrat89]

Of course there is still pork spending. From this site  http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/:

For fiscal year 2011, House Democrats are not requesting earmarks that go to for-profit entities; House Republicans are not requesting any earmarks (although there are both exceptions and definitional questions); not surprisingly, the Senate has rejected any limits on earmarks.  None of these reforms are sufficient to eliminate all earmarks, so CAGW expects there will still be a 2011 Pig Book.

The transparency changes are far from perfect.  The fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act contained 35 anonymous projects worth $6 billion, or 59 percent of the total pork in the bill.  Out of the 9,129 projects in the 2010 Congressional Pig Book there were 9,048 requested projects worth $10 billion and 81 anonymous projects worth $6.5 billion.

And force people running for office to use only public funds for elections

They do that here. It's not all its cracked up to be.  http://www.azcleanelections.gov/home.aspx

Further, I work for a state Agency. They will tell you "Oh, we have cut to the bone.." I mock that openly.

[cupper]

They do that here. It's not all its cracked up to be.  http://www.azcleanelections.gov/home.aspx

However, it only applies to candidates who seek matching public funds. As long as they do not seek matching public funds, the contribution limits do not apply.

What I am proposing is completely different.

If you run for office, you can only spend public funds on your election campaign. In other words, the only source of money is the government election money pool. No other sources. Period.

Add to that, the media outlets would need to provide free air time for political advertisement to be equally divided among all candidates. The major beneficiary of all of the fundraising money spent in elections is the media. That's one reason there is a never ending election cycle in the US.

Of course there is still pork spending. From this site  http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/:

But again, the percentage of the budget that the pork makes up is less than 1%. It's like using a tea spoon to bail on the Titanic.

[Brad Sallows]

>Medicare and Medicaid can continue to be provided, at lower costs and more efficiently by changing the working model of how it is provided and how providers are paid.

>Defense needs to review priorities, and look at how much is expended on useless, unnecessary equipment, systems and policies, contracting out for service support functions, etc.

When the discussion revolves around generalized assertions, everyone is confident that "something" can be done more efficiently.  But as soon as someone calls for specifics, the answer is "Oh, no, we can't cut THAT!".

[ModlrMike]

For every $1 Billion invested in infrastructure renewal, 2500 new jobs are created either directly or indirectly.

Those are some pretty darned expensive jobs!

[Thucydides]

A general rule of thumb is it takes $50,000 of investment to create a full time job. Once you do the cost/job for most government "stimulus" you find that you have:

a. Removed a vast amount of monetary resources from the private sector to create jobs (through taxation)

b. Spent more (or even far more) to create a job somewhere else, and;

c. Created a temp job which ends with the stimulus funding.

As for infrastructure, note that a huge wave of civil engineering swept Europe and eventually America between roughly the 1600's and mid 1800's to build roads, canals, railways and bridges. Most of this was done by private contractors seeking profits from tolls, not by governments. The State could and would fund the occasional road or bridge during that period if there was a military purpose for that, but often it was cheaper and more efficient to march down the roads or sieze the trains that were already built for commercial purposes.

The US Interstate system is often touted as an example of how government spending helps the economy, but this is a secondary and (in fact) unintended consequence of building the "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". The Interstate was modeled after the autobahns, which were also built for the same purpose (military transport).

[cupper]

Return on Investment in infrastructure goes far beyond the life of the project itself.

Initial planning creates demand for engineering, legal, planning and other professional services.

Moving from planning to implementation, the demand for labour, materials, engineering and other support services. As more people become employed doing the implementation, they will in turn put money into the economy, as well as providing revenue through income taxes, sales taxes, etc. Companies invest in new equipment purchases, repair or upgrade existing equipment.

Once the project has been completed, IF PROPERLY PLANNED, the new transportation route SHOULD provide reduced transportation costs, increase productivity for users, reduced demand for fuel. Also an increase in property values which access the new route may be realized.

By saying that the jobs are only temporary overlooks the fact that by getting jobs back in the first place, you have created the necessary conditions for growth to occur. In order for that growth to be sustainable, the investments need to be meaningful. As the economy rebounds, the shift will be from projects that are stimulus based, back to those that would normally have been put into place had the economy not been in a state of contraction.

Don't mistake an infrastructure stimulus job with a job creation program scheme. The amount of investment is much higher, but the return on investment is also greater, and takes place in a shorter term. Job creation programs where the government goes out and actually hires people to do work, or pays companies to hire people doesn't provide the same return on investment, and does not have the same long term results.

[cupper]

Those are some pretty darned expensive jobs!

My mistake, the correct figure is 25,000 jobs. It was a quotation I had read earlier, but could not find it again, and erred on the low side when quoting it here apparently.

According to FHWA figures, on average every $Billion in highway expenditures supports 30,000 jobs

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/pubs/impacts/index.htm

[Thucydides]

Your assertation about infrastructure is based on a very dubious set of assumptions.

First off, you completely ignore the issue of Crony Capitalism; taxpayers are being fleeced to repay political contributions by the various companies involved. As well, even assuming there is no Crony Capitalism driving the project, you are paying for two sets of "professional, legal and other services"; the companies involved and the Bureaucrats employed by the State, additional overhead you have to pay for.

Secondly, what constitutes proper planning? Private sector investors need to plan for a profit, so roads, bridges and other infrastructure will follow the markets. Bureaucrats are rewarded for spending money, so have perverse incentives to build bridges to nowhere and other projects which consume funds and resources that could have gone to profitable ventures.

Thirdly, you ignore the fact that taxing money from the private sector in favour of a government "job" is a shell game. Even if a government project could create a job for a $50,000 investment, it still means that $50,000 is missing from some private investment; net job creation=0. Since these jobs often cost more than a private sector job, the net effect is to destroy jobs rather than create them. The primary reason that this sort of nonsense continues is another perverse incentive, politicians can claim success with a cluster of short term jobs (especially near election time) while remaining silent about both the jobs lost in small numbers on a continuing basis from the private sector, and the laid off stimulus workers post election period as well.