Somehow, for many people, the TEA Party has become some sort of social conservative thing. This is the dominant narrative repeated in much of the press and indeed some social conservatives have tried to run with this recharacterization.
But the TEA Party wasn’t and isn’t about social issues. It is about reducing the size of government. It is about bringing the political class in line. It is about We the People saying ENOUGH! And most importantly it is about being TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY. T-E-A.
Find your member’s phone number HERE.
There are people who honestly believe that markets are some sort of human construct, that supply and demand aren’t as simple as water flowing downhill. These people have done great damage to our economy and our society over the years. The Obamacare “co-opts” are just the latest example of this kind of magical policy thinking.
Markets are natural phenomena. Ebb and flow. But they can be inconvenient for some who would like to construct a new reality out of whole cloth. Kind of like how gravity is inconvenient for those who would like to be able to jump to the moon.
Now this would be interesting. The Speaker of the House does not need to be a member of Congress so it’s kosher.
Such a thing would amount to a mini-revolution of sorts of course. As such it’s a pretty long long shot. (To say the least.) I don’t see the Chamber of Commerce or other special interests getting on board the Paul for Speaker bandwagon anytime, well, ever. But that really is the point though isn’t it?
We have no opinion on who should be Speaker. That is for the House and its members to decide. However, political fireworks are always fun.
These 2 guys do not like each other. Let’s hope that Cruz’s theory is wrong. If he’s right however it amounts to a complete betrayal from John Boehner.
By Ron Paul
This month marks the seventh anniversary of the bursting of the housing bubble and the subsequent economic meltdown. The mood in Congress following the meltdown resembled the panicked atmosphere that followed the September 11th attacks. As was the case after September 11th, Congress rushed to pass hastily written legislation that, instead of dealing with the real causes of the crisis, simply gave the government more power.
Just as few understood the role our interventionist foreign policy played in the September 11th attacks, few in Congress understood that the 2008 meltdown was caused by the Federal Reserve and Congress, not by unregulated capitalism. Not surprising to anyone familiar with economic history, the story of the 2008 meltdown starts with the bursting of the Fed-created tech bubble.
Following the collapse of the tech bubble, the Fed began aggressively pumping money into the economy. This money flooded into the housing market, creating the housing bubble. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress also added fuel to the housing bubble. These so-called “free-market” conservatives expanded federal housing programs in hopes of creating an “ownership society.”
If Congress understood the Austrian theory of the business cycle, it would have allowed the recession that followed the housing bubble’s inevitable collapse to run its course. Recessions are the economy’s way of eliminating the distortions caused by the Federal Reserve. Attempts by Congress and the Fed to end a recession via inflation and government spending will only lead to future, and more severe, economic downturns.
I am pretty sure this is not the way John Boehner wanted to go out.
That Boehner is leaving is huge news generally and even bigger news for those of us who are concerned with the revival of the Export-Import Bank. Just yesterday we posted on the Speaker’s apparent willingness to work with Democrats to revive the crony program. Now the chess board has been tossed.
Attached is an interesting bit of history – it was last night – from reporter Jennifer Steinhauer at The Washington Post. A little bit of humanity (the kind we don’t usually see or hear about) from the hallowed halls of the Capitol Building.
I almost didn’t post this headline because the term “leftist” is used in a pejorative sense. That is not terribly constructive.
But the article itself is important. The author reports on a statement made by the new UK Labour Party’s economic flag bearer who said that the money one earns isn’t actually one’s money. You don’t actually pay taxes so much as give the government back its property. Essentially he is saying that your ability to feed and clothe your family, indeed to prosper in any way economically, is at the pleasure of the government, of the state.
Yesterday we asked whether the EPA (or some other regulatory agency) would have gone after GM like the EPA is going after VW, had GM done what VW is alleged to have done. We argued that it likely wouldn’t have. In the back of our minds was the recent GM ignition switch scandal which the US government didn’t seem very concerned about. Well, actually the government was concerned, but not for the public. The Obama administration didn’t want to make a big stink because GM, Government Motors, was a chosen “winner.” The administration had bailed out the Detroit based company for political reasons and it didn’t want to be embarrassed by a high profile example of incompetence. So what if over 150 people died?
Not only that. The government has protected GM from plaintiffs who can’t sue because the ignition switch issue occurred under the “old” GM.
When half of the population sees the government as a threat this should set off alarm bells. In the United States the citizenry should NEVER see the government as an immediate threat. Sure, perhaps in some sort of abstract philosophical sense government itself should always be seen as a kind of threat. But we are supposed to be a country of limited government, per the Constitution. The government should not be something the average American citizen is concerned about from day to day. But many of us are.
There was a time when government in the USA was little more than background noise. There was a time when the only interaction the average person had with the federal government was the post office. There was a time when most of life was private and wasn’t managed. A time when there was no income tax. A time when Washington was kept in check for the most part by the states. Government power was relatively small. It was inexpensive. There were few services to be sure, but there were few taxes. What one made one could keep. We didn’t have to pay tribute to a king. And that’s one of the main reasons we became the richest nation the world had ever seen.
Was America before the welfare state perfect? Certainly not. Nothing is. But people, it appears for the most part didn’t see their government as a malevolent force. How could they? The government wasn’t the beast it is today. It had few teeth and little appetite.
(Most people weren’t concerned with the government; if I was black I would have absolutely feared the government during this time. American Indians had much to fear also. Both groups felt the pointy end of what state apparatus there was pre-welfare state.)
That half of Americans now see government as an immediate threat is a very bad sign.
And yet there are those who still push for even more government.
In the 21st Century, there is absolutely no reason for a government built in the 20th Century highly centralized style. No reason. Progress is smaller, less intrusive government. Progress is the degree to which the average person can actualize his or her potential free from coercion. Government at best should be a very light app. Progress is NOT more government. It shouldn’t be an operating system.
Rules (or lack of) for them, and rules for the ruled.
This massive chicanery does not happen without a Federal Reserve system backstopping the deal. Fraud will always happen to some extent, but the fiat financialization of the globe allows this sort of shadiness to explode on a scale which is hard to conceptualize.
I think the answer is that for a majority of GOP voters this is probably true. There is no real call to reduce the size of our massive military from the average GOP voter. Indeed if anything there is a call to expand it. There is no real call for reforming Social Security. There is no real call to reform Medicare (which is a total actuarial disaster). There is no real call for drug law reform. There is no real call for curtailing the government violations of the the 4th Amendment under the Patriot Act. There is no widespread call for an end to the Federal Reserve.
Most Republicans, with the exception of a large and I think still growing minority, don’t actually want to make the government smaller. They just want to change the style of government.
At ACC we don’t have an opinion of who should be Speaker. That is up to members of the House. But Boehner does baffle us. The American people gave the House (and Senate) back to the Republicans largely in an act of collective defiance of the current president and his agenda. John Boehner seems more concerned about what the US Chamber of Commerce, the leading business special interest, tells him to do. There seems no interest from him in cutting the size of government or in moving a small government agenda forward.
That is not what the American voters wanted from him.
To be fair it’s not like Boehner was ever really a “conservative” and certainly he does not appear to have a libertarian bone in his body. He is a big government, Abrams tank-loving big spender. He has systematically tried to disenfranchise the younger, more liberty oriented members of the Republican caucus. He has sided with the President over the libertarian-conservative coalition pretty much every time it has mattered. In the face of an executive power grab Boehner backed down when voters clearly wanted him to stand up. Mr Boehner is a product of Washington culture. He is a a Bush Republican.
And increasingly the “new” Republicans in the House are realizing it is time to move on.