Steeped in outrage
Marc Cooper's op-ed ridiculing the tea-party protest phenomenon didn't just hit a nerve -- it kicked it repeatedly. And, in keeping with Newton's Third Law, readers kicked back. Hard. We've received well over 1,000 comments so far, which you can read here. Apologies in advance for the cumbersome layout, which allows you to see only 10 comments at a time. That's particularly unfortunate in this case; with so many comments consisting of little more than "You moron!" (or words to that effect), you have to wade through a few dozen to cobble together a complete picture of the protesters' motivations.
Although many of the commenters don't seem to have read Cooper's piece, they collectively make a point that Cooper overlooked: the amount of deficit spending and the added debt projected over the next decade have no precedent in the lives of anyone born after World War II. It's that burden that many in the movement are rebelling against. Likening it to the deficit spending of the recent Bush years (or the Reagan or George H.W. Bush terms) doesn't ring true with readers because of the startling difference in scale. Another issue: unlike Cooper, who takes Keynesian economics as a given, the tea-party crowd doesn't buy the premise that the $787 billion stimulus package Congress passed in February will revive the economy, costing less in the long term than doing nothing.
There's no real point now in debating the value of the stimulus. We won't be able to see its effects until the money really starts to flow later this year. Yet what the tea-party phenomenon illustrates, I think, is that Congress' and the administration's zeal to move quickly meant that we're having debates now that we should have had prior to the bill's passage. Ditto for the $700-billion Wall Street bailout. The president (George W. Bush or Barack Obama, your choice) can argue that the country's financial future is at state, but that doesn't mean people will believe him. Pile on top of that Obama's first budget, with its grandiose spending plans and its attempt to transfer more wealth from the richest to the working class, and you've planted the seeds for plenty of distrust. The irony is, Obama has tried to explain the rationale behind his actions to a degree we don't usually hear from politicians. His speech yesterday about the economy was a good example.
That's not to say we'd be better off had Washington held off efforts to alleviate the credit crunch and boost the economy until there was greater consensus. There's little hope of that in an era when people on opposing sides of the debate reflexively label each other socialists, fascists or nut-jobs. (Again, read the comments on Cooper's piece for a taste of that.) The degree of mutual resentment is pretty breathtaking.
The Times' opinion pages includes another tasty tax-day morsel: the editorial board explains how California's reliance on progressive taxation exacerbates the cyclical budget problems:
It has long been the position of many would-be tax reformers on the left that California's income taxes must be even more progressive, to pump needed revenue into state programs from the highest earners and to ease the tax burden on the middle class. The very wealthy are a common target for new revenues, in part because, well, they have the money.
But the more progressive an income tax becomes -- or the greater the share of the income tax burden that is borne by the rich -- the more harrowing the revenue roller-coaster ride. That's because the wealthy get such a large chunk of their income from capital gains and investments. Economic swings have a greater impact on that kind of income than on wages and salaries, which are the typical sources for lower and middle earners.
Also today, we have an editorial on efforts by some payday lenders to dodge state regulations, an editorial and an op-ed on the Cuba travel ban, and a column by Tim Rutten on Irish poet Seamus Heaney and the importance of the arts during a recession.
Photo: Vince Schuck of Newfane, Vt., attending a tea bag rally in his state capital today. Credit: AP Photo / Toby Talbot
Gary, you make a compelling argument. But it's worth noting that Paulson's replacement isn't a Wall Street alum -- he's a career regulator. And he seems to be following the same general path of his predecessor, to wit, using truckloads of tax dollars to prop up banks and other big financial-industry players. You might argue that he went native while he was at the New York Fed, or you might say that the genius of Wall Street is its ability to create institutions that even outsiders and unsympathetic government officials consider too big to fail.
Posted by: Jon Healey | April 16, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Jon,
thank you for some calm discussion. One point which I haven't seen discussed is the effect that concentration of wealth has on the ability of government to control it. As huge sums of money have been flowing into ever fewer hands, those few people have the resources to deflect any attempt by the government to determine how resources are to be directed. People like Paulson and others on Wall St who have amassed half billion dollar fortunes, have the ability to hire enough lawyers to overwhelm the Justice Dept., especially if the financial crisis were to hurt their share of the federal budget. It is unfortunately often a very wise and necessary strategy by newly installed powers, to pump large sums of money into the coffers of others entities, in order to dilute the power of those who have dominated the accumulation game.
Another thing which is overlooked is that the fortunes have not been made in the classic capitalistic manner, owning the means of production and hiring wage workers, but by simply manipulating money. In the first place, the only basis of capitalism in the Constitution is a brief mention of private property. The financial system we have in place allows the Treasury to create money to encourage commerce. The Treasury funnels the money to the Federal Reserve who then funnels the money to member banks and brokers. The purpose of doing this is supposed to be the public good. To allow people like Paulson who are in the position of having access to this money to accumulate such a proportion for themselves is in actuality a serious misuse of the public trust.
Goldman-Sacs has been held up as being the best and brightest because they have been so successful. It really begs the question if they were really that smart or if position and influence were mistaken for knowledge and understanding. Paulson apparently has an IQ in the 120-130 range, that certainly does not make him the brightest bulb out there, you have to assume his size and aggressiveness had a lot to do with his position. Along with the inability to objectively judge his actual performance. Remember him giving himself “close to a ten” on his handling of the bank crisis. About $650 billion ago?? With Goldman now having eliminated it's main competitors, am I supposed to have confidence now in how the wealth of this country will be managed???
Posted by: Gary Noel | April 16, 2009 at 10:39 AM
It's not just WHAT marc cooper says that offends people but HOW, his smugness and snarky condescension, although the Times versions of his rants are toned down from those he had in the L A Weekly (an endless series of "why I hate Hillary and think she's a reactionary old bitch" though for that matter, your Rosa Parks had the same "theme" throughout the Presidential election, just not as crudely stated) or his own blog.
He's a 60's old-school leftie who thinks that using the F-word and blatant insults, while in person looking and behaving like a slob, are de rigeur for intellectual honesty and break from conventional wisdom, which must always be wrong by virtue that it is, well, conventional. All of this inherently offends people and reflects that he doesn't listen, he just pontificates. Rudely.
Unfortunately we are in polarized times so that the other side is largely represented by right-wing a.m. radio screamers, the Jon & Kens and somewhat more intelligently, Doug McIntyres, who always have an eye on their own ratings and numbers in deciding which hot button issues to scream about. So they make up certain villains and "truths" and agitate their audience accordingly without educating them.
On the national level it's Obama and Hillary as enemy number one, whether it's the economy or their approach to the Mexican-US gangs-guns-drugs-illegal immigration problem. (What, work WITH the Mexican government and try to coordinate efforts, including regulating assault weapons? Why, they're taking away our 2nd Amendment rights and making the streets safe for illegal Mexican gangbangers!)
I do think that BOTH parties rushed into these "stimulus packages" AKA give-aways too hastily, especially for Wall Street and bankis. The AIG scandal is just the tip of the iceberg, and as for the banks, after giving Citibank, B of A and others billions, they have set about reducing credit, increasing our credit cards rates and reducing limits drastically, while also cutting interest rates on savings and CD's, leaving us nowhere to turn.
I also don't see how any of the spending will "trickle down" to the middle class people who didn't borrow more than they could reasonably afford for mortgages and are downsized or unemployed but don't qualify for bailouts. I do think that on a local and state level our officials have refused to reign in spending for too long, and yet where did it go? Not on much-needed infrastrtucture. So I see the right-wing's points, and the reason behind these "tea parties," even if the precise reasons aren't always coherent even to participants.
The right-wingers scare the bejeezus out of me, starting with seemingly mild-mannered Walter Moore and his running mate for City Attorney, Brit Berger, and the fact that he and Trutanich agree they're in agreement scares me too and makes me fear for the sanity of those who can't make the connection. But at the same time I think total left-wing ranters like marc cooper fuel their fire.
Posted by: janet | April 16, 2009 at 02:03 AM
Yeah, I've been covering the #teaparty phenom. since yesterday on natchgreyes.blogspot.com and I have to say that it's pretty complicated. A lot of people are (mistakenly) protesting against tax cuts which help them while others are protesting for any number of other reasons. But, I think the hijacking of the event's terminology by the news and those of us amused by the whole thing has made it even more complicated.
Posted by: Natch Greyes | April 15, 2009 at 04:21 PM