by on

I must seem like a regular “Buchanan Brigade” member, as this is my third post about him in eight days. Nevertheless, his new article about the Tea Party is very interesting, and serves as an effective complement to John Nolte’s attempt to explain the Tea Party that I discussed the other day.

I think Buchanan has sort of articulated what Nolte left unsaid in his article that made it seem a tad vague to me. Like much of Buchanan’s work, it’s all very Spenglerian. Perhaps the Tea Party movement is animated by issues other than just obvious economic ones. After all, rarely do people get so stirred up over economic issues. (They don’t call it “the dismal science” for nothing.)

Then again, like I’ve said repeatedly, it could be Ricardian Equivalence at work.

by on

John Nolte at Big Hollywood tries to explain what the Tea Party is all about:

“The Tea Party movement isn’t about “us,” it’s about something more important than us; it’s about this place we call America. And no bribe in the form of any kind of personal tax cut or government handout will buy us off when it comes to protecting this country.

You can cut our taxes to zero — hell, you can gift us with millions in union bribes and make-work jobs — but for as long as this socialist rampage rampages on, I and every member of the Tea Party will be back, right here fighting you every inch of the way and counting down the days until November of 2010 and 2012.”

So, is Nolte saying that it isn’t about taxes at all? If so, why hold the protests on Tax Day? It’s about the government having too much power, is it? If so, it seems strange they’ve only noticed that lately. The Libertarians have been complaining about Socialism and the increasing power of the government for decades, but only in the last year has a giant, attention-getting National movement sprung up around it, is what his argument implies. I don’t follow.

I still say Ricardian Equivalence is at least part of the reason they’re out there.

by on

A lot of people in the media are puzzled about why the Tea Partiers are mad about taxes when taxes are actually very low at present.

The answer is Ricardian Equivalence: The government did actually lower taxes; but they also increased spending, so at some point in the future, they must raise taxes to compensate.

by on

The Tea Party is looking for people to run against Ron Paul in the Republican primary. And the reason they are doing this is that “he’s unwilling to work with others, and people are unwilling to work with him, and so we have no voice in Congress.” according to Tim Graney.

I think skepticism of leaders is a good thing, but Paul is such an icon that he may be worth keeping around for the sake of what he represents to the movement.

Incidentally, the Fox news article calls Paul “the model of the grassroots-backed conservative.”

(With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan):

“I am the very model of grassroots-backed Conservative,

I’m endeavoring to act as Liberty’s preservative.

I am very,very big on individual autonomy,

I quote Objectivists and Austrians discussing the economy.”

by on

Apparently, the Tea-Party convention has alienated many seemingly sympathetic folks by being a for-profit organization.

Frankly, they would be stupid not to be for-profit. You can’t go around quoting Ayn Rand approvingly and then not be motivated by money. 

by on

According to CNN, the Tea-Party-supported principles include:

  • Fiscal Responsibility.
  • Lower Taxes
  • States’ rights
  • National Security.

My opinion is that anyone who tries will find it very difficult to achieve principles #1 and #2 at the same time. The Laffer curve is not that powerful, if it even exists at all. And “National Security” is so far better under Obama than it was under either Clinton or George W. Bush after their first years. So I’m not sure what their movement would really do if given power. Even supposing that tax cut multipliers are much larger than economists think, they cannot balance the budget based solely on that.

As near as I can tell, the optimal strategy according to this movement would be “militaristic Keynesianism,” which would mean cutting taxes, and increasing government spending by vastly increasing expenditures on the military (to further National Security) while making cuts elsewhere. The resulting stimulus from these increased outlays would hopefully get the economy back to full employment, at which point the military spending would be curtailed as well, and the increased wealth produced by the hopefully-booming economy would allow for deficit reduction. (I can’t figure how states’ rights is involved. I suspect it’s a euphemism for overturning Roe v. Wade.)

 That’s the ideal scenario for the Tea-Party. Frankly, however, I really doubt whether the deficit can ever be eliminated altogether by this method.  I think that, at any time, they can have at most 3 of the 4 principles adhered to.