Bruce Bartlett on The Oregon tax vote and Tea Party Membership
I can easily see many tea party goers becoming rabid tax-the-rich folks if the alternative is higher taxes on them. Let us not forget that just about a year ago many of the House of Representatives’ most conservative members voted to impose a 90 percent tax rate on bank bonuses. As I noted at the time, those supporting this confiscatory tax measure included Eric Canter, Peter Hoekstra and Paul Ryan.
I think Bruce is making the mistake of thinking that Tea Party = politicians. My understanding is that guys doing the Tea Parties are fed up with everybody we’ve elected whose solution to fiscal shortcomings in the capitol is not to trim the budget but to levy more taxes. In this regard conservatives in the House are just as guilty as liberals.
I do not know any Tea Party members in person. But hey, our own Sgt. Mom has been a busy bee down in the Tea Party down in San Antone – what say you, Julia?
Yep – he is making a mistake: the Tea Partiers I know are pretty well PO’d at just about all sitting politicians, especially the ones who have camped out in office for decades.
And it also seems to me that we (the Tea Partiers) are being courted by aspiring politicians – we had an open meeting last Sunday, and no less than sixteen or seventeen candidates (or their representatives) were there; short speech, and a meet and greet with interested voters afterwards. Interesting times, people, interesting times…
They say one reason the USA has survived as long as it has is that we have small revolutions every few years by electing a new government, instead of large violent revolutions where new government is impose at the point of a bayonet.
At time I wonder if either major political party will survive. While we have never had a viable third party, both the Democrats and Republicans have reinvented themselves many times over the years.
I am very concerned about the so call “populist” movement. It reminds to much of “mob” rule and French revolution.
I am not a banker, nor am I rich, but when congress and frighteningly large number of citizens think that 90%+ tax rates are a good thing to impose on anyone, I shudder. You have to wonder when will they get around to doing the same things to me.
Bruce Bartlett is also limiting his choices to two; ‘tax the rich’, or ‘taxes on them (selves)’. Whatever happened to ‘cut spending’, or does that never happen in Bruce’s world?
Whatever happened to ‘cut spending’, or does that never happen in Bruce’s world?
I can’t speak for Bruce. Perhaps he feels that people are out for their own interest: it’s okay to cut everyone else’s stuff, but don’t touch what I care about!
I think he underestimates people’s capacity to perceive their own self-interest.
At time I wonder if either major political party will survive. While we have never had a viable third party, both the Democrats and Republicans have reinvented themselves many times over the years.
We have not always had a Republican party. And while they took the place of the Whigs the 1850s Republicans were emphatically not Whigs – they were fringe activists determined to upset status quo.
I am not a banker, nor am I rich, but when congress and frighteningly large number of citizens think that 90%+ tax rates are a good thing to impose on anyone, I shudder. You have to wonder when will they get around to doing the same things to me.
No kidding. It may come down a small class of Taxpayers supporting a large underclass.
This might be a valid trade off if the Taxpayers were getting something for this: schools, privilege, economic stability, police patrols, a wall between the prole section of town and the Taxpayer’s quarter. Something.
But anything like that would be un-American, un-fair and un-ethical. So why should we pay more for nothing?