Lately, politics has gotten me despondent, and I am coming to the conclusion that the Left is insane. I am trying to come up with an argument on how to limit taxes on the "rich" and I haven't a clue.
Every day I hear from a Left winger that the "rich" don't pay enough. FINE. Then what would be enough? What would it take for you to leave them alone? Name a freakin number already!
Years ago I had the same thought with regard to education. How much is enough? The problem, we are told over and over again, is money. That's a solvable problem. Hire more teachers, pay them more, do whatever it takes and get it done. Yet spending has gone up significantly, while results have not. Where is the humility? Where is the admission that your hypothesis was invalid?
Saying the "rich" don't pay enough implies that you have a figure in mind. It means that there is a ransom for which you'll release your captive. Yet, I have a sinking feeling that no ransom will ever be enough. The life of the "rich" will always hang in the balance, at the whim of so called social (un)justice.
Taken to the logical conclusion we can either be hopeful or fearful. If there is a definite number, then one day we will reach it. But, if that number doesn't exist, then one has to wonder what the Left actually wants? If it's not money, it's...
Monday, April 11, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Why can't I pay more?
A few days ago I had the pleasure of visiting the DMV. It wasn't the worst experience I have ever had, but unpleasant nonetheless. What is amazing to me, is that there is ALWAYS a line. I mean, by sheer chance, one would think that there are times of the day where business is slow and you could get right in. Not a chance.
My purpose at the DMV was to get a new Washington State drivers license. It cost me not only 2 hours in line, but $64 to boot. It's really not about the money, but about my time. Truth is, I have better things to do than sit at the DMV. I could watch TV, enjoy a nice relaxing walk, or even work a little bit. I value my free time a lot, and I would be willing to fork over a few more dollars to have more of it.
But I can't pay more at the DMV for another person behind the counter. The reality is that the number of people behind the counter is very loosely correlated to the number of people in line. So, when lines build up, you wait. You wait as long as it takes, or until the next election.
In another system known as the free market, when demand goes up, prices go up, which encourages more supply and less demand. In laymans terms, you wait less.
My purpose at the DMV was to get a new Washington State drivers license. It cost me not only 2 hours in line, but $64 to boot. It's really not about the money, but about my time. Truth is, I have better things to do than sit at the DMV. I could watch TV, enjoy a nice relaxing walk, or even work a little bit. I value my free time a lot, and I would be willing to fork over a few more dollars to have more of it.
But I can't pay more at the DMV for another person behind the counter. The reality is that the number of people behind the counter is very loosely correlated to the number of people in line. So, when lines build up, you wait. You wait as long as it takes, or until the next election.
In another system known as the free market, when demand goes up, prices go up, which encourages more supply and less demand. In laymans terms, you wait less.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
It's all been said before
I can't tell you the number of times I hear people tell me that all you have to do is explain things to people and it will change their minds. It won't, and for proof I offer the simple fact that nothing I say is original. Truth of the matter is that everything I say, pretty much everything I will say, has already been better said.
I'll give myself a little credit and say that my thoughts are not exactly the same as others, but the point is that everything you read here about economics and politics can be found throughout history. Hell, that's where I get a lot of inspiration from.
My point is not to diminish my uniqueness, but to say that if you believe lack of knowledge is what drives people, and that someone like me providing that knowledge will change people, you are dead wrong. Most political blogs preach to the choir, and the choir loves to sing. It's not about debate, or rationality, but adherence and propagation of dogma. We all love to hear that someone agrees with us, and we seek out that approval. It's a good feeling.
For me however, that's not interesting. I actually want to change things and I am not interested in dogma. I don't care if liberals or conservatives are hypocrites. I don't care if something is "unconstitutional" or not. What I care about is how can we make things better. Better, not perfect, but within reason and reality, better.
I firmly believe in the supremacy of free markets. Sound economics dictates that that is the best way to allocate resources. But I also believe that human nature doesn't give two shits about sound economics. They care about fairness, and dignity and life in general. Perception is reality. Not something I like to admit, but it's the truth. I write with that in mind, I write, act, to make things better. That's my only goal and it's what interests me most.
I'll give myself a little credit and say that my thoughts are not exactly the same as others, but the point is that everything you read here about economics and politics can be found throughout history. Hell, that's where I get a lot of inspiration from.
My point is not to diminish my uniqueness, but to say that if you believe lack of knowledge is what drives people, and that someone like me providing that knowledge will change people, you are dead wrong. Most political blogs preach to the choir, and the choir loves to sing. It's not about debate, or rationality, but adherence and propagation of dogma. We all love to hear that someone agrees with us, and we seek out that approval. It's a good feeling.
For me however, that's not interesting. I actually want to change things and I am not interested in dogma. I don't care if liberals or conservatives are hypocrites. I don't care if something is "unconstitutional" or not. What I care about is how can we make things better. Better, not perfect, but within reason and reality, better.
I firmly believe in the supremacy of free markets. Sound economics dictates that that is the best way to allocate resources. But I also believe that human nature doesn't give two shits about sound economics. They care about fairness, and dignity and life in general. Perception is reality. Not something I like to admit, but it's the truth. I write with that in mind, I write, act, to make things better. That's my only goal and it's what interests me most.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Borrowing from the future, today
Generally, I try to understand the other side. Especially when it comes to economics because that's a topic which ought to be non-partisan. The goal is to generate wealth. What we do with that wealth is another question. Yet, despite everyone sharing the same goal, there is a ton of disagreement over how to get there.
Over and over again liberals (and some conservatives) extol the virtues of deficit spending. They say there is slack in the economy due to lack of demand and that government must pick up the slack. Below is what Alan Blinder of Princeton University had to say in the Wall Street Journal:
When I spend money, what I am really doing is trading either something I made, or a service I provide to another person for something they made or a service they provide. Money represents what you have made or done for someone else. It's a store of value to be used in the future. Money is not simply a piece of paper.
Second, there is no such a thing as deficit spending. If we calling spending what it is, trading, it would be obvious that deficit trading is nonsensical; you can only trade what you have. The fiction being perpetuated is that by government printing money you can have deficit spending. Well, no. What happens when the government prints money is that the value of all money goes down. In essence, all current holders of money have been taxed by the government and according to Mr. Blinder, that does kill jobs. Regardless of your political persuasion, government spending is always a tax on the economy.
The reality is that government spending doesn't create anything, by definition it cannot. It can only direct the spending of it's citizens. It can trade what people have already created, We can debate when and how government should do this. But make no mistake, government never creates anything. The worst part about this scheme, is that in a stealth attempt to redistribute wealth, it hurts those most with the least wealth. Ask yourself this, who out there have the most resources to guard against government devaluing the currency? You guessed it, the rich.
Over and over again liberals (and some conservatives) extol the virtues of deficit spending. They say there is slack in the economy due to lack of demand and that government must pick up the slack. Below is what Alan Blinder of Princeton University had to say in the Wall Street Journal:
...But even if you dislike some particular piece of government spending, how exactly does it kill jobs? (The taxes raised to pay the bills may kill jobs, but we are talking about deficit spending here.) If the government either hires people itself or purchases things from private companies, doesn't that create jobs?Princetonians deserve better. First, there is no such thing as spending. Only trading between people. Let's think about it.
...My point is simply that, when there is so much unused capacity and so many unemployed people hungry for work, "job-killing government spending" is oxymoronic. Virtually any type of spending, public or private, will create jobs.
When I spend money, what I am really doing is trading either something I made, or a service I provide to another person for something they made or a service they provide. Money represents what you have made or done for someone else. It's a store of value to be used in the future. Money is not simply a piece of paper.
Second, there is no such a thing as deficit spending. If we calling spending what it is, trading, it would be obvious that deficit trading is nonsensical; you can only trade what you have. The fiction being perpetuated is that by government printing money you can have deficit spending. Well, no. What happens when the government prints money is that the value of all money goes down. In essence, all current holders of money have been taxed by the government and according to Mr. Blinder, that does kill jobs. Regardless of your political persuasion, government spending is always a tax on the economy.
The reality is that government spending doesn't create anything, by definition it cannot. It can only direct the spending of it's citizens. It can trade what people have already created, We can debate when and how government should do this. But make no mistake, government never creates anything. The worst part about this scheme, is that in a stealth attempt to redistribute wealth, it hurts those most with the least wealth. Ask yourself this, who out there have the most resources to guard against government devaluing the currency? You guessed it, the rich.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Ask and you shall receive
I was contacted a while ago by someone trying to plug their blog. I admire that, so here it is:www.newpolity.com
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Household Economics
Let's conduct a thought experiment. Say your house has monthly expenses of $100 and a monthly income of $200. Every month you save $100. Years go by and that savings grows and grows and eventually you have quite a sum, say $1000. You decide that since your monthly income exceeds your monthly expenses that you can spend that money and replenish your savings later. In essence, you are borrowing from yourself. So you take that money saved and write a little note, "will pay back later" and then proceed to spend the money.
Here's the tough question: after spending the saved money, how much money do you have? If you answered $0, go to the head of the class. It's not complicated. If I spend all the money I have saved, I don't have any money. What about those pieces of paper that say "will pay back later". Well, those are pieces of paper, not money. And until you actually pay them back, you've got nothing.
Here's another way to think about it. Imagine we have the same household income of $200 and instead of spending only $100 and saving $100, we spend the whole $200 every month and write ourselves little notes, "will save $100 later". Every month we have no money saved, only little notes we wrote to ourselves. Eventually we have quite a lot of notes. But if you're really astute, you'll realize that we still have no money.
Folks, Social Security is broke today. We are currently taking in less income than we are paying out in benefits. And there is no "trust fund". All that's in there are little notes.
I am always amazed at the duplicity of politicians. How anyone can say with a straight face that there is a trust fund, and that social security is not broke is beyond reproach. The reality is that if your household, our government, spends every cent it takes in as income, it doesn't have any savings. That's common sense.
Here's the tough question: after spending the saved money, how much money do you have? If you answered $0, go to the head of the class. It's not complicated. If I spend all the money I have saved, I don't have any money. What about those pieces of paper that say "will pay back later". Well, those are pieces of paper, not money. And until you actually pay them back, you've got nothing.
Here's another way to think about it. Imagine we have the same household income of $200 and instead of spending only $100 and saving $100, we spend the whole $200 every month and write ourselves little notes, "will save $100 later". Every month we have no money saved, only little notes we wrote to ourselves. Eventually we have quite a lot of notes. But if you're really astute, you'll realize that we still have no money.
Folks, Social Security is broke today. We are currently taking in less income than we are paying out in benefits. And there is no "trust fund". All that's in there are little notes.
I am always amazed at the duplicity of politicians. How anyone can say with a straight face that there is a trust fund, and that social security is not broke is beyond reproach. The reality is that if your household, our government, spends every cent it takes in as income, it doesn't have any savings. That's common sense.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Vocabulary
I suck at interviewing. It's about the most frustrating thing in the world to be bad at something so instrumental in getting a job. I'd say that being good at interviewing is at least twice as important as being good at your job. After all, getting a job is a prerequisite for doing a good job. Anyway, I am sure there are a multitude of reasons for my poor interviewing skills, but my concern is how to get better.
All my life, I have been very good at math, and like any genuine math person, I scoffed at English skills. Every standardized test, math lifted me over the top, while my English scores brought me back to earth.
As a kid, I didn't read a lot unless I was forced to. TV was my thing and the boob tube had me transfixed. I was too lazy and impatient to exercise my imagination with a book.
When I got older, I started to read more. Opinion pieces on economics and politics were a drug. As I read, I started to notice something strange happening. Through no fault of my own, I would catch myself using words that I had never used before. Out of the blue, I would say something that I couldn't believe came out of my mouth. That used to happen before, but this time, it wasn't my foot that was the problem. Gradually, my vocabulary improved. And the more I read, the more it improved. It improved so much that on the last standardized test I took, my math skills were the weak link.
I don't think change is made in one fell swoop. Eloquent people do not wake up one day and decide to be eloquent. They evolve into eloquence. All changes are a consequence of small steps repeated over and over until they become second nature. We are wired for routine, change the routine and you change the wiring.
All my life, I have been very good at math, and like any genuine math person, I scoffed at English skills. Every standardized test, math lifted me over the top, while my English scores brought me back to earth.
As a kid, I didn't read a lot unless I was forced to. TV was my thing and the boob tube had me transfixed. I was too lazy and impatient to exercise my imagination with a book.
When I got older, I started to read more. Opinion pieces on economics and politics were a drug. As I read, I started to notice something strange happening. Through no fault of my own, I would catch myself using words that I had never used before. Out of the blue, I would say something that I couldn't believe came out of my mouth. That used to happen before, but this time, it wasn't my foot that was the problem. Gradually, my vocabulary improved. And the more I read, the more it improved. It improved so much that on the last standardized test I took, my math skills were the weak link.
I don't think change is made in one fell swoop. Eloquent people do not wake up one day and decide to be eloquent. They evolve into eloquence. All changes are a consequence of small steps repeated over and over until they become second nature. We are wired for routine, change the routine and you change the wiring.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Risk
My girlfriend was offered a pretty good job in New York City. One of the factors weighing in on the decision of whether to go was her condo. Could she sell it? Rent it out? Walk away? It's no trivial decision and even less so because the value of the condo has plummeted since she purchased it. Even with a very large initial equity position, she's currently underwater on her mortgage.
Then I read a Wall Street Journal article chronicling some other people in similar (actually far worse) situations. One had "strategically" defaulted, basically making the economic calculation that his loss was irrecoverable. From a business standpoint it makes perfect sense, but what about from a moral standpoint?
At first blush I am one to always rail that it's wrong, just plain wrong, to welch on your debts. But, after some thought, I don't believe that's the case. We don't have debtor's prisons and that means that the calculus for giving out loans needs to adjust.
No one gives a loan out of the kindness of their heart. Banks give people money for one simple reason, to make money. And in their decision to lend is a calculation of potential risks; one of those being that they might not get paid back. That risk, along with all others, is embedded in the price of the loan (the interest rate). Banks which severely misjudge risk ought to pay the consequences.
Think about it this way, if you as an investor lend money (buy a bond) to a corporation, you are essentially a bank. When you purchase that bond, you assume certain risks reflected in the price. The bank loaning money to individuals is no different.
Our free market system consists of profits and losses which incentivize certain behavior. Losses punish uneconomical behavior by removing resources from those that can't manage them. An immoral borrower is far less of a concern to society, than the irresponsible lender who enables them.
Then I read a Wall Street Journal article chronicling some other people in similar (actually far worse) situations. One had "strategically" defaulted, basically making the economic calculation that his loss was irrecoverable. From a business standpoint it makes perfect sense, but what about from a moral standpoint?
At first blush I am one to always rail that it's wrong, just plain wrong, to welch on your debts. But, after some thought, I don't believe that's the case. We don't have debtor's prisons and that means that the calculus for giving out loans needs to adjust.
No one gives a loan out of the kindness of their heart. Banks give people money for one simple reason, to make money. And in their decision to lend is a calculation of potential risks; one of those being that they might not get paid back. That risk, along with all others, is embedded in the price of the loan (the interest rate). Banks which severely misjudge risk ought to pay the consequences.
Think about it this way, if you as an investor lend money (buy a bond) to a corporation, you are essentially a bank. When you purchase that bond, you assume certain risks reflected in the price. The bank loaning money to individuals is no different.
Our free market system consists of profits and losses which incentivize certain behavior. Losses punish uneconomical behavior by removing resources from those that can't manage them. An immoral borrower is far less of a concern to society, than the irresponsible lender who enables them.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
It's a start
I'll admit that I am genuinely surprised that Obama has agreed to extend the current tax rates rather than raise taxes. Our economy will do better because of this. Now if government could learn the lesson and realize that the best thing they can do for the economy is absolutely nothing we'd all be better off.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Time for your feeding
When are the poor going to be outraged? I ask because government, in the name of helping, treats them as substandard. Personally, I can't stand being treated as less than someone else and I cannot understand why the poor tolerate it.
Helping is noble, whether through government or private charity. But how you help indicates how you perceive those helped. Take food stamps for example. A food stamp is basically money that can only be used for food (a government gift card). Why does government give people gift cards instead of money? If you said because it doesn't trust them, go to the head of the class.
The implicit assumption is that poor people are so stupid or irresponsible that they will not spend the money on food. That's insulting. Yes, there are irresponsible people, but do you seriously think they would starve to death if you gave them money rather than food stamps?
Give people money to buy food and let them save their dignity. If they screw up, let them suffer the consequences and learn from their mistakes. If you treat them like adults, you might be surprised to learn that they are not much different than you.
Helping is noble, whether through government or private charity. But how you help indicates how you perceive those helped. Take food stamps for example. A food stamp is basically money that can only be used for food (a government gift card). Why does government give people gift cards instead of money? If you said because it doesn't trust them, go to the head of the class.
The implicit assumption is that poor people are so stupid or irresponsible that they will not spend the money on food. That's insulting. Yes, there are irresponsible people, but do you seriously think they would starve to death if you gave them money rather than food stamps?
Give people money to buy food and let them save their dignity. If they screw up, let them suffer the consequences and learn from their mistakes. If you treat them like adults, you might be surprised to learn that they are not much different than you.
Wealth is Right
Just to give an idea of tax revenues over the years, look at the chart. While recently things haven't been so good, the overall trend is up. In fact, revenues have tripled since 1965. If we assume that past trends will continue, then the government will take in about $6.5 trillion 45 years from now. To put that into perspective, our population is only expected to be about 438 million in 2050. This means that the federal government can spend twice as much on every single one of us than they do today. What's even more striking is the implication for the welfare of the average American. In order to take in that amount of tax revenue, actual productive output must increase correspondingly. This means that in aggregate, there will be a ton of money in the hands of private individuals, about 2.5 times the amount today.
What this implies is that the fiscal future is bright regardless of today's rhetoric. A good conservative strategy should be to wait it out by delaying the left's agenda for as long as possible. Liberalism's greatest argument has always been about helping those in need while it's agenda has always been one of control. One day, we will be rich enough to lift up the needy and cut down the legs of liberalism.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
How much is enough?
With all the talk about extending the Bush tax cuts, all I hear about is how the rich aren't paying their fair share. Let's disregard the fact that the rich pay more in taxes than they collect in benefits. Let's disregard that they earned their money through hard work and thrift. And let's assume that the rich are dirty rotten scoundrels. What I want to know is how much is enough, how much is fair, and at what point does it get ridiculous?
Here's my point, even if we concede that government's role is to redistribute wealth, most would agree that raising taxes on the very wealthy so that everyone has at least $100,000 is absurd. On some level, the argument for redistribution is to prevent poverty, not to enable every dead beat American to live an upper middle class life. In addition, most don't make $100,000 working, so why would anybody work?
You might say that that's an extreme example, no one is advocating giving everyone $100,000 for being alive. Well, no, but at some point if our economy continues to grow and government revenues continue to increase and our birthrate continues to decrease, government will be flush with money. And the question that ought to be on everyone's mind is what will government do with that money?
When we get to that point, and we will, one has to ask the question, how much is enough?
Here's my point, even if we concede that government's role is to redistribute wealth, most would agree that raising taxes on the very wealthy so that everyone has at least $100,000 is absurd. On some level, the argument for redistribution is to prevent poverty, not to enable every dead beat American to live an upper middle class life. In addition, most don't make $100,000 working, so why would anybody work?
You might say that that's an extreme example, no one is advocating giving everyone $100,000 for being alive. Well, no, but at some point if our economy continues to grow and government revenues continue to increase and our birthrate continues to decrease, government will be flush with money. And the question that ought to be on everyone's mind is what will government do with that money?
When we get to that point, and we will, one has to ask the question, how much is enough?
Monday, November 22, 2010
House is burning down
Doctor Gregory House is a super genius who always knows what's in the patients best interest. On the latest episode, House has to hire a new addition to his team. It must be a woman because... Anyway, they hire a woman who's also a super genius except, unlike House, has a conscience.
The story continues with House's henchmen breaking and entering in order to figure out the secrets the patient won't reveal. It's ok because "everybody lies" and it's for the patients own good. The new goody two shoes doctor (a med student actually) refuses to break the law and with that act is cast by House as a moral midget, not suitable to her gigantic brain.
The moral dilemma continues throughout the episode and comes to a boil when the two super geniuses argue over whether the patient should be informed of his two treatment options. Treatment 1, the inferior treatment and treatment 2, the "right" treatment.
House doesn't want to present treatment option number 1, because A. It's not as effective, and B. the patient is stupid and will choose it (which the patient promptly does). House is interested in saving lives, not letting idiotic patients (read: not super geniuses) decide their own fate.
In the end, all is well because the conscientious super genius is able to reason with the patient that House is right and convinces him to choose the "right" treatment. Hooray to super geniuses, what would us ordinary folks do without them?
House is a TV show, but it unintentionally reveals the left wing view of the world of its writers. It's a view which flips morality upside down and debates the immorality of "incorrect" decisions. In this world, the sin is not in doing harm, but not doing good. Doctor House is the manifestation of the Lefts technical bureaucrats who know what's good for you. On the show, and in life, we ignore it because medicine is far out of our realm of expertise. But the premise holds for everything There is a right answer out there and the experts know it. It is foolish and wrong to reject it. The repugnance of this view is that imposing your genius on an unwilling person is not deemed morally wrong, only questionable.
Perhaps super geniuses will lead our lives better than we would. Perhaps they will make no mistakes, it's assumed they would make less than us. Nonetheless, why ought it be up to someone else to make my life mistake free? Choice only matters when you can choose the "wrong" thing.
The story continues with House's henchmen breaking and entering in order to figure out the secrets the patient won't reveal. It's ok because "everybody lies" and it's for the patients own good. The new goody two shoes doctor (a med student actually) refuses to break the law and with that act is cast by House as a moral midget, not suitable to her gigantic brain.
The moral dilemma continues throughout the episode and comes to a boil when the two super geniuses argue over whether the patient should be informed of his two treatment options. Treatment 1, the inferior treatment and treatment 2, the "right" treatment.
House doesn't want to present treatment option number 1, because A. It's not as effective, and B. the patient is stupid and will choose it (which the patient promptly does). House is interested in saving lives, not letting idiotic patients (read: not super geniuses) decide their own fate.
In the end, all is well because the conscientious super genius is able to reason with the patient that House is right and convinces him to choose the "right" treatment. Hooray to super geniuses, what would us ordinary folks do without them?
House is a TV show, but it unintentionally reveals the left wing view of the world of its writers. It's a view which flips morality upside down and debates the immorality of "incorrect" decisions. In this world, the sin is not in doing harm, but not doing good. Doctor House is the manifestation of the Lefts technical bureaucrats who know what's good for you. On the show, and in life, we ignore it because medicine is far out of our realm of expertise. But the premise holds for everything There is a right answer out there and the experts know it. It is foolish and wrong to reject it. The repugnance of this view is that imposing your genius on an unwilling person is not deemed morally wrong, only questionable.
Perhaps super geniuses will lead our lives better than we would. Perhaps they will make no mistakes, it's assumed they would make less than us. Nonetheless, why ought it be up to someone else to make my life mistake free? Choice only matters when you can choose the "wrong" thing.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Incentives Matter
If you believe as I do that people respond to incentives, then here's an interesting thought experiment. Imagine a world where the poor pay zero taxes. In such a world, would government be more or less likely to create jobs for poor people? I'd say they'd be less likely because what the government really cares about are revenues, and if more people working doesn't generate any additional revenue, then why would government care if they worked or not?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Year of the shark
I remember a few years back the national news in a tizzy about shark attacks. Every week another victim was shark meat and there were no safe harbors anywhere. Turns out that that year, there were about the same number of shark attacks as any other year, and the hullabaloo was self inflicted.
Seems every year, heck, every month a new biggest thing is born. This year, it's the Tea Parties. While the Tea Parties are significant, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The economy sucks, democrats have progressed to being visibly nuts, and Obama-We're-the-ones-we've-been-waiting-for-mania has gone away. Tea Party or no Tea Party, the democrats were going to get crushed.
The Tea Party is not symbolic of liberal woes, but of conservative ones. The tea party is first and foremost a conservative movement, a movement resurrected from the ashes of actual fiscal conservatism. The Tea Party arose to send a message to the Republican party: stick to your principles. We'll see what lasting effect the Tea Parties have in a year...if any of us remember.
Seems every year, heck, every month a new biggest thing is born. This year, it's the Tea Parties. While the Tea Parties are significant, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The economy sucks, democrats have progressed to being visibly nuts, and Obama-We're-the-ones-we've-been-waiting-for-mania has gone away. Tea Party or no Tea Party, the democrats were going to get crushed.
The Tea Party is not symbolic of liberal woes, but of conservative ones. The tea party is first and foremost a conservative movement, a movement resurrected from the ashes of actual fiscal conservatism. The Tea Party arose to send a message to the Republican party: stick to your principles. We'll see what lasting effect the Tea Parties have in a year...if any of us remember.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
