Tax Day TEA Party - My Impressions

I attended the TEA Party in St. Paul, MN yesterday, to show my support of fiscal responsibility, (the government not overspending), limited government, (the government not in the way of peoples freedom), and free markets, (the government letting businesses work).
The crowd estimates for this party were between eight to ten thousand people. Multiply that by the hundreds of tea parties going on across the country and you have a huge event. Now I hope the country was listening.
Of course, many media outlets were not willing to just report the story as it was happening. CNN even went so far as to demonize and harass those attending. ((Watch the video here)) This is showing what conservatives have been saying for a long time; the media is blatantly and unashamedly bias. Every report I could find either hugely downplayed what was happening or linked the people in attendance to "extremists".

Extreme? How extreme is a rally that starts with the Pledge of Allegiance? How extreme is a rally that numerous times broke into chants of "USA, USA"? How extreme is a rally of people who see a news helicopter and turn around to wave? (I thought that was a bit corny myself, but it did go to show how peaceful the demonstration was). Most rallies are liberal in nature. They involve screaming and chanting, they often times have some violence thrown in (RNC Welcoming Committee for example), and tend to be very resentful to any authorities. This is why the media loves to report on rallies. There tends to be something violent happening, and something 'exciting' to show on TV. These TEA Party rallies were not like that. They were sane, peaceful, and had a very easy to understand message - stop spending our money like there is an infinite supply of it.

So, as the country moves forward, where do we go? I sincerely hope that we can move forward in a direction where the conservatives of this country are not afraid to say what they believe; not afraid of being demonized by the media or even those around them. I hope for the country to hear the conservative voice and listen to what they say. But most of all, I hope for a country that is informed about what is happening and willing to get involved with what is happening. Let's all be open to debate, open to conversation, and open to involvement in the process of this country. I leave you now with my favorite picture from the rally.

Government In The Way of Freedom - In Response to Peter Orszag on the Jon Stewart Show

I was directed this week to watch the following videos of Peter Orszag, the White House Budget Director, explain the budget on the Jon Stewart show. Here are the links:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=222776&title=peter-orszag-pt.-1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=222777&title=peter-orszag-pt.-2
I thoroughly enjoy listening to people with views different from my own and also think that Mr. Orszag is a brilliant man. He explains himself and this complex issue of the budget very eloquently. As I listened, I had to pause many times to gather my thoughts, and this is what I came up with.
First of all, Mr. Orszag said that they have inherited a terrible deficit. This is true, as President Bush overspent and built debt, however, it is not true that Obama is coming to the rescue. Bush's deficit during his eight year term was a grand total of $1.3 trillion dollars with his last year in office bringing in the biggest piece of that with $482 billion overspent in one year. Obama's outlook on eight years totals $15 trillion dollars. ((See chart here)) I understand completely that is a long outlook and they plan to change things to help cut that number down, but $15 trillion in deficit spending in 8 years? That's a lot of our money; a lot of borrowed money. Why can't government, instead of saying they need more money to fund themselves and grow government, say they are cutting back spending? This is the fix that stops the tax raises, that stops the borrowing, and that stops government intrusion into our personal freedoms. Not talked about in the above interview is the fact that this budget, while proposing huge deficits, also is piling on new taxes (in the range of $686 billion in new taxes by the end of the ten year outlook). Treat the taxpayers money with the respect it deserves is all I ask.
Which brings me to my second point. Jon Stewart asks why the government is allowed to play by a different set of rules then we the people are. That is the point of true conservatism (notice the emphasis on true conservatism, not moderate conservatism). The government's spending is so out of control, we are forced to spend borrowed money, increasing our debt, or raise taxes on the people of this country. Neither option is good; yet President Obama is planning doing both.
Also, during the interview, Orszag admits very openly and without shame that the White House is telling people to leave certain companies, and wants the authority to reach more companies than they currently can. What? Since when is the President the overseer of private company's actions? Since when has the President looked into companies and told people to leave because he didn't like the way they did things? This is not freedom and liberty, and this is certainly not capitalism. The President should not do this; the free markets should. If a company is failing, it is up to the company and no one else to do something about it. And it is certainly not up to the President to use taxpayer money, or money borrowed from foreign investors, to help them along. If a company fails, it can either drop out and move aside for someone else to come in and provide better service, or it can file Chapter 11 and restructure itself properly and efficiently. That is how it is supposed to work. Yet now our tax dollars are invested in banks, in car companies, and many other businesses. Why? Let the markets work and move on.
This is where people like myself are coming in with the idea of 'socialism'. The government moving in and firing employees of companies as it pleases, taking over businesses to run them they way they want them to be run, running what many would call a 'nanny state', where it is not people with the freedom to control their money and life as they please but the government there every step up the way helping people along; that is the groundwork of socialism. This country was founded on the idea that people would do what they could to succeed without interference from the government. If you failed in your attempts, you would get help not from the government and the taxpayer's money, but from the local charities, churches, and organizations set up for that purpose, who fund themselves through the goodwill of the people. National government was not meant to be the all powerful government; neither was state government; neither was local government. Yet now here we are, with the idea that we all should lean on government to get by, to help us through, to make it work; that's not how it should be.
I could continue to go on for a while, but will stop myself for now, as this is getting to be quite a large post. Thank you for reading and feel free to comment or email me at kelbylovelady@gmail.com. I love getting feedback and conversation. And as always, stay informed, aware, and ready for conversation, because that's the groundwork that a free America, full of liberty, is built on.

A (Very) Brief History of Big Government

In this country, I truly believe that most all politicians seek office with the best of intentions. These people feel that they are doing what is best for the country with their spending, pork-barrel projects, etc. This concept of big government spending is called Keynesian economics. Based on these theories, if the government expands its size from the bottom up, (ie. from the demand side of the spectrum), that the top side (the suppliers) will follow suit. This is the real soul of big government. The 'lets do it for the little guy' spirit.
I hope not to be to much of a preacher here, but this is, however, a failed system, as history has shown. FDR didn't pull us out of the depression with big government, even though this is how many public schools teach it to be. No, his 'New Deal' economics only put a band-aid solution to a big problem, and when the spending pulled back, as all spending must at some point, the bottom fell out. It was WWII that pushed this economy out of depression. Then came Lyndon B. Johnson's 'Great Society'. This was mostly New Deal part II, and thought of by Kennedy anyway. Shortly after spending was cut back, which it always has to be, economic problems surfaced again.
This is where history is getting to be repeating. Jimmy Carter came into office with the mantle of 'Change'. Sound familiar? His administration drove unemployment to astronomical heights (upwards of 20%, though the exact number escapes me), and created huge inflation with spending. What stopped Carter's dreaded stagflation (stagnant economy, high unemployment and high inflation)? Conservatism.
Supply-side economics pushed by Reagan changed the country. Cut capital gains taxes down so that businesses have the means to expand. This brings more jobs to the economy. Cut taxes across the board for poor and rich alike, so that people have money to spend to live their lives how they want to. Keep government out of the way of people's freedoms! This economic time brought the largest peace-time expansion of the economy this country has ever seen; and it all came through controlling government's size and spending -- not expanding government size and spending.
So here we are today, with a President trying the failed systems of the past, all under the guise of change. Is this really change we can believe in? I see it as lessons we should have learned years ago.