Tuesday, April 06, 2010

What you don't understand about the Tea Partiers Part 3

Why now? People have been unhappy with the political system for years; there have been times when the President's popularity polls and Congress' combined were under 50%- what's bringing people to the streets at this moment? A number of elements- some simmering under the radar for years, some new, and some that we had thought were comfortably in the future that we are now realizing are too close for comfort- are creating a "perfect storm" of public outcry... and it may be that the Tea Party phenomenon is not the culmination, but merely the first warning.

Simmering problems. As I reported in my post, Jobless recovery- or jobless economy?, there hasn't been a new private sector job created in eleven years. New types of jobs have been created, but in terms of more people working today than yesterday, not a single new job. This lack of new jobs was masked by the big corporate profits being made, and the fact that most of the unemployed had in the past been those without special skills or education- it's not headline network news when there's high unemployment among the high school dropout set. But then highly skilled workers, with college degrees and/or decades on the job started getting laid off.

What caused the collapse of the mortgage industry? Yes, yes, there were all kinds of crazy mortgage schemes going on; some actually illegal, some so new there were not yet regulations in place that covered them. But all the finger pointing at Freddie This and Fannie That and Soandso's Bank misses the point that the mortgages were being defaulted because people were losing their jobs and couldn't pay the mortgage! Think about the timeline of the first troubles being reported, the bankruptcies, the Bush bank bailouts (and the protests over them), the auto company bailouts, (and their protests), along with the formation of the Tea Party... now look at this interactive unemployment map. It's no wonder middle class people are protesting. The dearth of decent jobs has been preventing upward mobility from the lower class to the middle class for years; now the previously existing middle class is dwindling, as is discussed in America's Sinking Middle Class: "Middle-class wealth was personal savings, homeownership, and a pension, stemming in most cases from a decent job. Savings are now debt, homes are mortgaged and losing value, and the private-sector pension has devolved into a 401(k) with shrunken assets. Government pensions face shrunken assets, too."

Some new I know it's considered racist to call corporate bailouts and government interference in private industry socialism (which I guess proves that President Nixon was black, as conservatives called him a socialist for his Lockheed bailout and his wage and price controls. But I digress), but whatever it is, people resent it. The reason people resent it is that as most people work for small businesses, they never receive the benefits, but they can see the costs every April 15th. I know I resented it when the USPS started offering quick-printing services in direct competition with my shop; I know I received no bailout when my company failed, nor when the company I then went to work for failed, nor when the company that bought that one laid me and half the rest of its workforce failed. Play that interactive unemployment map again, and imagine how few of them are getting any benefit from the Bush/Obama bailouts.

Too close for comfort This is a fear of future problems; to understand it, we must look at the recent past as prologue. The symptom is debt. Look at these figures of both government debt, and privately held debt, in billions:
_National debt__%GDP_Public debt_%_Total
1970 __380.9___37.6_____283.2__28.0__65.6
1980 __909.0___33.4_____711.9__26.1__59.5

1990 _3,206.3___55.9___2,411.6_ 42.0__97.9
2000 _5,628.7___58.0___3,409.8 _35.1__93.1
2008 _9,985.8___70.2___5,802.0 _40.8_111.0
2009 12,311.4___86.1___7,811.1__54.6_140.7
2010 14,456.3___98.1___9,881.9__67.1_165.2
2011 15,673.9__101.0__10,873.1__70.1_171.1
2012 16,565.7__100.6__11,468.4__69.6_170.2
2013 17,440.2___99.7__12,027.1__68.7_168.4
2014 18,350.0___99.8__12,594.8__68.5_168.3
We haven't seen debt ratios like that since WW II. Why does it matter? Because when a country tries to borrow money, the lenders usually look at both the national debt and the public debt to determine interest rates- and that's already affecting us. As reported in Bloomberg," "The bond market is saying that it’s safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama.
Two-year notes sold by the billionaire’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Procter & Gamble Co., Johnson & Johnson and Lowe’s Cos. debt also traded at lower yields in recent weeks, a situation former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. chief fixed-income strategist Jack Malvey calls an “exceedingly rare” event in the history of the bond market...While Treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the government typically yield less than corporate debt, the relationship has flipped as Moody’s Investors Service predicts the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K. America will use about 7 percent of taxes for debt payments in 2010 and almost 11 percent in 2013, moving “substantially” closer to losing its AAA rating, Moody’s said last week."


Ok, so it would be embarrassing if we lost our AAA rating, is it really that critical? Yes- because something is looming on the horizon that will force us to borrow huge amounts, no matter what the interest rate is: baby boomers retiring and demanding their Social Security. We've long known this day was coming; the predictions were that we would start paying out more SSI than we were taking in by 2016, exhaust the surplus by 2037, and then have to borrow the difference for a decade or so before demographics balanced the scales again. But those predictions were made before this major recession, and before major new entitlements like Bush's senior drug program and Obama's new healthcare law- not to mention little things like the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the bailouts, etc. That old schedule is no longer operative; according to The Boston Globe, we've already hit the first of those predictions: "WASHINGTON — Social Security will pay more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes in the current fiscal year, six years earlier than expected, the Congressional Budget Office reported yesterday." How will that affect the second prediction? I've seen projections that we will have to start borrowing to cover SSI not just six years earlier, but possibly ten or more years earlier, possibly as soon as 2025. And those are the middle projections, not the worst case ones.

In order to maintain our AAA rating during the borrowing we must do to cover the SSI baby boom, we must pay down a large portion of that total debt, both public and private, in the next 15 years. For that to happen, we have to have an economic boom in the next couple of years that will be big enough that tax receipts will balance the budget, plus extra to make big payments on the existing debt... in other words, double digit growth for pretty much the entire 15 years. And not have any emergencies in the meantime- no Katrinas, no 911's, no wars, no carbon taxes, nothing to upset the applecart for 15 years.

Tea Party members don't think that's going to happen with politics as usual. Perhaps you think it is going to happen, but it would be a mistake to dismiss the Tea Partier's fears as irrational or race based, and you'll win neither friends nor elections by sneering at them.

24 comments:

Bill Baar said...

I met local Tea Partiers in front of my Congressman's office a few weeks ago. Pictures here... I don't know how represenative they would be of the rest. They did seem a little on the older side for sure. Angry but certainly not overboard or given to "hate" speech. I'm guessing there's alot of Ron Paul neo-isolationists among them so when it comes to Foreign Policy I suspect that share a lot with folks at my Church although they'd get to the same conclusions from different ways. Some East Europeans refugees too (of which they're plenty in Chicago) and they're very sensitive to Socialism/Communism and they see it (rightly I'd argue having known the folks Obama hung out with in Hyde Park.. the old DSOC, New Party crowd...not quite as Red as in the 60s but still Red enough and more red than Chicagoans from pre 89 Poland care for.)

Anyways, I found them a congenial bunch. Certainly not racists...

Chalicechick said...

My answer would be "why not now?" given that these little populist anger movements have sprung up every few decades for most of American history and we haven't had one* since I was in junior high school, so we're pretty much due.

CC

*I'm pretty sure Joel isn't going to mistake the Green party for a populist movement, and nobody else should either. The Bull Moose party doesn't count either given my definition of "populist", but the Know-Nothings, the Reform Party, the People's Party (that name didn't sound Communist in 1892), the Dixiecrats and the American Independent party are all relatively small movements of angry, primarily rural, primarily lower-middle-class folks who got together over on issue and then fell apart within a few years. And those are just the biggest examples.

Joel Monka said...

CC- You forget who this series was aimed at: UU bloggers who believe that racism is the sole motivation for everything they dislike in America. Your explanation is a sensible conclusion drawn from real life historical precedent. But as we saw in the pre-election debate about Obama's "poor" poll performance, such arguments are meaningless to them; their contempt for their fellow man is invincible.

I have given up trying to raise their estimates of the inherent worth of the humanity they walk among (or in some cases, minister to), and am instead trying to convince them that even racists have rational issues that must be addressed, in the same way that even paranoids have real enemies.

Chalicechick said...

Gotta say--the fake prom in Missippi has done more to sink my faith in humanity than anything the Tea Partiers ever concieved of.

Chalicechick said...

For what it's worth,a Tea Party rally in SC had some more of those isolated incidents that aren't a pattern and don't represent the Tea Partiers as a whole.

CC

Joel Monka said...

And here's another

Chalicechick said...

I guess those are black people that the speakers at Tea Party Rallies WON'T want sent back to Africa.

CC

Joel Monka said...

*shrug* A UU should understand about an organization with polity and no central authority, which gives an opening for all kinds to wander in and out. Should we judge UU by Robin? Should a veteran judge UU by reading David Markham's words about the military being murderous mercenaries engaged in acts so evil that a UU minister should not be a chaplain for them?

Bill Baar said...

With our Church's demonstrated lack of appeal to African Americans, it's a bit of hoot for us to point fingers at the Tea Party Movement.

Dr Eric Wallace, a prominent Chicago area Conservative, spoke at Chicago's Tea Party rally.

Check the NYT a few weeks ago for a piece on the Tea Parties deliberately avoiding the typical social wedge issues in favor of expansion of government, unemployement, and the deficit.

I think that can be a winner and point to the recent movement of Chicago's State Sen. Rev Meeks on School Vouchers. He's pushed that through the Illinois Senate to everyone's surprize. And Meeks has labeled the Chicago Teachers Union as worse than our Gangs on top of it all. (Meeks by the way cited by Obama as one of his "spiritual advisors").

So the Tea Party spirit is popping up all over in some surprizing places.... which when you think of it shouldn't surprize as AAs in Chicago have long been stiffed by Government.

Bill Baar said...

PS Eric being an African American Conservative in Chicago area... there is YouTube of him speaking. There are other Black Tea Partiers and they have a face book page.

I expect they'll be more.

Chalicechick said...

I think the church is a pretty weird comparison. If a speaker at my church felt Obama should be sent back to Africa, I would certainly be very upset. The fact that my church has some black members wouldn't make me less so.

Also, their latest keynote speaker was Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Shudder.

CC

Chalicechick said...

(((Should we judge UU by Robin? Should a veteran judge UU by reading David Markham's words about the military being murderous mercenaries engaged in acts so evil that a UU minister should not be a chaplain for them?)))

Are large numbers of UUs inviting either of those folks to represent them as a keynote speaker? Because both Tom Tancredo and Sherriff Arpaio were invited keynote speakers.

CC

Bill Baar said...

Should we judge UU's by Bill Ayers and his books published and peddled by Beacon Press?

Chalicechick said...

First off another Tea Party speaker on immigration.

(((Should we judge UU's by Bill Ayers and his books published and peddled by Beacon Press?)))

Ummm...why would we? UUs do not select the books to be published the way a group selects its speakers. If a bunch of churches have put Ayers in the pulpit, seems reasonable to judge them by that. But publishers, I assume, pblish what will sell. I think it is safe to assume that the Beacon press didn't agree with what was in the Pentagon Papers, and they published those.

CC

Bill Baar said...

But publishers, I assume, blish what will sell. I think it is safe to assume that the Beacon press didn't agree with what was in the Pentagon Papers, and they published those.

Bad assumption although I'm guessing Ayer's book the most profitable thing Beacon's got going, but profits not the sole reason they publish anyone.

Goto Beacon's site and read their recent stuff on Ayers. They're gaga over him.

As for the P papers, well Ellsberg quoted on Beacon's site tellimg them publishing those papers was an act of civic courage. http://www.beacon.org/client/pentagonpapers.cfm#quotes

Beacon Press is a big part of UUisms Public Face. They reflect our Church and it's fair and too my mind critical to judge what they print. They flog a Book authored by an angry anti American crank like Ayers, well, they make the Church look complicit with him.

Far more than the Tea Parties which are very much on guard know agains angry cranks in their midsts...

Bill Baar said...

Beacon Press a few minutes ago on Ayers http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2010/04/a-first-amendment-victory-out-west-william-ayers-finally-allowed-to-speak-at-the-university-of-wyoming.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beaconbroadside+%28Beacon+Broadside%29

Chalicechick said...

You mean...a publisher is saying dramatic and wonderful things about one of its authors? Like, they want people to think the author is a good guy and buy his books?

Gee, they're planning to publish some of Martin Luther King's writing, too. You don't think they will give that publicity and say nice things about Dr. King, too, do you?

The only weird thing is that you think it is worthy of comment. All publishers do PR for their more profitable authors. The ones that don't lose their more profitable authors.

And I still don't see why this is particularly comparable to tea partiers choosing, over and over, people who have the same views on immigration and race. You have one example of someone with Ayers' views. I've already provided three of keynote speakers. Do you seriously think I can't find quite a few more if I go looking?

Do you really, seriously, not see the difference between large groups of tea partiers choosing and inviting someone and honoring that person as a keynote speaker, and a UUA-run independent publisher trying to sell books in a tough economy?

CC

Bill Baar said...

Do you really, seriously, not see the difference between large groups of tea partiers choosing and inviting someone and honoring that person as a keynote speaker, and a UUA-run independent publisher trying to sell books in a tough economy?

No, I don't.

The person chosen is a reflection on the group.

The choice of King reflects on Beacon and UUs.

The choice of Palin reflect on the Tea Party.

The choice of Ayers reflects on Beacon and UUs.

Ayer's a bad reflection..very bad... and that we profit off Ayers on top it makes it all the worse.

Chalicechick said...

So if a publisher publishes a book by someone you don't like, are you less willing to buy from them in the future since you know you are supporting a publisher who publishes people who disagree with your views? I mean, since publishers select authors for political reasons and don't do so for the money...

What about HarperCollins, which published both Micheal Moore's "Dude, where's my country?" and Sean Hannity's "Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda"?

Don't you think HarperCollins advertised both books? How can both books reflect on HarperCollins, aside from reflecting that they want to publish books that will sell? I'm pretty sure, that's every publisher's motive.

You admit that Ayers' book is the "most profitable thing they've got going." If that's the case, why wouldn't they sound "gaga" over him if sounding that way is making them money?

CC
who also notes that Beacon Press published radical, and extremely homophobic, feminist Mary Daly. I'm sure they sound "Gaga" over her too, or did when her book first came out. Would you want your book published by a publisher who wasn't willing to sound gaga over you'?

Bill Baar said...

What about HarperCollins, which published both Micheal Moore's "Dude, where's my country?" and Sean Hannity's "Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda"?

hmmm...yeah, I think they're junk books. They tell me Harper Collins will publish junk.

My Church does socially consience investing; I try and be careful whom I spend my money on...

Rod Blagojevich's publisher went belly up by the way... and that's not a bad thing in my book either.

We're different CC. We're a Church and our publishing house I hold to a higher standard.

If we publish Ayers because we think he has a message to be heard congruent with our faith; that's bad.

If we publish Ayers because we make a buck; that's even worse.

Chalicechick said...

Correction: I said "homophobic" last post when I meant "transphobic"

_____

Bill,

If we all have to agree with everything Beacon Press publishes because we regard Beacon Press as representing us, then Beacon press might as well close its doors because surely it can never publish again.

After all, who would you and I agree on, to say nothing of the rest of UUism?

CC

Bill Baar said...

That's hardly the point CC...

...it's when Beacon Press publishes something hateful... then I have a problem. Ayers is hateful.

Isn't that the point UUs are always making about the right? That its hateful? Agreements not the issue, its the hate.

Well look around at some UUs and our Press. There is plenty of hatful and violent stuff... we just parade it as Social Justice. Alexander Berkman, Bill Ayers... oh yeah, they were in pursuit of Justice so their hate and violence was ok.

Give me your average Tea Party anytime over this crock.

Chalicechick said...

Honestly, I haven't read Ayers' book, so I wouldn't know. I certainly don't know enough about him to invite him to come to speak to any group of people of which I'm a member.

Unlike the tea partiers, whom one suspects know damn well who Tom Tancredo is. He's certainly famous for his views on immigration and the tea partiers had him speak on that very topic.

CC
who still doesn't know who could be published if Beacon Press had to represent all of UUism. I mean, I know people who hate "A Chosen Faith"

Bill Baar said...

There must be thirty or forty tea parties in Illinois. They represent all sorts of people united around a strong distaste for the actions of the administration on domestic policy. I hear little from them on social issues or Af-Pak surge as I think they try and stay focused on the bailouts, Health Bill, and the deficit. I doubt many I know in the fox valley would know Tom Tancredo.

who still doesn't know who could be published if Beacon Press had to represent all of UUism. I mean, I know people who hate "A Chosen Faith"

Beacon is our Publishing House. What they do is a reflection on our Churches. Just as what you and I write is a reflection. Not representative, but reflective; and their mirror is a lot bigger than you or I too I might add.

Ayers is a foul, cynical, and hateful man. (I hesitate to say man because he's never really left being the Ayers Rich Kid son...the millionaire radical and irresponsible kid...an American archetype)

Beacon makes a big point of defending him and promoting his book. That's a nasty reflection on his.