For real:
Photo by Jared Elosta
That is the amount of federal taxes paid so far this year. Oddly, DC residents have yet to call for a tea party or secession.
(A link for my photo gallery from the protest will be here soon–check back again later.)
The protesters at the Tax Day Tea Party in Boston on Wednesday had a clever theme, provocative signs, and revolutionary-era costumes. They mocked Obama and his supporters, they screamed cries of injustice at the oppressive federal government, and they promised that this was just the beginning. Gadsden flags? Check. NOBAMA chum? Check. John Galt references? Check. They had thought of everything, including a man running around in a naked-Obama suit, carrying an inflated Muppet with the words “The Emperor Has No Clothes” written on it. All that was missing was a bonfire of 1040 forms. But I expect that may be coming next year. Yes, next year, and the year after that.
Democrats have mocked the protest Wednesday as astroturf instead of a grassroots effort. Nancy Pelosi recently said, “[I]t’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.” But just because a protest is funded/promoted by wealthy, powerful people doesn’t mean there can’t be a swell of grassroots support behind it. My impression of the protest I attended yesterday was that this is indeed the beginning of something. A movement? No. At least, not yet. But along with the wind, some powerful political impulses were swirling around Boston Common Wednesday.
As I wrote yesterday, the people I spoke with were friendly and seemed to want to debate a liberal in their midst. I didn’t go to debate, though. I went to listen. I wanted to come to my own conclusion about what these protesters wanted. After seeing the protest and talking with the people at this event, I think I have a fairly good idea now, and it confirms what I already suspected.
The organizing savvy of the Boston protest was not all that impressive considering the time they had to organize (over a month) and the media support in spreading the word. Nate Silver cites a NYT report estimating that at least 500 people turned out, which is okay, but not great. Also, the main speakers didn’t have a microphone, so they spoke from a megaphone and it was very hard to hear them clearly, despite the fact that they were screaming. There wasn’t a stage, so those of us in the back of the crowd couldn’t even see the speakers. Furthermore, there were no people with clipboards going around collecting the contact information of the attendees. That’s a lost opportunity, since they could have put everyone who came on an email list. Finally, since the protest was held in front of the Massachusetts State House in Boston Common, gathered beneath the statue of Robert Gould Shaw, it didn’t feel like the “tea party” the organizers had billed it as. Apart from the colonial costumes, the tea party analogy was mostly lost.
But apart from the mediocre organizing at the Boston event, I was struck by the anger of the people who attended this protest, and the focus of this anger not merely on the government, but squarely on President Obama. We are not even three months into the Obama administration, and yet the level of contempt that many of these protesters feel for him was startling to witness. There may have been protests against President Bush three months into his first term, but I don’t remember any, and they certainly weren’t this widespread. I’m not sure what conclusion to draw from the anti-Obama sentiment. It may be that we’re in a vicious cycle in which politics just gets more polarized with each president. It could also be that Obama has already had to make some very difficult choices on the economy and he is not backing away from the ambitious changes that he promised during the election. It is probably a combination of the two.
Here’s just one example of the contempt for Obama I observed. A photographer I spoke with who gave his name as Henry K. Henry told me that Obama’s birth certificate wasn’t valid–I just needed to look it up at WorldNetDaily to see the proof. In his words, “Obama is a fraud. He’s fashionable, that’s all.” He went on to argue that Obama isn’t even a good speaker: “Have you ever seen him speak without a teleprompter? It’s horrible.”
I don’t want to trivialize the strong convictions of the people I talked with, however. This wasn’t merely an anti-Obama protest, though Obama was the primary target. It was a protest against what is perceived as a growing liberalism that the protesters fear could expand into socialism (if we aren’t there already, as many seemed to believe). It was also a protest against a rapidly rising deficit that may burden our children and grandchildren with higher taxes. It was a protest against the “liberal media”, illegal immigration, and the perceived unfairness of a tax system that allegedly does not reward work. Finally, it was a protest of what is viewed as an unresponsive government that is not listening enough to the people. I’m probably missing some things, but these were the major themes that I observed.
"The stimulus plan concerns me. We don't have the money to spend," said Steve O'Brien w/ friend Crystal Ashoury of New Hampshire
I talked with nearly a dozen protesters, and for the most part, they were interesting conversations. Steve O’Brien and his friend Crystal Ashoury came down to Boston from Keene, New Hampshire, with philosophical anti-tax quotes written on their t-shirts. O’Brien argued that except for the sake of protecting people from harm, our tax dollars are forced from people without their consent. When I pointed out that we had just given our consent to be governed by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress in the fall, he made an interesting point: “The majority can vote to raise taxes on the minority, but that doesn’t make it right. The minority still don’t give their consent to higher taxes, and it’s wrong to force people to pay taxes without their consent.” I disagreed with him, but just this one conversation proved to me that not everyone at the tea party protest was a nutty right-wing zealot.
Other protesters I spoke with were angrier, or at least, more frustrated. Kurt Bergstrom of Holbrook, Massachusetts put it this way: “The harder I work, the less I have to show for it. They’re empowering anyone who doesn’t want to be productive and work hard. Enough is enough is enough!” He also expressed the commonly held view at this protest that the entire media was against them, except for Fox News. “Unless it’s Fox, I don’t watch. NBC is so bent to the left it’s disgusting.” His hopes for the protest? “Hopefully the government will start listening. Or, at least the people will start listening to us. It’s also important that people out there who see what’s happening know that they’re not alone.”
Another protester with Mr. Bergstrom was Roger Puglisi of Plymouth, Mass. Mr. Puglisi said he had previously owned a small building business for 23 years and had employed 22 workers. Now, it’s just him. “I’m upset with everything,” Mr. Puglisi said. “I can’t get a job, can’t get work. I blame the bad economy on the government. How do I compete with a company that hires illegal immigrants?”
Finally, when the main speakers began, they shouted into the megaphone and riled up the crowd. One speaker yelled angrily, “We won our independence because of the bravery of our founding fathers! Today, that cause is renewed! We are Republicans and Democrats who believe in America, not in an intrusive federal government!” Then a woman started up: “They are surrendering our national sovereignty! Mr. Obama, we will defend America, not the United Nations!” At some point during these speeches, a woman standing next to me with a stroller and a young daughter screamed at the top of her lungs, “USA! USA!” and a chant broke out in the crowd.
"This movement is going to explode," said Kurt Bergstrom, attending the Boston Tax Day Tea Party
As others have noted, what was missing from this protest was a solution or an alternative approach to Obama and the Democrats. If the protesters had been advocating for the “fair tax”, for instance, it may have been more productive: Americans could at least have a debate about the consequences of this kind of approach compared to Obama’s proposed tax policy. Similarly, if they had been clearly calling for the banks and GM to fail, or to allow foreclosures to proceed without any government intervention, that is an alternative plan that Americans might consider. But this protest wasn’t about new ideas or changing Obama’s policies for a more enlightened alternative. It was merely about stopping Obama.
In this sense, the Tax Day Tea Party in Boston reminded me of the left-wing anti-war protests held before and after the Iraq war. These protesters were always against President Bush’s Iraq policies, but they never had a clearly formulated prescription for an alternative approach. I know anti-war activists would disagree with that characterization, but the point is that if they had a positive agenda, it was never clearly stated. The same thing can be said for the anti-Obama tea party protesters.
The Democrats rebuilt their party after 2004 around the energy that was created from opposition to the Iraq war. In the same way, Republicans have a chance to regain some of their momentum by opposing President Obama’s economic policies. That seems to be the real significance of the Tax Day Tea Party protests. This is why it’s important to recognize that the tea party protests were authentically grassroots, and not astroturf. There is a very strong current of emotion and conviction underlying the people who attended the protests. Fox News can tell people to go to an event sponsored by powerful conservative groups, but unless people are motivated by a sense of political grievance, they won’t show up.
The fact that people did show up to the tea parties should send a message to those of us who support President Obama’s agenda that there is a very agitated minority that is very committed to obstructing his policies. Opposition creates a great deal of grassroots energy in a way that incumbency sometimes does not. Lots of people voted for Obama and hope he succeeds. Many Americans strongly support the President. But the people who oppose Obama seem a lot more fired up right now.
So, what do the tea party protesters want? It’s not complicated. They want to stop Obama.
My friend Ben Carp has an excellent post on the anti-Obama tea parties at the blog Public Occurrences 2.0. It’s very much worth checking out. Ben is a history professor at Tufts, and he focuses on the colonial period and has a book coming out soon about the Boston Tea Party. So there are few people more qualified to talk about the historical analogies that the tea party protesters want to claim. Ben writes:
One historical analogy that fails, however, is the idea that the
Bostonians aboard the tea ships in 1773 were protesting higher taxes
under the Tea Act. This is just wrong.
- First, the British Parliament first passed the tax on tea in 1767,
and Bostonians had in fact purchased plenty of tea bearing the
threepenny-per-pound duty during the intervening years. New Yorkers
and Philadelphians, who smuggled almost all of their tea from Holland
and elsewhere, were in fact outraged at how little the New Englanders
were able to stick to their “anti-tax” principles. In this respect,
the Boston Tea Party was almost an apology.- Second, the Tea Act would in fact have lowered the price
of tea for Americans–so the idea of invoking the “Tea Party” every time
you think your taxes are too high is incorrect. Instead, the Tea Party
protesters were energized by a series of principles: the government was
propping up a monopoly company (the East India Company), the government
was perpetuating an unjust tax (the 1767 tax on tea which had been
confirmed in 1770), and the government was using the revenue from that
tax to pay the salaries of judges and executive officials, thus
rendering them independent of local legislatures.- Third, and most importantly: I’ve been extremely dismayed at how many of the protesters say, “Taxation WITH representation ain’t so hot either.“ (I’m not just cherry-picking a random blog comment here–this phrase is everywhere.)
Well, no, no one LIKES paying taxes, but most people recognize that you
need some form of taxation in order to pay firemen and astronauts,
defend the country’s borders, try to ensure that our food isn’t
poisoned, etc. The point of protest against the Stamp Act, Townshend
Acts, and Tea Act in 1765-1774 was that “taxation WITHOUT
representation” would lead to slavery–in other words, the colonists
believed that the British ministry was arbitrarily levying taxes on
Americans when those Americans had no say in electing members of
Parliament. In a democratic republican government, if you don’t like
the level of your taxes or you don’t like how your tax money is spent,
you have the power to peaceably “throw the bums out.” And you
certainly have the First Amendment right to protest and rail against
the stimulus and bailout. But the point is, the people of the
Revolutionary Era had to fight for those rights to get rid of a
constitutional monarchy–it’s hardly the case that paying taxes from a
colony to a (partially hereditary) government that you don’t elect is
the same as paying taxes to a government consisting of representatives
and an executive that you DO have the power to elect.
Ben goes on to say that maybe the protesters feel like they don’t have a representative government anymore, and maybe that’s why they are protesting. I think that’s being too nice to the people protesting. It seems clear to me that a lot of these protesters simply oppose the President. It’s a partisan thing all the way down, as Fox News’ promotion of this event makes clear. Based on the anger I’ve seen on the right and the crazed level of vitriol (exhibit A: Glenn Beck) I would hazard a guess that we will see the Crazy Scale reach a 7 or 8 out of 10 (10 being Beck Crazy). Andrew Sullivan summed it up nicely today:
These are not tea-parties. They are tea-tantrums. And the adolescent, unserious hysteria is a function not of a movement regrouping and refinding itself. It’s a function of a movement’s intellectual collapse and a party’s fast-accelerating nervous breakdown.
I hope responsible Republicans start to realize how fringe their party is starting to become and begin speaking out against all this ridiculous talk of “revolution”. We do need a serious party of opposition to provide alternative ideas and engage in a rational debate with the Democrats. But, hey, if a tea party protest allows people who are still unhappy with the election results in November to release some of their anger, more power to them. But somehow I doubt that this one protest is going to stop the nonsense.
As a patriotic citizen, I’m sure you’re wondering how to spend your extra $8 a week in stimulus tax cuts. Here are some ideas from economists on how to maximize the multiplier effect and help get our economy back on track. A few of my favorites:
Ethan Harris, Barclays Capital: Get a haircut. It is a
purely domestically produced service with extremely high labor content.
This means no drain in spending power out of the country: it is “Buy
American” without violating any trade agreements. It also has a high
impact on employment due to the high labor content. Finally, an $8
haircut–as opposed to the $100 variety– is probably being done by a low
income person who is likely to spend rather than save the 8 bucks,
ensuring strong second round spending effects. We will groom our way to
recovery…
A haircut for $8? Where? Not in this city.
Tyler Cowen, George Mason University: In my view,
fixing the banking sector is more important than getting the stimulus
right. So if you can afford to lose the money, go to a large bank (more
likely to be insolvent), find their most overpriced service, and buy as
much of it as you can. That way you are doing your part to recapitalize
our banking system.If you’re stuck for ideas, just keep on using ATM machines, owned by
other banks, so you can pay large fees to take out small sums of money
from your checking account. When you need to, take all of your
withdrawals and deposit them back in the account once again and start
all over with the process.
The only problem with this advice is that using ATMs that are not owned by my bank and having to pay those fees reflexively causes me to become angry and probably raises my blood pressure. High blood pressure may cause health problems leading to increased health care costs. If you extrapolate from me to the rest of the nation, this probably isn’t the best idea.
Robert Gordon, Northwestern University: Don’t go to
an $8 movie, that won’t create jobs. Save it for three weeks and get a
$24 meal, which will directly help restaurants avoid layoffs and
closures.
Ah, now we’re talking! Who wants to join me at a steakhouse in three weeks?
Ricardo Reis, Columbia University: You should use the
money in the way that is best for you and your family, whether that is
saving or spending, buying this or paying that. Doing what is in your
best interest usually leads to doing what is best for the economy. (And
when it is not, the economic policymakers should have figured that out
when deciding whether to, and how to, give you the $8, so that by
pursuing your best interest you end up doing what is best for all.)
Wait: aren’t laissez-faire economic principles what got us into this mess?
The Tax Policy Center has a nice breakdown of the tax cuts in the stimulus bill. Not great grades, I must admit. The biggest let-down for me is the “Making Work Pay” tax credit, even though the TPC gives it a B+. Personally, I would have preferred a lump-sum check. Now how am I going to justify that smart phone I was thinking about buying? It turns out that the $400 per individual and $800 per family will be allocated by reducing the amount of withholding on each paycheck over an entire year. According to the TPC, the money is more likely to be spent rather than saved as a result, thus adding to the tax cut’s stimulative effect.
I suppose the reasoning is: if you’re not even noticing the extra $15 you’re receiving in your paycheck, you’ll probably spend it without noticing. On the other hand, if you have some credit card debt or you’re concerned about saving money, a check for $400 will definitely not be spent. And, this may indeed have been what the administration was thinking in spreading the $400 out for the whole year. Here’s an interesting analysis from the New Yorker:
You might think that handing people a big chunk of change is a perfect way to get them to spend it. But it isn’t, because people don’t treat all windfalls as found money. Instead, in the words of the behavioral economist Richard Thaler, people put different windfalls in different “mental accounts,” which in turn influences what they do with the money. Where the money comes from can have a big impact on whether people spend it or save it: casino winnings are more likely to be spent than, say, money from an inheritance. The framing of a windfall is important, too: a recent study by the business professors Nicholas Epley and Ayelet Gneezy showed that when a tax rebate was presented as a bonus it was more likely to be spent than when it was presented as a refund. And the size of the windfall matters a lot: the bigger the windfall the more likely it is to be saved.
I was prepared to spend a lump-sum, but maybe most Americans would have saved that money with the economy so shaky and the danger of unemployment in everyone’s mind. It’s a lot harder to be disciplined enough to save an extra $30 a month than it is to save a single check worth $400.