Image courtesy of thegreatilluminator.com
It was the "rant heard around the world"; the Democrats, flush off an election sweep and their strongest majorities in years and marginalizing opposition Republicans as little more than naysayers, sought to move on their presumptive mandate of wildcard change, including unprecedented spending sprees and various tax giveaways, especially to workers whom do not contribute towards federal government overhead; why would those who have no vested interest, given the fact they are being given money earned by other people and future generations, have any interest in holding the Democrats' feet to the fire of fiscal discipline?
I've already pointed out in other posts the Democrats' conceptually incoherent, self-serving arguments against the Republicans and the Bush Administration: on one hand, they've attacked the Republicans' budget deficits, while arguing the Republicans didn't spend enough on domestic programs and entitlements. (They will argue that it's because the rich didn't pay enough taxes and we were spending money in the Gulf Region, but the fact is that high-end tax rates are only modestly lower than under Clinton, and the deficits went beyond any Gulf War spending.) The fact is that George W. Bush was hardly a fiscal conservative with the highest increases in domestic spending since LBJ--but the Democrats have qualitatively surged beyond Bush's record of spending, nearly quadrupling the deficit. We are no longer shocked by Democrats pushing trillion-dollar bills on strings, e.g., health care "reform" and climate change.
What finally set off CNBC reporter Rick Santelli was yet another Obama/Dem "spread the wealth" legislative gimmick, this one involving government subsidies to income-qualified mortgage holders. In the warped progressive world view, any time a lower-income individual enters into a contract, he or she is "exploited" by definition to the other party. It's the ultimate buyer's remorse--never mind the fact that the bank, on foreclosure, would have to post a loss in a down market. The same goes with routine progressive threats to enact cramdown legislation, i.e., forcing the banks to forgive loan principle, something that would threaten bank solvency. The idea is that only one party in the transaction assumes any risk or responsibility--the creditor. There are all sorts of moral hazard at play: the government becomes the nanny state where individuals and businesses are condescending viewed as incapable of handling risk; hence, government bureaucrats relieve them of any need to think on their own. The price? The loss of individual liberty, as the creeping vines of progressive government slowly entangle its citizens, limiting their ability to live their lives, build businesses, or get credit. Why should individuals or businesses exercise responsibility, e.g., negotiate the best price for a house, etc., knowing the next time they are in a bind in an adverse market, the government will bail them out? The problem, of course, is when you try to micromanage risk, you undercut the foundation of American economic growth.
Rick Santelli's rant spoke to the heart of the center-right nation. For years, the country had seen political bickering gridlock the federal government, led by both parties; the citizens narrowly elected an inexperienced politican whom ran as a Washington outsider, promising a post-partisan government. But the nation had been victimized by an obscene "bait-and-switch", where instead of putting a halt to the large deficits under Bush, the Democrats, in fact, put overspending on steroids, where instead of bipartisan compromise, the Democrats cherry-picked a few Republicans to ram costly partisan bills down the nation's throat, future generations be damned.
There are definite echoes of a past campaign, some 17 years ago, when Ross Perot captured the imagination of nearly 20 percent of the national vote, based on disgust with both political parties and concern over the lack of fiscal discipline. The Tea Party movement, which seemed to rise up almost overnight in response to Rick Santelli's clarion call, goes beyond just the unconscionable deficits we are racking up on the backs of future generations, which will face an ultra-competitive global economy. There is a fundamental disconnect between the progressive agenda and traditional American values; there is a sense that the government of the people and for the people has become a corrupt institution singularly focused on its own survival, growth and scope of its authority and control at the expense of the individual and the private sector. To quote Howard Beale from the movie Network: 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'
Rasmussen reports some surprising strength of Tea Party reformers if they were to formalize into a political party, including substantial support from independents and Republicans; in addition, he finds that up to 66% of the American people want smaller government, with fewer taxes and services, a key Tea Party belief. Personally, I think it would be a mistake for the Tea Party movement to do so; Perot's appeal was mostly to fiscal conservatives whom would normally align with Republicans and supply-side conservatives furious with Bush's betrayal of his "no-new-taxes" pledge (something Clinton disingenuously pointed out at every opportunity, explicitly challenging Bush's credibility, knowing full well that Congressional Democrats hadn't balanced the federal budget in over 20 years in power and the tax changes in question were a condition for Democratic cooperation). I think the Tea Party movement will better serve its ends by remaining nonpartisan and not formally endorsing candidates, but I think they should encourage the candidacies of those in either political party committed to the ideals of smaller governments, lower taxes and spending, and fewer regulations. They should hold those legislators accountable whom have been part of the problem and not the solution.
This recognition of Rick Santelli comes without compensation or a plaque, being little more than a few bytes stored on Google servers, just a note of appreciation for a reporter whom did more than simply read the news but spoke his mind and, in the process, spoke for the nation.
