Rick Santelli's Chicago Tea Party

Getting our own house in order Posted: 21 Apr 2009 12:02 PM PDT An astute reader made a very, thought provoking comment on the outstanding blog post, “What Tea parties are and are not”. This insightful comment needs to be met head on and addressed directly by the nationwide, grassroots movement. The reader cites a comment from the original blog, then adds brief commentary: "We felt this way when George Bush was President and we'd be holding Tea Parties today if he was still on the job." Um, really? Because he was president for pretty much eight years and there were (hang on while I add 'em up) zero tea parties. The non-partisan tone here is manipulative and wildly disingenuous. The reader makes some valid points. For example, Where were the tea parties when President Bush oversaw the largest federal budget expansion since FDR’s New Deal? Where were the tea parties when President Bush and Congress (a Republican Congress for most of the time) passed its first $2 trillion budget, then the first $3 trillion budget? Where were the tea parties when President Bush doubled the national debt? Where were the tea parties, when by some accounts, President Bush tripled the size of the Federal Government? Where were the tea parties when Bush and a host of Republicans in Congress passed the first $700 billion bailout and the government began taking stakes in private companies? And why weren’t all the “conservative” media pundits calling for tea parties during the gargantuan spending spree of the Bush era? You get the point. It’s little wonder that the liberal media and Obama stalwarts view our movement as being strictly motivated by partisan politics. To specifically address one of the reader’s points, it should be duly noted that there was a small segment of the Republican Party which vehemently and consistently chastised the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress for exploding the size of government and skyrocketing the national debt. Over 1 million cast their votes for this Texas Congressman in the 2007/2008 Republican Primaries, yet for the most part, he was dismissed as a fringe candidate. We the People have got a lot of work to do to restore our credibility. We’ve been asleep at the wheel for far too long. We’ve allowed partisan politics to cloud our better judgment. We’ve let CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, and “conservative” talk radio do our thinking for us. It’s time to start throwing out the waste in Washington D.C, whether Democrat or Republican. It’s time to call a spade, a spade. When a Republican stinks, say so. When a Democrat stinks, say so. Or, when a Republican votes in accordance with the Constitution, praise him/her. When a Democrat votes to reign in federal spending, praise him/her. It’s time to open our minds to new possibilities, new ideas, and new candidates. If an Independent or Third Party candidate presents a more constitutionally sound alternative or a more fiscally conservative budget proposal, don’t waste your vote on the same old Democrat or Republican. It’s time to hold a lot of these so-called conservative media darlings to a higher standard as well. Have a lot of these individuals jumped on the band wagon simply because the Democrats are in power now? Did they spend eight years coming up with creative justifications for many of the egregious Republican spending extravaganzas? Do they simply mock and degrade those who share even the slightest difference of opinion? If we begin to rectify our own inconsistencies, then we may witness an unbelievable explosion of the tea party movement. Instead of just preaching to the choir, we will begin to attract more and more Democrats, Independents, Third Party members, and a wider spectrum of Republicans. Until we begin to convince some of the skeptics, this movement will never reach its true potential. ReTeaParty is dedicated to becoming the most highly respected and independent-minded tea party organization in the nation. To the best of its ability, ReTeaParty will not tolerate the poisons of partisan politics, nor will it become a tool of opportunistic media. Though mistakes will be made along the way, ReTeaParty will do its best to uphold the integrity of the Constitution and to encourage thoughtful discussion from all political persuasions.

Study shows $700 billion bank bailout exposes US taxpayers Posted: 21 Apr 2009 07:44 AM PDT In a 250 page quarterly report to Congress, Inspector General, Neil Barofsky, reports that US taxpayers are increasingly exposed to potentially significant losses and the US government is more vulnerable to fraud. Barofsky also states that the public-private partnership designed to clean up the toxic assets is tilted in favor of private investors and against the taxpayers. Barofsky goes on to make a number of specific recommendations which establish tough, conflict of interest rules and request greater transparency. By now, it’s pretty obvious. These bailouts are meant to rescue Washington D.C.’s buddies on Wall St. Wall St has hijacked the US Government. Just look at all the top players in the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and Administration’s team of economic advisers. Directly or indirectly, they’re all tied to firms like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie mac, and others who just happened to be key recipients for all this bailout money, despite running their companies into the ground. Plus, a significant number of our leaders in Congress, from both parties, are tied at the hip to these banking gangsters. Lest we forget, this first $700 billion bank bailout was passed by most Democrats and a significant number of Republicans in the US Congress. Obama supported it. John McCain supported it. George W. Bush supported it. George W. Bush’s Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson (former Goldman Sachs CEO) drafted it. We the People need to start doing our homework. Find out who’s up for reelection in 2010 and 2012, and if they voted for this Wall St. bailout, vote them out, Democrat or Republican. We also need to research who’s funding our favorite candidates. Are they receiving a majority of donations from banking elites on Wall St? Are their leading economic advisors former Wall St. big shots who ruined their companies and lobbied for bailout money? If so, we should strongly reconsider voting for such candidates. The US Government-Wall St. partnership is a hotbed of corruption. It’s up to us to clean it up. Read the article here.

More bailout money for Chrysler and GM Posted: 21 Apr 2009 07:05 AM PDT The Obama administration announced it will make another $500 million available to Chrysler through the end of the month and another $5 billion available to GM through May.  The price tag keeps rising. Read the article here.

Obama proposes $100 billion loan for IMF Posted: 21 Apr 2009 06:57 AM PDT However, Obama states that the US funding,  “does not represent a budgetary expenditure or any increase in the deficit since it effectively represents an exchange of assets.”  Whatever that means. The article also noted that the $100 billion was part of the commitment made by G20 nations at the April 2 summit in London.  So, the G20, an international group of nations, dictates US monetary policy?  What about the US Congress as stipulated in the Constitution?  Did Congress vote on this “loan”?  And how is it that $100 billion is being “loaned” or “exchanged”, or whatever terminology you want to use, when we’re running a nearly $2 trillion budget deficit? Here are some alternative possibilities.  Instead of loaning $100 billion to foreign nations, how about saving this money to start paying down $11 trillion in national debt?  Or, how about dedicating part of this savings to repaying US taxpayers for all the government bailouts they’ve been forced to fund over the past several months? Read the article here.

Volcker calls out Fed on inflation Posted: 20 Apr 2009 02:35 PM PDT Federal Reserve Vice Chairman, Donald Kohn, stated that a roughly 2% inflation rate would be ideal for economic recovery.  However, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, who crushed double-digit inflation with high interest rates in the early 1980’s, responded, “I don’t get it…[by setting 2% as an inflation objective, the Fed is] telling people that people in a generation that they’re going to be losing half their purchasing power.” During the Bush Administration, Fed Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke devalued the Dollar by nearly 30%.  At one point, under Bernanke, the dollar had lost 40% of its value since 2002. And despite this inflationary tax on our money, Ben Bernanke remains Fed Chairman under the Obama administration, even though many top analysts believe his inflationary policies, in the form of artificially low interest rates and excessive money printing, were a primary cause of the massive bubble that is currently collapsing.  Talk about rewarding failure. Inflation robs Americans of their hard earned savings and erodes their purchasing power over time.  It’s an insidious, invisible tax on the American taxpayer.  It’s what the Federal Reserve does best. Read the article here.

Reader’s Digest Posted: 20 Apr 2009 12:15 PM PDT In the recent edition of Reader’s Digest, there’s a section on surviving the economic crisis.  One of the bullet points addresses the “gloom and doom” warnings on evaporating Social Security funds.  Despite the coming shortfall, which both parties warn about, Reader’s Digest states, “Even in bleak economic scenarios, Social Security will probably pay you 65 to 80 percent of your currently promised benefits.”  Talk about low expectations.  Since when is getting back only 65% to 80% of your hard earned investment something to cheer about? Their next solutions were even more telling.  “And with some fairly modest changes- like raising the retirement age or increasing payroll taxes for anyone earning more than $250,000 annually-  the system can be shored up for decades to come.”  In other words, save the system by punishing the taxpayers. Absent from their proposed solutions is an admonition to cut out of control government spending.  Instead of raising retirement ages or increasing taxes on higher income workers, perhaps the government should drastically cut all the pork barrel spending.  Perhaps it should cut excess spending, balance its budget, and start paying down national debt. Solutions like those offered by Reader’s Digest enable government profligacy and punish hard working Americans.  Government spending, borrowing, and printing are leading to huge shortfalls in key programs. On the other side of the coin, many conservatives claim that cutting taxes will solve most, if not all, of our economic ills.  Tax cuts are great, but only if they are accompanied by spending cuts.  The Bush Administration cut taxes, but it doubled the national debt, because the tax cuts were offset by huge increases in government spending.

Crowding out the smaller banks Posted: 20 Apr 2009 10:59 AM PDT Small banks are growing more vociferous in their discontent over the Federal Government’s bailouts of “too big to fail” banks.  Do they have a valid point? In order to bail out banking giants like Bank of America and Citigroup and to constantly replenish the FDIC deposit insurance fund, the government is crowding out smaller banks and raising onerous special assessment fees.  As a result of Wall St’s greed and inefficiency, thousands of healthy community banks are struggling to survive amidst cumbersome federal regulation and punishing fee hikes. Critics argue that the fee hikes are critical to salvaging a financial system on the brink of collapse.  They also argue that the majority of the 50 banks that have failed since 2008 have been smaller banks.  However, this number represents an extremely small percentage of the approximately 8,000 community banks nationwide. Is government propping up monolithic, inefficient, greedy, and unsuccessful banks at the expense of squashing smaller, more efficient, more prudent, and more successful banks?  What if a bunch of these smaller, more sound financial institutions could step in, pick up the slack, and fill the void of a banking conglomerate that has wasted its capital and tapped taxpayer money? Advocates of massive bank bailouts and sweeping government intervention claim that saving Wall St is the key to saving Main St.  But, by rewarding the failure of corporate giants, is the Federal Government just punishing the little guy on Main St? Read the article here.

Obama orders $100 million in spending cuts Posted: 20 Apr 2009 10:19 AM PDT President Obama is ordering his Cabinet heads to cut $100 million in wasteful spending.  On the positive side, it’s a reduction in federal spending.  On the negative side, this cut represents a mere 0.003% of the federal budget.

Obama’s massive military budget Posted: 20 Apr 2009 08:32 AM PDT Did you know that President Obama’s defense budget is virtually identical to that of President Bush’s?  In fact, Obama’s defense budget is about 8% higher than last year’s, and in 2010,  despite some proposed cuts by a Republican Secretary of Defense, Obama still plans on spending 2% more than President Bush had allocated. In the big picture, the US has  700 bases  in about 130 countries around the world.  Obama has no plans to change this policy of funding a gargantuan global empire. On the contrary, Obama plans to spend even more on the military than the previous, Republican administration. So, why are “conservatives” so angry? America already spends more on its defense budget than all the other nations of the earth combined.  And now, Obama wants to spend even more.  But, how is it, that both Republicans and Democrats, want to continue the behemoth military spending when our nation is running back breaking budget deficits? So-called fiscal conservatives mock and ridicule Obama’s spending spree, yet they refuse to make any concessions on an out of control military budget.  You can’t have it both ways.  Something has to give. The truth is, America’s domestic and military budgets are way too big.  If our government wants to start paying down debt, balancing the budget, and lowering the tax burden, both domestic AND military spending require drastic cuts. Perhaps the time has come for self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives to take a long, hard look at American foreign policy.  Running a global empire and fighting multiple, open-ended foreign wars cost a lot of money, money the United States just doesn’t have.   Maybe it’s time to reconsider the Founding Fathers’ explicit advice on the dangers of becoming a global empire.  Maybe it’s time to reconsider the old adage, “It’s about quality, not quantity”.    And maybe it’s time to listen to those politicians, CIA officers, and military advisors who believe America can successfully secure its borders and  defend against Islamic terrorists without bankrupting itself in the process.

You are subscribed to email updates from America's July 4th Independence Day Tea Party To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of America's July 4th Independence Day Tea Party in a feed reader.
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: America's July 4th Independence Day Tea Party, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610