Paulians vs. Palians

PoliticsApril 2010 • Views: 2,385

A new poll shows that tea partiers are divided into two camps — the Crazy faction, and the Crazier faction: Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul.

A distinct fault line … runs through the tea party activist base, characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who “best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement” — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a former GOP presidential candidate.

Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.

When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two — with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent.

This is what’s left of the Republican Party — paleo-right wing Ron Paul cult members and admirers of the dimmest bulb in US politics.

Jump to bottom

69 comments

jordash1212 Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:10:29am

Their craziness is all the same to me.

cenotaphium Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:14:24am

If only they could overlap their bases. Then we could make one of those cute celebrity mashup names for them. Sarron? Rosa?

_{/we could also prepare for four horsemen..}

PaxAmericana Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:14:44am

The craziness of the right has pushed me closer to the Democrats more than any pull factor the left could cook up. I’ve come to like Obama and admire what he’s trying to do.

Political Atheist Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:15:28am

I was surprised the poll showed Tea Parties as less conservative than national Republicans, and then this…

Excerpt
In general, those who turned out for the April 15 event tended to be less culturally conservative than national Republicans.

Asked to rate their level of anger about 22 issues on a scale of one (not angry at all) to five (extremely angry), the issue that drew the most anger: the growing national debt. The least: courts granting same-sex couples the right to marry. Twenty-four percent said they’re “not at all” upset about gay marriage.

DaddyG Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:17:34am

Polling showed that Paul and Palin ranked 1 & 2 in the line of possible candidates for 2012.

In head to head comparison with “Undecided” and “I don’t give a crap” their popularity dropped considrably. /

prairiefire Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:19:29am

As a perpetual student of the political sphere, this is fascinating! Thanks for posting it, Charles.

jamesfirecat Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:19:54am

So you’re saying the two people who are both most respected by the Tea Party are also the least likely to get elected?

(Monty Burns voice)

Excellent…..

Cannadian Club Akbar Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:20:40am

I like blimps. Does that make me a Paulian?
///

DaddyG Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:21:36am

You had me until “This is what’s left of the Republican Party — paleo-right wing Ron Paul cult members and admirers of the dimmest bulb in US politics.”

I suspect there is a critical mass of people who are not pleased with the debt the government has taken on towards the end of the Bush administration until now who aren’t affiliated with the more radical so-cons and Tea Parties. Yet if presented with a good center right candidate for the GOP would flock to the ballot to elect that person.

countrockulot Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:22:18am

So the tea party is made up of those with a facile and unrealistic understanding of government and its role in modern society on one side and those with a facile and unrealistic understanding of government and its role in modern society PLUS JESUS! on the other? Sounds like a fun group.

jamesfirecat Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:22:38am

re: #2 cenotaphium

If only they could overlap their bases. Then we could make one of those cute celebrity mashup names for them. Sarron? Rosa?

_{/we could also prepare for four horsemen..}

I like Sarron for the obvious reason….

gatoratlaw Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:22:46am

As an avowed libertarian, which I guess makes me some sort of paleo-right wing kook like Mr. Goldwater, I’d take the 42% who call themselves libertarians in that poll a lot more seriously if they showed up en masse like this after the passage of Medicare Part D or the push to demonize homosexuals.

The fact that they only started to rabble rouse after their side lost the election belies their true allegiance, and it ain’t libertarianism. Oh, that and the racist lunacy showing up at their rallies. And Ron Paul.

jamesfirecat Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:24:33am

re: #9 DaddyG

You had me until “This is what’s left of the Republican Party — paleo-right wing Ron Paul cult members and admirers of the dimmest bulb in US politics.”

I suspect there is a critical mass of people who are not pleased with the debt the government has taken on towards the end of the Bush administration until now who aren’t affiliated with the more radical so-cons and Tea Parties. Yet if presented with a good center right candidate for the GOP would flock to the ballot to elect that person.

Well given the way the GOP is being run these days I’m sure those people will have plenty of chances to admire what a fine grove their ass is making on their couches as they stay home rather than vote for Obama or someone whose crazy as all get out.

DaddyG Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:25:43am

Of course if you are making the distinction between the Republican party and Republican voters then the statement makes more sense.

I wonder if we could come up with a good word to substitute for conservative that distinguishes us (i.e. Goldwater conservatives, center right conservatives…) from the So-Cons and wingnuts?

The Liberals took Progressive- but somehow I don’t think using the title Regressives would make for a positive contrast. /

DaddyG Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:26:21am

re: #13 jamesfirecat
You nailed my biggest fear.

Kragar (Antichrist ) Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:29:20am

Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you.

Youtube Video

avanti Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:30:55am

Another take on the tea parties:

“The Tea Party is nothing new. It represents a relatively small minority of Americans on the right end of politics, and it will not determine the outcome of the 2010 elections.
In fact, both major parties stand to lose if they accept the laughable notion that this media-created protest movement is the voice of true populism. Democrats will spend their time chasing votes they will never win. Republicans will turn their party into an angry and narrow redoubt with no hope of building a durable majority. “

link…

jamesfirecat Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:32:42am

re: #14 DaddyG

Of course if you are making the distinction between the Republican party and Republican voters then the statement makes more sense.

I wonder if we could come up with a good word to substitute for conservative that distinguishes us (i.e. Goldwater conservatives, center right conservatives…) from the So-Cons and wingnuts?

The Liberals took Progressive- but somehow I don’t think using the title Regressives would make for a positive contrast. /

I think you’re looking for Buckley Conservatives. I’ve heard a lot of quotes form William F. Buckley quotes on this sight and I’ve liked just about all of what I’ve heard even if I haven’t agreed with it.

jamesfirecat Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:34:00am

re: #17 avanti

“Republicans will turn their party into an angry and narrow redoubt with no hope of building a durable majority. “

Aww its so cute how you say that like they aren’t doing it already given the way that they’ve been voting against the very things they themselves once purposed once democrats bring them to the table as a comparmise!

Sol Berdinowitz Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:34:05am

I can at least understand and sympathize with a lot of the tenets of economic and fiscal conservatism, but not the “family values crap”.

Cato the Elder Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:34:35am

Reposted from last thread, because I was up half the night thinking about this, and would like Lizard input.

I was just thinking about the subject of rationing as it might pertain to anti-AGW efforts.

Jimmy Carter, of whom you know I am no fan, was right when he said during the shortages following the OPEC boycott that dealing with our addiction to foreign oil was the moral equivalent of war.

The problem with making decisions based on such an equivalence is that in the absence of bombs falling, people refuse to feel that they’re in such a position. Life goes on, there is no problem other than gasoline shortages or high gas prices, and as soon as the immediate crisis has passed, they forget all about the looming day of reckoning and go back to the status quo.

In WWII people more or less cheerfully (I’ll get to the “less” part it a minute) accepted rationing as painful but necessary. However, the minute the war was over, any attempt to prolong rationing one hour more than needed would have resulted in riots.

If peak oil and AGW are what Ludwig says they are - and I’m accepting for the sake of argument that he’s right - then rationing on a worldwide scale would be an entirely appropriate response to the peril.

The trouble is, how do you get people to accept it? Even during wartime, one immediate effect of rationing is the instant creation of a lucrative black market for people who have the money and don’t want to accept restrictions. This is the “less” part of “more or less cheerfully”. How would you convince the bulk of the population to go along with such a program in what we laughably call “peacetime”?

I just finished reading Ken Follett’s “The Eye of the Needle”, which contains lots of old information about what rationing entailed for average Brits during WWII. No unnecessary travel, for one thing. What was necessary was decided by the government. No civilian petrol except for approved uses. No lights after dark, or at least blackout curtains to hide them. No imported foods, no luxury items, no more than X ounces of butter or margarine every two weeks, etc., etc., etc.

An argument could be made that our current situation already or soon will call for similar restrictions. But how on earth would you sell it to fat, happy people who can’t see more than ten days into the future and for whom 2050 or 2100 is something most of them will not live to see anyway?

I think this subject would repay study. A look at what wartime rationing meant in detail will be where I shall start.

This may need to become a full-length essay.

Olsonist Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:35:32am

It’s Desperate Housewives vs. My Favorite Martian.

Political Atheist Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:38:20am

re: #21 Cato the Elder

We do not even sell war bonds with a global war on terror underway.

freetoken Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:39:14am

re: #21 Cato the Elder

Well, I guess one response to the fear of rationing is that old economic standby: rationing by price.

It could be argued that the latter is the default condition, and the former (i.e., physical rationing) is only instituted rarely in modern human societies.

So if we just let rationing-by-price take effect, then the “solution” (yeah, quotes) will simply be that there will be people around the globe who just will die because they cannot afford fresh water or food.

But then again, that is already happening today, as we type these messages.

cenotaphium Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:39:47am

This is what’s left of the Republican Party

As much as I like to rip on Teapartiers & such, this article doesn’t really deal with the Republican party, does it? You’d have to make the case that the tea party is the core, or at least a trendsetter for the republicans (which may well be the case). However, the article states (for what it’s worth):

Yet they aren’t enamored of the Republican Party as an alternative. Overall, three out of four tea party attendees said they were “scared about the direction” of the country and “want to send a message to both political parties.”

The results themselves are pretty unimpressive.. I mean, Palin is on top with 15%? Palin & Paul make up only 27% of the vote, indicating that 73% do not think either of them “best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement”. It seems like the article just picked them arbitrarily as “leaders” for the apparently genuine split between social conservatives and social liberals in the Teaparty (the 42/43 split)?

¨\ °_o/¨

ryannon Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:45:03am

re: #3 PaxAmericana

The craziness of the right has pushed me closer to the Democrats more than any pull factor the left could cook up. I’ve come to like Obama and admire what he’s trying to do.

Me too - as long as that doesn’t involve bankrupting the country.

ryannon Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:48:13am

Uh…did I say something wrong?

Aceofwhat? Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:48:42am

re: #18 jamesfirecat

I think you’re looking for Buckley Conservatives. I’ve heard a lot of quotes form William F. Buckley quotes on this sight and I’ve liked just about all of what I’ve heard even if I haven’t agreed with it.

“The amount of money and of legal energy being given to prosecute hundreds of thousands of Americans who are caught with a few ounces of marijuana in their jeans simply makes no sense - the kindest way to put it. A sterner way to put it is that it is an outrage, an imposition on basic civil liberties and on the reasonable expenditure of social energy.”

William F. Buckley. My dude.

ryannon Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:49:12am

What do you mean, “We’re already bankrupt?”

pharmmajor Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:50:11am

re: #3 PaxAmericana

The craziness of the right has pushed me closer to the Democrats more than any pull factor the left could cook up. I’ve come to like Obama and admire what he’s trying to do.

Forget it; the Dems may have put their craziness on the back-burner, but they’re still just as bad IMO. Consider a third party or becoming an independent.

ryannon Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:50:56am

re: #30 pharmmajor

Forget it; the Dems may have put their craziness on the back-burner, but they’re still just as bad IMO. Consider a third party or becoming an independent.

Turn on, tune in, whig out.

Cato the Elder Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:51:18am

re: #24 freetoken

Well, I guess one response to the fear of rationing is that old economic standby: rationing by price.

It could be argued that the latter is the default condition, and the former (i.e., physical rationing) is only instituted rarely in modern human societies.

So if we just let rationing-by-price take effect, then the “solution” (yeah, quotes) will simply be that there will be people around the globe who just will die because they cannot afford fresh water or food.

But then again, that is already happening today, as we type these messages.

Well, the trouble with rationing by price as it pertains to the stuff that needs rationing to counter the threat of AGW (principally, all forms of fossil-fueled energy) is that it will, despite peak oil, continue to be relatively cheap for the foreseeable future - at the very least, well past the date (assuming we haven’t already passed it) when we’ll need to radically cut consumption to achieve the desired effect. So there’s no gain for the environment to be expected there.

No, I’m talking about enforced rationing of the coupon-book variety.

I’m not making a plea for it here, I’m presenting the idea as a thought experiment: Assuming it were decided upon as a necessity in the face of the peril, how would you sell it to people who do not see the need, whose houses are not being bombed by an enemy, and who would be all for it if applied to “those guys over there” but would discover their own so-called necessities to be sacrosanct as soon as any non-voluntary sacrifice were expected of them? I’m betting even Prius drivers would rebel.

shiplord kirel Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:51:44am

I’ve been thinking about some of the sub-groups I’ve observed among tea-partiers, too:
Roadnecks- These are folks who ape the alleged culture, values, and appearance of traditional rural Americans but whose only exposure to agriculture was watching a few episodes of Green Acres. They are typically employed in some field involving the use or care of motor vehicles, especially big ones.

Supply-side peasants-These are low-wage workers; pizza cooks, store clerks, etc.; who festoon their battered vehicles with Ron Paul stickers and will launch into a strident though not coherent speech about the evils of socialism if they find out you’re on the public payroll in some capacity.

Civil Service ingrates- Current or former government employees, often postal workers or GSA types, who apparently believe that their own cushy salaries and cushier benefits are the only legitimate use of government funds.
(My brother “Judas” is one of these. He is an outspoken tea-partier and member of the hate-group MassResistance but lives, very nicely, on about 170K a year in retirement and disability benefits funded by you-know-who. Among other things, he opposes the very existence of public schools.)

(A related species) Trough-hating Swine
These are entrepreneurs whose businesses depend entirely on public funding. Medicare/medicaid profiteers in the lucrative home-healthcare, medical equipment (“scooters”), and nursing home industries are especially well represented here, since Medicare does not pay jack for actual doctor visits and the like.

iossarian Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:52:22am

re: #21 Cato the Elder

You know, there’s a broader point here than just energy rationing. The US could reduce its deficit by raising taxes or by cutting expenditures - both are a form of rationing (the first is a rationing of private expenditures, the second of public services).

And both are politically impossible, because no-one likes to be told that they can’t afford as much as they think they can.

Aceofwhat? Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:53:43am

re: #21 Cato the Elder

sounds close to where i am. given that climate is global, we can’t (in the US) make a noticeable and immediate beneficial impact on the global climate without self-destructing.

self-destructing is a non-starter for me.

so instead, we should pursue all of the available solutions which, in addition to being good long-term decisions for the planet, also present medium-term benefits for our security and energy independence.

if we can’t force everyone to make good planetary decisions now, we could at least position ourselves to be holding more cards when the rest of the world gets more of a clue, while throttling the Middle East of their revenue in the meantime.

Kardzbox Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:53:58am

Living in the land of St. Louis Tea Partiers (seems to me to be as crazy as they get)… In fact, I share the gene pool with one of the leaders (not sure what happened in the past, but I claim no association)…

I made the mistake of having an over-the-fence political convo with a relatively new neighbor while grilling the other night ~ bad idea for engendering harmony. Let’s face it, there’s a whole lot of bat-shit crazy out there and if I had to retrieve a ball from his yard, I think I would need the kevlar…

Aceofwhat? Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:55:30am

re: #32 Cato the Elder

it can’t be sold. it’s a non-starter. and i like to think of myself as a salesman…i’d have better luck selling HMO care to Dennis Kucinich…

darthstar Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:56:29am

Well, we did see what happens to a right-wing radio host who dared disparage the sacred Sarah…

“You’re going to boo me off?” Walsh asked. “You’re going to boo me off because I’m talking about Sarah Palin? Then you’re the problem.”
“You’re a punk!” a man yelled.

“I’m a punk? Walsh asked. “Because I’m talking about Sarah Palin?”

“She’s more of a man than you are!” another protester cried out.

“Sir, you need to back off and let me have my time up here, okay?” Walsh fired back. “You’re the problem, sir. I’m a punk and you’re an old, senile fart, now back off. … I’m not sure why I can’t point out the fact that Sarah Palin is a Republican and is part of the system. She couldn’t even finish her time as Governor of Alaska! I know that’s because she was being attacked but she’s gonna be attacked ten-fold when she runs for office. I’m advocating that we put real independents in office.”

After that, someone held a sign up next to the speaker calling him an infiltrator…It was like a feeding frenzy among sharks, only bloodier.

iossarian Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:56:33am

re: #32 Cato the Elder

I would welcome energy rationing of the coupon-book variety, and I used to drive a Prius before I sold it (happily before the recall!).

My mother drinks her tea without sugar. This is because, when she was growing up (in the UK), there came a time when the sugar ration was increased to the point where, if her family stopped drinking tea with sugar, they could make a cake once a week instead. This was late 40s/early 50s.

jamesfirecat Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:56:47am

re: #36 Kardzbox

Living in the land of St. Louis Tea Partiers (seems to me to be as crazy as they get)… In fact, I share the gene pool with one of the leaders (not sure what happened in the past, but I claim no association)…

I made the mistake of having an over-the-fence political convo with a relatively new neighbor while grilling the other night ~ bad idea for engendering harmony. Let’s face it, there’s a whole lot of bat-shit crazy out there and if I had to retrieve a ball from his yard, I think I would need the kevlar…

Well Hidy-Ho neighbor Tim have I told you recently about how our socialist overlords are trying to undermine the fragile wonder of our republic?

Olsonist Mon, Apr 19, 2010 10:01:16am

re: #33 shiplord kirel

The best post I’ve read on LGF. I’d been looking for a phrase like supply-side peasants for years.

reidr Mon, Apr 19, 2010 10:07:18am

re: #3 PaxAmericana

The craziness of the right has pushed me closer to the Democrats more than any pull factor the left could cook up. I’ve come to like Obama and admire what he’s trying to do.

Same here, but for me it started with the Clinton/Lewinsky nonsense and progressed through the crazy and political Bush administration. I officially became a Democrat in 2004. Good work, Rove and friends!

jamesfirecat Mon, Apr 19, 2010 10:13:36am

re: #42 reidr

Same here, but for me it started with the Clinton/Lewinsky nonsense and progressed through the crazy and political Bush administration. I officially became a Democrat in 2004. Good work, Rove and friends!

Well they certainly are doing their part to create a permanent one party majority!

Cato the Elder Mon, Apr 19, 2010 10:28:24am

re: #37 Aceofwhat?

it can’t be sold. it’s a non-starter. and i like to think of myself as a salesman…i’d have better luck selling HMO care to Dennis Kucinich…

Well, that’s my feeling too - you couldn’t sell it unless we were in an actual war and not just the moral equivalent thereof.

But that doesn’t mean the “moral equivalent of war” meme isn’t accurate. If the projections are correct, we are in a fight with AGW for the survival of civilization itself.

So, if you can’t sell rationing or some other enforced real, significant cutback in CO2-producing energy consumption, what hope is there for voluntary action that would make a noticeable difference?

None. Zip. Zero.

So then what hope is there, period? If we wait for things to get bad enough on their own to force us to take action, the science tells us it will be too late.

It’s enough to make a man despair.

lostlakehiker Mon, Apr 19, 2010 10:45:46am

This is what’s left of the Republican Party — paleo-right wing Ron Paul cult members and admirers of the dimmest bulb in US politics.

The tea party movement is a fringe movement that is so far around the bend it can only barely fit half its people into the fringe right faction of the Republican party.

The Democrats have their own problems. In California, for example, they’ve fallen into the clutches of the major public sector unions. Pension costs are bankrupting the state, with retirees able to quit at 50 on 90% salary or more. City Journal’s account. The last Democrat governor, Gray Davis, was so bad that California, surely a Blue state, in desperation elected a Republican.

There are logical limits to how far a government can go in commanding the tides. The project of supplying every medical need anyone might have or imagine, promptly, courteously, and at affordable rates, to everyone, is doomed from the outset. The wish-list is self-contradictory. The same goes for ensuring that housing is affordable, all the while making sure that no one risks being foreclosed on because their home price is sure to go up, and smartly.

A government that makes it a core principle that it will bring about a state of affairs that never has existed and never can exist, at least not for any span of time, is a government that must either lose at the polls when the real world diverges badly enough from its rosy talk, or must take steps to ensure that it need not face the voters. In Venezuela etc. they’ve gone with Plan B, but that’s not really an option in the U.S. So Republicans won’t evaporate from the scene. We’re the party of realism, except when it comes to that hopey-changey science thingy. And then we’re dumber than rocks, who at least know that they’re “as old as the hills.”

Fozzie Bear Mon, Apr 19, 2010 10:48:24am

This is exactly the sort of damned-no-matter-what-you-do scenario “The Tragedy of the Commons” predicts.

There simply may be no technical solution to the problem. I suspect this to be the case. It may be that the only “solutions” come in the form of accepting we will have to do some things that we currently consider morally abhorrent, or else even more horrible things will happen to us.

freetoken Mon, Apr 19, 2010 10:48:47am

re: #44 Cato the Elder

One thing to consider is that we (collectively across elements of our society) have already made our decision on how to deal with this matter, and at the current time are in a stage of negotiation (with our own conscience) with the implications of our decision.

This perhaps is what sets LVQ off the handle every now and again.

Fozzie Bear Mon, Apr 19, 2010 10:48:55am

My previous comment was meant to be a reply to Cato’s post #44.

Cato the Elder Mon, Apr 19, 2010 11:06:21am

re: #47 freetoken

One thing to consider is that we (collectively across elements of our society) have already made our decision on how to deal with this matter, and at the current time are in a stage of negotiation (with our own conscience) with the implications of our decision.

This perhaps is what sets LVQ off the handle every now and again.

Well I’m going to repost my original query next time he’s on-thread and see what he says.

If “Copenhagen” represents what we collectively have decided to do about it, then we’re fucked.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Mon, Apr 19, 2010 11:06:48am

re: #45 lostlakehiker

And yet another person misrepresenting California’s financial crisis.

Wouldn’t it be better to learn from it, than lie about it?

reidr Mon, Apr 19, 2010 11:09:16am

re: #45 lostlakehiker

So Republicans won’t evaporate from the scene. We’re the party of realism, except when it comes to that hopey-changey science thingy. And then we’re dumber than rocks, who at least know that they’re “as old as the hills.”

I have to disagree with “party of realism”. The majority of your party seems to believe that tax cuts are always good, regulation is always bad, and that the free market somehow solves all problems. Didn’t we just have a near-depression after many years of the Right’s rosy talk? If the Republicans acted like you believe, they’d be in much better shape now.

lostlakehiker Mon, Apr 19, 2010 11:15:21am

re: #50 Obdicut

And yet another person misrepresenting California’s financial crisis.

Wouldn’t it be better to learn from it, than lie about it?

Misrepresenting? Good luck to you with finding a factual error in the City Journal article. Get back to me when you think you’ve identified one. California’s financial crisis is a crisis born of persistent folly by the ruling party. That’s not even an opinion. That’s just a fact.

iossarian Mon, Apr 19, 2010 11:27:21am

re: #52 lostlakehiker

I think he means that the article fails to mention the fact that the minority party is able to block tax increases that could reduce the deficit in California. There are two sides to the California budget crisis - the article chooses to highlight only one, and is therefore misrepresentative.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Mon, Apr 19, 2010 11:29:43am

re: #52 lostlakehiker

No, it’s not. It’s because we have a system that makes it very hard to cut services and very hard to cut taxes, giving the minority party a lot of rule. That you’re simply ignoring Republican governor’s is kind of nutty, too.

I hate it when people want to portray California in a skewed manner for political gain rather than actually paying the fuck attention and learning something from it. It’s so shallow.

lostlakehiker Mon, Apr 19, 2010 12:40:22pm

re: #21 Cato the Elder

Reposted from last thread, because I was up half the night thinking about this, and would like Lizard input.

I was just thinking about the subject of rationing as it might pertain to anti-AGW efforts.

Jimmy Carter, of whom you know I am no fan, was right when he said during the shortages following the OPEC boycott that dealing with our addiction to foreign oil was the moral equivalent of war.

The problem with making decisions based on such an equivalence is that in the absence of bombs falling, people refuse to feel that they’re in such a position. Life goes on, there is no problem other than gasoline shortages or high gas prices, and as soon as the immediate crisis has passed, they forget all about the looming day of reckoning and go back to the status quo.

In WWII people more or less cheerfully (I’ll get to the “less” part it a minute) accepted rationing as painful but necessary. However, the minute the war was over, any attempt to prolong rationing one hour more than needed would have resulted in riots.

If peak oil and AGW are what Ludwig says they are - and I’m accepting for the sake of argument that he’s right - then rationing on a worldwide scale would be an entirely appropriate response to the peril.

The trouble is, how do you get people to accept it? Even during wartime, one immediate effect of rationing is the instant creation of a lucrative black market for people who have the money and don’t want to accept restrictions. This is the “less” part of “more or less cheerfully”. How would you convince the bulk of the population to go along with such a program in what we laughably call “peacetime”?

I just finished reading Ken Follett’s “The Eye of the Needle”, which contains lots of old information about what rationing entailed for average Brits during WWII. No unnecessary travel, for one thing. What was necessary was decided by the government. No civilian petrol except for approved uses. No lights after dark, or at least blackout curtains to hide them. No imported foods, no luxury items, no more than X ounces of butter or margarine every two weeks, etc., etc., etc.

An argument could be made that our current situation already or soon will call for similar restrictions. But how on earth would you sell it to fat, happy people who can’t see more than ten days into the future and for whom 2050 or 2100 is something most of them will not live to see anyway?

I think this subject would repay study. A look at what wartime rationing meant in detail will be where I shall start.

This may need to become a full-length essay.

Generally, rationing scarce goods by price works out better than flat-out rationing. So tax things by their implicit carbon content. If adjustments must be made to cushion the blow for the poor, give them fuel-stamps to go with their food stamps.

Sacred Plants Mon, Apr 19, 2010 1:09:21pm

re: #47 freetoken

One thing to consider is that we (collectively across elements of our society) have already made our decision on how to deal with this matter, and at the current time are in a stage of negotiation (with our own conscience) with the implications of our decision.

Where did the shuttle diplomacy for that get its kerosene tax break?

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Apr 19, 2010 1:22:52pm

re: #52 lostlakehiker

Misrepresenting? Good luck to you with finding a factual error in the City Journal article. Get back to me when you think you’ve identified one. California’s financial crisis is a crisis born of persistent folly by the ruling party. That’s not even an opinion. That’s just a fact.

here is a thing you should read about California’s system, because it’s like actual information and data and stuff [Link: www.huffingtonpost.com…]

At the risk of tl;dr, here’s the money shot:

alifornia is the only state with a legislature run by minority rule. Because it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to either pass a budget or raise revenue via taxation, 33.4 percent of either house can block the entire legislative process until it gets what it wants. At present 63 percent of both houses are Democrats and 37 percent are far-right Republicans who have taken the Grover Norquist pledge not to raise revenue and to shrink government till it can be drowned in a bathtub. They run the legislature by saying no. This has led to gridlock, huge deficits from lack of revenue, and cuts so massive as to threaten the viability of the state.

Unfortunately, most Californians are unaware of the cause of the crisis, blaming “the legislature,” when the cause is only 37 percent of “the legislature,” the 37 percent that runs the legislature under minority rule.

I realized last year that the budget crisis was really a democracy crisis, and that a ballot initiative that could be passed by only a majority could eliminate the 2/3 rules, replacing minority rule by majority rule. The idea was to bring democracy to California. Only two words are needed to be changed in the state Constitution, with “two-thirds” becoming “a majority” in two paragraphs, one on the budget and the other on revenue. The changes could be described in a 14-word, single-sentence initiative that went to the heart of the matter — democracy. It is called The California Democracy Act:

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Apr 19, 2010 1:23:46pm

re: #52 lostlakehiker

Misrepresenting? Good luck to you with finding a factual error in the City Journal article. Get back to me when you think you’ve identified one. California’s financial crisis is a crisis born of persistent folly by the ruling party. That’s not even an opinion. That’s just a fact.

This is actually a lie. I’m not sure if it’s because you don’t understand the system, or because you’re lying. But it is, in fact, a lie.

comradebillyboy Mon, Apr 19, 2010 2:46:23pm

Since Ron Paul is a lot smarter and a good bit more rational than Palin, I find him generally less objectionable. I really do like a some of his positions (reduced foreign entanglements and drug legalization) but the total package is rather unacceptable.

badger1 Mon, Apr 19, 2010 3:04:04pm

re: #58 WindUpBird

What do you think is the cause of California’s state budget debacle?

Walter E. Wallis Mon, Apr 19, 2010 3:15:28pm

I’ve been quiet awhile on this site, and based on the direction it is going that may continue. I was disappointed that the site I watched while it chewed up and spit out a phony document has been bought to heel. You are observing Tina Fay and buying the wimpiest defense of the warmies I have seen. The latest ‘report’ is damning with faint praise. If someone wants to argue Darwin vs Bible I chuckle on the sideline but when someone wants to support a thesis that would take available energy away from the common man I want better than sloppy work and biased interpretation.
50 years from now the Midwest will still be kept warm with gas from the Palin pipeline, if they can afford even cheap fuel after paying on the Bush-Obama IOUs.

wrenchwench Mon, Apr 19, 2010 3:34:56pm

re: #61 Walter E. Wallis

I was disappointed that the site I watched while it chewed up and spit out a phony document has been bought to heel.

If you meant “brought to heel”, by whom? If you meant “bought to heel”, never mind.

If someone wants to argue Darwin vs Bible I chuckle on the sideline…

If you keep chuckling at the sideline during those arguments, you might end up with lousy science that you can’t trust.

…but when someone wants to support a thesis that would take available energy away from the common man I want better than sloppy work and biased interpretation.

Ooops, we’re already there!

To take it from the top:

I’ve been quiet awhile on this site, and based on the direction it is going that may continue.

Is that because you can’t stay and support your point of view?

lostlakehiker Mon, Apr 19, 2010 4:17:03pm

re: #53 iossarian

I think he means that the article fails to mention the fact that the minority party is able to block tax increases that could reduce the deficit in California. There are two sides to the California budget crisis - the article chooses to highlight only one, and is therefore misrepresentative.

Then why choose the word “lie”? If you want to argue that I’ve missed something in my analysis, that’s fine. I take being called “wrong” with some degree of equanimity. It’s happened before that I’ve been wrong.

I take being called a liar with some degree of umbrage. I don’t lie on these boards. If I post something, it’s because I think it’s true as a matter of fact, or substantially sensible and on the mark when we’re talking considered judgment rather than straight factual matters.

Now, to the matter of raising taxes to cover the state’s deficit. There’s limits to how high taxes can go in a state. California is not in a position to put up an Iron Curtain and keep businesses and citizens “in”.

Based on figures from Wikipedia, California, with 12 percent of the population, collects about 15 percent of all the state taxes collected in the U.S. wikipedia on state tax levels

The state ranks 11th out of 50 in per capita taxes collected at the state level. The list starts out with AK, VT, HI, and WY…and two of these collect considerable royalties on natural resources and share them out with a small population base. It’s hard to argue that California is undertaxed and that higher taxes would both close the current gap and accommodate the foreseeable regular double digit increases that the public sector unions have become accustomed to. I don’t have figures that would allow comparison of local tax rates, but my guess is that these too are rather high.

California already stands near the top with respect to state income taxes. source, wikipedia

State income taxes are on top of the federal income tax, which currently tops out at 35%, as well as payroll taxes (contributions to Social Security and Medicare). Therefore, the maximum total rate is 35% of income in the states of Florida, Texas, and Washington, but 44.5% of income in Vermont and 45.3% in California[3],

It might be instructive to get out a calculator and see what sort of tax increase would be needed to cover current spending together with an extrapolation into the future of current spending trends. If the top tax rate must exceed 100%, enacting such a tax would drive out those taxpayers whose every extra hour of work just drives them deeper into tax debt, and would not yield increased revenue. Even before that point is reached, taxes can backfire.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Mon, Apr 19, 2010 4:26:41pm

re: #63 lostlakehiker

You might also want to include that California has a very low number of public servants per citizen, and other things like that.

Talking about the maximum tax is also fucking pointless.

swamprat Mon, Apr 19, 2010 5:44:45pm

re: #63 lostlakehiker

re: #53 iossarian

I think he means that the article fails to mention the fact that the minority party is able to block tax increases that could reduce the deficit in California. There are two sides to the California budget crisis - the article chooses to highlight only one, and is therefore misrepresentative.

There is a pattern developing. And it seems to revolve around affiliations.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Mon, Apr 19, 2010 6:35:32pm

re: #65 swamprat

There is definitely a pattern that I’ve noticed in LostLakeHiker’s posting, yes. It tends to include a lot of things that are factually untrue, despite a clear knowledge of the subject.

I don’t use the word lightly.

SteveB4 Mon, Apr 19, 2010 7:09:53pm

I’m actually sorta relieved. 15% and 14% are hardly majorities. Would be nice if a smart, rational advocate of limited government came along to fill the void in tea party leadership.

lostlakehiker Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:07:58pm

California is the only state with a legislature run by minority rule. Because it takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to either pass a budget or raise revenue via taxation, 33.4 percent of either house can block the entire legislative process until it gets what it wants. At present 63 percent of both houses are Democrats and 37 percent are far-right Republicans who have taken the Grover Norquist pledge not to raise revenue and to shrink government till it can be drowned in a bathtub. They run the legislature by saying no. This has led to gridlock, huge deficits from lack of revenue, and cuts so massive as to threaten the viability of the state.

Deficits result from a mismatch between revenue and expenditures. Even a drunken sailor’s deficit can accurately be said to result from lack of revenue, in the sense that if revenue were sufficiently increased, he’d be making enough to match his spending.

To assert that California’s deficit is caused by a lack of revenue, when CA already takes in more per capita than most states and when its income tax rate is toward the top if not at the top nationwide, is to ignore the elephant in the room.

Other states manage to make ends meet. Some make ends meet with high spending and high taxes, such as Minnesota. Others, such as say South Dakota, manage with low spending and low taxes. You don’t find me ragging on MN because it’s a liberal state with high taxes, because they’ve found a balance that suits them and it’s their business where they set their taxes and spending.

The pattern you see with me is real, but it’s not a matter of trying to skew the truth. Your perception that CA’s problem results from a lack of revenue blinds you to the fact that CA has more revenue than most but spends it poorly.

Your observation that CA has fewer public employees than other states ought to have lit up a light for you: if CA spends a lot on public employees, but has few, then how much are they spending per public employee? It’s like an arithmetic problem. Other states get more services for less money because they pay less. Because their public employees aren’t so politically powerful. Like City Journal explains.

And if you don’t like that 2/3 rule, it is certainly in your collective power to change it. Remove the last check on drunken spending, the current ability of a minority to baulk increases in taxes. Raise taxes however high they have to go to cover your spending. See how it goes. But when it turns out badly and I criticize your choices, don’t say that I’m lying because I failed to note that the real reason for CA’s budget deficit is that the gold deposits near Sacramento played out.

CarleeCork Mon, Apr 19, 2010 9:08:01pm

re: #22 Olsonist

It’s Desperate Housewives vs. My Favorite Martian.

I vote for the green dude.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Paulians vs. Palians

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud