Does the Washington Post Hate the Tea Party?

The 4th of July should be a celebration of our independence.  Those values include a respect for the founding principles of our nation.  Principles such as the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Independence from tyranny. 
 
On July 4th 2011, E. J. Dionne, Jr of the Washington Post wrote a piece entitled: What our Declaration really said and used it to continue the liberal machine attack on mischaracterization of the conservative movement in general and the tea-party specifically.
You can read his article here.
In response to this, I offered this comment.

An Intentional Mischaracterization?

Mr. Dionne, You and many others continue to mischaracterize the tea-party with the simple dismissal "no new taxes".  As I read the articles and books associated with the tea party, I have a more complete and thoughtful description.  In a word the tea-party is about liberty and freedom.  That is it's foundational principle.
As such, I believe it addresses issues of today from the perspective that the pathway to maintaining the optimum amount of liberty and freedom is government constrained (especially) the federal government.  I do not believe that they are anarchists, nor anti-government.  (Limited is very different from no).  Government ought to do those things that individuals can not do efficiently and do them in the most limited way possible so as to minimize the impact on individual liberty and freedom.

Tea Party Guided by Milton Friedman’s Philosophy

Milton Friedman in his work "Free to Choose" suggests that our society is best served and advances against issues of public policy advance more quickly when decisions are made at the most local level  in a flow that goes something like this....

1. Individual
2. Family
3. Community
4. City/County
5. State
6. Federal

In other worlds try to solve the problem at the top of the list and work down.  Why???? because it maximizes the opportunity for many different approaches to solve the problem, each group having an opportunity to take their "best shot" at solving the problem.  If they are successful, people who are free to choose willingly move to those solutions and places that best solve the problem from their point of view.

When the federal government intervenes with its "one size fits none" solutions, it removes the opportunity for more creative approaches to solving life's problems.  With this approach I defend both New York State for its recent decision to allow same-sex marriage AND defend Arizona in its approach to immigration.  Both should be seen as experiments to solving complex problems.  Each should be allowed to pursue these "solutions" and the citizens of their respective states should then be allowed to enjoy or suffer the consequences of these approaches.

Tea Party a Movement About Being “Free to Choose”

"Free to Choose" would be a better moniker for the tea-party.  "No New Taxes" sits inside a broader question.  What is the proper role of government?  Many in the tea-party believe that the current administration has over-stepped its bounds and are looking to restore balance.  (I agree).  So, it is not a question about not paying our fair share, it is about minimizing the drag of the government fiscal rake so that decisions and power can reside at the most local level possible. 
In a nutshell it is about being responsible (i.e. living within means, taking reasonable risks) and the appropriate level of both government expenditures AND revenue.

At this time, I am unconvinced that our biggest problem is insufficient tax rates.  Let's focus on what our government SHOULD be doing and the BEST way to bring our government revenue into balance with those commitments.

Let Freedom Ring

PS, You can view the entire “Free to Choose” series by following this link to the Milton Friedman Blogspot.

Surprise, Washington Post a Liberal Newspaper?

Today's Washington Post, once again, has revealed their biases in their news reporting.

In a piece by Lori Montgomery, the headline reads "Income gap hangs over tax debate.  Bush-era cuts widened divide" Ms Montgomery and the editors of the Post, once again reveal why they are unfair and unbalanced in their reporting.

If this were an opinion article, I would have understood.  However, this piece is represented as "news" in the Economy and Business section.

In the piece, Ms. Montgomery goes to extraordinary lengths to lay out the Democrat's argument about the unfair distribution of wealth that has occurred over the last 50 years and then link it to income tax rates, complete with pretty graphs to make the point.

What gets short shrift in this process is fairness in presenting a different point of view and the consequences of  having those with higher incomes shoulder an unprecedented share of the tax revenue load.  Further, absolutely nothing is said about government spending.

Below is my response posted in the comments section of the article.

---

Dear Editors and Ms. Montgomery,

This is exactly the kind of "news" story that demonstrates the bias of this newspaper. 
Both the headline and the charts present the "story" in a way that leads readers to two conclusions; 1) Income disparity is rising 2) Increasing tax rates is the solution.

Now I know, because I actually read the article, that in the 20th paragraph, you point out that maybe, there might be, perhaps some downside to the suggestion that this suggested policy might not be a good thing.  But, you get right back at it by the end of the piece by giving Levin the final word in the piece.

If you had truly wanted this to be a balanced and fair piece of reporting, you could have done 3 things; 1) you would have brought up the counter arguments in the piece earlier, 2) You would have given more ink to the counter arguments (really 6 out of 26 paragraphs is the best you can do?) and finally 3) A nice graph showing the source of federal income tax revenue by income would have been a nice offset to the 1st graph showing income tax rates vs income.

One last note, in this discussion, one thing that continuously gets overlooked is the spending side of the equation.  But that is a subject perhaps for another day, though (here again, your biases are showing) I may have to wait for a long time on that one.

This is exactly the kind of piece that earns the Washington Post the liberal label it deserves because it highlights a topic that plays to a liberal point of view, presents the argument in a one sided way and then does not talk about those issues (like spending and freedom) that lie at the heart of conservative values.

You can do better.

Let Freedom Ring