What do the Occupiers and the Tea Party have in common? | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    We've posted several articles and videos the last few days about the "Occupy wherever" protests. You've probably seen reports if you watch the Elite Media evening news stories. The talk shows are abuzz about them. So tell us please by explaining in the Feedback box at the bottom of this page what they are protesting...and better still what they are advocating being done about their complaints.

    We don't think you--or anyone--can do that. We don't even think the protestors can do that. Those who have been interviewed, for the most part, have not been able to make a coherent statement, much less a cogent argument to support their cause.

    President Obama, bless his heart, and his Bite Me sidekick have actually come up with what we sense is the best explanation of the protests. "These people are expressing frustrations that many (all) of use share." Well, do tell. Ditto the Tea Party protests that have been going on for nearly two years now.

    But as for the Tea Partiers we can say they seem to know what the problem is (as they perceive it) and what should be done about those problems. They opposed deficit spending and want a balanced budget. They oppose bigger and more oppressive government (excess regulation) and want a return to greater individual liberties. They oppose government by special interest and want term limits and greater accountability, and some even want to dump the current crop of politicians. But the most frequently mentioned objective we've heard from the Tea Party is "a return to constitutional government." That is, a strict constructionist approach to applying the constitution. And of course, their cornerstone is "Taxed Enough Already."

    Now we can understand that, even if we don't necessarily agree with all they protest and advocate for.

    But the "Occupy somewhere" protestors we don't understand. We don't think they understand.

    But we do believe we know why they are protesting. And we believe it is for the same basic reasons the Tea Partiers have been protesting, even if the Tea Parties have been more civil and less vulgar and profane. We've never seen a picture of a Tea Party protestor defecating on a police car as we saw last week in New York.

    But we do not think the Occupy protestors, for the most part, have even a basic comprehension of the principles of economics. And they certainly do not, for the most part, understand capitalism or the role of government in economics. And that ignorance is in stark contrast to the Tea Partiers, who for the most part, advocate for a free markets approach to capitalism and warn against what they perceive to be the evils of socialism.

    We think Max Titmuss, writing in the AdamSmith.org blog, got it exactly right. Some of the aims I have sympathy for. Undoubtedly the corridors of power have been captured by interest groups and lobbyists (although here big business is not solely to blame). People have a right to be furious about the economic decisions that have been made, thereby saddling them and their future generations to indebtedness. But who are they to be angry with? Is it really Gordon Gekko who should be vilified?

    To a certain extent, yes. However the real culprits of this calamity are our disastrous politicians, who dish out taxpayers' money without second thought, disregarding their electorates' wishes. A billion here, a trillion there: when you're seeking re-election spending other peoples' money must be easy. It is government who repeatedly bails out bankrupt firms (with our money) and thereby takes away risk, a vital function of the market. When government encourages Wall Street to act recklessly by shielding them from losses, little is likely to change. To top it off we have no choice in the matter - the government is the only force able to legally steal your money.

    True Capitalism is not the problem. The reason successful firms are successful is because they offer things we want. We can choose whether to give them our money - Ronald McDonald has never coerced you into buying a Big Mac. If the government were a firm on the open market, it would go broke within milliseconds.

    But we haven't got true capitalism. It is a bastardised form. We have currencies controlled by central banks who artificially manipulate interest rates and money supply. We have governments who are in bed with a harem of interest groups, all vying for special favour and concessions. Our government steps into markets, naively trying to 'correct' them but only emboldening crises. Firms which should have gone under long ago have made too many friends in office: the system is cancerous.

    To those at Occupy Wall Street: you have every right to be furious. But who enabled Wall St. to act with such careless abandon? March down to D.C. or the Fed: it is the politicians who have squandered your money on vain political projects and hide behind the redoubt of 'broken capitalism'. Helicopter Ben is not throwing his own money out the side of his helicopter, after all. We agree with Titmuss when he says that the real target of the frustrations of the Occupiers and we would add, the Tea Parties, should be directed at the politicians who have allowed the abuses to the system that we have seen. It is they who should bare the brunt of this frustration with the way things are.

    And that focus should be at the top. None other the Barack Obama and his Team of Marxists who have prevented the capitalistic system from working the way it should. And of course, George Bush is to be blamed also. And both the Republicans and Democrats in Congress are to blame. But blame is neither the issue or the solution.

    We would point out that it should not surprise us that Obama has not been able to turn the economy around when he is so ignorant of basic capitalistic economics that he thinks a government bailout of an auto company "saves" jobs and a bankruptcy does not. That he does not realize that it is the number of cars produced that "saves" or creates jobs simply illustrates that he is not competent for the job he is in. This ignorance is is further illustrated by the fact that he beleives government creates jobs (in the private sector) and does not realize that for every job created by government is a private sector job that is abolished...that for every dollar the government 'distriubtes' to someone it has to take that dollars away from another productive person.

    The Occupiers are moochers. They need to become producers if they want to make the system work. Hermain Cain got that one exactly right when he said to them: "get a job." Or in other words, produce something other people want to buy (legally).

    We would suggest that if the Occupiers and the Tea Partiers really want to do something constructive they should focus on reforming the system. And that reform, we would suggest would be to destroy the way political campaigns are financed in this country. We would suggest a simple solution: Pass a constitutional amendment that says that any person or corporation that receives any benefit from the government that is not equally available to all within the classification cannot receive those benefits if they make political contributions, direct or indirect to a politician, political party or political action committee. And by "classification" here we mean broad classification such as "corporations" (or similar legal entities), non-profits, unions, trade associations or individuals. In other words, if you receive any government benefit that others like you do not receive then you either give up the benefit or the right to make a political contribution.

    The good that could come out of this Occupier and Tea Party movements would be to eliminate the "Pay to play" abuses that are at the root of what we see as everything the Occupiers and the Tea Party are opposed to.

    Hat tip: photos from www.conservartive.com