Are these tea party-goers angry at the out-of-control defense spending by the Bush administration who ran up the largest national debts in recorded history? No. Are they angry at billionaires who pay little to no taxes due to extensive and creative use of income sheltering tax havens and other creative ways to hide their true net earnings? No.
They're "mad as hell" that people who earn over $250,000/year in net income are being asked to pay slightly more tax, and those who aren't so fortunate are being asked to pay slightly less tax, and they're "not going to take it anymore. It's socialist! Fascist! Communist!" They no longer use the word "liberal," it now lacks the required negative sting.
Obama's new federal budget shifts priorities, yes, but increases overall spending? Far from it. Bush ran up a $1.2 trillion deficit, remember? In fact, in reviewing 30 or so articles about today's tea party protests, I could not find one protester who identified a single item in the new Federal budget that they were actually specifically protesting against. This is not to say that some of them couldn't find an item to complain about, if they had actually read it, but it does point to ... well, the lack of a point."President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre." P. Krugman, NY Times 4/12/09
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opini ... ugman.html
I find it highly amusing and more than a bit ironic that these tea party protests, while claiming to be grass roots in nature, are really being fueled in large part by behind the scene efforts of wealthy Republicans and stoked by the right wing Fox News media crowd.
The irony is deafening. The lower tax and spending cries by the tea partyists are championed by Fox News, owned by News Corp., owned by Rupert Murdoch, who due to tax havens pays little or no tax on his $30 million/year income or NC's $5 billion or so per year net earnings! LMAO"Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News." P. Krugman, NY Times 4/12/09
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opini ... ugman.html
Wikipedia reports, that
The BBC reported in March 1999, that"In 1999, The Economist reported that Newscorp Investments had made £1.4 billion ($2.1 billion) in profits over the previous 11 years but had paid no net corporation tax. It also reported that after an examination of the available accounts, Newscorp could normally have been expected to pay corporate tax of approximately $350 million. The article explained that in practice the corporation's complex structure, international scope and use of offshore tax havens allowed News Corporation to pay minimal taxes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch
The NY Times reported in June 2007 that,"Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch may run one of the most profitable businesses in the UK, but it appears that he has somehow managed to avoid running up a tax bill over the past 11 years. According to The Economist, Mr Murdoch has saved at least £350m in tax - enough to pay for seven new hospitals, 50 secondary schools or 300 primary schools. ... But it appears that Mr Murdoch's tax accountants have surpassed themselves - making full use of tax loopholes to protect profits in offshore havens. ... Overall, News Corporation paid just £146m ($238m) in corporate taxes on profits of more than £2bn. In other words he is paying tax at a paltry rate of just 6%. That compares with normal company tax rates of 30% and upwards." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the ... 299543.stm
Perhaps the tea parties should re-direct their protests against Murdoch, Fox News, and the "tax haven" asset management companies that protect their profits. Who was #1 on The New Internationalist's list of top tax dodgers for 2008: Rupert Murdoch .... LMAO http://www.newint.org/features/special/ ... -nominees/"One firm focuses almost exclusively on parts of the tax code that affect the News Corporation. By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years, and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/busin ... nted=print"
If the stirrers of this tea party pot actually paid their fair share in taxes, then perhaps Obama would not need to increase taxes on families earning over $250,000. Perhaps the tea party-goers should call on Fox News, News Corp., Murdoch and his cronies, to pay the increases in their tax bill as well funding any federal spending items in Obama's new budget that they don't like. If the truly wealthy, such as Mr. Murdoch, actually paid their fair share of taxes, then all of the rest of us, Republicans, Democrats and Tea Party-ists alike, would pay less.
So if someone asks you to participate in a tea party ... just tell them politely, "no, I prefer coffee!" And next time you order coffee or tea, kindly ask the person behind the check-out counter to send the bill to Rupert. After all, it's the least the king of tax avoiders can do, since he's the one stoking the fire of his news puppets to make this tea pot boil!