"Somewhat" is important. At the scale of power and finance we're talking about, "somewhat" can shelter you in a life of freedom and comfort.

I gotta wonder if the administrative costs for these specialized taxes aren't higher than the revenue they bring in. It makes look busy though.

>> I heard on CNN the other morning, and I've experienced, from talking to people, that some younger people who supported Obama are wavering toward the Republican side.

What's the difference again?

I wouldn't say that a lot of young people are becoming doctrinaire Republicans. But a significant number of them are turning away from being doctrinaire Democrats. There's a bout to be a whole bunch of new independent voters in play. Conventional wisdom backed by polling data shows that, today, Americans are split into confirmed Democrats, independents, and confirmed Republicans by about 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3. I suspect that by 2012, the split will be closer to 1/4 - 1/2 - 1/4.

Which party controls Washington for the next 15-20 years will depend on which one best attracts the Tea Partiers and other independents. I don't see the Tea Party itself becoming a viable third party, for two reasons. First of all, there are a lot of legal and procedural barriers to getting third-party candidates into the system and getting them noticed. Second: if you look back through American history, there has never been a period when three major parties existed in a stable relationship. The Whig Party didn't get established until after the Federalist Party shut down, and the rise of the Republican Party meant the end of the Whigs. Something about American politics demands that there only be two major parties in existence at one time.

So how will the Tea Party and the other modern independents become mainstream? They will either take over one of the existing parties, or will rise to major-party status in the wake of the death of one of the existing parties. Because of the GOP's leadership demographics, the easiest path forward for the Tea Partiers seems to be a takeover of that party. The Republicans' Silent Generation leaders are nearing retirement, and the next generation of leadership is a lot younger -- and many of them are already sympathetic to at least some Tea Party principles. By contrast, the Democratic Party is flush with Boomer-era leadership, and there are substantial conflicts between them and the younger people who make up much of the Tea Party.

If an existing major party was going to die out under Tea Party pressure, I'm not sure which one it would be. The Democratic Party could, if it continues on its current course, reduce itself to fringe-party status. On the other hand, the Republican Party could find itself so deficient of up-to-date leadership that it is unable to continue. But given that situation, it would be a lot easier for the Tea Party to subsume the existing GOP party apparatus than it would be for them to build from scratch.

My guess: The Tea Partiers will wind up as Republicans, but it will be a considerably different Republican Party from the one that elected the two Bushes. The emphasis will be on fiscal conservatism and smaller government. The social conservative agenda won't disappear, but it will be substantially revised to emphasize getting government out of areas where it has been contributing to social decline. In foreign policy, there will be tension between neocons who want to export America's vision for how the world should work, and a sort of foreign policy simplification that advocates for free trade but against involvement in foreign affairs. It isn't isolationist in the traditional sense, but it is a philosophy that would not have us doing any more Iraqs or Afghanistans or Somolias.

Not all of this will happen in 2012. That's just the opening act. It will be 2020 before we really see how it shakes out.

The politicians show up at your door to demand $500 more tax. You hate this, but you rationalize that there is nothing you can do about it, and maybe some of the money will be used to help someone or other. You tried electing the more responsible Democrat, but it didn't work out. You remain uninterested in politics, and you remain a Democrat, because "the Republicans are probably worse, and they don't care about helping people".

A few years later politicians show up at your door to demand $5,000 more tax. They explain that nothing has changed; they just need a little more to make a new society, and they need your help. Whoa! That gets your attention. That is enough to make you listen a bit more, and maybe shop around, even with the Republicans.

Public Tax Meeting

Are taxes fair just because the majority voted? The social compact of the United States is for economic and personal freedom. The Constitution is not a suicide pact nor an agreement that the government can take what it wants.

A discovered loophole (unlimited guarantees and borrowing) doesn't give the Government moral authority to exploit that oversight. It cannot lead to a better society, because there will be resistance and fundamental disagreement.

== excerpt ==
John JJ Richman was making breakfast when he heard the crowd outside. They seemed just shy of hostile. He opened his door to see about 65 townspeople, out of a town of 100. Two spokesmen were standing on the porch.

John: Good morning. Why are you all here?

Rob: There are things that need changing, and you are the one to help us.
== /excerpt ==

"By contrast, the Democratic Party is flush with Boomer-era leadership, and there are substantial conflicts between them and the younger people who make up much of the Tea Party."

This is so true, and not just politically. You should see the bloodbath when Boomers and Xers clash in the workplace.

> It's unfortunate the Tea Party movement seems to
> be largely a movement of the right, because the
> spend-and-spend-and-tax-the-skin-off-us
> mentality crosses party lines, and hurts
> and jeopardizes us all.

But, like, Amy... That's like... Um, struggling for an analogy... That's like saying it's a shame that modern medicine requires so much study from sharp, dedicated, licensed individuals before they're permitted to perform surgery.

And I'm all, like, THAT'S KIND OF THE POINT. Heck, it's YOUR point.

Lefties think it's important to be nice to other people. They think it's so important to be nice that they want to take command of the resources of third parties to demonstrate their niceness. If they wanted to spend their own money, everyone would be cool with it.

I don't care enough to prove it tonight with googled links, but IIRC conservative states tend to receive much more return on their tax dollars that lefty states do. But conservative states are also clearly more generous with private charity.

"You should see the bloodbath when Boomers and Xers clash in the workplace."

Yep. Selfish, self-centered and self-important meeting selfish, self-centered, and self-important does produce some nifty fireworks.

I think the Tea Partiers are going to take over control of the republican party by 2016. And I say that as one of them. The republicans are just easier to work with. The dems just can not fathom not giving our money till it destroys us.

"Yep. Selfish, self-centered and self-important meeting selfish, self-centered, and self-important does produce some nifty fireworks."

Run out of coffee this morning?

Boomers and Xers have totally different histories and experiences when it comes to work. Boomers came of age during a time when the way to success was through climbing ladders, paying dues, and gaining tenure and seniority in a company. If you kept your head down, did as you were told long enough, and worked your way up through the ranks, you didn't have to worry about anything.

Xers came of age during a time when none of those things really get you anywhere; you can be laid off at a moment's notice, and your job can disappear any time. The only way to make any money or have security is to expand your skill set so that you remain employable. The LAST way to do that is to spend too much time in the same job. Also, forget about promises of future rewards, because there are no guarantees. It's strictly pay as you go. Not surprisingly, Xers are much more financially conservative than the Boomers.

To a Boomer it might seem like disloyalty to leave a company after a couple of years, but from an Xer's point of view, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by sticking around longer, if your learning curve on the job has leveled off. You will only compromise your future earning power by doing so. From the Boomer's perspective, if *I* had to sit in a boring job doing the same thing day after day for ten years before I got promoted, why can't you? The Boomer thinks the Xer's expectations are too high.

It's not too surprising that their approaches to politics reflect these differences.

Boomers were promised pensions and Social Security, which is why they bought McMansions and didn't save any money. So they will vote Democrat and hang on to pension bailouts and SSI benefits with the last of their strength - because, after all, they've paid those dues and put in that time. Xers have never expected to receive those benefits and would just like to stop paying for them as soon as possible. The Xer thinks the Boomer's expectations are too high.

That is so not where I thought you were going when you started that comment.

Oh?