Steve G.

The Boston Tea National Committee Passes Anti-Congressional Bailout Resolution

In Politics on October 13, 2008 at 12:46 pm

The Boston Tea National Committee passed a resolution that I authored by Yours Truly. It passed by a majority vote (4 yes, 3 not voting, 0 no).

It officially denounces the $850 billion congressional bailout that was signed into law by W. himself.

Here’s the official text of the party’s resolution:

Resolution #00001

A Resolution to Denounce the $850 Billion Congressional Bailout Package

Introduced: October 8, 2008

Amended: October 9, 2008, October 11, 2008, and October 12, 2008

Passed by the BTNC on October 13, 2008

Sponsor: Boston Tea Party Vice Chairman Todd Andrew Barnett

Sponsors: BTNC At-Large Representative Elle Larkin, BTNC Secretary Michelle Luetge, and BTNC At-Large Representative Kent McManigal

 

Whereas, the United States Congress, consisting of the U.S. House of Representatives and the United States Senate, passed an $850 billion congressional bailout package by a vote of 263-171, and

Whereas, the bailout will tack on an additional $112 billion to the current deficit over a period of five years because the legislation contains no provision to dramatically cut spending and tax levels, and

Whereas, the pork-barrel laced bill is laden with a gamut of tax breaks and subsidies to numerous tax-funded welfare recipients, including, but not limited to the following:

·         Renewable energy credit

·         Tax and energy credits for a variety of boondoggles such as small wind property, geothermal heating pump systems, biodiesel and renewable diesel, increases in and special rules for the coal excise tax, etc.

·         Extensions of the alternative extension tax, new market credits, deductions for state and local sales taxes, etc.

·         Mental health parity

·         Indian employment credit

And

·         Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum producers, and

Whereas, the ballooned bailout package passed by both Houses of the Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush has an estimated 442 pages, and the original bailout bill, which failed by a vote of 205-228, had an estimated 110 pages,

Whereas, the United States Senate voted in favor of the $850 billion bailout package by a vote of 74-26 in the interests of its lobbyists and special interest groups and against the wishes of the American people,

Whereas, the people of the United States of America contacted their 434 elected representatives and 100 elected senators and urged them to vote against this unconstitutional measure,

Whereas, government rules, regulations, and edicts such as the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 have made it possible for low-income and minority credit risky homeowners to take out mortgages to make mal-investments on their home purchases, mortgage firms to lower their underwriting standards and issue risky loans furthering the moral hazard of the credit, real estate, banking, and mortgage markets,

Whereas, the revisions to the CRA in the 1980s that were authored and passed by Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush as part of the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) were made in response to the actions by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), former Senator John Glenn (D-OH), former Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA), former Senator Don Riegle (D-MI), and former Senator Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) as part of the Keating Five scandal,

Whereas, the revisions to the CRA in response to the above-mentioned Keating five politicians were signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush to allegedly increase public oversight of the process of issuing CRA ratings to banks, require the federal agencies to issue those CRA ratings publicly and written performance evaluations using facts and data to support the agencies’ conclusions, and mandate a four-tiered CRA examination rating system with performance levels of “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs to Improve,” and “Substantial Noncompliance,” and

Whereas, the revisions to the CRA in the 1990s that were authored and passed by Congress and signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton as part of the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act of 1999 were made to repeal part of the Glass-Steagall Act as an alleged form of partial deregulation of the banking industry by prohibiting banks from expanding to insurance and securities unless they adhered to the provisions of the CRA,

Whereas, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 puts onerous requirements on CEOs and CFOs to be responsible for any errors, even honest mistakes, in their public company’s books, and has driven company formation and public offerings offshore, and

Whereas, Sarbanes-Oxley also has added hugely to the burden for opening new banks and innovating in an industry which still uses 1969 telex technology to send bank wires,

Whereas, the bloated unconstitutional bill violates the letter of the Constitution because spending bills must be passed in the House first and the Senate second before it heads to the President’s desk in the Oval Office, and

Whereas, the bailout has failed to rescue the entire financial services industry from financial doom, furthering the plummeting of the Dow Jones, the NASDAQ, and the entire stock market, then

Be it resolved that the Boston Tea National Committee denounces, opposes, and condemns the $850 billion bailout package, as it deepens the financial crisis on Wall Street and Main Street and fleeces the American taxpayers of their hard-earned money to bailout companies, a practice that can be easily called economic fascism (or corporate socialism), and

Calls upon the federal government to dramatically deregulate the entire mortgage and financial services industries and abolish agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, repeal laws such as the CRA and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the abolition of government-backed institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Reserve Board and its regional banks, and

Calls for the liquidation of assets of the Federal Reserve, its Board of Governors, its Governors, and its banks upon the write-offs of its liabilities and closing and elimination of its branches, and

Calls for the investigation and prosecution of Democratic and Republican congressmen who were significantly complicit in their actions supporting the government-propped and government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enterprises, the bailout package, and the subsidies to organizations like them and the fraudulent activities linked to and associated with them, and

Calls for the reduction or elimination of income, withholding, and all other taxes on productivity and consumption and the burden on entrepreneurs,

Calls for an introduction of a way to compete with the Federal Reserve in the interim and the repeal of legal tender laws, which prohibit a competitive free market currency system,

Calls for all bills for raising revenue to originate in the House of Representatives, as the bailout bill that originated in the Senate calls for raising revenue and has changed the current tax code and regulations, and thus is unconstitutional,

Encourages the incremental move from the state capitalistic system comprising of a mixed (fascistic) economy to a laissez-faire (free market) capitalism, and

Reinforces the need for federal and state accountability on the corrupt, fraudulent, and rotten actions of the regulators, bureaucrats, and corporatists aligned with the banking, financial, and mortgage sectors, and thus

The Boston Tea National Committee repudiates the fascistic and socialist direction of the United States, the legislative actions of the Congress, and the executive actions and directives by the President of the United States, especially with respect to its support for the bailout and its support for subsidizing, coddling, protecting, and backing Wall Street, Main Street, and the financial services industry.

 

If you have any comments, feedback, please email me. I’d love to hear it.

 

  1. It’s nice to see the BTP issuing releases on real issues.

    The LNC could learn from this.

  2. And you have one week to implement this or we are dumping your asses in Boston Harbor.

  3. So much for the BTP having the world’s smallest political platform.😉 I guess it needed to be ditched so that the BTNC could protest how the CRA allowed “mortgage firms to lower their underwriting standards”.

    What’s with a 21st-century all-online party using fourteen Whereas’s to make its statement nearly unreadable? Here’s how it’s done on the more futuristic coast: http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/10/09/18-libertarian-candidates-ask-did-pacs-buy-a-bailout/

  4. Is Boston T. Party a member of the Boston Tea Party?

  5. I suppose Mr. Holtz, as “libertarian” as he is, thinks that the BTP should have just shut up about the bailout package and embraced it at face value, huh? And I suppose that Mr. Holtz thinks he’s entitled to attack the BTP for issuing a resolution that is very much libertarian to the core?

    No, the BTP didn’t ditch its platform. All it did was issue an official stand on the issue, which is in line with the WSPP. If you think it was otherwise, then you’re highly mistaken.

    If the BTP membership had a problem with the resolution, emails could have been sent to me about it. But they didn’t.

    Mr. Holtz, unless you’re a member of the Party, you don’t speak for the membership. As the Vice Chair of the organization, I do because I was appointed to it.

    Please, get off your sanctimonious high horse and take potshots at the real enemies of ours — the Republicans, the Democrats, the corporatists, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and all others who were complicit in this $850 billion give-a-way scam.

  6. I suppose Mr. Holtz, as “libertarian” as he is, thinks that the BTP should have just shut up about the bailout package and embraced it at face value, huh?

    Chill. Saying that your resolution is too wordy is not the same thing as saying it’s wrong. Even saying it has an inconsistency with your platform doesn’t say you shouldn’t have said -something-.

    When Brian Holtz accuses you of unwieldy writing, you really should think about streamlining your style🙂

  7. I tend to agree – the subject and idea were good, but the result was soporific in the extreme – I think the author was channelling the LP platform or something…

    There could have been much editing to make it short and sweet, which would also probably make it more likely to get picked up by other media.

    ART

  8. Soporific: adj.; inducing sleep.

  9. Chill. Saying that your resolution is too wordy is not the same thing as saying it’s wrong. Even saying it has an inconsistency with your platform doesn’t say you shouldn’t have said -something-.

    And you don’t think that the LNC resolution calling for Angela Keaton’s resignation (Ya know, the one that didn’t pass) was wordy too? I’ve seen LNC resolutions that were terribly wordy, yet I didn’t hear any of you (you included, Susan) of speaking out against them.

    And you’re wrong when you say that it “has an inconsistency with our platform” because it IS in line with our platform. It doesn’t call for MORE government, it calls for LESS. Please cite key provisions that say otherwise. I challenge anyone here at LFV to do just that.

    I’m all for feedback, but I’m not for condescending, snide remarks.

    When Brian Holtz accuses you of unwieldy writing, you really should think about streamlining your style.

    Holtz has his head so far up his rectum, all he sees is excrement. He hasn’t shown any proof to back up his statements. Unless he proves otherwise, he really has nothing to show for it.

    I agree that the resolution is wordy, but it was necessary for it to be wordy in this case. Sometimes the rules on writing resolutions need to broken. In this case, that’s exactly what I did. “Unwieldly writing”? Sorry, I disagree.

    The only reason that some people on this blog are complaining about the resolution is that they’re jealous that the LNC didn’t issue one (except for a press release, but that doesn’t carry any weight) and that the BTP did. At least the BTNC released a resolution on an issue….which is something the LNC hasn’t done in years.

    Maybe you and the other LP’ers should send a memo to that board. Hmmm, Susan?

    TAB

  10. And you don’t think that the LNC resolution calling for Angela Keaton’s resignation (Ya know, the one that didn’t pass) was wordy too?

    Haven’t read it, or if I did I don’t recall it. Probably too wordy.

    I’ve seen LNC resolutions that were terribly wordy, yet I didn’t hear any of you (you included, Susan) of speaking out against them.

    This is really childish. I’m not ‘speaking out against’ your resolution. I’ve suggested it could be better. Actually, I’ve suggested that you consider Brian’s suggestion that it could be better. That’s meant to be *helpful*, whether you recognize that or not. If you insist on seeing every suggestion as an attack based on your personality conflicts with people, you won’t be making a lot of progress.

    And you’re wrong when you say that it “has an inconsistency with our platform” because it IS in line with our platform.

    I was just (trying to) interpret for Holtz. I ought to know better on that score, I confess🙂

    I’m all for feedback, but I’m not for condescending, snide remarks.

    Well, that sounds great in theory; the problem with it is it just so happens that many intelligent folks are condescending and snide (how’s -that- for a backhanded compliment?), and to benefit from their intelligence you’ve got to put up with their condescension and snideness.

    Or you can ignore them, or waste time being snide back. Whatever.

    Holtz has his head so far up his rectum, all he sees is excrement.

    Somehow comments like this make condescension and snideness seem charming in comparison.

    I agree that the resolution is wordy, but it was necessary for it to be wordy in this case.

    I can’t agree, but then Holt is on your side in this case, as he has accused me of thinking in bumperstickerese.

    “Me Susan; want live free.”

    He may have a point.🙂
    (other than the one at the top of his head… and of course that was meant most affectionately, B.)

    “Unwieldly writing”? Sorry, I disagree.

    I know. Just put it in the back of your mind for future consideration. Or not, as you like.

    The only reason that some people on this blog are complaining about the resolution is that they’re jealous that the LNC didn’t issue one (except for a press release, but that doesn’t carry any weight) and that the BTP did.

    I don’t think ‘jealous’ is the right word, but I do commend you for saying something. I agree the LNC ought to have done so long ago, and the press releases and candidate musings do not substitute for organizational statements.

    At least the BTNC released a resolution on an issue….which is something the LNC hasn’t done in years.

    Ah, but you’re wrong about that. See:

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/lnc-passes-afghanistan-resolution

    Which is, I might point out, a model of admirable brevity and punch. (Of course, I might point that out because I authored it, but still!…)

    Maybe you and the other LP’ers should send a memo to that board. Hmmm, Susan?

    We all do what we can, tovarisch.

  11. Whatever, Susan. I’m not going to get into a pissing match with you over what I wrote. If the BTP membership and the board felt it was way too wordy or inappropriately wordy, then why didn’t anyone speak out against it? The discussion group is public and anyone who read it could have simply suggested to make it “sweet and short,” as you noted.

    Susan, look, it’s your opinion that it’s unnecessarily wordy. I respect your opinion; I just disagree with it. And I did agree that it was wordy, but sometimes there’s just no other way around these things.

    I may be acting childish about it, but that’s the pot calling the kettle black, as far as I’m concerned. What I’ve said pales in comparison to some of the statements that I’ve seen on here, and I’m a rank amateur in that department compared to some people in the movement, as troubled as it is.

    About the LNC releasing a resolution on the Afghanistan matter, I’ll concede that’s progress. But that’s simply not enough, and one resolution that was issued on an issue compared to a few other resolutions that had nothing to do with issues at all. The one resolution that called for Angela to resign (and failed to pass) epitomizes my last point.

    As for my resolution (which I did work hard on it, btw), what would you have done differently? It was amended three times, and before it passed, no one objected to its length. Now you and Holtz object to the length of it. No one said anything at all.

    Anyway, I think we’ve beaten this matter to death. We’ll just have to agree to disagree for once.

    TAB

  12. As for my resolution (which I did work hard on it, btw), what would you have done differently?

    I know you worked hard – all those facts make me dizzy. It’s work just reading it; I can only imagine how hard writing it was!

    And that was only snide-sounding in fun; seriously, I prefer shorter, less fact-filled resolutions backed by position papers rather than resolutions which in themselves try to educate. However, I can see where combining them could be a reasonable strategy (Hell, it worked wonders for Jefferson!). As you indicate, preferences vary.

    My first pass-through, I thought it was calling for the ‘liquidation’ of the Fed’s *people*, which was a bit freaky. But I see now it was their *assets*. I thought y’all had moved precipitously to the violent phase of the revolution for a moment.🙂

    I do think this particular clause below is collectivist:

    Whereas, the people of the United States of America contacted their 434 elected representatives and 100 elected senators and urged them to vote against this unconstitutional measure,…

  13. suc·cinct
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Middle English, from Latin succinctus having one’s clothes gathered up by a belt, tightly wrapped, concise…
    1archaic a: being girded b: close-fitting
    2: marked by compact precise expression without wasted words

    -from Weeeb Stirs

    What a great word! Some folks are ‘tightly wrapped’. Some ain’t.

  14. I know you worked hard – all those facts make me dizzy. It’s work just reading it; I can only imagine how hard writing it was!

    I’m sure they do make you dizzy.

    This resolution probably could have been trimmed down to only two or three points, but the problem is that the bailout issue is far more complicated than people realize. A shorter resolution on it than the one I wrote might have left open more questions than answers.

    I realize that this isn’t pleasing everyone, but that’s politics for you. For the BTP and for many people who agree with it, it’s a win-win, despite its lengthy wording.

    As for the one particular clause you describe, it may come off as *collectivist* to you, but it’s a damn fact. I realize that facts don’t mean much in the grand scheme of things to many people (and perhaps to you), but they are what they are.

    Besides, I did try to keep it short and, like I said, ask people to offer any suggestions or amendments in the discussion process, and yet several people made suggestions and I took them into account. You don’t always get what you want, and sometimes in politics, Susan, you have to make some compromises along the way. That’s what I did.

    Besides, your Afghanistan resolution was good and was passed by the LNC, but the LP staff wouldn’t even do a thing to put it up on the Party’s website until later. Although the LNC passed your resolution on September 7, the national office did nothing to immediately issue a press release on it until 10 days after the fact. And Bob Barr’s press release on September 11 praising Bush’s decision to go into Afghanistan makes the Party look even more hypocritical than ever.

    No wonder the LP is in trouble, Susan. And how you’re going to rescue it or salvage it is beyond me.

  15. It may be long, and take a while to read but I think it needs to be said. Better to say something of substance and speak out against this socialism than say nothing at all.

  16. And how you’re going to rescue it or salvage it is beyond me.

    We need to form a platform for change within the LP, publicize it, gather people who support it, plan our agenda for the ’10 convention, get ourselves to the convention and work together to implement our agenda/platform.

    But nobody’s interested until after the election, I suppose.

  17. No George some of us are interested now.

    MHW

  18. We need to form a platform for change within the LP, publicize it, gather people who support it, plan our agenda for the ‘10 convention, get ourselves to the convention and work together to implement our agenda/platform.

    George, the LP is a lost cause, as far as I’m concerned. It’s too far gone to the point where you won’t be able to save it. Moreover, its corrupt history stretching back to the Harry Browne for President Campaign days and even much further back not only epitomizes the failure of the national LP but it also showcases the fact that the LP is a hopeless losing battle.

    Face it! The LP can never be reformed, nor can it ever be salvaged and restored back to its glory days. What you’re endeavoring to do is impossible, now and in the future.

    While I do encourage (and also wish) those who feel that they didn’t leave the LP but the other way around to leave the LP and join the BTP, I can’t coerce you into doing that. You must decide whether the trade-off is simply worth it in the end. And you must also figure out the opportunity cost in the long run if and when you decide to head into that direction.

    You may be able to swing the state and local parties and work within them to make some changes at the state and local level. But the odds of turning the LP around and revert it back to its glory days are nil. That reality just simply can’t be ignored.

    And let’s face this other fact, because it needs to be said. There was a purge at the Denver convention, and I don’t care what anyone says. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying to you, lying to him/herself, or both.

    The LP is NOT the libertarian movement. It may have been a small part of the movement, but it is NOT the movement. It doesn’t speak for all free marketeers (like Yours Truly), paleolibertarians, left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc., even though it would like to think it does.

    Your Party is Republican-lite now. The odds of you to bring about “change within the LP” are almost nil that any LP’er is deluding him/herself for believing that it can and will happen. The old thinking that “reforming” the Party the same way we’ve been doing it for years and expecting different results tells us that this is insanity. No amount of rhetoric and platitudes is going to change that.

    Those are my two cents there…

    TAB

  19. The LP can and will be reformed. I will help see to that.

  20. Geez you guys! So much energy spent on what amounts to the renting of shirts and wailing at the moon!

    Sure the bailout is a disaster. Sure the LP has a penchant for self-marginalization.

    But talk is cheap. It is so easy to point fingers and criticize. It isn’t so easy to create and build.

    Platforms and resolutions are for the uninitiated. In practice, and regardless of the party or the issue, they mean next to nothing.

    What matters is votes and leverage. Big Oil and Big Finance own the American political system lock, stock and barrel. Big Oil gets wars. Big Finance gets bailouts. And the reason they get these things is because they have figured out how to manipulate the election system and put their friends into public office.

    Big Finance and Big Oil find their point men — like GWB — and throw money at their campaigns. They finance “Swift Boat” 527s to sabotage the opposition. They buy and control MSM outlets. They put their friends on the Presidential Debate Commission. And they do all of this with the purpose of manipulating elections.

    The election system is the primary source of prestige and legitimacy for American government and public policy. And it is rigged. We in the margins know it. Rank and file voters suspect it, but are frankly afraid to believe it.

    Election reform is the issue for the 21st century. It may not be sexy. But it is the issue that will determine whether we are a fascist, socialist or libertarian country in the next 20 years.

    Meanwhile, we spend our time in the margins, in discussions like this, about phraseology and the number of Whereases about stuff that would never occur if the election system wasn’t rigged.

    No wonder we are still in the margins.

  21. Michael, so glad to hear that and looking forward to getting to work on this with you and others in whatever capacity I can be of assistance.

    Todd, I have nothing against the BTP or you, but I’m not convinced the LP is a lost cause. If like-minded folk can build a useful platform/agenda for change and get a majority (~3-400 delegates) to the ’10 convention, we can win all 16 LNC seats, clean house and run the LP as a decentralized, transparent and responsive libertarian activist organization.

    I understand your opinion Todd, but I guess I don’t understand why you think the chance of turning it around is nil.

  22. RE: LP v. BTP
    The LP can and will be reformed. I will help see to that.
    ….Jason Gatties

    LP poll today:
    Will McCain come back from his drop in the polls?
    Yes 19%
    Maybe 22%
    No 59%
    Total votes: 27

    After you reform it, how many folks will get involved? You need more than 27.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: