[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: The Transformative Power of Rick Santelli’s Rant The Transformative Power of Rick Santelli’s Rant His complaints about the Obama Democrats’ policies were rooted in moral considerations as well as economics. After the latest round of primaries, some lessons can already be drawn from this political year. Incumbents are not popular, especially Democratic incumbents. Democrats’ big-government programs are hugely unpopular. Economic distress has made Americans yearn not for more government but for less. How to explain something contrary to the New Deal historians’ teaching that economic distress increases support for big government? Clues can be obtained, I think, by examining what amounts to the founding document of the tea-party movement, Rick Santelli’s “rant” on the CME trading floor in Chicago, telecast live by CNBC on Feb. 19, 2009. That was less than one month into the Obama administration. The stimulus package had been jammed through Congress almost entirely by Democratic votes six days before, but the Democrats’ health-care and cap-and-trade bills were barely into gestation. Chrysler and General Motor had received temporary bailouts, but their bankruptcies were months in the future. “The government is promoting bad behavior,” Santelli began. The object of his scorn was the Obama administration’s Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan providing aid to homeowners delinquent on their mortgages. “This is America!” Santelli declared. “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” Granted, the words are not as elegant as those of Thomas Jefferson or John Adams. But the thought is clear. Santelli was arguing that the people who, in Bill Clinton’s felicitous phrase, “work hard and play by the rules” shouldn’t have to subsidize those who took on debts that they couldn’t repay. This was both an economic and a moral argument — economic because subsidies to the improvident are an unproductive investment. We know now that very many of the beneficiaries of the administration’s mortgage-modification programs ended up in foreclosure anyway. Subsidies just prolonged the agony. It’s also a moral argument. Taking money away from those who made prudent decisions and giving it to people who made imprudent decisions is casting society’s vote for imprudence and self-indulgence. It mocks thrift and makes chumps out of those who pay their own way. We should, Santelli argued, “reward people that can carry the water rather than just drink the water.” While scarcely taking a breath, Santelli went on to denounce the administration’s Keynesian economists, deployed to defend the huge spending in the stimulus package and in the budget the new administration was preparing. “If the multiplier that all of these Washington economists are selling us is over one, then we never have to worry about the economy again; the government should spend a trillion dollars an hour, because we’ll get 1.5 trillion back.” The reference is to the argument made by administration spokesmen that every dollar of government spending would put something more than a dollar into the economy. Past research, including some by Obama’s chief economist, Christina Romer, cast doubt on that theory. Now we can check the results, and the research seems to have been right. The administration said the stimulus package would keep unemployment under 8 percent. It’s been at 10 percent, rounded off, for ten months now. About 95 percent of new jobs in May were temporary Census Bureau positions. “Cuba used to have mansions and a relatively decent economy,” Santelli went on. “They moved from the individual to the collective, and now they’re driving ’54 Chevys” — which left him unable to resist a dig at GM and its co-owners-to-be the United Auto Workers — “the last great car to come out of Detroit.” “If you read our Founding Fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson — what we’re doing now in this country is making them roll over in their graves.” No one would mistake Santelli’s cri de coeur for the prose of the Founders. But their grievances against Britain, like Santelli’s complaints about the Obama Democrats’ policies, were rooted in moral considerations as well as economics. “We’re thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July,” Santelli said. As it turned out, thousands of previously uninvolved citizens flocked to tea parties all over America even sooner, and now they’re making their mark in primaries and special elections. New Deal historians can’t explain that. Rick Santelli’s rant does. — Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner. Copyright 2010 the Washington Examiner.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: Badeye (#0)
(Edited)
Chuckles...in the interest of disclosure, I used to work with Rick and he's actually a pretty good guy and until that rant I knew him to be rather apolitical. That said, he was essentially barred from the floor of the Board of Trade for several weeks after his rant, mostly because he got razzed for it and couldn't take it, but the CBOT, itself, did not want to be associated with any political cause.
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|