With another set of “Tea Parties” coming up on Saturday, I figured this would be a good time to re-post the satirical anthem that I published as a Facebook Note back in April. It’s sort of like a sequel to Becky’s and my Election Eve version of “One Day More” from Les Misérables. This one, though, is set to “Do You Hear the People Sing” and “Finale.”
(NOTE: See the obligatory humor-killing caveat below.)
* * * * *
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men
We are conservatives who’ve found
That we have principles again!
When George Bush ballooned the debt
We saw no need to beat the drums
But now we stand against
These free-spending liberal bums!
Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Don’t let your outrage fade!
Instead, destroy symbolic tea!
And join in the fight
Against mythical tyranny!
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing about the bailouts’ cost
It is the music of a people
Who still can’t believe we lost
In Barack Obama’s heart
We know that socialism lies
And we have no clue what the
word “teabagging” implies
Will you give all you can give
So that our vague ideas advance?
Our agenda’s nonspecific,
But who needs a detailed stance?
When the Democrats want to turn
America into France!
Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of fear and fret
A grave recession is the moment
To cut back and pay our debt
Economics 101
is too complex for you and me
Let’s just wave signs,
chant angry slogans, and dump some tea!
* * * * *
Do you hear the people sing?
Fighting against the liberals’ greed
It is the music of a people
Who want Texas to secede
A marginal tax hike on the rich
Would spell our freedom’s swift demise
So we’ll adopt the protest tactics
That we despise
We will fight against the bailouts
We refuse to be ignored
Rick Santelli loosed the pitchforks
And Glenn Beck unsheathed the sword
Now those assholes in Congress
and Wall Street will have their reward!
Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond this lame charade
Are there some cuts you’d like to see?
Do you hear the people sing?
Say, do you hear the populist drums?
We’ll keep on teabagging
‘Til the revolution comes!
Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with Galt?
I’m not sure why we’re in this mess
But I am sure it’s not our fault
Do you hear the people sing?
Say, do you hear our rambling plea?
Time to wave signs,
chant angry slogans, and dump some tea!
Whoooa…. ohhh…. let’s dump some tea!!!
(Photos by yours truly, taken at the Tax Day Tea Party at the State Capitol in Denver. More here. Full Flickr photoset here.)
*OBLIGATORY HUMOR-KILLING CAVEAT: I don’t deny that the Tea Partiers have some valid points — I, too, am quite concerned about the deficit, for instance — but, much like anti-war/anti-globalization protests and the like, those valid points tend to get drowned out by the ridiculous excesses. In any event, I freely acknowledge that this song is not entirely fair, let alone balanced. But it’s not supposed to be fair or balanced; it’s supposed to be funny! Maybe at some point I’ll have the inspiration to write a version of “I Dreamed A Dream” as sung by President Obama. 🙂
Simple poll, would you favor eliminating all defense spending for a tax cut?
That would be a ridiculously dumb poll. Even the most ardent libertarians acknowledge that the federal government’s first responsibility is to provide for the national defense. “Eliminating all defense spending” would be national suicide.
Now, “would you favor a 20% cut in defense spending for a tax cut” might be a reasonable question. Though I’m still not sure what it proves or what relevance it has, really. It’s perfectly defensible for a given subset of voters (in this case conservatives) to prioritize one type of spending (in this case defense) over others. The relevant question isn’t whether they would cut would you want them to cut; the question is whether they’re willing, when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, to cut anything, or if their “small government” talk is just that: talk.
Exhibit A for the “it’s just talk” caucus is Joe the Plumber, who thinks the federal government should be slashed without any cuts to defense, Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security — which, when combined with interest payments on our already-accrued debt, would put more two-thirds of the budget off limits. So, in other words, Joe the Plumber favors big government; he just doesn’t realize it. There are a lot of self-described conservatives like him. But asking about “eliminating all defense spending” isn’t the right way to get at that problem.
It’s not an unreasonable question when these are people that won’t be “happy” until they aren’t paying ANY taxes. And that’s the point. These people want certain government services but they don’t want to pay for any of them. They want to be free loaders on what, I have no idea because if they had their way I suppose the money for the services they want would come from thin air. They point to some government services as “waist”. Which basically is, any service I don’t happen to be using at the moment as their cause for getting rid of all taxes. It is a complete and total lack of responsibility and duty in a civilized society. And Californians are the worst about this. They get rid of paying reasonable property taxes and then are shocked when the schools suck and other tax rates go up to compensate for the abnormally absent property taxes. It is farcically stupid and myopic.
That’s a pretty big leap, Dane. I don’t see the vast majority of these people advocating for NO taxes. The fact that you suspect they would protest against any amount of taxes, doesn’t make 0% taxes their actual position. You tacitly acknowledge this when you shift to saying that Californians don’t want to pay “reasonable property taxes.” That would be “reasonable” according to you, of course. And while I don’t disagree with your assessment, nevertheless there is a huge, ginormous difference between someone being unwilling to pay Taxes That Are Reasonable According To Dane (or Brendan), and someone being unwilling to pay any taxes at all.
Also, the spelling you are looking for is “waste.” 🙂
“The Shane of it All”?! I think they tried to turn the ‘n’ into an ‘m’, but failed pretty miserable.
And having just seen Les Mis, I can finally put a tune to that! Viva La France!
(Errr, wait . . . Ummm . . . never mind. Dumb anti-American musicals!)
In terms of California property taxes I was referring to the real results of proposition 13 passed back in the 70s. And not to any specific tax related goal. I’m sure that the people that proposed prop 13 would have been more than happy to simply eliminate property tax instead of freezing it if they had a reasonable expectation that that proposition would pass. I fail to see the inconsistency there. And if you honestly think that these people would willingly pay any taxes at all ever, and especially when democrats are in power I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, it has lovely turn of the century gothic architecture. Most of the population has a completely nonsensical and farcical understanding of both government spending and government taxation. That includes Democrats… boy does that include Democrats… The fact that the tax system and how the government spends money is a complete disaster that makes a rats nest look tidy certainly does not help matters. There is no question at all that the government both taxes and spends in a insane manner but that is a completely separate issue than the debate about if the “tea parties” are sensical or not.
Oh, and Les Mis the musical is British and anti French Establishment.
Well struck, dcl — only it’s not that the protesters don’t want to pay any taxes, but that they don’t want to pay any taxes to a black man (or something like that, according to Janeane Garofalo and Keith Olbermann).
Honestly Joe, I think a lot of them just don’t want to pay any taxes at all to anyone. Because honestly, I don’t think anyone really wants to pay any taxes at all to anyone. They just want the stuff they want which generally amounts to more stuff than that guy over there. There are simply those that are grown up enough to recognize that there are certain things that just work better if we all chip in and work together on. And those that want the results of the working together, but would really rather not chip in. And they of course get really irked when they think someone might possibly getting more for their chipping in than they are. But then it would be kind of insane that if every time the fire department put out a fire they went around and paid everyone that pays taxes a little visit to say hi.
1) The United States got along fine before the Income tax was imposed on the American people. When the income tax was passed, it was called “the millionaires” tax, and the American people were promised that only millionaires would have to pay it. The government quickly became addicted to our money, and has been expanding ever since.
2) The two biggest mistakes in US history are the ever expanding commerce clause and the failure to stipulate that anyone accepting a goverment handout (yes..INCLUDING corporate welfare and farmers) surrenders their right to vote for the period they receive the money plus one year (to limit election year shenanigans).
3) Speaking as a Californian, who owns a house I do insist that I am taxed too much. Adding in all of my state and federal taxes I pay at least 50% of my income in taxes. The government confiscates half of everything I earn. Isn’t that excessive? If not what is 75%? 80%? When do taxes become a form of involuntary servitude?
LOL!! Riiiight, gahrie. Because disenfranchising people who need government assistance isn’t a political “shenanigan” at all. It would be a completely neutral, unbiased policy motivated entirely by civic concerns and not Rovian politics. Yup! Brilliant! Also, it isn’t remotely un-American or un-democratic. Nope!
(And yes, I read the part about “corporate welfare and farmers.” In terms of sheer numbers, that does nothing to counter the fact that you’re suggesting a policy whose obvious, self-evident result would be to keep Republicans in office eternally.)
Congratulations, you make Dane’s ridiculously over-the-top characterizations of the anti-tax crowd sound significantly more reasonable than they ought.
gahrie, you may have noticed that the country has changed significantly since the income tax was implemented. It was smaller, there was less maintainance cost for things such as infrastructure, taxes and tarrifs on trade were able to cover that.
You can blame the “government” all you want (ironic from the right wing since Reagan and Dubya are the worst offenders) but the fact is that the PEOPLE of this country expect all sorts of things and those have to be paid for somehow. In order to lower your taxes would you be willing to make significant cuts to defense spending for example?
I should also point out that without things like roads, police, the military, ports, etc. all paid for by taxes you probably wouldn’t have a job to make money from, so you should take that into account when you consider how fair your taxation level is. The idea that an individuals wealth is created solely from their own blood, sweat, and tears is a false one.
I am also amused that you wish to violate the constitution. Voting is a right, kinda like guns. You can’t just take it away from people if you don’t like it. Also what do you consider a government handout? Did you get a free public education for example? I think that disqualifes you from voting under your own plan 🙂
1) Voting is not an absolute right protected by the Constitution. We already take the franchise away from convicted felons. There have been five separate Amendments dealing with voting rights, and none of them made them absolute. When this country was founded the franchise was granted to a very limited pool of people. When the Income Tax was imposed in 1916, Women weren’t allowed to vote yet. When welfare began, women had been voting for less than thirty years. Taking away the vote from those receiving government handouts would not have been unconstitional.
2) I’m slightly amused by the automatic asumption that the Democratic party would be unable to win elections if we took away their ability to bribe voters with promises of increased governmental handouts and transfers of wealth.
3) I would not support cuts in defense for two reasons.
A) National defense is actually one of the few things the government is supposed to do. Our government was supposed to be one of enumerated powers, which means if it ain’t in the Constitution, the government can’t do it. But because of the mistake of adding the Bill of Rights, people now believe that unless the Constitution says the government can’t do it, the government can do anything it wants. (see my above statement about the Commerce clause for public enemy number 1)
B) The United States needs a strong military today more than ever. We spend about $500 Billion dollars on defense. That’s less than the horrific “stimulus” bill passed earlier this year. Do you really think cutting missile defense is a ghood idea right now? President Obama incomprehensibly does.
4) I think lowering the voting age was a bad idea, so saying anyone who goes to public school can’t vote until they are 19 is fine with me.
5) All of the things that government is supposed to do, like roads, defense and so on could be paid for by usage fees and tariffs.
6) Yes the people of this country have been conditioned over the last 80 years to suck at the government teat. The PEOPLE receiving government handouts do expect them, and because they can vote, they vote for the candidate who promises to give them more…..which is precisely why I don’t think they should be able to vote.
“I am also amused that you wish to violate the constitution. Voting is a right, kinda like guns. You can’t just take it away from people if you don’t like it.”
Umm actually rights can and are “taken away” all the time. The ‘drug wars’ of the early 80’s come to mind recently…not to mention the assloads of involuntary search and seizures that happen daily in this country.
I don’t really know how to allocate the billions of dollars spent on defense contracts/research and what, if anything, can be cut but when shit like this http://bit.ly/eL04S happens I lose my mind.
“4) I think lowering the voting age was a bad idea, so saying anyone who goes to public school can’t vote until they are 19 is fine with me.”
Like many, I think that if a person is old enough to fight and die for his country, he should certainly have some say in who becomes Commander-in-Chief.
“Like many, I think that if a person is old enough to fight and die for his country, he should certainly have some say in who becomes Commander-in-Chief.”
That was the arguement used to lower the voting age. Personally I disagree. Remember also there are many men and women in our military who can’t vote because they aren’t citizens yet.
How about giving these young servicemen the right to smoke or drink? I really think most of them would rather have the right to do these than vote. They had the right to drink and smoke when the voting age was lowered. now we are in the position of saying that 18-21 year olds aren’t mature and responsible enough to make the decision to smoke or drink, but they are mature and responsible enough to make decisions effecting the course of our country.
The bill of rights was a mistake?!? Wow gahrie, just wow…
I suppose you don’t mind then if the government comes to take your guns away? You don’t mind if they start restricting your speech? I suppose you are ok with random searches and seizures?
As for the defense spending you mention above, thats great, you think its important. Well I do too. I also think basic medical care is important too. More people died in this country over the last 10 years from inadequate health care than they did from Iraqi missiles and terrorist attacks.
You have different ideas of whats important, and thats fine, but when you start acting as if spending is some sort of vast liberal conspiracy or its only the left that does it (or is the worst offender) then there really isn’t a point in discussing it with you.
David:
You are proving my exact point. Prior to the Bill of Rights, I didn’t need an Amendment protecting my right to own a gun, or protecting my speech or unreasonable searches and seizures. Since there was nothing in the Constitution saying the government could take my guns, or restrict my speech, or unreasonably search me it couldn’t do these things.. The government could only do what the Constitution said it could. The Founders created a government of ENUMERATED powers. After the Bill of Rights, all of a sudden the government would have the right to take my guns except for the 2nd Amendment. This fundamental change in the definition of our government to one of (supposedly) “limited” powers has led to this bloated, dictorial monstrosity we now have to endure. do you think the government should have the right to tell me what type of lightbulb I can or cannot use?
I want to return to the original vision of the founders, a small government, doing
only what we expressly tell the government it can do. I don’t know how much Constutional background you have, but believe me, my thoughts are not as outlandish as you think they are.
As for spending, President Reagan won the Cold war and turned America around after the malaise of the Carter years, so I can forgive him. But make no mistake, I am no fan of either President Bush and simply consider them better than the alternatives.
In fact I really don’t consider myself a Republican anymore, and have stopped supporting them financially or otherwise, in large part to their becoming Democrat-lite.
♪”When George Bush ballooned the debt
We saw no need to beat the drums”♪
Billions vs Trillions. Hahaha. Growing unemployment and a host of ambitious initiatives…taxes will be the least of our worries.
18 is the smoking age, at least everywhere I’ve been in the US. So not sure what Gahrie on about there.
I agree the drinking age should be 18.
I think if you can be drafted you must be allowed to vote. Any other policy is pretty much reprehensible. Voluntary enlistment is a separate matter and negates all of your babbling about non naturalized immigrants in the military. Further an honorable discharge from the military should automatically come with full citizenship rights (that or after the first meritorious tour of duty is completed whichever comes first).
As to spending policy, yes this country does a lot of stupid stuff. Our entire farm policy is worthy of complete ridicule and not only is it destructive to the US but to other countries around the world. Our tort system is a disaster and so is how we do health care. And no, it really doesn’t matter who the hell is paying for it, the way we do health care at a basic level needs to change. The missile defense shield does not work so I don’t see the issue with scraping it as wasteful. In fact the entire military is geared towards fighting a type of war that is unlikely to ever happen again and is completely unprepared to deal with the types of war we are likely to face in the future. The US having a significant standing army is a product of the Cold War, in other words quite recent. The standing Navy has been around longer. But historically it has spent a heck of a lot of time in dry dock. Beyond that, or manufacturing infrastructure has been decimated by outsourcing making the kinds of action the US took to fight WWII completely impossible.
In other news, Bush doubled the debt. So did the sainted Ronald. In both cases they entered office with a budget that was either balanced or running a surplus from the previous Democratic administration. You cannot cut taxes and not cut spending, much less cut taxes and start two wars.
gahrie, enumerating rights is necessary because in the absence of enumerated rights there is very little to prevent the government from taking them away. Passing a law is fairly easy, passing a law that is a violation of the constitution, not so much. You may wish for a government that does the minimum necessary and would stay that way but history shows that that just doesn’t happen.
Frankly it astounds me that you can in the same breath both criticize the government for trying to get too much power, and then criticize the Bill of Rights saying that without it the government wouldn’t try to get too much power. Without the Bill of Rights we would have nothing to fall back on but to trust whatever the government says is best for us, and clearly you have indicated you do not trust the government to fix most problems. Ironic how the right wing ahs this insane dichotomy. When it comes to “protecting us” we are supposed to trust what the government says without question, yet when it comes to issues like health care or finance, suddenly the government is a hulking idiotic giant that we should never ever allow near us? Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way.
Ahh David, you are wondering into the very squishy realm of Constitutional scholarship. To answer your question you must answer two questions. Should the Constitution be read inclusively or exclusively? And two, does the Bill of Rights encourage the Constitution to be read exclusively?
Two things are true. First is that the Constitution was intended to be read inclusively. In other words it includes all the things the Government can do. If it is not in the Constitution the Government can’t do it. And the other is that the Supreme Court over it’s long and illustrious history has consistently found the document to be exclusive—it explicitly says what the Government cannot do. This is done even in cases where an opinion would be much easier to write if you thought about the Constitution the other way around. For example the Roe opinion and a right to privacy is much easier to write if you just say humans have a right to privacy regardless of it’s presence in the Constitution, and that they have this right because the Constitution fails to grant Government the power to circumvent said right. Such a reading isn’t the much feared judaical activism, it is in fact how the damn thing was designed. It was even codified in my favorite, and never used, amendment to the Constitution, the ninth amendment better know as the unenumerated rights clause. The problem with this type of reading, of course, is that it puts the justices in the position of defending peoples rights without having anything specific to point to when they do so.
So the is the Bill of Rights good because it gives the justices something to point to and therefore better enables them to protect our rights or is bad because the justices are only willing to point to the things on the list and are unwilling to go out on a limb and actually do what is right and protect peoples rights, all of them, for fear of being labeled activist or whatever. And that were right based only in presidents of the court might the be willing to do what is right more often. That is to follow the traditions of English Common Law.
Well shit dude, to answer that you are in a debate that is older than the Bill of Rights itself.
Oh bother, I made a few rather blatant typos there didn’t I? Sadly I cannot edit my comment. So just know I know I made a few mistakes there and move on with your life.