10 years after Santelli's rant against Obama's proposed bailout of your neighbor's mortgage, National Review pretends it was about deficit spending

You will search in vain in this article for the word "mortgage".

If the Tea Party had been about any one thing, it was about the moral hazard of bailouts. A sizeable minority of the American people perceived that bailouts made them chumps, dutifully following the rules and accepting their obligations while bankrupt businesses and bankrupt homeowners did neither. 

By Brian Riedl, long-time research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the article illustrates better than anything how the interests of establishment conservatism co-opted the Tea Party movement in 2011, just as establishment Republicanism co-opted Trumpism in 2017.

"Let's steal this energy and make it about something else".

Every. Damn. Time. 

New Budget Deal Puts Final Nail in the Tea-Party Coffin:

Horrified by Washington spenders, CNBC’s Rick Santelli stood on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19, 2009, and called for a “tea party” to end the bailouts, stimulus payments, and red ink. Grassroots tea-party groups formed — further enraged by the later enactment of an expensive new Obamacare entitlement — and helped Republicans capture the House in 2010 with a stunning 63-seat pickup and also pick up seven Senate seats.

It Takes One To Know One: Carl Bernstein Smells Radicalism In The Air

Carl Bernstein of Woodward-Bernstein fame thinks he's caught a whiff of radicalism in Mitt Romney and the Tea Party, here at The Daily Beast, imagining all sort of vain things about both of them.

By the end of the hysterical tirade he calms down a little and realizes his own progressivism qualifies as radicalism, too, but he'd much rather call his beloved progressivism a "transformational movement". In other words, "progressivism good, radicalism bad", sort of like how liberalism got a bad name and had to be replaced at all costs if liberalism were to continue to retain influence.

The reality is the Tea Party is a reactionary movement trying to forestall the radicalism of Barack Obama. Reactionary movements often are mistaken for radical movements because in order to succeed in their objective they have to get to the root being yanked out of the ground by others, by the revolutionaries, and replant it. As such reactionaries, the Tea Partiers are counter-revolutionaries: "Put It Back!"

This is not to say that reactionary movements cannot be hijacked by ideologues any less than true revolutionary movements are inspired by them. The American revolutionaries are a case in point. They never embraced the idealisms which turned into a class war against aristocrats in France. It is unthinkable that the history of the early American independence movement would have turned out as it did had it otherwise been a movement about liberty, equality and fraternity. Former loyalists were welcomed back. While enthusiasm for the idealism of natural rights among Tea Party activists is reminiscent of this, especially among the libertarian elements, the genesis of the movement was in reaction to Obama's proposed mortgage bailouts of deadbeat homeowners, many of whom were becoming infamous for "walking away". Like a good reactionary, Rick Santelli gave voice to his indignation at these people on national television in February but characteristically planned a Tea Party protest on the beach of Lake Michigan for months later, during his summer vacation. In the interim, he had to go to work.

The people, however, had other ideas about waiting. But unlike real radicals such as the Occupy Wall Street types, their protests were peaceful, orderly, clean, and came to an end, and then transformed themselves into the constructive activity of political action, retaking the US House in 2010 for the Republicans in order to stop Obama. As a political movement, it should be understood in those practical prophylactic terms despite the efforts of Republicans to co-opt the movement. The Tea Party is a movement of Americans who are radical only in the sense that they have rediscovered their roots in the constitution and the world which gave it birth.

The true radicals in the bad sense are those who would extirpate them.  

Obama's Best Unemployment Number Ever: Initial Claims At 297K

Initial claims for unemployment, not-seasonally adjusted, has fallen below 300,000 for the first time ever in the Obama presidency.

Obama should be crowing this from the rooftops, but apparently his administration is too stupid to understand the significance, or it views this as bad news in the broader mission to destroy the middle class on the way to a transformed America. He has now racked up 7 weeks in a row below 320K.

Elsewhere Rick Santelli has predicted unemployment at 7.9 percent by election day. He doesn't know how right he is.

The latest weekly report is here.

Neil Barofsky Calls Geithner And Obama Two-Faced Housing Bailout Liars

'[I]n 2009, $50 billion in TARP funds had been committed to help homeowners through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a program that the president announced was intended to help up to 4 million struggling families stay in their homes through sustainable mortgage modifications. Hundreds of billions more were still available and could have been used by the White House and the Treasury Department to help support a massive reduction in mortgage debt. But Geithner avoided this path to a housing recovery, explaining that he believed it would be “dramatically more expensive for the American taxpayer, harder to justify, [and] create much greater risk of unfairness.” Treasury amplified that argument in 2010, after it reluctantly instituted a weak principal reduction program in response to overwhelming congressional pressure. ...

'[T]hree years later, with a tightening presidential election and a Democratic base disillusioned by the government’s abandonment of its promise to help homeowners (less than 8 percent of the funds originally allocated in TARP for foreclosure relief has actually been spent), Geithner and the administration would like to present themselves as having undergone a conversion.'

Read the entire entry here.

The announcement of HAMP is what really got Rick Santelli's goat on CNBC one day in early 2009 and set off a fire storm which coalesced in the outrage of the Tea Party movement. The conservative instincts of the Tea Party movement were and remain opposed to bailouts of homeowners, bankers, car manufacturers, insurers, multinationals like GE, and on and on. Barofsky is probably right that this is nothing more than a cynical political ploy to shore up support among Democrats. But if he's not buying it, who will? 

Rush Limbaugh Says The Banks Were Victims, The Bailouts A Success!

And the Tea Party got all hot and bothered over what, exactly?

Santelli's rant against the $75 billion mortgage bailout program called HAMP on CNBC? Noboby heard it!

The interventions bailing out private corporations like GM, Chrysler, and AIG, etc? Why, totally meaningless! Didn't happen!

This gag never appeared anywhere:

Nearly 400 failed banks haven't failed.

The FDIC hasn't had to pay $80 billion because of it.

1000 more with $400 billion in assets aren't really in danger.

Taxpayers aren't on the hook for $160 billion and rising for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

$10 trillion in taxpayer funds weren't really lent to every Tom, Dick and Hairy Bastard in the world at rock-bottom rates by the Federal Reserve!

The New York Times is simply mistaken that TARP will end up costing the taxpayers $37 billion. The CBO estimate of $25 billion is also quite simply wrong.

Partial transcript here:

RUSH: Will in Amanda, Ohio. You're up first. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hey thanks, Rush. Hey, don't you think the one common denominator between the Tea Party and the protesters on Wall Street is a lack of justice? And what I mean by that is the lack of criminal prosecution from anybody from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Wall Street, the banking industry, or even our own government officials.

RUSH: Um, okay --

CALLER: Not one prosecution, Rush.

RUSH: You want prosecution? Oh, "not one." I'm trying to understand. What's the correlation to the Tea Party?

CALLER: Well, the Tea Party gathered great strength after the bailouts that they tried to stop, and I think without the prosecution of anybody for crimes that have brought this country to its knees --

RUSH: Okay, name for me a crime and who you think should be prosecuted. I'm not disagreeing, I just want to know. Obama was asked this question today.

CALLER: Rush.

RUSH: Somebody asked him today, "How come there haven't been any prosecutions?" Who? And for what?

CALLER: I have to untie the other half of your brain for this one. Think about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

RUSH: Okay, when I think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac I think Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: But look at the collusion that's taken place between Wall Street and the banking industry and selling the mortgages -- or giving mortgages to anybody -- 'cause we know we can sell 'em off over here and we don't care if they're qualified or not.

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: Do you think there was a lack of fiduciary responsibility from a lot of people?

RUSH: No! I think there was fear of government.

CALLER: The what?

RUSH: I think there was fear of government. You talk about all these mortgage-related projects. Why did they exist?

CALLER: That doesn't justify crime.

RUSH: I'm not saying it does. No, no, no, no. Wait a minute. (sigh) I'm not trying to justify crime, but when you have the... I don't know. ...

Now, it's risky saying this because I sound like I'm coming to the defense of bankers. ...

They were forced to accept the bailout. The banks have paid back their bailouts with interest. The government has made a profit from the bailouts.

Capitalism's Idea of More Efficient Regulation Than the Government Kind

"Failure."

-- Rick Santelli, on The Laura Ingraham Show this morning

Rush Limbaugh's Mission Accomplished: Tea Party Absorbed by Republican Party

Otherwise, Rush would not have tried so hard today to disagree with a caller who suggested the Tea Party was born of outrage over the bailouts. He even repeated the MSM mantra that TARP has been repaid in full by the banks, even though the program will end up costing taxpayers $37 billion.

It is apparent Rush now discounts Santelli's galvanizing rant against HAMP on CNBC in February 2009, which first floated the idea nationally of a Tea Party at Lake Michigan in August.

The nascent Tea Party didn't wait for summer.

The reason, of course, is that it is now safe for Rush to spin all that, with Palin and her cronyism message safely out of the way, since she announced yesterday she is not going to run.

Rush doesn't want the troops confused by an anti-bank message now that the left and the unions in league with Democrats and George Soros are in the process of co-opting the original message of the Tea Party. Rush is clearly aware that the Tea Party doesn't have the edge anymore, is politically leaderless, is inured to the problem, and just plain old too tired to mount a new charge against government bailouts. Most of us are graying baby-boomers, after all, taking naps in the afternoon, or wanting to. And some of us are broke.

Besides, Republicans have their mits all over the banking crisis, with New Gingrich and Phil Gramm leading the charge to overturn Glass-Steagall in 1999. Better now to emphasize the private, capitalist character of the banking industry as a target of the socialist left, rather than its dependence on and compromised relationship with the public, government institution called the Federal Reserve Bank, with its phony money and monetarist mission.

Rush Limbaugh the chameleon turns on a dime once again. 

The Tea Party Began With Moral Outrage Over Mortgage Bailouts

Ron Klain provides a needed reminder of the forgotten origins of the Tea Party movement, here:

Although we now associate the Tea Party with a general opposition to government spending, it was mortgage-relief policies that were the target of the seminal rant by the CNBC commentator Rick Santelli in February 2009 that is credited with getting that movement off the ground: “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?”

A striking aspect of the conservative backlash against the administration’s mainstream economic policies -- from using federal money to keep teachers on the job, to saving the domestic auto industry, to investing in job-creating public works projects -- is how much the opposition’s arguments have been based on morality and values, not economic considerations. Sure, critics offer facts and figures to challenge these policies, but the most potent weapons have been values-laden attacks about borrowing from the future, being irresponsible about spending, and failing to hold the profligate responsible for the consequences of their ways. Even direct beneficiaries of the president’s policies have pressed these moral critiques.

Klain fancies, however, that there was an equivalent moral reaction on the left to Obama's failure to prosecute wrongdoers. As genuine as it may have been, and still is, it did not translate itself into political action on a scale which did anything. It was the Tea Party which gave the Republicans a stunning and sweeping national victory in November 2010 screaming No! to Obama's policies. It entirely co-opted the left's moral pretensions.

And I rather doubt there are many leftists who would concede the right's claim to such moral equivalence with them. They still think of themselves as far superior, both intellectually and morally, to everyone else in America.

Nevertheless, while malefactors continue to go unpunished, the bailouts are a fact and have not been reversed. To that extent, the Tea Party has not been victorious at all.

It may just be my imagination, but in a better time in America left and right could have come together at a time like this to reverse these injustices. Until they do, we will live uncomfortably in a house divided.

The Religious Origins of the Income Tax's "Standard Deduction"

The standard deduction was designed to make it easier for people to claim their charitable contributions, without itemizing them. Note how the standard deduction early on was fixed at 10% of annual income, the common tithe prescribed in the Bible, not to exceed $500 (the median income in 1944 was less than $2,400):

Almost from its inception in 1913, the federal income tax has allowed taxpayers to subtract from their taxable income amounts spent for particular uses. For example, beginning in 1917, taxpayers could deduct donations made to charitable causes. To claim the deduction, taxpayers had to itemize their allowable expenditures. That itemization imposed a burden on taxpayers, but relatively few people were affected because only about 5 percent of households had to file tax returns.

World War II dramatically increased the reach of the income tax: by 1944, nearly three-fourths of households had to pay the tax. With that expansion came concern about the complexity of tax filing. To simplify tax returns, in 1944 the Congress created the standard deduction, then equal to 10 percent of a taxpayer's annual income, up to a maximum of $500. Taxpayers could select the standard deduction as an alternative to itemizing their expenditures on specific activities, reducing their taxes as if they had made that level of deductible expenditures but without having to comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements. By taking the standard deduction, people are generally claiming deductions that are greater than their actual expenditures would have been if they had itemized.


Obviously the government made a concession to the entire population, Christian or not, and allowed everyone to deduct their "tithe," whether they made it or not.

Now if we could just get government to take no more, and no less, than 10% from everyone, on everything. The government would have plenty of money, and so would we.

Let me channel my inner Santelli: "President Obama, are you listening?"

So let it be written. So let it be done.

More here.

"Menopause Was Change Enough For Me"

In "Moms to the Barricades," which appeared here, Michael Graham explores the idea that mothers' instincts to protect their children and their futures help explain the Tea Party Movement:

Moms like Karen Miner Herd, who calls herself "one of the founding mothers" of the tea party movement in Virginia.

Her favorite tea party sign? "Menopause Was Change Enough for Me." ...

Dana Loesch, talk host and co-founder of the St. Louis tea party, believes the tea party movement is the modern conservative version of "the personal is political."

"Motherhood itself has become a political act," says Ms. Loesch. "And the tea parties are an extension of our need as moms to protect the future for our children."

Keli Carender isn't a mom, but the Seattle-area 30-something is the mother of the tea party movement. She held the very first rally of the modern tea party era to protest the so-called stimulus package, days before Rick Santelli's infamous CNBC rant.

Read the full article at the link above.

Santelli's Rant, One Year Later

A year after Rick Santelli's heated objections in February 2009 to the moral hazard posed by government efforts to bail out troubled mortgagers with $75 billion from the taxpayers, the foreclosure crisis only continues to worsen. Foreclosures have steadily increased in number from 1.3 million in 2007, to 2.3 million in 2008, to 2.8 million in 2009. An additional 3 to 3.5 million are expected in 2010.

At the time, Santelli intended to take a little time off in July for a tea party on Lake Michigan:

SANTELLI: We’re thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna start organizing.

The people of the country didn't wait for July to organize, however, and by April 15th last year hundreds of tea party protests had already materialized all across the country, and their influence has been felt in elections in New York, New Jersey, Virginia and most of all Massachusetts.

Today, tea partiers everywhere stand poised to throw their weight behind candidates in the November elections who oppose everything that's happened under Pelosi, Reid, and Obama to interfere with the operations of free markets and the aspirations of free peoples. They understand that government isn't a magic money machine, churning out a buck and a half for every buck they put in. They understand with Santelli the threat left-wing Democrats represent to the very meaning of America, and who the real subversives are:

SANTELLI: You know, they’re pretty much of the notion that you can’t buy your way into prosperity, and if the multiplier that all of these Washington economists are selling us is over 1, 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.

QUICK: Wilbur?

WILBUR ROSS (chairman, W.L. Ross & Co.): Rick, I congratulate you on your new incarnation as a revolutionary leader.

SANTELLI: Somebody needs one. I’ll tell you what, if you read our Founding Fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, what we’re doing in this country now is making them roll over in their graves.

When the tea parties succeed at the polls, the Founders will stop their spinning and return to their rest, and we to our labors rebuilding our broken country.