Tax Day Doesn't Belong to the Tea Party Anymore … Over the past several years, few annual occasions have been more symbolic of the direction of political discussion in our country than Tax Day. This year, the IRS due date bears witness to the impact of the Occupy movement in American politics. Back in 2009 and 2010, Tax Day protests were a high-water mark for the Tea Party; they were the mass actions that really put the right-wing movement on the map. But by 2011, as I wrote at the time, that was already changing. The Tea Party still had plenty to be happy about: it was coming off of midterm elections that gave Republicans control of the House, with a rabidly reactionary class of congressional freshmen. And through the summer the supposed imperative to cut back government spending—never mind the country's ongoing crisis of joblessness—would dominate Washington debate. – Dissent
Dominant Social Theme: Taxes aren't under attack anymore.
Free-Market Analysis: This article from Dissent magazine was also carried by Truthout, which is a leading alternative media news source, though one that focuses on a leftist interpretation of modern events.
The point the article makes is an interesting one and once more confirms our belief that the Occupy Wall Street movement is becoming a kind of anti-Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement itself was in its original formula a populist expression of disgust with the way the US is headed.
The deepening economic recession (depression?), unemployment, endless war on terror and a political establishment that was continually more intrusive rather than less all helped trigger a spontaneous outburst of frustration. The campaign of Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul provided a focal point (and unifying force) for the initial movement.
It still exists, though it has been to a considerable extent co-opted by a political establishment that has tried to push the movement toward the profile of the GOP's pro-war "patriotism" perspective.
The Occupy movement itself, we have long been aware, is also a sort of establishment effort to co-opt the populist – and libertarian – feeling that gave rise to the Tea Party. Along with others, we've traced the money trail back to people like George Soros.
Soros, one of the world's richest men, is also a globalist who works with the dynastic banking families that are apparently trying to create world government. It is not in the interest of the elites to have anti-government social untrest, especially in a powerful country like America.
As a result, the powere elite that apparently wants to rule the world strikes back with false flag social movements intended to co-opt the real ones. Occupy Wall Street, with its emphasis on using mainstream government solutions (the current mad legal system, for instance) and enveloped in anti-market sentiments generally, is more along the lines of a "controlled" protest movement.
This doesn't mean that everyone who participates in the movement is co-opted or insincere, but at the very top the "leaders" probably have diverging agendas. They are perhaps co-opted. The powers-that-be seek out these movements and cultivate them because the power elite NEEDS government. It expands via mercantilism, passing laws that advantage its interests at the expense of others'.
Chief among the mercantilist entities that the elites have encouraged are its private/public central banks. These provide the treasury for the elites' efforts to build world government. It is this central banking trove that funds wars, buys governments and helps the elites pay to traduce movements such as the Tea Party, while setting up faux-movements such as Occupy Wall Street. Here's some more from the article:
By Tax Day 2011, a shift had started. Tea Party leading light Glenn Beck was on his way out at Fox News, having been the subject of a boycott from the left. A group called US Uncut, modeled on a British counterpart, was getting great press by going after corporate tax cheats and businesses that had managed to avoid taxes altogether. (GE, in particular, was having a very bad PR month.) Protests taking place that April were as likely to be against draconian social service cuts as against "big government" tyranny.
All of this presaged the emergence of the Occupy movement in the fall, which went much, much further in shifting the debate. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman commented on the transformation:
[S]ix weeks ago, before [Occupy Wall Street] started, we were basically having an insane national discussion. Here we were with 14 million people unemployed, and with the government able to borrow at the lowest interest rates in history and with enormous increase in inequality—with a few people at the very top prospering immensely, and most people having made no headway, even before the crisis hit.
And yet—what were we talking about? Deficits, austerity, 'Let's cut Medicare and Social Security.' And the whole issue of, 'What about jobs? What about doing something for the vast majority of Americans?' was completely ruled out of the discussion. And now some of us —you know, I tried to write about it, other people have tried to write about—but somehow, that was not making a dent in the conversation.
And then a group of people started camping out in Zuccotti Park, and all of a sudden the conversation has changed significantly towards being about the right things. It's kind of a miracle. This year, if you say "Tax Day" and "social movement," the Tea Party isn't necessarily the first thing that comes to mind. And if you go looking for a protest, you'll likely find folks protesting against the tax evaders of the top 1 percent. As one example, members of Stand Up Chicago have been delivering faux tax bills to corporations including Boeing, Exelon, and Bank of America.
We can see from this text that taxes are being positioned within the context of such outlets as something that corporations should pay MORE of. There is no emphasis on the insanity of the current tax system as it is applied in the Western world.
No, the rhetoric of Occupy Wall Street is increasingly one of plain, old class warfare. The issue of taxes themselves are seemingly not to be discussed, only that some people (corporations) are getting away with paying less than their "fair share."
This is good rhetoric but in the era of what we call the Internet Reformation, many people are increasingly informed about the Way the World Really Works. This is especially true when it comes to central banking.
The tension between those who want to pay FEWER taxes and those who want corporations to pay their "fair share" is not going away any time. Occupy Wall Street is just sharpening the focus of the divide.
There really isn't much of a need for taxes in an era of unbridled fiat money. The government – via central banking – can print as much as is necessary to fund its operations and more. Yes, inflation is a tax – but so is an income tax.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the income tax is more of a methodology of government control than a necessity. And, if so, that puts Occupy Wall Street on the side of a facility that is basically a weapon of authoritarian levies.
The US government in particular is pursuing tax policies that are increasingly Draconian and restrictive. Occupy Wall Street's architects are seemingly trying to reconfigure the larger conversation so that it focuses on corporate tax-dodging. But is this really the issue? In our view, it is one reason that the movement is controversial, even within the context of the alternative media.
The elites, we can see in hindsight, apparently helped build a worldwide countercultural movement in the 1960s. But it is a good deal harder to manipulate people today. This is a challenge for those backing Occupy Wall Street as they get ready to re-ignite the movement as spring comes and protests expand once more.