On April 15, tens of thousands of people assembled all over the nation as part of the “Tax Day Tea Party Protests.” These assemblies were, to be quite honest, pointless. Let me qualify my statements by saying that there is nothing wrong with protesting. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with “…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” I do not take issue with assembled bodies; it’s their right to protest. However, I do have a problem with people who do not understand the issues they protest against.

I went to the St. Louis Tea Party on the 15th with very high hopes for the protest’s potential. The gathering was not, however, anything close to what I expected. Originally formed in opposition of excessive government spending, the Tea Party quickly devolved into a rant against the government and a very misunderstood economy. Let me break up my analysis of the protest into two sections. First, I will address why I went to the protest and what it ought to have been. I will then discuss why it was such a disappointment.

My motivation for going to the protest centered around the tax increase that Obama has promised. Perhaps you were duped by the president’s campaign promises that rang of “Read my lips: No new taxes!” Obama has, however, decided to raise taxes. Covering his story by saying that these will only affect the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers is a specious argument. Consumption, an integral part of GDP calculations, is dependent in part on the amount of free income available in the economy. In other words: People can help the economy function better by spending some of their money. This does not work when the government is taking said money out of the pockets of potential consumers. Additionally, the people with the most disposable income to spend in the economy are the wealthy. People living paycheck to paycheck are not out spending in the consumer-discretionary sector, the wealthy are! Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not and would never suggest increasing taxes on the poorest Americans. That’s a terrible idea. However, raising taxes on the wealthiest won’t help anything either.

We need a more responsible government that spends less. The latest round of economic “stimulus” was all but pointless. Think of it this way: A battalion of infantry armed with $100 bills cannot do a job designed for a sniper with a roll of quarters. Small-scale interventions into specific markets could have been useful. Conversely, throwing bags of money at the economy doesn’t help. It was for these reasons, taxes and unchecked spending, that I attended the demonstration.

There was a stark difference between what I hoped for and what I witnessed. Upon arriving, I was overwhelmed by the size of the crowd and the idiocy of the protest’s master of ceremonies. Roughly twenty minutes after my arrival, the M.C. called for the crowd to chant “No More AIG…” I can understand that it didn’t make for great press coverage when American International Group was forced to borrow in excess of $150 billion from the Federal Reserve. The money was, however, absolutely necessary. While the crowd was busy spray-painting over the AIG logo on an English Manchester United football jersey, I took the time to chant (softly) “Richard Jesse Markel for public understanding of basic economic principles and the credit derivatives market.”

If AIG failed, the economy would have come to a screeching halt. The sheer amount of money that would have been lost by AIG’s counterparties, had it failed, would have crippled the money supply. Having read the work of renowned Chicago economist Milton Friedman, I can safely say that history shows a clear correlation between drops in the money supply and economic catastrophes. That crowd should have asked itself whether it enjoyed being employed or being able to pay for their children’s food. If the answer is “yes,” then perhaps they ought to reconsider their position on AIG.

Fiscal policy is unwieldy—that much is clear. This does not mean that the government should spend recklessly. However, on the other side of the equation, it does not mean that masses of people should stand up against a policy that they do not understand. I won’t go as far as to say that it’s un-American. It is, however, dumb. Protests succeed when people are informed. This one failed because of a lack of understanding.