As with many “grass roots” organizations, it is often difficult to say exactly what the Tea Party stands for. Even within its ranks, there is much disagreement. Here are some of the more common platforms in this party, and what they mean.
- 82% want a requirement to define the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to enact a law.
Here’s the Constitution. If you read it, you see that there are specific provisions allowing Congress to raise revenue, collect taxes, pay debts, borrow money, regulate commerce, establish uniform naturalization rules, coin money, establish the post office, promote progress of science and arts, declare war, raise and support armed forces, and “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (emphasis provided). It is that last power that will likely be used to justify virtually every bill. - 72% are in favor to stop “cap and trade.”
Support pollution control by providing economic incentives to achieve emission control.This is a philosophical difference between mandating pollution control and providing incentives for companies to stop polluting. The basis of this argument is one of government control versus free market. Nearly 3/4 of Tea Party members feel that pollution control should be left to the free market, rather than mandated by the government. - 70% demand a balanced federal budget.
Currently, the expenditures look something like this. A.most 40% ($1.35 trillion of $11.9 trillion as of last September 30) is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. National defense is just over 15.5%, and rises to 22% when including all other security programs. That’s about 2/3 of expenditures. The other third is non-security and other mandatory programs, including education, justice, commerce, the State Department and the like. Take a crack at trying to close that $1.4 trillion gap. You’re almost certain to have to cut the most significant expense – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. - Almost 65% want to simplify the tax system.
Their mandate is to make it no longer than the original Constitution, 4,543 words. It’s a laudable goal, but I’d like to see a first draft before I weigh in on its plausibility, and to this point, I’ve been unable to find one. - About 63% want an audit of federal agencies and programs to assess their Constitutionality (see highlighted portion of the first section) and to identify duplication, inefficiency and waste.
While this sounds good on the surface, again, I found nothing other than these general guidelines empowering yet another government agency.
Many also want to limit federal spending to the amount of inflation plus percentage of population growth, to repeal the recently enacted “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” commonly referred to as health care reform, pass an “all of the above” energy policy, mandate 2/3 majority vote for earmarks, and permanently extend the so-called “Bush” reductions in income, capital gain and estate taxes.
By and large, the Tea Party favors highly unregulated free market reform, with severe limitation on federal spending, once thought to be the bastion of Libertarians and states’ rights Conservatives.
No member, however, has provided a “blueprint” for how the reductions in taxes and spending will be accomplished.
other blog entries from »
i use a combo of shea butter and aloe vera moisturizer. Works great. I use shea butter on my lips, around my eyes and nose (dry areas), My father swears by vasoline.
p.s. I dropped your name on Gina's post, Barb. ;)
I would be a member…..it started 200 years ago….I heard someone ask where did it come from!?
What started 200 years ago?
The (Boston) Tea party started (approximately) 200 years ago; we colonists were fed up with the British telling us what to do, taxation, etec.
The colonists were fed up with taxation by an entity they did not elect – the British government – and the proceeds were almost entirely diverted back to England to pay for the French and Indian War. But the imposition of the tax was mostly symbolic. By paying it, the colonists would have been acknowledging Britain’s sovereignty. We have a representative government, even though it doesn’t feel like it sometimes, and our taxes are mostly spent on our citizens. And we are not trying to break away from any other country’s rule. Quite a different scenario, unless the Tea Party movement is looking to break away from it’s own government and form its own. But it’s a catchy name if you use some poetic license or simplify the reasons the original took place.
I always thought that the actual Boston Tea Party was about the British giving major tax breaks to a big tea company (like major corporate tax breaks) – so that others couldn’t make a go of it. That’s why the ship was held up and they wouldn’t allow the tea to be unloaded in the first place. They weren’t anticipating anyone throwing the tea overboard. But it’s been at least 100 years since I had history class so I’ll have to check it out again.
They gave the East India Tea Company a monopoly, reducing the price. And they reduced the tax from its previous level. The tea tax was the only tax left from a previous act that taxed other items (those taxes were revoked because of protesting colonists). So the tea was cheaper – an offer they thought the colonists couldn’t refuse. This is a pretty good account, and includes a narrative of one of the partiers describing his role in the actual party. Fascinating stuff:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm
I was actually taught this in a watered down version when I went to school (about 150 years ago). But with all the myths I was taught in school, it’s right to question “common knowledge” history. But we digress.
Mostly, it was “No Taxation Without Representation”… which… um… we all can vote. I, coming from MA really resent how the so-called ‘Tea Party’ hijacked the name of this unifying event.
Good information – cuts to the core of things and allows us to see what the issues are. I like blog articles. Thanks.
My pleasure, Lilly. Intelligent discussion of ideas by mature women make us all better people.
We all can vote but do we get a chance to vote on the important issues. Tea Party members want to go back to small government and let free enterprise and the states make their own decisions. What is happening to our government is an ATROCITY to not only the soldiers and citizens that died for our constitution but for all of our children!
Thanks for your comment, Janine. By small government, do you mean less Social Security, Medicare and Defense? That’s about 2/3 of government spending.
I too am from MA, but I love the reference to the Tea Party, for Freedom from too much regulation and toooooo many regulators and redundant STAFF positions! I do NOT want my tax dollars to pay for fifteen people doing what one efficient person could do if they knew they WERE accountable! So, yes, I’d say we should shrink the staffing of MANY of the federal SS and MC administrations, then the money, back in wallets of We the People, could be used for private small business to actually HIRE people to work!
Hi Judi, and thanks for your opinion. I thought it may be interesting for you to see the following. . .
According to the Office of Personnel Management excluding Postal Workers, government employees were 1940 700,000, 1950 1.44 million, 1960 1.81 million, 1970 2.20 million, 1980 2.16 million, 1990 2.25 million, 2000 1.78 million, and 2009 2.10 million. The US population in 1960 was 179,232,000 and in 2010 is 579,954,000. So, the growth in government workers since 1960 is 16% and the population growth is 324%, or 16% more workers are serving 324% more citizens.
Kitty, “No member, however, has provided a “blueprint” for how the reductions in taxes and spending will be accomplished.” Are they just talking loud and saying nothing?…TRACK
I found no specific information that illustrated what measures would be taken to balance the Federal budget and simplify the tax system while simultaneously making permanent the Bush income, corporate and estate tax cuts. In reviewing the budget (link provided in the article), I found no way to accomplish these goals without making draconian cuts to social security, medicare and medicaid. It is not unusual to have a party platform without providing a complete plan; however, it would be helpful to give some indication of how these goals will be achieved.
I agree…TRACK
That line caught my eye as well!! If you can’t come up with a viable solution — don’t knock those folks who are in a position to achieve their goals. I am so angry and sad and gobsmacked that if there are going to be draconian cuts they should begin with the toys of war, and the toys of science. Both are pursuing the uncatchable. War toys to kill and maim and create the ultimate in negative energy. Science to go to mars and the moon when it takes billions today to take one person. Ugh.
Thanks Kitty — tho I didn’t and maybe still don’t know the Tea Party Dynamic — it does seem to dilute the unification of the country.
The Brits have a funny – but true – saying — They are all talk and trousers!!
The Tea Party Movement has one very important goal that I haven’t seen mentioned…..We want smaller government. We want States to have their power back with the Federal Government having minimal power. Stick to the Constitution Of the United States of America. We don’t want to live in a socialist, Marxist or Communist country! We want our Democratic Republic!
In answer to other comments I’ve seen: Yes there are ways to reduce the Federal budget, cut out the number of employees. This administration has added so many new government employees & they are being paid out of the budget. There are many agencies that are redundant, why have them all? Require the Federal government to answer to the tax payers the same way a business would answer to stock holders. Just because you form a panel to investigate something, it doesn’t mean it needs to become a permanent agency. It doesn’t mean those who do the investigating need to be government employees. I’m amazed at all the negativity. Let us hope some of you start paying more attention to what they are saying & realize they aren’t just sound bites. If we don’t do something to go back to our Constitution soon, we may as well move to France or Germany.
Just what part of our Constitution has been lost lately? I know the parts lost during the Bush era, but what now? And the “tea party” says we want to take America “back.” Back to what? The Bush years? How are we living as socialist, Maxist or Communist?? AND, if we were like France or Germany we would ALL have health care, not the disgrace we have now as the world laughs at us for not taking care of our own. Just HOW have we left our Constitution? Oh, I know we are trying to leave it by NOT separating church and state…The one in Delaware wants states to decide IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS whether to teach creationism. That IS NOT SCIENCE! Public schools are just that. If you want to know about creationism go to Sunday School.
Interesting point, MaryLorraine (and a pretty name, too). Speaking on a personal level, I was educated in Catholic schools. Religion was taught every day, as was science. No religion was taught in science classes, and no science was taught in religion. Religion was clearly labeled as our “belief” system, and science was limited to that which was highly probable using scientific methodologies.
ML, if I understand you correctly, you didn’t like President Bush. Please let me know what part of the Constitution was lost during the Bush era and why you think that the Tea Party movement wants to go back to that administration. ♥
I recently heard that the truth about government employees is that the number has not risen for many years…Something like since the 60′s I have not actually researched this, but I think that the Tea Party people are fantasizing that we go back to some mythical time when people rode by carriage and horseback to attend the Congressional meetings, and states were sovereign because there was so much time and distance involved in getting information back and forth from the Federal Gov’t to the people being governed. If you want things to go back to the way they used to be, exactly WHEN would that be?
Please, it sounds like you are the one with the head in the sand.
Hi Janine, see comment below.
According to the Office of Personnel Management excluding Postal Workers, government employees were 1940 700,000, 1950 1.44 million, 1960 1.81 million, 1970 2.20 million, 1980 2.16 million, 1990 2.25 million, 2000 1.78 million, and 2009 2.10 million. The US population in 1960 was 179,232,000 and in 2010 is 579,954,000.
So, the growth in government workers since 1960 is 16% and the population growth is 324%, or 16% more workers are serving 324% more citizens. Your point is well taken, Pennie.
Hi Createalz, and thanks for your comment. I’ll repeat a comment made below as to the growth in the number of government employees.
According to the Office of Personnel Management excluding Postal Workers, government employees were 1940 700,000, 1950 1.44 million, 1960 1.81 million, 1970 2.20 million, 1980 2.16 million, 1990 2.25 million, 2000 1.78 million, and 2009 2.10 million. The US population in 1960 was 179,232,000 and in 2010 is 579,954,000.
So, the growth in government workers since 1960 is 16% and the population growth is 324%, or 16% more workers are serving 324% more citizens.
Does the smaller government mean going back to pre-income tax days before 1914 as I have read? The ones with no safety net like SS and medicare or meat inspections? The one that doesn’t have water and sewer systems? Or would that be the one that had a much smaller military or maybe just default on the debt so we don’t have to pay principle or interest?
And the one where when the economy crashes (like the great depression lasting from about 1929 to the early 1940′s) and we didn’t have the FDIC to protect up to 250,000 dollars of your money in the bank. IF you’re fortunate enough to have more than 250,000 dollars you’d have to deposit it in another bank to be insured again up to that amount.
Thank you, that was informative. Unfortunately, the people I know who self-identify as tea party members are not able to clearly articulate their beliefs. What I hear most often is “We want things to go back to the way they were.” I don’t have a lot of confidence in the free markets ability to self regulate their environmental impact and I also wonder what programs tea partiers believe should be cut to achieve a balanced budget. I have some opinions on the matter, but don’t think they would be very popular on this site.
Hi Brightwood, and thanks for your comment. I see no reason why your opinion shouldn’t be expressed. Intelligent, reasonable people can certainly disagree, and it makes us all better to question our ideas. I, for one, would very much appreciate knowing your thoughts on how a balanced budget would be achieved.
I also think that there is some credible evidence from recent events in the financial markets that would support your belief that skepticism about self regulation in regard to the environment is understandable.
Thanks again for taking the time to express your views.
I think we need to look closely at the military budget. I think there are alot of private, corporate entities making a fortune from government contracts. I think excessive profits on these contracts come at the expense of our soldiers and their families first and the rest of the nation second. I hear conflicting information about the solvency of Social Security, but I think we need to remove the cap on FICA contributions for incomes over (it was $80,000, is it $104,000 now). If that doesn’t alleviate any shortages, maybe we have to look at income caps for recipients. I know this would be extremely unpopular. It seems like everyone is looking at everyone else and thinking they’re getting something they shouldn’t, but to fix our financial mess, everyone is going to have to sacrifice.
All thought provoking ideas, Brightwood. Thank you for your opinion.
I believe that the TEA PARTY is about everyday people like me waking up to the reality that if we keep our mouth shout the goverment burocracy is going to run us over until all of us have to beg for food.
Most of us are intelligent people that can think for ourselves, can work and provide for our families without goverment intervention. I do not want food stamps and want the freedom to work and create the life style I want for my family. Even when I am a single mom.
I came to this country because of that freedom to create a better life in my own terms, not because of the handouts.
How do we control the budget at the Federal level? The same way we control the budget in our home. Keep priorities in mind and live withing our means.
Thanks for your comment, Aleyda. Our country is a better place for your being here. Would you be in favor of cutting Social Security/Medicare and Defense? That’s 2/3 of our spending.
You have asked this question to several tea-baggers and none has responded. Thus, I will: Social Security and Medicare cannot truly be reduced because the demographics do not allow such reductions, unless we scuttle the systems and then, 25 years from now, we will have millions of seniors begging on the streets. Therefore the Social Security and Medicare taxes must increase well past the present taxable limit of $106,000.
Defense spending can be reduced significantly if Congress ceased protecting pet industries – the so called industrial/military complex that Eisenhower spoke of. I was in the military so I know a bit about these things. Take for instance the aircraft carriers: they are really imposing but in the age of the ballistic missiles, they are obsolete; as obsolete as battleships became when airplanes took control of sea battles. Instead of 12 carriers we could do with 3 or 4. Another example is the infantry carrier Striker. It was developed during the mid 2000′s in response to the IED’s in Iraq, at tremendous cost. But we had thousands of M-113′s from the Vietnam war in storage, which could have served as well or even better with a little refurbishing at a fraction of the cost. We lost men waiting for the Strikers to come out and refused to put the M-113 into battle because that would have shown the Striker was unnecessary. We continue to develop expensive weapons systems to protect pet industries. That is wrong and shortsighted.
Going a bit further, we have a corporate tax code which encourages American companies to relocate overseas. That is why we have lost tens of millions of good jobs since the 1980′s.
Thanks for your response, Emmanuelle. Defense spending (excluding provisions for ongoing military action in Iraq and war in Afghanistan) is 15% of our total budget ,http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget/defense.pdf and homeland security is another 6%. As you can see from the link, the procurement portion of the budget is just under $102 billion. Even if you managed to cut that in half, that would be a savings of $51 billion from a deficit of over $14 trillion.
The national debt is 14 trillion; the deficit is about 1.3 trillion this year. I am not sure what goes under “procurement” but I know standing elements are not part of that. Standing would be existing assets such a ships, military bases, planes, etc. Nevertheless, I agree that defense cuts alone would not do. The SS and Medicare system has to take in more money to maintain present benefits. There is no way around that.
Your article is about the tea party and I want to limit myself to that. I don’t believe they have coherent goals. I think many of them demonize symbols that they have naively identified as the source of all problems. They protest government programs but they don’t seem willing to give up their benefits themselves; just the benefits of others.
Like that sign I see often: “Government keep off my Medicare” I think it is almost comic. Medicare IS government.
Hi Emmanuelle, My math agrees with yours. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid must be a central part of what must be revamped. Thanks for your comment.
It needs to be for the needy not the ones who can pay their own way. As for the medical side that is going to fix itself by pricing it’s self out of the reach of tax payer systems or private. We have 50 million doing without now. When that number reaches 30% our great the medical system will crash. Total take over as in most countries will then be welcomed by the industry as their bailout. They will all make much less money. Or we could go back to the day when my grandfather was paid with chicken or ham. Before medical became a get rich quick job.
Thanks for your thoughts, idosew. It’s always a pleasure hearing from you, and you certainly raise an opinion than many have struggled with.
RE: Kitty O’Keefe, and your response to Emmanuall….
Thanks for your response, Emmanuelle. Defense spending (excluding provisions for ongoing military action in Iraq and war in Afghanistan) is 15% of our total budget ,http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget/defense.pdf and homeland security is another 6%. As you can see from the link, the procurement portion of the budget is just under $102 billion. Even if you managed to cut that in half, that would be a savings of $51 billion from a deficit of over $14 trillion.
Further response from you Kitty to Emmaneulle:
Kitty O’K…
Kitty O’Keefe said to Emmanuelle Yesterday new! Edit for another minutes
Hi Emmanuelle, My math agrees with yours. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid must be a central part of what must be revamped. Thanks for your comment.
My comment RE the above:
My impression here Kitty, is the purpose of your blog is really to attack and tear down Social Security and Medicare/ Medicaid program, a sentence, or thought at a time. It’s incremental, but you have a task to which to apply yourself, and all the time in the world. It’s apparent to anyone who reads through the entire thread and counts the times you mention social security/ medicaid/ medicare, and pose the question so sweetly: which of these programs would you feel might have room for cuts or elimination?? Counting the redundancy of your blog comments, the frequency of specific statistics sited, and the general common center to which you steer every reader and writer back too…. You have a purpose/ agenda. It’s apparent. Lets discourse on why and how we’re going to have to revamp and get rid of social security and medicare/ medicaid. I believe you’re planting the “seeds” so to speak. You’re just a little more diplomatic about how you get it out here so we can discuss that in a civilized discourse. Though I disagree with where you’re going and your opinion, I enjoy your method of putting forth your message. Happy to listen to your writings and methods to attempt to provide a persuasive argument and opinion. Please do continue.
Hi Jai. Thanks for your opinion. Your impression of my intent is one about which I take exception. It is not my goal to attack nor tear down Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
Rather, my intent is to show how the US budget is spent for the purpose of illustrating where cuts must be made by those who feel that it is by spending cuts, rather than economic stimulus – or growth on the revenue side, that a balance be achieved. Many advocates of a balanced budget do not realize how little “wiggle room” there is in the budget. Cut waste? That has a maximum potential of about cutting about 2% of expenses, a minimal difference on which many spend an inordinate time discussing.
The vast majority of our budget is spent on transfer payments and defense – areas where most people want no cuts. My purpose in these discussions is to point out that, if one wants meaningful cuts, one must cut programs where the majority of money is spent, and be mindful of the result of such cuts.
I am not attempting to do anything other than provide an accurate groundwork from which those who advocate balanced budget or significant budget cuts can see where such cuts must be made in order to have meaningful impact.
Correction to the above comment: Should read “National debt of over $14 trillion.”
Social Security and Medicare were set up to be a self-supporting “Trust Fund”. We trusted our federal government to hold these payroll deducted funds in trust to fund the social security and medicare system. Unfortunately, that trust fund has been embezzled and misappropriated till it’s no longer self supporting. Due to mis-management (by our supposedly trust worthy Federal Government) we are now told it is bankrupt. Who bankrupted it? The same Government now asking for more taxes to fund more wasteful (my opinion) programs, bureaucracies, grants, pork projects…. The people want Social Security, and Medicare, in the way it was originally designed. As a safety net for those that contributed. And only those that contributed. Defense, is not to be lumped in with Social Welfare. It is a separate issue; one of the main reasons for even having a “Federal Government.” his country needs and requires a sophisticated, state of the art defense system that is the gold standard for the world, and we need all citizens to get on board and advise their Congressional Representatives about how to allocate funds to support that defense system, and where and how to be involved in war. According to information provided by “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities 04/2010″, Security and Defense account for 20% of the budget, Social Security is 20%, Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP are 21%. Since Social Security and Medicare are separately taxed, the funds received by the Federal Government should not be “lumped” in with the general budget, but should be held in protected escrow status in a separate fund to provide only for the programs under which the taxes are taxed. The rest of the budget, Defense, Medicaid, CHIP, Safety Net Programs, Federal Retirees and Veterans Benefits, Debt Interest, Education, Transportation & Infrastructure, Science & Medical Research, Non Security International spending, and “Other” are areas which need examination on an individual basis to determine budget cuts. In my opinion, Veterans Benefits should be separated and part of our Defense Budget. Veterans benefits and retirement pensions are definitely not in the same cut-able category as a typical civil service pension, or federal retiree pension. The whole idea of pensions for federal employees other than veterans needs to be revisited and blue penciled. Government Pensions for civil service and federal employees are not viable. Additionally, I feel the Department of Education has been in effect long enough to realize it’s detrimental effect on the overall education process of American Children. That 3% expense (ever expanding) needs to be “retired”, and education control and cost shifted back to individual states. I for one find the constant chant, “investing in our children” double speak. I am willing to make an investment for my children when I see a potential return on investment. The DOE does not/ has not provided ROI. We seem to be investing in programs, not children, not individuals. DOE has been in place 30 years and in that time we see despite all the talk, programs, and money spent, our children test out and perform below par. The DOE appears to have benefited the profession of teaching, but not the students for which it was supposedly put in place. Safety net programs should be addressed by individual states which each have their own issues and needs. It is my opinion that these programs should be available to US Citizens only. My family emigrated under a Sponsorship program in effect in this country. No one was allowed to enter the US without the money and means to be self-supporting, or a US Citizen Sponsor who agreed to provide support and living arrangements for the immigrant for 4 years from the date of arrival. I could go on and on, but realized this is not a blog, just a place to voice opinion, so I’ll end this by reiterating that defense and security of this country is a legitimate Federal Government expense, support of our Veterans and wounded war heros is our moral obligation and should be included as a part of the National Defense Budget, Social Security and Medicaid have their own taxes and were designed to be self supporting. Infrastructure and Transportation are critical to national security. Interest on the National Debt. is our obligation, and when re-negotiable we should look into that. All the rest should be weighed, measured, evaluated, waste eliminated, and the budgets cut to bare bones. If the budget and program are out of constitutional jurisdiction, we don’t “change the constitution” to achieve the agenda, we cut the program as it doesn’t align with nation’s goals and structure. Just my thoughts and I do appreciate yours.
Hi Jai, and thank you for your thoughtful response. It may be of interest to you that the current administration in the UK has taken a similarly drastic response to its deficit, if weighted differently as to priorities. As a response, I would point out that our higher education system is considered one of our most valuable assets as a country, and I would provide alternative cuts to that particular recommendation. Surely, any draconian cuts have room for debate as to which are most important. Thank you again for your opinion.
http://www.accountingnet.com/x46596.xml
“Social Security – The Biggest Accounting Fraud”
Hi Jai, Here’s the latest Trustees Report from SSA
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Ditto again, or shall I just say ‘agreed’ since a certain radio personality has an army of ditto heads?
Those last words of yours, Brightwood, “everyone is going to have to sacrifice,” is at the core of our problems. We’ve lost our willingness to compromise and sacrifice to realize a greater goal. Seems all I see and hear these days is a lotta moaning and bitching on all fronts, along with a consummate NIMBY attitude. I’m reminded that, as countries go, the USA is a teenaged nation. Socially, we’re a very self-focused, immature people. The Tea Partiers are feeling more and more socially disenfranchised by the culture at large, and want things “back the way they used to be” when white people called all the shots and placed high on the pecking order. To many of these people, they feel like the rug has been pulled out from under them by “the others,” and in a sense they’re correct. Our population and values have shifted in their lifetime, but this is nothing new.Change has, and will always be, the only constant. To a group of people who uphold the tenets of “social Darwinism,” they’re lousy adaptors themselves.
I particularly bristle at the “I want my Country back” line you hear from them. From who? The Tea Party started, officially, 32 days into the Obama administration. From any standpoint, that’s knee jerk and reactionary. They seemed to want “their’ Country back from people of mixed race, Black and Hispanics, which… people – they are going to be the majority in our lifetime! And really, are they bad people? Just not the wealthiest, as a whole…. yet. The only constant is change. Adapt, and with kindness towards our fellow (wo)man… and let’s see how that goes.
I really hate to break it to you, but that ‘knee-jerk’ reaction has probably been coming for a while (at least it was in my own mind) and the reason it started right after President Obama took office was very likely because we do ‘want our country back’ – back from a president who acts like Robin Hood, robbing the rich, middle class and anyone who pays taxes to give to, no, not necessarily the poor, but to the automotive industry, Goldman Sachs, China (yes, China), to dead people and to an African genital-washing program!
Yes, we want our country back from illegal immigrants. No problem with immigrants… major problem with illegal.
IMHO, anyone who brings up race in all of this has run out of real reasons to defend the administration.
TL ♥
Hi Thurman Lady, and thanks for your comment. If I understand your position correctly, you take issue with the $787 billion stimulus program (automotive industry, Goldman Sachs, etc.). Allow me to propose a counter-position. Currently all but about $50 billion has been repaid to the Treasury. One can ask, then, was that $50 billion investment in the economy worth it?
We have recent evidence of the outcome of lack of intervention in an economy where the financial system experienced a lack of liquidity in Japan in 1990′s. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/business/economy/13yen.html
Most economists agree that it was a lack of government stimulus that resulted in a ten year stagnant economy in Japan. So, the question is whether a $50 billion investment is a better alternative than a potentially stagnant US economy over a number of years.
US GDP is $14.591 trillion. Our net investment was $50 billion, or .3% of our annual domestic output. Most economists, myself included, feel that this was a reasonable action under the circumstances, when the probable alternative was a much deeper recession that would have damaged domestic output by a far greater amount.
I guess we’ll know the answer in about 10 years. I am not an economist. I basically understand that money was coming out of my pocket in order to go into someone elses. A modest amount is fine; government needs money for those things they are supposed to be doing. What it doesn’t need is a huge percentage of my money in order to redistribute it.
Simply put, and please let me know if I am wrong, I would like to be working and earning a paycheck. This paycheck would take care of my current needs and what is left over would be spent, putting money into the economy. Those businesses where I and others spend our money would then grow, make more money and then be able to hire more people who would do the same thing. Then more people would be working and, therefore, even at lower tax rates, more money would be going into the general welfare of our nation. ♥
You are most definitely not wrong. Your assessment, during most economic times, is absolutely accurate. The recent financial meltdown, however, was an extraordinary case. The economy was being fueled by borrowed money, primarily in the form of mortgages, that was given to people who did not have the resources to repay unless the housing market continued its unsustainable climb.
Because of those mortgages, or more specifically, securities containing those mortgages, the financial system froze. Without access to credit, businesses halted both production and hiring. The economy, were it not for immediate and significant injections of liquidity, would have, at best, fallen much deeper into recession, possibly Depression.
The Bush Administration was correct, in my view, to propose TARP, and Congress, to pass it on a bi-partisan level.
Yes, $50 billion is a lot to add to our national debt. But, many, including myself, believe, based on the recent similar situation in Japan, that we would have paid many times that amount in an extended recession by not intervening.
Hope that made sense. In any case, it’s always a pleasure discussing these issues with you.
ditto
Kitty, thanks for a great, informative blog. I loved how you broke down the budget percentages. What I don’t understand with Tea Party people is that most of them are marching against programs that benefit them! Many tea party people are 50, 60 and up. Balance the budget and cut or eliminate social security, medicare or medicaid? Extend the Bush tax cuts which largely favor the wealthy? If the wealthy pay fewer taxes, the middle class pays more. That is what has happened since Reagan started the tax cuts for the wealthy. What are they thinking?
Hi Azul, and thank you for your comment. Many who favor making permanent the Bush tax cuts do so because it is their opinion that this is the tax bracket that creates most small business jobs, the sector where most jobs are currently being created. However, IRS records show only 25% of this bracket having small business income, and therefore such targeting would be inefficient. Recent studies by the Kauffman Foundation http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/high-growth-firms-account-for-disproportionate-share-of-job-creation-according-to-kauffman-foundation-study.aspx show that new job creation occurs from new firms, and a more efficient targeted strategy may be toward two surprising sources: immigrants and universities.
My understanding of the ‘Tea Party’ is that it is not a ‘party’ but a movement. I doubt that any movements, early on in their process as the this one is, actually had a ‘blueprint’ for anything that the particular movement was working for. The movements had basic ideas and philosophies. I have not studied the Tea Party movement, so I won’t comment much further than to say that, in my opinion, the movement’s ideals most closely approaches those of libertarians.
I am the type of person who likes to deal with people one on one. Therefore, if I wanted to know more about the Tea Party movement, I would attend various meetings and meet the people and talk to them rather than rely on media reports and poll data. But that’s just me.
Hi Olga, and thanks for your comment. Poll data certainly does not replace participation. This information was provided in order that people get a better idea of the primary goals that have been expressed by persons identifying themselves as members of the Tea Party.
Thank you for your information. From what you have posted, I firmly believe the movement is heading in the right (should I say, correct?) direction, even if the blueprints aren’t there, yet. I am a firm believer in less government, keeping our freedoms and, dare I say, keeping more of our money.
I very much believe that lower taxes will help to create, or at least, maintain jobs and that fear of future taxing keeps many companies from expanding or, even, maintaining. We see our deficit going higher and higher, so we lower our business expectations, lay people off and cut costs because we know the money has to come from somewhere. It’s no different than those of us at home, when we see a bill that is going to cost us more, and we must pay it (like our electric bill) we know we have to cut something else out of our budget (like our TV).
While I don’t have any blueprints in my mind for some of these things either, I am a firm believer in something more like a flat tax or each paying a percentage of their income. If we each paid, to round it off, 10% of our wages then those of us earning $20,000 per year would pay the government our 10% and those who earn $2 million could pay their 10% as well.
I am also a firm believer in private companies doing jobs and competition, whether for auditing, cutting pollution or health care. That, generally, is what keeps our prices down. If we have one book store in an entire community, they can charge what they wish. However, if another bookstore opens across the street, with lower prices, which one will you shop at? If they get into a competition, we win!
Seems to me that our government wants to hold all the power, set all the pricing and rule. In that case, who truly wins?
Hi Thurman Lady, and thanks for your comment. Your idea of the “flat tax” is certainly one that deserves consideration. It has been raised before and defeated. Some raise the point that those living below poverty level need some consideration for a lower tax, but by enlarge, it does seem to make sense, doesn’t it?
If rough estimates of our current budget of $11.9 trillion is 40% social security/medicare/medicaid, 22% defense and national security, and the rest, education, commerce, state department, judicial, and other mandatory programs, I’m curious as to your recommendation where to cut our $1.35 trillion deficit. Would you be in favor of significant cuts to social security/medicare/medicaid?
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
I will say that I’m not against privatizing many government run programs. I think UPS and FedEx can do a better job than the US post office, who seem to keep losing money! Don’t get me wrong, here. The post office was set up in the Constitution – it’s just like so many government run businesses: not efficiently run.
I would be all for the idea of looking for government waste, inefficiency and duplication. Is there any reason an audit couldn’t be done by private companies?
Part of Section 8 of the US Constitution:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Common defense and general welfare. Much of what we have now is above and beyond that.
We were not meant to be a socialized country, although I will say that any cutting of programs that are socialistic in nature (such as Social Security and Medicare) needs to be done very slowly. Too many of us didn’t know enough about this in our younger days and now find ourselves in need of some of the services we grew up expecting.
Had I known in my 20s and 30s what I know now… I guess we can all say that, on a variety of different subjects.
Hi Thurman Lady. Your idea about waste in government is an idea that is often discussed. Unfortunately, as you look at the allotment of money in the budget, most economists agree that, even if we were to completely cut all wasteful spending, we would reduce the deficit by about 2%. Therefore, most look to the areas where spending is highest – entitlement programs (40%) and defense (22%) for cuts.
You make a good point about the speed of implementation, however. Immediately mandating a balanced budget would likely result in an inordinate number of older people, particularly women (who have twice the poverty rate as elderly men).
Thanks again for your thoughts.
I definitely do not want to see cuts in our national defense, unless, of course, waste is found. Our national defense is part of the Constitution and, frankly, I believe we need it.
I do believe, however, that entitlement programs should be scrutinized, not only for waste, but for whether or not they are causing an entire nation to feel entitled. Again, that is not to say just yank those things away. I am saying to slowly make changes that are necessary but only where they encourage the younger generation to save for retirement and those who are not working due to lack of desire, rather than lack of work, to support themselves. If they need help to get there, by all means I am not against that, whether it is job training or drug/alcohol rehab or whatever.
I guess I really prefer the simplistic, capitalistic approach to life and would prefer that the government does not regulate just about everything I do.
Your thoughts are shared by many. Entitlement programs definitely are not sustainable in their current form.
Thanks again for your opinions.
“Immediately mandating a balanced budget would likely result in an inordinate number of older people, particularly women (who have twice the poverty rate as elderly men).”
I don’t see how a balanced budget would result in increasing the populace number of older women. Please clarify.
Hi Jai, and thanks for your question. Balancing the budget immediately would, by my calculation, require some drastic fix to Social Security, which, with Medicare/Medicaid, accounts for 40% of the current budget. With elderly women having twice the poverty level of elderly men, coupled with the instances of Medicaid being primarily elderly women, these circumstances lead me to conclude as I did.
I hope this answers your question.
The Post Office is self-funded. And from your last paragraph, I deduce that you don’t want YOUR Social Security and Medicare cut but would like to cut only that of the future generations. Truly enlightening.
Interesting deduction. I guess I can say that since I grew up with this “entitlement” and didn’t understand it until fairly recently, I am now at a place in my life where, in a few years, it will be all I have – no pension, no 401k, no nothing. I truly wish that I knew back when I was young what I know now; I would have managed what little finances I had differently.
However, if young people knew what I now know, they would have better options and a better future, without depending on the government. If we don’t make changes, not only in ‘entitlements’ but in our national debt, our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren may not have any options at all.
We, who are now wiser, should help them get there instead of wanting to be taken care of by the government.
As far as the USPS, it only became self-funded in the 80s and is currently borrowing money from the US Treasury to pay it’s deficits.
TL ♥
Ignorance and recklessness are no excuses. You did not think of the future and now you want government protection while at the same time advocating for its elimination for others? You want cut-throat capitalism as long as it is not applied to you. Do you have children or grand-children? How do you look in their eyes every morning while trying to eviscerate their social safety nets? Should we also eliminate unemployment benefits? After all that is government redistributing wealth, isn’t it? Perhaps we cut all unemployment benefits except yours?
A nation without a social conscience is nothing but a horde of savages. I do not depend on Social Security or Medicare but the last expenditures I would propose to cut would be those.
I find it almost insulting when I see people receiving government benefits and at the same time advocating their elimination for others.
It should not be an excuse. But, if you’ve always grown up with something, that’s all you know – unless someone taught you something different. I did not learn much of what I understand now until fairly recently.
If my grandchildren were taught now that they would need to save for retirement, that there would be no other way for them to retire, it would make a big difference in their lives. And, yes, I could look them in the eyes and tell them that they are growing up to be wonderful, independent people who won’t need handouts from the government.
As far as UI is concerned, if we thought it necessary to have some kind of UI, it should be treated like any other independent insurance company.
SS was not set up as a pension fund nor a welfare fund. People receive it, whether needed or not, simply because they are now entitled to it by the virtue of having paid into it. If that were to be slowly eliminated and, possibly, turned into only serving the needy, it would make a huge difference in the economy of this country in the future.
I’m sorry you are insulted by my current state of neediness. Perhaps, if some of these changes that are advocated were put into practice, I could be working and not need any of these things. Believe me, I wish I wasn’t a contradiction. I detest being one. ♥
Hi Thurman Lady. Your situation is not uncommon. As I’ve mentioned previously, elderly women (not that you are one) live in twice the rate of poverty as elderly men. Also, Medicaid recipients are overwhelmingly elderly women. The situation is based in the fact that women, on average, spend 11 years outside the workforce as unpaid family caregivers, and often deplete both savings and medical insurance caring for their family members, leaving little for themselves.
Your story is instructive. The lessons others can learn from your story are valuable. Thanks for telling it.
Emmanuelle;
As a member of the Tea Party I have seen older people who are on social security and medicare, 2 government entities for which they paid in all their lives. But I have found more members who are my age, on the verge of qualifying for ss/medicare who know full that those huge enitlements who neccesarily be there for us and certainly not in the form they are now.
Are you aware that several reasons the U. S. Postal Service is losing money are 1) rates are approved by Congress at a level so low UPS and Fed Ex ship by the postal service; 2) the postal service is required to fund its pensions at a rate higher than private industry; and 3) the postal service is required to deliver to every American resident on any day, no cherry picking that delivery to those areas is not cost effective. I am not a postal employee, i am an attorney. I just get so tired of the postal service example of why private industry is better. I have lived overseas. We have a great postal service. And again, if private industry does it better, why do UPS & Fed Ex have contract with the post office to deliver for them? Private industry does what it wants and can do cheaply. I believe that everyone is entitled (yes i said entitled) to equal access to some things and that private industry shouldn’t get to decide that some folks are not entitled to basic services because its not cost effective. I am willing to discuss what are the services to which citizens should be entitled. As a society I think we have decided those things are a high school education, roads, mail service, civil defense and a basic safety net. I have paid taxes for for 40 years to support those things. I am strongly in favor of making delivery of services more efficient – that is why I supported (and still do) single payer medical insurance. No more fighting over which insurance should pay, either its covered & your insurance pays or its not and you are free to buy the service for yourself. You see socialistic - I see basic safety net working hand in hand with the free market. Those are opinions. The superiority of the postal service to UPS and FEd Ex is a fact supported by UPS and Fed Ex’s own contractual actions.
Melissa, you obviously know more about the subject than I do. I will no longer use that example, as I’ve learned in the last 25 years not to argue with an attorney. ♥
Hi Thurmanlady….
I do appreciate all that you have to say, and I’m on board with many of your opinions and comments.
RE:
“I will say that any cutting of programs that are socialistic in nature (such as Social Security and Medicare) needs to be done very slowly.”
I just want to add…
I (we) have paid into these programs for almost 40 years. The idea that I will not see a ROI, due to misappropriation of the funds, and that I really consider federal embezzlement, just sickens me. How many of us have payroll taxes witheld that state FICA/ Medicare? Or, “self-employment” tax where we pay both employee and employer portion? Regardless of whether or not someone scraps Social Security and Medicare, those taxes are still going to come out….they will be the same taxes under another name.
Hi Jai. I’ve provided a projection of internal rates of return under the current social security program provided by the Social Security Administration prepared by the Office of the Chief Actuary, Baltimore, MD, for your perusal. I hope this adds to your understanding of this issue.
Oops! Here’s the link
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/ran5/an2004-5.html
Kitty, as you have correctly pointed out before, most of the burden we’re bearing is the bill for social security/medicare/medicaid. It doesn’t take complex analysis to identify this, yet it is rarely discussed because it is a sacred cow that nobody wants to slaughter. Perhaps we’ve painted ourselves into a corner with this expensive social safety net, and now we’re trapped? Who would be willing to throw our weakest out in the cold to save our asses? It’s just not in our cultural wiring.
Hi Smart-mounth, and thanks for your opinion. It appears that the specific part of entitlements that are growing most alarmingly is Medicare/Medicaid. Some feel that, since the government is responsible for these payments, it was the government’s job to try to get cost control started, hence the recently enacted health care legislation. Left unaddressed, this is the part of the deficit that will likely put the US in the most difficult debt situation.
Thanks again for your thoughts. It is indeed a “sacred cow,” and won’t be easy to address, will it?
It seems to me that everyone likes low taxes but still wants their benefits, social security and Medicare, which are a huge share of the federal government…that and defense. Many people want to receive as much as they can get, and give as little as they can get away with. That is the read I get from most of the Tea Party talk.
The very idea of privatizing social security…that gives me the willies. I will consider that the biggest heist in history should it go through, which I believe Rand Paul and several other Tea Party darlings have proposed. (Up until now, I think the Wall Street bank and insurance bail outs were the biggest heists in history.)
Thanks for your opinion, Martha Maria. Until some plan showing what parts of the budget are proposed to be cut, it is difficult to weigh in on the feasibility of achieving the goals widely stated by the Tea Party.
Many share your reticense to privatize Social Security, particularly with the recent behavior of the financial markets. Would your opinion of priviatization for younger workers be similar to that for yourself.
Thanks again for your opinion.
I am against privatization of MOST things that government does and USED to do. The privatization of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the no bid contracts, the sweetheart deals with the Halliburtons, the Blackwaters, Bechtel, etc….how’s that worked out?
Capitalists are not in business for the consumer (which citizens are when they employ private corporations) but rather for the stock holders. They will chisel away at services for bigger profits every time.
After my long winded answer, the short answer is, yes, I am opposed to privatization of social security for all workers, of ANY age.
Martha Maria, well said. I couldn’t have said it better;).
Muchas gracias.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, Martha Maria. I appreciate and respect your opinion, and with your permission, would like to present an alternative point of view. Economic growth, as defined by a rising standard of living for the clear majority of citizens, has been shown to result in greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity, social mobility, commitment to fairness and dedication to democracy. I would reference the studies of Benjamin M. Friedman in this regard.
It is for that reason, and in dedication to those principals, that I describe myself as a “bleeding heart capitalist.”
Thanks again for your opinion, and taking the time to engage in meaningful discourse on this subject.
Thanks for YOUR response, Kitty. I will point out, however, that our rising standard of living has been financed by borrowed money…both on the individual and the governmental levels. La dolce vita is a house of cards and the walls will come tumbling down, inevitably.
I would also point out that 25 percent of total wealth in this country is owned by 1 percent of the population. And how many of our citizens are ‘working poor?” In my state of Tennessee, one in four children lives in poverty.
And frankly, I don’t define real wealth by the accumulation of digital electronics or plastic junk made overseas in some third world country. I define it as a sense of stability, and most importantly, time to enjoy family, friends and the pursuit of some happiness in life. I would suggest that we have LESS time for those pursuits than past generations. Nearly all mothers now must work outside of the home, putting children in day care, just to make ends meet. I wonder what no time for children will mean to future generations. And there is a wide spread fear and a sense of precariousness to life. The only safety net left for most workers nowadays, in terms of retirement, IS social security. Pensions are things of the past (with the exception of those who are grandfathered in to old plans or are government workers.) Most Americans who are currently in the work force are no more than one or two paychecks away from disaster.
I believe in the old concept of the commonwealth. There are some basic things, in my opinion, which are necessary for all persons in a society. I believe those resources should be owned and managed for the good of the commonwealth. Many people have a knee jerk reaction to the word ‘socialism’ because of associations with the old Soviet Socialist Republic. But the concept of resources being managed for the common wealth of all citizens is an old idea which should, in my opinion, be revisited.
And so, viva la diference! I’m supposing that’s why our form of government is based on compromise. Let us take the best ideas from capitalism and common ownership and management and invent something new, fair and workable for the new century.
E pluribus unum, Martha Maria. Thank you for your valuable insights.
I guess the good of the commonwealth is where we may disagree, if I understand you correctly. I think the story of Robin Hood was a nice story, but I wouldn’t want to live it at either end. If I were a rich lady, I would feel I’ve worked for it and deserve to keep it. If I were a poor lady (wait! I am!!) I don’t want to have someone just take care of me. I am very much a capitalist and an independent woman. I will, hopefully as soon as I find a job, support myself!
And, as I mentioned above, the “general welfare” of our nation is important to me (along with our defense). I am merely saying that the general welfare has gone way too far. That’s what I refer to when I use the word “socialism”.
Well said. While I strongly believe in personal responsibility, I also believe we have a communal responsibility as well.
This is one of the best conversations about the Tea Party movement I’ve ever heard. I do so appreciate all of your comments, opinions and suggestions. It seems that mature women still hold the ability for discourse, which I have found sadly lacking in the media.
Thank you all. I learn so much from all your insights.
I soo agree with you Kitty, about this conversation…I just “found this post” though it was written several weeks ago. I do not have much to add to those who have replied. Except that, I agree with who ever commented about seeing the Tea Party first hand before judging it “good” or “bad”…..like much in politics, it is easy to sit in our homes and criticize something we have only seen on tv. or read about, and not actually experienced for yourself…..I also love when we can calmly discuss any topic with civility. Ya , us!=]
I totally understand when you talk about the commonwealth. The problem I see, is when it comes to the decision making. The biggest question is: WHO gets to decide what ’best’ for the commonwealth and why? I for one, abhor the thought of someone deciding for me, nor am I narcissistic enough presume that I know what is best for someone else.
As for socialism, there are more recent examples than the Soviet Union to show us the downfalls of such a system. Examples include the downfall of the economies of ‘social’ democracies such as Greece and the economic troubles of Europe in general. There is no perfect system, but, having lived under oppressive government, I will always opt for a system that values individual freedom above all else. Issues can be resolved without overhauling an entire system.
IMHO, our problems today are not the result of the system, but of those that abuse it. So, we should go after the abusers and not make the rest of us suffer for their actions (e.g. bailouts, for one).
Well stated, Olga. Do I remember that you are from a communist country? Thanks again for your thoughts.
You remember correctly, Kitty. I am originally from Cuba.
And, interestingly enough, Cuba is now turning to free market principles. This week 500,000 government workers were laid off (because the gov’t can no longer maintain them) and the government is now granting licenses for small businesses, albeit under tight gov’t scrutiny.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/article/cubas-leaders-lay-out-details-for/1268508/
Bringing Cuba into this discussion is very interesting. Cuba and China, even more dramatically, are moving toward loosening governmental control of the workings of their economies. Meanwhile, here in the US it feels to me that government is growing in influence and power over our economy, most notably with the arm twisting for Obamacare and the appearance of “crony capitalism” in the bailout and the banking regulation schemes. This has created much concern and fear, and this is the heart of the Tea Party movement, not the ideology of less government, etc. Need I add that be it rumor or bias, Obama’s refusal to bring forth his long form birth certificate makes for more free floating anxiety,a growing rumbling in the electorate — who is running our country anyway? Perhaps, the Tea Party movement is at long last the harbinger of change for our electoral habits. We will see in the coming elections what muscle it truly has and whether it can upend the party politics as usual that favors the beltway politicos and the career bureaucrats.
Thanks for your opinion, RM. Out of curiosity, if you saw Obama’s birth cirtificate, would any of your opinions about other issues change?
Kitty — Free floating anxiety with our political leaders was my point. But, with all the themes and topics I alluded to in my comment — from China’s economy to healthcare reform — isn’t it interesting that you honed in on the elephant in the room, something I added more as color than commentary. But it is the stuff of high drama, after all. Obama’s birth certificate is locked away in an Hawaiian vault. None but the high priestess of official documents dare set eyes on it. Indiana Jones where are you? Seems nuts to me that we even should have a shadow of a doubt. Aren’t we supposed to be in the post-FOIL era with Transparency as our watchword? It’s scary because we can’t help wondering if it could be true — just maybe — that the Emperor has no clothes even though no one seems to have noticed.
Thanks for your comment, RM. You made how you see the relationship with this two seemingly unrelated things more clear to me with that explanation.
I have very little to add here, most has been said. However, I do want to say that as we evolve as a society I see no reason why we would limit our forms of government to either/or. Capitalism, which is controlled by sane regulation, with a bit of Socialism thrown in to create a livable society for the vast majority as opposed to the few, sounds like the next step up the rung of civilization to me.
RMBORK, when people still talk about President Obama’s birth certificate and question whether he was born in the US they are by default saying that they think all the candidates who ran against President Obama are stupid. Don’t you think that Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton and Biden would have all pounced on this if there was an ounce of truth in it?
Kitty,
I read with interest your post and many of the comments made in response to it. I would like to express why I and many other African Americans “Do Not Drink the Tea Party!”
First of all, we are very leery of a movement who say they want America to return to the way it was, particularly when their voices just happen to surface shortly after the first African American President of the United States took office. What we want to know is how far back do you want to take America?
Unfortunately, when the states had control, many laws did not include African Americans or even women. It is still difficult to envision that blacks, particularly in the south, did not even have the right to vote until 1965 when the government many of you talk about stepped in and made it a law that has to be revisited every 25 years. It still makes me sick to think about it.
Growing up, we had food on my table, clothes to wear, a warm comfortable home and a good education because both of my parents had government jobs. As a matter of fact, they both worked for the US Postal Service. While I am not in agreement with everything the government does and surely some spending can be cut, I dislike more the corporations who through the quest for power and greed have outsourced jobs overseas for cheap labor and now we sit in American unemployed and blaming it on the Obama administration. If the tea party wants to go back to values, they should protest the corporations who virtually have shredded our economy to the point that we can never get back the jobs that we so desperately need to survive.
Another problem Africans Americans have with the tea party is the lack of diversity. Although many of the members may mean well, it is difficult to support the tea party when all you see is a sea of whites faces, some of them are angry and many carry hate signs.
Kitty expressed what some of the agenda or blueprint is for the tea party, but there was nothing to say how it would be accomplished. As a movement, tea party members appear to be compassionate about their cause and I certainly respect that, but running the country is a bit scary because it is difficult to imagine their agenda benefiting all people.
I guess if you have never been in a position where you needed the benefits of Medicare or other programs that support many disadvantaged people, or if your grandparents always had the opportunity to vote and your children went to schools where they had adequate books and updated classrooms, or maybe you had all the money you needed to attend college without any assistance, it is difficult to understand the need for some government regulations. However, every time I take my ailing 81 year old dad to the doctor, emergency room or rehabilitation, I am grateful for the Medicare supplement. Without it, even with medical insurance, paying the excessive medical expense would almost certainly reduce our lifestyle to homeless.
Sorry ladies, I just can’t drink the “Tea Party.”
Hi Sheila, and thanks for your comment. I feel that this is one of the most issue-oriented and respectful discussions I’ve heard on this subject, and every contributor. you included, has given me a wider perspective and understanding about its basis and its supporters. Thanks for your thoughts.
Ok; as a Tea Party member let me take a crack at your post. First and foremost there is a healthy aspect to being skeptical about the goverment.
For instance; limiting the power of government to make decisions for us and intrude in areas best left to the private sector.
If you like the way the government handled Viet Nam, Watergate; the Iran hostage sitiuation in the late 80′s, Iran Contra, Ruby Ridge, Waco, 9/11, Katrina, BP oil spill, federal elections, the IRS, Congress, the healthcare bill and juset the general cumbersome bureaucracy then you don’t understand the Tea Party.
The encroachment of Federal goverment in our lives is the main thing that unites the Tea Party. I am not adverse to government in general; the real power should lie with local gov.; the founders and framers of our constitution intended that. But as Geo. Washington said government is like a fire, it has to be contained.
I am 55 y/o and I know what is going to be required of me to keep this country afloat. I will be working until I am at least 68y/o; I am an RN, so I have started to make better health choices (independent of the
USA gov) to ensure that I can do that and still maintain a quality life. I am prepared for the a Era of Austerity that roaring toward us. If we all cooperate then the choices this coming Austerity will demand will lead us to implement personal choice decisions that will make our society and country “greener and more sustainable” without the inefficiencies of government.
I don’t know of anyone my age (on the precipice of senior citizenship) that does not accept the fact that we will be making some very uncomfortable choices in the future so we can try to correct the ones we made in the paswt.
As for a balanced budget; it doesn’t have to happen in one 12 month fiscal year. If we can cut the budget 5-10% every year, we could pay the deficit down significantly over a period of time. One way to cut the cost of government is to stop hiring people; while the private sector has lost jobs the government has expanded it’s payroll. Stop hiring so many people; don’t fire at this time just reduce staffs by attrition.
You talk about incentives given by the government to the private sector to implement cap and trade strategies; why not give inccentives to gov. workers for practical and doable ideas to trim their departments budgets. And lets be a careful about pork projects, while the overall cost of pork does not rival the costs of the unfunded entitlements starinbg at us, in the LEAN system, every little bit counts. Asw a matter of fact, bit by bit is how we all reduce our budgets and service our appropriately.
For social security and medicare; those of us int middle and end of the baby boom may have to accept higher retirement age and means testing.
There are many plans that DO enumerate a new tax system concisely. Neal Boortz and former Gov Huckaby both have detailed plans for streamlining our tax code.
If we rise to the challenge that the New Austerity will propose, we have the chance to become the healthier, leaner, more productive, peaceful and in all likelyhood happier people the federal gov “wants us to be”; we will just do it willingly, of our own choice.
The New Austerity will demand that we make our choices locally; that we don’t indulge our every whim immediately, that we save and not charge; that we do reuse and recycle without being bullied by some gov. agency, that we give help and accept it likewise. That it truly does take a village; just not one that is gov. sponsored.
Our lives will be richer and because we made the choices independently those choices will become the New Traqdition.
“The New Austerity will demand that we make our choices locally”
Viargo,
Your post was very informative and I certainly appreciate your comments.
So each state will make their own rules under the tea party agenda. Hmmm, demanding that the choices be made locally seems a lot like “big government.” How does the tea party propose to get people to do these willingly or of their own choice? I have never seen the government demanding people eat right, to cut back on spending or save more. This is an individual decision that people make at their own will. As for the jobs everyone keeps talking about, exactly where are they coming from? Companies cannot produce jobs because the are all in China, India and other countries who have benefited from outsourcing of corporate America. As Kitty posted earlier, ”According to the Office of Personnel Management excluding Postal Workers, government employees were 1940 700,000, 1950 1.44 million, 1960 1.81 million, 1970 2.20 million, 1980 2.16 million, 1990 2.25 million, 2000 1.78 million, and 2009 2.10 million. The US population in 1960 was 179,232,000 and in 2010 is 579,954,000. So, the growth in government workers since 1960 is 16% and the population growth is 324%, or 16% more workers are serving 324% more citizens.”
If these are true facts, then the growth rate of the government is a lot lower than private sector. I like the idea of being responsible for your own destiny, I just hate that local governments did very little to reduce housing discrimination, inferior education, voting rights and civil rights.
Hi Sheila,
Here is the cite for growth in government employees
http://wiredworkplace.nextgov.com/2010/09/too_many_federal_workers.php
Here is the cite for growth in US population
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-population-of-the-us-throughout-its-history.htm
Onesheila;
As a libertarian, I appreciate your input but I amj not sure about your objection to local governments being “big government”; I feel I have a very small input in our federal government at this. I vote, I call the Senator and Reps that “representme” in Congress but they don’t seem to be listening. I join groups that do advocate for my interest but until the
Tea Party movement, no one seemed to listen. But Local government would be more accountable to the voters. We could go to City Council meetings, we could talk to those that rep. us and we culd give our input more easily and they would answer to us when they start “misbehaving.”
As far as government workers serving our interests; well, I wish to demurr that service as it usually isn’t user friendly (with, of course exceptions) and I don’t think that governments workers think they are in the service industry”.
And of course there is the idea that 16% percent of the population would even be working for the fed. government.As for civil rights, inferior housing and your other concerns, why should local gov. do anything when the fed. government intervenes?
And as far as that is a concern do you think the fed. government is very successful in eradicating those issues?
Hi Onesheila. If I may, I’d like to point out that the 16% to which you refer is a growth in government workers since 1960, not a percentage of the population that is working for the government. I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
Thank you for the clarification.
Hi Virago!
Thank you for your comments. I must commend Kitty for the original post. It allowed us to speak of each other’s differences and viewpoints in a interested and civil format. I believe that local government can be beneficial in some instances. Many of the points I made about civil rights, inferior education and housing was once in the hands of local government to decide. Unfortunately, the decisions did not work for all the people. I think it is nice to look back at the way things used to be, but not realistic in this day and age. We need to be more engaged in the changing times. America is different, the world is different and going back to local government on some of the key issues that I am concerned about will not make the world or even our local communities a better place.
I certainly understand your points and have listened to many of the voices in the postings. Often, we are so busy listening to ourselves, it is difficult to hear what others have to say. In answer to your last question regarding the federal government’s success in eradicating issues, I believe there is much room for improvement. In order to change, we have to unlock some of our locked positions and allow change to take place. By holding on, we will destroy what we hope to preserve. I think the world has changed too much for local governments to successfully exercise complete control of their states (i.e. Arizona’s immigration law). Mexican immigrants were allowed for years and years to walk across the borders of states like Arizona, Texas and California and local governments did nothing (or very little) to control it. Now that it is a state of emergency, Arizona wants to enforce a “driving while Brown law.” These are the kind of laws that make me fear local government control.
We don’t have to release our beliefs, but we must be able to become more informed about what others believe. Most important is we understand that regardless of our beliefs, we all have to work this out together, because divided we all fall.
E pluribus unum, Sheila.
Thanks for you opinions, Virago. It sounds like you’d like to cut earmarks from bills in Congress. I think that’s a great idea!
Yes; when it comes to cutting the budget; EVERYTHING is on the table. And even though defense of our nation is objective actually endorsed in the constitution, there budget is riddled with graft, greed and theft. This saddens me because I love the military, but the corrupt budget manuevers go on at the Pentagon and Congress not with by o9ur Troops.
This New Austerity may make us reconsider our role in the world when it comes to intervening in throughout the world.
Thanks for your insights, Virago.
Seeing as the “New Tea Party” cannot get along within its ranks and cannot seem to give a blueprint for solving all of our Country’s problems….I am somewhat annoyed by their out-crys. So far all I have seen and heard are a few spokespersons from the Tea Party who seem to make all sorts of noise about issues, but cannot give any solid backing as to what can be done. – And remember we had 8 years with the former administration that put us in the situation we are now facing. Rather than shout about it; come up with some concrete solutions. And anyone who compares the New Tea Party with the Boston Tea Party is way off base. Those folks in Boston were fighting for their Freedom from another country. We have our freedom and should be proud and thankful to those persons who came before us. There are always going to be Tea Parties; does not mean they are authoritive. Many just like to get people upset about certain issues, whether they may be local or national. Problem is that sometimes what these tea parties dish out is half truths in many cases and what upsets me is that the persons listening to what is being conveyed do not research the facts; just take what is told to them and they take it as gospel. Just goes to prove how lazy some folks are. These same people do not go out and Vote when they should; instead they only vote when handed bad information. We are a nation of citizens who should have a 100% turnout for any and all elections, but we do not even come close.
Nettie
I appreciate your comments but I feerl you may be getting some misunformation about the Tea Party advocates. There have been many solutions offered by members if the Tea Party and the candidates they support.
Remember, the Tea Party was an “organic” response to some of the actions of the US Congress.
These were not people who were policy wonks; they are “regular” citizens but we are educating ourselves so that when we vote (and most of us fall in the category of “most likely to vote) we can make the best choice possible.
The Tea Party, a loosely woven organization made up of many different groups are actually a diverse and lively enterprise. Hoping to change America is not an endeavor for only one group of people.
For years I voted exclusively democrat and liberal but I started inquiring and investigating which led me to change SOME of my views. I do not, nor will ever again, vote exclusively one party or political slant. There a fine people across the spectrum.
Generally, I have found most people sincerely want what is best for our country, we just don’t always agree on what is best!!
Thank you for your comment; open, civil and polite debate is a part of our great free speech tradition as stipulated in our Bill of Rights. The most important bill to pay; which we do my voting, and I agree we should have a 100% turnout to vote!
“And anyone who compares the New Tea Party with the Boston Tea Party is way off base. Those folks in Boston were fighting for their Freedom from another country. We have our freedom and should be proud and thankful to those persons who came before us.”
The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was the (English) colonists’ protest against taxes without representation in Parliment. The king gave the right to implement a tax on tea to the East India trading company which angered the colonists because they couldn’t get tea from anywhere else. Because of this, the colonists dressed up as Native Americans and dumped tea into the Boston Harbor.
If you will note, the year it happened is before the revolutionary war began. The Tea Partiers were English Colonists who wanted freedom from English rule, but were not yet free. Therefore they were protesting against their own countries polices, in much the same way the current “Tea Party Movement” is protesting our own countries policies. The revolution was fomenting.
The original Boston Tea Party was a precursor to the revolutionary war in which the individual colonies banded together as the original 13 states or colonies and went to war against their own country (England), and fought for the freedom to become an independent country, The Americas.
The Boston Tea Party was specifically about Taxation Without Representation.
The new Tea Party has comparable issues. Taxation without representation often being loudly discussed, however the current Tea Party Movement is also about taking the “steering wheel” so to speak out of the hands of the people that are rapidly driving this country off the course of a government ruled by THE CONSTITUTION.
Take note that the current “Tea Party Movement” is mainly comprised of normal everyday citizens of this country who are exercising fundamental CONSTITUTIONAL rights given to every citizen of this country in gathering and peacefully requesting attention to their message. What is their message? Essentially in the nutshell it is putting every politician on notice that this country is not ruled by the President, nor by the Politicians. It is ruled by our Constitution, by the people, for the people, of the people.
The Tea Party Movement is protesting taxation without representation. They see the tax burden the current party has placed on our grandchildren through the “stimulus bill” and though they didn’t want it, they feel their voices were unheard. The Tea Party Movement is protesting the political practice of slowly re-writing and re-interpreting the Constitution, appointing Supreme Court Justices that don’t believe in the principals put forth by the Founding Fathers of this country, re-writing History, re-programming the populace (your children) through the Public School System. This began loosely organized, grass roots, as you and your neighbors starting to wonder “what the hell is happening to
They are protesting the unprecedented change in the last two years in which the party in power had the audacity to tell the voters (the People) through Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “We have to pass the Health Care Bill before you can find out what’s in it”. The current Tea Party Movement is protesting the Obama Administration’s use of unbridled absolute power to ram a Bill into LAW using any means, lawful or unlawful, regardless of the will of the majority of the people…the citizens. They are protesting what appears to be a Federal Power Grap which usurps and over-runs the rights of individual States. The States granted power to the Federal Government, not the other way around.
The Tea Party Movement is normal citizens who still remember we have a constitution, and want it back protecting them, protecting their rights and privileges, protecting this country. When they say they want their country back, they still remember that there was a time not too long ago that we were taught in history…ABSOLUTE POWER BREEDS CORRUPTION, that we were taught about our Constitution and how it protects every citizen, that we were taught citizenship, to vote, and that this country is a Democratic Republic. They remember historical facts that are no longer taught in our public schools or have been re-written/ re-presented to reflect the political idology of their teacher’s agenda, or the agenda of the political party attempting to gain power.
They see this country as a Train that’s jumped it’s tracks so to speak and is suddenly heading in the wrong direction, a direction they don’t want to go. They want back a Constitutionally controlled government, ruled by the people, for the people, of the people.
You left off interest paid on the debt which in 2009 was just over $202 Billion of what the government spent. Then there is the unfunded cost for promised Federal workers retirment and future FDIC needs.
What I find most interesting about the tea party folks is that most of them are already on the government healthcare and retirement plans now. I wonder how much they want to cut from their checks. SS was $644 Billion and medicare/aide was $632. If you don’t cut those you have not done anything. I predict nothing will change until there is a default by our bankrupt government. Or at least a default by inflation like in the 1970s.
Hi idosew. The “inflation” vs “deflation” argument is certainly well under way in financial markets now. As evidenced by conversations above, it’s clear that some significant changes are necessary for the “transfer payments” made by the Federal government.
What is also of interest to me is that the amount of interest paid on the national debt is nearly the same as the amount allocated to education.
It raises the question of where our priorities lie, no?
A poor education system is a form of thought control. The more uninformed, uneducated we become equals leading us to where a small group wants is easy. Many find belief in anything provable or not is good. But then most of us read and connect with whatever furthers our current belief.
As to deflation we have only to watch Japan to see why that is not what we want. I also remember the 70s well. As a saver I really don’t want inflation. Having led my life free of debt I would feel I should have just spent it when it would buy more. Small amounts of inflation is handled but not the kind that needed to reduce the debt burden the government has.
Eloquently said, idosew.