Having picked up my latest copy of “The Inlander,” I saw the latest Robert Herold editorial and further, an “Inlander” report on the “TEA Party” themselves. First, Herold goes to great lengths to discuss the “Red Staters” and their greater use of tax payers’ dollars than anyone out of the blue states (where in fact they are most predominately Democrat). Which really wouldn’t surprise me. “Smaller government” and eliminating “socialism,” only applies to that other guy, not to me. Robert Herold, “Red State Welfare,” “The Pacific Northwest Inlander,” October 21 — 27, 2010.
In the “Weak Tea” article written by Nicholas Deshais, he starts off making comparisons with the current “TEA Party” movement with that of the Boston Tea Party (that literally was the first shot across the British bow of the American Revolution) and finds that the current “version” of same is pretty much a contrivance. Well, for anyone who actually has a modicum of intelligence, yes. Such people would have figured that out already. He compares the current “version” with an (old) left “TEA Party” that had their own ideas about taxes. He also took note that at least in Washington state, those candidates for public office much favored by the “TEA Party,” did not get on the November ticket.
At least Washington state demonstrates a bit more intelligence than did Delaware where “I am not a witch” Christine O’Donnell is ignorant of history, wouldn’t understand the clear meaning of the founders’ intent when it came to the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, wouldn’t understand that her objections to Social Security are merely a hand off from the previous GW administration. To basically carry on the same thing that GW tried to do and failed because of the opposition then by the American people. Which would certainly argue that the “TEA Party” is without question the hold over cult of personality from the GW era. But, I fail to see what is so “libertarian” about them. Refer to Herold’s editorial.
But what is even more disturbing, is that the “TEA Party” is itself absolutely ignorant of current events. More than two years ago, Lou Dobbs, then of CNN; led the charge on the need for health care reform. Of what, quite rightly, the high cost of health care was doing to this country especially as to its Gross National Product. Obama then took up Dobbs’ advocacy, campaigned on it, became the president primarily because of it, and was able to get legislation passed because of the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the way things were before the November 2008 election. Were members of the not yet formed “TEA Party”movement in any of Dobbs’ audiences? They undoubtedly were. Did they face the threat of bankruptcy because of a gargantuan medical debt? They very well could have. But when they start pushing for candidates to repeal the legislation designed primarily for their own benefit; that is literally watching what sure looks like a bunch of idiots intent on blowing off their own feet on a collective level. A literally repeat of “What’s the Matter with Kansas” all over again. The author of this article in “The Inlander,” is correct that the “TEA Party” would like to erase Obama’s 2008 election win. What is more telling, is what they would do to themselves and their neighbors should they succeed.
Yes, I do have a lot of criticism of the “TEA Party.” There is a good reason. The financial regulations that “The Inlander” article states the “TEA Party” would like to see repealed are only those financial regulations that banks such as Capital One seem intent on violating. Refer back to my discussions of typical [in my case] billing statements by Capital One Bank. Those two described billing statements and the bank’s own better than four year history of predatory lending—if those regulations were repealed, the bank (and others like them) could not be held accountable for wrongful actions. If you think those billing statements look like nightmares now, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thus, banks such as Capital One would look to the “TEA Party” to eliminate the consumer recourse to the law that protects them from the unethical and truly greedy practices by various financial institutions. Not that the “TEA Party” or politicians such as Sarah Palin would ever care to admit to it of course.
But let’s put it bluntly, “Real America” as Herold noted, got a lot of federal handouts. That includes Palin’s Alaska. But, it doesn’t stop people like Palin, O’Donnell, or people holding signs that say “No Pubic Option” from ranting, stomping their feet, portraying Obama as “Hitler;” and demonstrating all over again that compassion is not a moral value they are prepared to consider. You don’t have to be an (old) lefty to realize this. However, if they are for “smaller government” (Herold), then their “red state” subsidies (inclusive of Palin’s Alaska) only makes them out to be utter hypocrites.
We won’t see a “smaller government” come about by the removal of financial regulations. What we do see, is a very large government that acquiesces to the demands of Wall Street (inclusive of financial institutions) against the interests of the electorate. But then again, who among the “TEA Party” would be honest enough to admit it? Arguing that there can be no seperation between church and state because “the words” are found no where in the U.S. Constitution, is also an argument for an over-arching government that is granted the opportunity to tell you how to worship and what to believe. Certainly, if Ms. O’Donnell” is granted an opportunity to go to Washington, D.C. as a member of Congress, she’d indeed try to do that. Really! The “TEA Party” says that it wants “smaller government,” then acts contrary to its stated claims.
Mr. Deshais does make one major mistake when it comes to his quite chilling depiction of this extremist (but hardly conservative or “right wing”) movement, is the word “probably.” Used in context of the “TEA Party” would probably get involved with the Republican party. Huh, they are Republican party base whom the GOP have always counted on to help them win elections. Today they call themselves the “TEA Party.” But their ideas, planks, and general politics are no different from anything coming out of the GOP political philosophy stretching back as far as the Reagan Revolution. That includes the Reagan Democrats. What the “TEA Party” has done has pushed the GOP ideology to the radicalized limit and not concerned themselves with as Deshais was to note, a certain degree of irony in what they were doing and further the symbols they wish to use.
So, they want to cut taxes. The cutting of taxes is yet another expenditure and general subsidy. It is also proof of the ultimate free lunch. Yet, irony of ironies, the “TEA Party” will rant about the sort of “high deficits” (blamed on pols such as Senator Patty Murray or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) that tax cuts would only substantially increase. If agreed, that the “TEA Party” shouldn’t want a burden of debt to foist on their grandchildren or digging a deep hole that represents this nation’s national deficit in the trillions of dollars, then why demand creating a worse situation with tax cuts? The proof of their failure to think.
There are times when you can indeed thank “The Inlander” for articles of this sort. But I have no use as a conservative for new leftist extremists of this sort. I can not reiterate it enough.