Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Where are the Adults?
The leaders of the Republican Party, in full flight from their disastrous and juvenile shutdown stunt, now want to restock their ranks with grown-ups. “Let’s face it: it was not a good maneuver,” Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah told The New York Times recently. “You’ve got to have the adults running the thing.”
Mr. Hatch and other establishment senators believe that grown-ups would not threaten the country’s full faith and credit, or keep the government closed, in order to get their way. That’s true, but it’s a rather pallid definition of maturity. A mature and responsible political party would do more than prevent a government default; it would offer serious solutions to the nation’s most pressing problems instead of running from them.
And it is there that Republicans – whether adults or Tea Party members – continue to let the public down.
At a time when the economy is desperate for federal help and 11.3 million people are still unemployed, the party – and not just its far-right wing – is still pretending that cutting spending and lowering the deficit remain the country’s most urgent priorities. Republicans won’t acknowledge that tax increases, along with spending cuts they have forced on the country, have already driven the deficit down to 4 percent of the economy, from 10 percent in 2009. Their appetite for billions in further cuts has only grown.
This will become obvious next week when the budget committees of the House and Senate gather for their first conference on the budget for fiscal year 2014, which began more than three weeks ago. (Republicans had refused the repeated requests of Democrats for a negotiation since April.) The conference is a moment to finally set aside the sequester cuts that have hobbled the economy and begin needed investments in education and infrastructure, rebuilding cities and the lives of those left behind.
But Republicans won’t hear of it.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking member of the budget panel, says that keeping the current spending caps is a bedrock principle. Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, supposedly an anti-shutdown “adult,” wants to use the conference to cut social-welfare entitlements and give corporations more tax cuts. “We have to make a down payment on the debt and deficit,” he told Congressional Quarterly. That down payment has already been made, many times over – and Democrats have vowed not to even consider entitlement changes in the absence of big tax increases on the rich.
What ails the economy now is not corporate taxes but the iron lid on spending, clamped tight for two years.
The Republicans’ obsession with deficits is already taking a huge toll on the poor, who have seen cutbacks in vital programs, and could well see more if the Republicans have their way. Next week, for instance, a House-Senate conference on the farm bill will consider a proposal from allegedly “grown-up” House Republicans that would cut $39 billion from food stamps, which would push three million people off the program a year. Democrats will be so busy fighting off that proposal that they will have a hard time reversing the scheduled cut for all food stamp recipients that begins in November.
Senator Lamar Alexander says his party needs to persuade the public that it can be trusted with government. To do so, Republicans will have to do much more than simply reopen government’s doors.
In Search for Republican Grown-Ups, By THE EDITORIAL BOARD, New York Times
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Beginning of the end of the Tea Party?
Congress has finally worked out a deal to end the government shutdown and dodge default, but not before the Republican Party demonstrated to Americans just how conflicted and dangerous it is.
Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, this week described our current Congress as a greater danger to national security than Al Qaeda, writing, “We don’t tend to talk about Congress as — at this stage — what it plainly is: the clearest and most present danger in the world to the national security of the United States.”
That is what the GOP-led House has brought us. Conservatives outside the chamber know defeat when they see it, and want to live to fight another day. But they beat their chests in vain as their laments fall on the deaf ears of the far-right political death squads.
On Tuesday, the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial pages blasted:
“This is the quality of thinking — or lack thereof — that has afflicted many GOP conservatives from the beginning of this budget showdown. They picked a goal they couldn’t achieve in trying to defund ObamaCare from one House of Congress, and then they picked a means they couldn’t sustain politically by pursuing a long government shutdown and threatening to blow through the debt limit.”
Senator John McCain said this week, “Republicans have to understand we have lost this battle, as I predicted weeks ago, that we would not be able to win because we were demanding something that was not achievable.”
Senator Lindsey Graham put it more bluntly: “We really did go too far. We screwed up.”
But, far-right elements of the House cannot be reasoned with. They prefer to go down in a blaze of glory – or at least take the country down in one. And arguably no one is more the face of this disaster than Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, labeled by one New York Republican representative, Peter King, as a “fraud” and “false prophet.”
The Houston Chronicle editorial board on Tuesday took the extraordinary step of trying to withdraw its endorsement of Cruz, an endorsement that no doubt helped get him elected. An editorial posted to the paper’s Web site began, “Does anyone else miss Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison?” that Senator Cruz replaced. It went on:
“When we endorsed Ted Cruz in last November’s general election, we did so with many reservations and at least one specific recommendation – that he follow Hutchison’s example in his conduct as a senator. Obviously, he has not done so. Cruz has been part of the problem in specific situations where Hutchison would have been part of the solution.”
It seems everyone is waking up to what a disaster this current Republican contingent of extremists has become and how poisonous they are to the functioning of our democracy. Better late than never, I suppose.
Cruz’s favorable ratings are underwater in Pew’s, Gallup’s, Fox News’ and Quinnipiac’s polling. But then, Cruz doesn’t put much stake in polls, with their pesky numbers.
According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken last week, views of the Republican Party sank to record lows and 70 percent of respondents thought Republicans in Congress were putting their own political agenda ahead of what was good for the country.
The poll also found that negative feelings about the Tea Party had risen, with 47 percent saying they had negative feelings about the group, including 34 percent who described their feelings as “very negative.” Just 21 percent of Americans now say they feel positive about the group.
But when Cruz was asked Friday about the poll, he dismissed it as having a problematic methodology. He said: “If you seek out liberal Obama supporters and ask them their views, they’re going to tell you they’re liberal Obama supporters. That’s not reflective of where this country is.” In fact, it is Cruz’s methodology that is flawed. His grandiloquence may well be the undoing of the Grand Old Party.
According to a Pew Research report released Tuesday “…A record-high 74% of registered voters now say that most members of Congress should not be reelected in 2014 (just 18% say they should). By comparison, at similar points in both the 2010 and 2006 midterm cycles only about half of registered voters wanted to see most representatives replaced.”
The report also found “…An early read of voter preferences for the 2014 midterm shows that the Democrats have a six-point edge: 49% of registered voters say they would vote for or lean toward voting for the Democratic candidate in their district, while 43% support or lean toward the Republican candidate.”
Republicans terribly misplayed a weak hand on the government shutdown and the debt ceiling. There was never any chance of success other than scaring the president and the Democrats into caving. President Obama and Harry Reid called their bluff. The Republicans were left with no options.
This is an embarrassment for the country, yes, but it is also an embarrassment for the Republican Party by laying bare their motives, tactics, and intention. Voters are likely to not forget this come next November.
As the conservative Matt Drudge tweeted on Wednesday: “Speaker Pelosi Part 2: Opening Jan 5, 2015.”
I hope so.
By: Charles M. Blow, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times,
October 16, 2013
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Christian Dominionism - a threat to the United States
There are some in this country who constantly worry over American Muslims and Sharia law being forced upon the citizens of the United States – although Muslims are less than 1% of U.S. population according to Pew Research. But there is a religious group to be very worried about: we have our own home grown radical religious sect. Christian Dominionism is religious-political extremism wrapped in an American flag and carrying the cross. This religious sect is a bible-based cult that has co-opted Christianity, the Republican Party, and is redefining “conservatism.” It is “a belief that states Christians have a God given right to rule all earthly institutions.”
For those who thought the Tea Party was a product of GOP masterminds or the Great Recession, think again. In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell examine the origins of the Tea Party movement. They say that the Tea Party is basically just the latest iteration of the Christian Right. The Tea Party is intertwined with Dominionism. According to Putnam and Campbell, next to being a Republican, the best predictor of a Tea Partier was the desire to see more religion in politics:
"Tea Partiers seek deeply religious elected officials, approve of religious leaders engaging in politics, and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government."
So what did they find that the Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do. More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 – opposing abortion, for example – and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics.
The Tea Party’s and Christian Dominionists’ desire to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Governor Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.
Dominionists say they are non-denominational and include organizations such as the Assemblies of God, the Southern Baptist Convention, and a variety of randomly named churches that incorporate names such as Foursquare and Hillsong. Christian Dominionism is an umbrella term that harbors varying franchises of religious sects that may or may not necessarily agree with each other. There are the New Apostolic Reformationists, the Transformation Network, the pre-millennialists, the post-millennialists, the Calvinists, the Rushdoony followers, the Francis Schaeffer followers, the deceased Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy followers, the Pat Robertson believers…and many, many more.
Even though there are many different groups mentioned above, Dominionism is the glue that binds them. The actual root word – dominion – means to literally take control. These religious zealots take their beliefs directly from the Book of Genesis, chapter 1: 26-28 wherein they believe God is speaking directly to them and telling them that it is their Mandate to dominate the U.S. government – and eventually the world.
Defined in its simplest form, Christian Dominionism is a political approach to Christian faith based on a literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 verses 26 – 28 of the Christian Bible. Believers perceive themselves as the “chosen” or the “elect”, commanded by God to “subdue” the earth and “have dominion” over all living creatures. The movement began in the sixties with Christian Reconstructionism when Calvinist R. J. Rushdoony advocated for Old Testament Biblical laws to replace or be added to current American laws; such laws would permit the death penalties for homosexuality and abortion setting the rights of many Americans back centuries. While current Presidential candidates Bachmann and Perry have brought the movement back to the forefront, it was present during the Bush administration. The Dominionists place emphasis on Biblical verses like the one in Genesis where God tells Adam to take dominion over all the world.
The goal of Christian Right Dominionism is to abolish Separation of Church and State, establishing it as a distinctively Christian Nation based upon Old Testament Mosaic Law. Dominionism is an umbrella term that harbors many divergent franchise groups claiming a foundation in Christianity. They see the “real” Christian as being “born again”, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and professing a personal relationship with Christ.
In his article “Church and State”, Rob Boston noted that while the Constitution does not mention the name of God in any form, the word “Creator” does appear in the Declaration of Independence – a fact that seems to elude many Americans – and causing a state of confusion that fundamental Christian right wing religious groups are perpetuating to further their cause.
Combining church and state is historically un-American.
In 1773 New England Baptist minister Reverend Isaac Backus said, "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischief that have ensued." A few years later that concept became a part of the Constitution for the new country known as the United States of America when as a part of the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and the press it was written that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The common phrase used today of separation of church and state does not appear anywhere in the Constitution itself but was written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church of Connecticut in 1802.
It is time for moderates to acquaint ourselves with our very own homegrown version of radical Christian fundamentalists. Do not confuse them with the majority of Christians in America who are mainline Christians. Mainline Christians are those who actually follow the teachings of Christ that promote kindness, compassion and love thy neighbor; don’t judge lest ye be judged; let them know you by your good deeds; and it will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But don’t make the mistake of thinking, “Well, I’m a Christian so they would accept me.” No, not true…unless you have a born-again birth certificate and personally hang with Christ, you are what they refer to as “not the right kind of Christian.”
Christian Dominionists believe that we are in the End Times and that they must proactively make the way for the 2nd coming of Christ. They ignore passages from the Bible where Jesus said “you will not know the day, the hour…I will come like a thief in the night”. Instead they have a laundry list of duties that they must implement before Christ can return. Some of these include fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 16-20 ) which they interpret to mean that they are to go forth and aggressively hound the people of the world into conversion, “harvesting as many souls” as possible.
Additionally, they believe that it is their mandate to prepare Israel for the return of all the Jews from around the globe – hence their pro-Israel rhetoric and schizophrenic “love the country – not the Jew” policies. (We have all witnessed how they apply that, the “love the sinner – not the sin” when they try to mask their homophobia). So, in order to have room for all these Jews who they see making their way to Israel soon, as was pointed out by Sarah Palin, there is no land to spare! Palestine just doesn’t fit into this plan, so negotiating a two-State solution is out just of the question. It makes no difference that they discriminate horribly against the Jews otherwise, calling them “Jesus-killer”, “anti-Christian”, “the Yiddish are coming!”, and a plethora of hate-filled name-calling all in the name of God. Remember, they love the country – they are just not so fond of the inhabitants.
The same confusion applies to their obsessive concern for the rights of the fetus to the point that they are spending millions to redefine person. They helped to redefine personhood to include corporations. And they now have “personhood” legislation pending in several states re-defining a person as a citizen the second that a sperm hits an egg. Yet once a child is born, if he/she has the misfortune of being born to a heathen and/or god forbid it is poor, indigent and in need, the Dominionist position becomes Ayn Randian. The poor and their children are on their own! In their world, it would be socialist to expect the Dominionist Christian to care for their fellow man/leeches on society.
There are a number of different Christian denominations in the United States with some variations on interpretation of the Bible. There are also quite a few believers of other faiths who call themselves Americans. Perhaps religious candidates who seek to rewrite national documents that are over 200 years old should remember that they are not the only persons of faith in this country. While most Americans have no problem respecting the beliefs of others, we strongly object to having someone else’s beliefs and Biblical interpretations shoved down our throats.
As Putnam and Campbell point out, the religious inclination of the Tea Party explains why disapproval of the Tea Party is actually on the rise – even as Americans have grown slightly more fiscally conservative as a whole, they have become more opposed to mixing God and politics. A recent NYT/CBS poll revealed that 40% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party, compared to just 18% in April 2010. Meanwhile, Tea Party (Christian Right Dominionists) supporters have slipped from 21% to 20% in the same period. The Tea Party ranks lower in public opinion than Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, and atheists.
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun said, "When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." We no longer have the luxury of simple partisan politics in America. According to Leah Burton, an expert on Dominionism, after the infestation of the Republican Party by the political wing of the Dominionists we can no longer think in terms of Democrat vs. Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative… it is now a matter of freedom versus theocracy.
Sources:
Following the Dominionist Thread, By Leah L Burton
Crashing the Tea Party, By David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam
For those who thought the Tea Party was a product of GOP masterminds or the Great Recession, think again. In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, political scientists Robert Putnam and David Campbell examine the origins of the Tea Party movement. They say that the Tea Party is basically just the latest iteration of the Christian Right. The Tea Party is intertwined with Dominionism. According to Putnam and Campbell, next to being a Republican, the best predictor of a Tea Partier was the desire to see more religion in politics:
"Tea Partiers seek deeply religious elected officials, approve of religious leaders engaging in politics, and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government."
So what did they find that the Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do. More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 – opposing abortion, for example – and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics.
The Tea Party’s and Christian Dominionists’ desire to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Governor Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.
Dominionists say they are non-denominational and include organizations such as the Assemblies of God, the Southern Baptist Convention, and a variety of randomly named churches that incorporate names such as Foursquare and Hillsong. Christian Dominionism is an umbrella term that harbors varying franchises of religious sects that may or may not necessarily agree with each other. There are the New Apostolic Reformationists, the Transformation Network, the pre-millennialists, the post-millennialists, the Calvinists, the Rushdoony followers, the Francis Schaeffer followers, the deceased Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy followers, the Pat Robertson believers…and many, many more.
Even though there are many different groups mentioned above, Dominionism is the glue that binds them. The actual root word – dominion – means to literally take control. These religious zealots take their beliefs directly from the Book of Genesis, chapter 1: 26-28 wherein they believe God is speaking directly to them and telling them that it is their Mandate to dominate the U.S. government – and eventually the world.
Defined in its simplest form, Christian Dominionism is a political approach to Christian faith based on a literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 verses 26 – 28 of the Christian Bible. Believers perceive themselves as the “chosen” or the “elect”, commanded by God to “subdue” the earth and “have dominion” over all living creatures. The movement began in the sixties with Christian Reconstructionism when Calvinist R. J. Rushdoony advocated for Old Testament Biblical laws to replace or be added to current American laws; such laws would permit the death penalties for homosexuality and abortion setting the rights of many Americans back centuries. While current Presidential candidates Bachmann and Perry have brought the movement back to the forefront, it was present during the Bush administration. The Dominionists place emphasis on Biblical verses like the one in Genesis where God tells Adam to take dominion over all the world.
The goal of Christian Right Dominionism is to abolish Separation of Church and State, establishing it as a distinctively Christian Nation based upon Old Testament Mosaic Law. Dominionism is an umbrella term that harbors many divergent franchise groups claiming a foundation in Christianity. They see the “real” Christian as being “born again”, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and professing a personal relationship with Christ.
In his article “Church and State”, Rob Boston noted that while the Constitution does not mention the name of God in any form, the word “Creator” does appear in the Declaration of Independence – a fact that seems to elude many Americans – and causing a state of confusion that fundamental Christian right wing religious groups are perpetuating to further their cause.
Combining church and state is historically un-American.
In 1773 New England Baptist minister Reverend Isaac Backus said, "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischief that have ensued." A few years later that concept became a part of the Constitution for the new country known as the United States of America when as a part of the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and the press it was written that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The common phrase used today of separation of church and state does not appear anywhere in the Constitution itself but was written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church of Connecticut in 1802.
It is time for moderates to acquaint ourselves with our very own homegrown version of radical Christian fundamentalists. Do not confuse them with the majority of Christians in America who are mainline Christians. Mainline Christians are those who actually follow the teachings of Christ that promote kindness, compassion and love thy neighbor; don’t judge lest ye be judged; let them know you by your good deeds; and it will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But don’t make the mistake of thinking, “Well, I’m a Christian so they would accept me.” No, not true…unless you have a born-again birth certificate and personally hang with Christ, you are what they refer to as “not the right kind of Christian.”
Christian Dominionists believe that we are in the End Times and that they must proactively make the way for the 2nd coming of Christ. They ignore passages from the Bible where Jesus said “you will not know the day, the hour…I will come like a thief in the night”. Instead they have a laundry list of duties that they must implement before Christ can return. Some of these include fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 16-20 ) which they interpret to mean that they are to go forth and aggressively hound the people of the world into conversion, “harvesting as many souls” as possible.
Additionally, they believe that it is their mandate to prepare Israel for the return of all the Jews from around the globe – hence their pro-Israel rhetoric and schizophrenic “love the country – not the Jew” policies. (We have all witnessed how they apply that, the “love the sinner – not the sin” when they try to mask their homophobia). So, in order to have room for all these Jews who they see making their way to Israel soon, as was pointed out by Sarah Palin, there is no land to spare! Palestine just doesn’t fit into this plan, so negotiating a two-State solution is out just of the question. It makes no difference that they discriminate horribly against the Jews otherwise, calling them “Jesus-killer”, “anti-Christian”, “the Yiddish are coming!”, and a plethora of hate-filled name-calling all in the name of God. Remember, they love the country – they are just not so fond of the inhabitants.
The same confusion applies to their obsessive concern for the rights of the fetus to the point that they are spending millions to redefine person. They helped to redefine personhood to include corporations. And they now have “personhood” legislation pending in several states re-defining a person as a citizen the second that a sperm hits an egg. Yet once a child is born, if he/she has the misfortune of being born to a heathen and/or god forbid it is poor, indigent and in need, the Dominionist position becomes Ayn Randian. The poor and their children are on their own! In their world, it would be socialist to expect the Dominionist Christian to care for their fellow man/leeches on society.
There are a number of different Christian denominations in the United States with some variations on interpretation of the Bible. There are also quite a few believers of other faiths who call themselves Americans. Perhaps religious candidates who seek to rewrite national documents that are over 200 years old should remember that they are not the only persons of faith in this country. While most Americans have no problem respecting the beliefs of others, we strongly object to having someone else’s beliefs and Biblical interpretations shoved down our throats.
As Putnam and Campbell point out, the religious inclination of the Tea Party explains why disapproval of the Tea Party is actually on the rise – even as Americans have grown slightly more fiscally conservative as a whole, they have become more opposed to mixing God and politics. A recent NYT/CBS poll revealed that 40% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party, compared to just 18% in April 2010. Meanwhile, Tea Party (Christian Right Dominionists) supporters have slipped from 21% to 20% in the same period. The Tea Party ranks lower in public opinion than Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, and atheists.
Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun said, "When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." We no longer have the luxury of simple partisan politics in America. According to Leah Burton, an expert on Dominionism, after the infestation of the Republican Party by the political wing of the Dominionists we can no longer think in terms of Democrat vs. Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative… it is now a matter of freedom versus theocracy.
Sources:
Following the Dominionist Thread, By Leah L Burton
Crashing the Tea Party, By David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
When you lie down with dogs
The once Grand Old Party is in trouble – as in Tea Party trouble – and it could soon get worse because of three factors:
1) A government default: House Republicans may be in the process of overreaching. Rank-and-file members, many of them elected with Tea Party support last year, seem intent on using the August 2 expiration of the debt ceiling to draw a line in the sand. If the Democrats do not agree to huge cuts without an increase in revenue (my way or the highway), they will refuse to pay our country’s debts. Many Tea Partiers say that there will be little effect on the economy – but they are misinformed. Almost $5 trillion is held by U.S. banks, U.S. pension funds, and individuals like me (such as savings bonds and Treasuries). About that same amount is held by other branches of the U.S. government itself. Only about 1/3 of U.S. debt is held by foreign countries, which includes China’s less than $1 trillion. So, who will get hurt the most if the government defaults? Americans will.
Evidently Speaker Boehner may have no choice but to go along with these ignorant Tea Partiers, since championing a compromise with the White House will inevitably prompt cries of "Treason!" These ‘true believers’ in the GOP conference could easily depose Boehner in favor of Eric Cantor, the Tea Party leader who is known to covet Boehner's post. Thus, for fear of losing his job, the potential exists for Boehner to lead the House GOP into a default on our country’s “full faith and credit” worthiness.
2) The far-right governors: This has been a surprising source of damage to the GOP brand. Newly elected Republican governors in Wisconsin (Scott Walker), Ohio (John Kasich) and Florida (Rick Scott) have all chosen to address their states' budget issues with devout, literal adherence to the Tea Party playbook. In terms of polling, the results have been catastrophic. A poll this week put Scott's approval rating at under 30 percent – and Walker and Kasich are only a few points better in their states.
Their struggles have the potential to spread across state lines. Walker's protracted fight over collective bargaining rights has been one of the biggest national stories of the past few months. Voters in and out of Wisconsin are siding with Democrats and against the Republican governor. For the national GOP, the danger is that voters across the country are seeing Walker, Kasich, and Scott not as individual state governors waging provincial fights but as how the Tea Party governs in America.
Governors Walker and Scott both won their gubernatorial primaries last year with considerable Tea Party support. Scott, in fact, overcame a fierce effort from the party establishment to deny him the nomination. Without the Tea Party, the national Republican brand would probably not now be burdened with the public relation problems that these governors have caused.
3) The Tea Party itself: The movement – which is really just a synonym for the Republican Party base – was a source of strength for the GOP last year in that it helped to inspire and activate previously dejected Republicans after the 2008 presidential election. It was also a liability because Tea Party activists propelled utterly unelectable candidates to GOP nominations for several important Senate and gubernatorial contests. On March 31 about 100 of its members gathered in Washington for a rally regardless of the fact that the Tea Party has become a clear liability for the GOP. In the past 12 months, the number of Americans expressing a negative view of the Tea Party movement has increased by 21 points. A CNN/Opinion Research poll found that the Tea Party is now viewed unfavorably by half of Americans. This can partly be chalked up to the negative press the movement has received thanks to the often crazy and extreme antics of its supporters.
You can argue that all three of the above threats to the GOP label should be condensed under the Tea Party label. After all, if a shutdown does happen, it will be because Boehner was unable or unwilling to cut a deal thanks to pressure from House Republicans who were elected last year with Tea Party support or who fear the Tea Party's wrath (or both).
The Republicans made their bed – now they must lie in it.
When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. In fact, the entire country may end up with fleas due to these Tea Party dogs.
1) A government default: House Republicans may be in the process of overreaching. Rank-and-file members, many of them elected with Tea Party support last year, seem intent on using the August 2 expiration of the debt ceiling to draw a line in the sand. If the Democrats do not agree to huge cuts without an increase in revenue (my way or the highway), they will refuse to pay our country’s debts. Many Tea Partiers say that there will be little effect on the economy – but they are misinformed. Almost $5 trillion is held by U.S. banks, U.S. pension funds, and individuals like me (such as savings bonds and Treasuries). About that same amount is held by other branches of the U.S. government itself. Only about 1/3 of U.S. debt is held by foreign countries, which includes China’s less than $1 trillion. So, who will get hurt the most if the government defaults? Americans will.
Evidently Speaker Boehner may have no choice but to go along with these ignorant Tea Partiers, since championing a compromise with the White House will inevitably prompt cries of "Treason!" These ‘true believers’ in the GOP conference could easily depose Boehner in favor of Eric Cantor, the Tea Party leader who is known to covet Boehner's post. Thus, for fear of losing his job, the potential exists for Boehner to lead the House GOP into a default on our country’s “full faith and credit” worthiness.
2) The far-right governors: This has been a surprising source of damage to the GOP brand. Newly elected Republican governors in Wisconsin (Scott Walker), Ohio (John Kasich) and Florida (Rick Scott) have all chosen to address their states' budget issues with devout, literal adherence to the Tea Party playbook. In terms of polling, the results have been catastrophic. A poll this week put Scott's approval rating at under 30 percent – and Walker and Kasich are only a few points better in their states.
Their struggles have the potential to spread across state lines. Walker's protracted fight over collective bargaining rights has been one of the biggest national stories of the past few months. Voters in and out of Wisconsin are siding with Democrats and against the Republican governor. For the national GOP, the danger is that voters across the country are seeing Walker, Kasich, and Scott not as individual state governors waging provincial fights but as how the Tea Party governs in America.
Governors Walker and Scott both won their gubernatorial primaries last year with considerable Tea Party support. Scott, in fact, overcame a fierce effort from the party establishment to deny him the nomination. Without the Tea Party, the national Republican brand would probably not now be burdened with the public relation problems that these governors have caused.
3) The Tea Party itself: The movement – which is really just a synonym for the Republican Party base – was a source of strength for the GOP last year in that it helped to inspire and activate previously dejected Republicans after the 2008 presidential election. It was also a liability because Tea Party activists propelled utterly unelectable candidates to GOP nominations for several important Senate and gubernatorial contests. On March 31 about 100 of its members gathered in Washington for a rally regardless of the fact that the Tea Party has become a clear liability for the GOP. In the past 12 months, the number of Americans expressing a negative view of the Tea Party movement has increased by 21 points. A CNN/Opinion Research poll found that the Tea Party is now viewed unfavorably by half of Americans. This can partly be chalked up to the negative press the movement has received thanks to the often crazy and extreme antics of its supporters.
You can argue that all three of the above threats to the GOP label should be condensed under the Tea Party label. After all, if a shutdown does happen, it will be because Boehner was unable or unwilling to cut a deal thanks to pressure from House Republicans who were elected last year with Tea Party support or who fear the Tea Party's wrath (or both).
The Republicans made their bed – now they must lie in it.
When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. In fact, the entire country may end up with fleas due to these Tea Party dogs.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Time to stand up to the bullies
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) declared last week that if Senate Democrats refused to accept “a modest down payment on fiscal discipline and reform, I say, ‘Shut it down!’ ” And the crowd of about 100 Tea Partiers echoed: “Shut it down!
As the shouting persisted, it became clear that the government of the most powerful country in the world was being held hostage by a band of fanatics who (1) represent a very small proportion of our population; (2) hate government so much that they relished the idea of closing its doors, no matter the cost; and (3) have neither respect nor patience for the normal democratic give-and-take between competing parties and points of view.
In no other modern country do threats to shut down the government become a routine way of doing business. Because the Tea Partiers in the House were eager for a shutdown and President Obama was so determined to avoid one – and to stay out of the spotlight until the final days – Speaker John Boehner had the upper hand.
In our repertoire of American dysfunction, we are on the verge of adding shutdown abuse to another abuse – the filibuster in the Senate.
Republicans won an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy in December and now one on spending cuts. But at least Obama got some economic stimulus out of last year’s tax deal. The latest agreement on $38 billion in cuts – about 3/4th of the cuts they wanted – which will cause a modest setback to the economy. Thankfully, the administration and Senate leader Harry Reid pushed Boehner toward more “sensible” cuts, protected important programs such as Head Start, and stopped the GOP’s proposed policy changes on family planning, the environment, and other issues. But to my horror, Republicans, with control of just one house of Congress, defined the terms of debate.
Obama’s argument is that government action is essential in making the United States more competitive, innovative, and in expanding opportunity for Americans who are being left behind. By distancing himself from this round of the budget debate, the president forfeited an opening to challenge the anti-government assumptions embedded in Republican arguments that are shaped far more by the Tea Party than the movement’s numbers in the country or its falling poll ratings would justify.
The vast majority of Americans oppose shutdowns. They do not share the aggressive antagonism toward government that is distorting our politics. Unless Obama gives voice to this sensible sentiment, we will face more episodes like this one. For if government is turned into something evil, no one has an obligation to stewardship of its institutions. Recklessness in pursuit of political victory becomes a virtue. Indifference to those who are served by or work in government becomes a badge of honor. In those Tea Party shouts of “Shut it down,” the “it” drips with contempt for the government – and as far as I am concerned, contempt for America. We cheer when drug dens or terrorist havens are shut down. There should be no glee over shutting down our American government.
Threatening the functioning of our government is not an acceptable tactic in a democracy! Period.
The Tea Party seems to be composed of small minds, small hearts, and little patriotism, I think, with their attitude of give-me-all-I-want-or-I-will-do-all-I-can-to-wreck-the-government-and-the-country. Hitler once told his commanders to lay waste to all of Germany because Germany had failed him. Sound familiar?
Obama seems to take the long strategic view. By sacrificing a pawn today, he may be much better positioned to do battle on the debt ceiling issue in May. At that time he needs the courage to defend the government he leads. He needs to declare that he will no longer bargain with those who use threats to shut down the government or force it to default on its debt as tools of intimidation.
I am most concerned that Obama is moving center-right in order to please the independent voters so that he has a chance at re-election. He once said that he would rather be a very good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. I can only hope that once he is re-elected, he will move back to center-left and stand up to the Tea Party bullies.
As the shouting persisted, it became clear that the government of the most powerful country in the world was being held hostage by a band of fanatics who (1) represent a very small proportion of our population; (2) hate government so much that they relished the idea of closing its doors, no matter the cost; and (3) have neither respect nor patience for the normal democratic give-and-take between competing parties and points of view.
In no other modern country do threats to shut down the government become a routine way of doing business. Because the Tea Partiers in the House were eager for a shutdown and President Obama was so determined to avoid one – and to stay out of the spotlight until the final days – Speaker John Boehner had the upper hand.
In our repertoire of American dysfunction, we are on the verge of adding shutdown abuse to another abuse – the filibuster in the Senate.
Republicans won an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy in December and now one on spending cuts. But at least Obama got some economic stimulus out of last year’s tax deal. The latest agreement on $38 billion in cuts – about 3/4th of the cuts they wanted – which will cause a modest setback to the economy. Thankfully, the administration and Senate leader Harry Reid pushed Boehner toward more “sensible” cuts, protected important programs such as Head Start, and stopped the GOP’s proposed policy changes on family planning, the environment, and other issues. But to my horror, Republicans, with control of just one house of Congress, defined the terms of debate.
Obama’s argument is that government action is essential in making the United States more competitive, innovative, and in expanding opportunity for Americans who are being left behind. By distancing himself from this round of the budget debate, the president forfeited an opening to challenge the anti-government assumptions embedded in Republican arguments that are shaped far more by the Tea Party than the movement’s numbers in the country or its falling poll ratings would justify.
The vast majority of Americans oppose shutdowns. They do not share the aggressive antagonism toward government that is distorting our politics. Unless Obama gives voice to this sensible sentiment, we will face more episodes like this one. For if government is turned into something evil, no one has an obligation to stewardship of its institutions. Recklessness in pursuit of political victory becomes a virtue. Indifference to those who are served by or work in government becomes a badge of honor. In those Tea Party shouts of “Shut it down,” the “it” drips with contempt for the government – and as far as I am concerned, contempt for America. We cheer when drug dens or terrorist havens are shut down. There should be no glee over shutting down our American government.
Threatening the functioning of our government is not an acceptable tactic in a democracy! Period.
The Tea Party seems to be composed of small minds, small hearts, and little patriotism, I think, with their attitude of give-me-all-I-want-or-I-will-do-all-I-can-to-wreck-the-government-and-the-country. Hitler once told his commanders to lay waste to all of Germany because Germany had failed him. Sound familiar?
Obama seems to take the long strategic view. By sacrificing a pawn today, he may be much better positioned to do battle on the debt ceiling issue in May. At that time he needs the courage to defend the government he leads. He needs to declare that he will no longer bargain with those who use threats to shut down the government or force it to default on its debt as tools of intimidation.
I am most concerned that Obama is moving center-right in order to please the independent voters so that he has a chance at re-election. He once said that he would rather be a very good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. I can only hope that once he is re-elected, he will move back to center-left and stand up to the Tea Party bullies.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Republicans, the Tea Party, and 2010
While Republicans will likely make inroads on the House Democrat's 79-seat majority in 2010, there is plenty of data that suggests it will be mitigated and fall short of the revolution that some radio and television personalities believe is just around the corner. A Smart Politics analysis of U.S. House election returns finds that while the GOP is historically likely to pick up seats in the 2010 midterms, next November's election might look a lot closer to (though falling short of) the 2002 midterms or the 2004 general elections (in which the party in power, the GOP, held and even gained a few seats) rather than the 1994 or 2006 midterms (in which the party in power lost substantially – 54 seats for the Democrats and 31 seats for the Republicans respectively).
During the past few months, several political pundits and Washington, D.C. insiders are already projecting significant Republican gains in 2010.In late August, Fox News contributor Dick Morris gleefully predicted Democrats could lose 100 seats: "It's a disaster for the Democrats. You could literally, at this point, see 100 seats changing in the House."
The Tea Party developed last year in protest to what its supporters say was overspending in Washington – by both Republicans and Democrats – following the stimulus bill, the bank bailouts and President Obama's budget. As it expanded, the protests became more partisan in nature, and the Tea Party established itself as an uprising to the far right of the Republican Party. Over the year, the Tea Party grew into a loose link of groups around the country, protesting the bank bailout, taxes in general, socialism (regardless of their own Social Security and Medicare services), and having a black president.
"The anger over alleged fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is shared by a wider spectrum of voters, including independents," said John Avlon, author of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. Republicans are trying to co-opt the Tea Party. Democrats are trying to marginalize it. And people with personal aspirations – whether financial or political – are trying to take advantage of it. For example, the Tea Party Express, a conservative bus tour that crisscrossed the country last year, was run from inside a Republican political consulting firm owned by Dick Armey who recruited older, angry libertarian-types and bused them to various town hall meetings to act as an “angry constituency”.
But the same independent voters who are reacting against fiscal “irresponsibility” are also reacting against the polarization of the two major parties. In contrast, the Tea Partiers wanted Republicans and Democrats to become more polarized, Avlon said. The Tea Party groups are trying to flex their muscle and move the Republican Party further to the right. While the more radical activists made headlines, the voices of frustrated independent voters were being heard across the country. The White House said Republican Scott Brown's win in last month's Massachusetts Senate election was "a wake-up call." While Brown captured the support of the Tea Party, he also won over the state's independent voters. And he has made it clear that he is ‘his own Republican’ – as in no party owns him. (We’ll see if he can hold to that once he is in Washington for several months.)
"If the 'Birthers' [those who say Obama wasn't born in the U.S.] and the Tea Party people win most of the primaries in the Republican Party, it may not yield much of a Republican victory in the general election," said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. He pointed to New York's election last November as an example of how the Tea Party's support for more conservative candidates could hurt Republicans in the upcoming elections. Last November, Tea Party groups received credit for affecting the outcome of a special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District. Local Republican leaders backed state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava because they thought she would appeal to centrists and independents. But more conservative party members revolted and instead backed Doug Hoffman, who ran on the Conservative Party ticket. Scozzafava dropped out days before the race and endorsed Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate. The split among Republicans contributed to Owens' win.
How will the Tea Party affect the GOP in the long term?
"What happened over the course of the summer as the town hall meetings got hijacked, you started to see a new kind of activist taking over the Tea Party movement," Avlon said. "As the wingnut fringe blurred with the base, you've seen more unhinged [crazy] attacks proliferate, and there still hasn't been a transition to a positive agenda." Many Tea Party members began directing their anger at Obama, calling him socialist and carrying posters with his face altered to resemble Hitler or The Joker or alluding to Obama being a monkey.
A funny thing about the Tea Party convention: not very many young people showed up. As the Tea Party's first national convention got under way, an overwhelming majority of white, middle-aged (and older) army of angry conservatives/libertarians, furious with government spending and influence, ready to do whatever they can to stop it, united in their anger but divided over the future of the movement. The convention was marketed as an opportunity to bring Tea Party leaders from across the country together to network and support the movement. But the high-priced-ticket convention, organized by a for-profit organization, is contradictory to the group's bottom-up, grass-roots beginnings. The convention has been dogged by infighting, with some protesting its $549 entrance fee and its hierarchical organization.
The organizers say it is all about cultivating the political anger that's out there and generating it to power political change. They do not like Obama Democrats, and some do not like Republicans. But when talk turns to the possibility of a third party, a Tea Party, that is when people in the movement seem to get queasy. Tea Partiers almost unanimously say it's not their goal. Something that is organized and national seems the very antithesis of what they're about -- being grass roots, staying local, more states rights, and less federal government. Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin, founders of the Tea Party Patriots, say they are frustrated that other Tea Party groups are being run by Republican political consultants. Meckler and Martin refused to attend the convention.
"It wasn't the kind of grass-roots organization that we are, so we declined to participate," Meckler said.
Rival Tea Party factions are battling over who will carry the Tea Party banner. Some members worry powerful Astroturf groups are profiteering from the Tea Party. In fact, Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann were supposed to speak at the convention, but both dropped out, citing problems with the for-profit status of the Tea Party Nation, the group behind the event.
For the Tea Party to be a constructive movement, it will need to repudiate the unhinged Obama-haters and then focus its anger at fiscal irresponsibility into policy proposals instead of bumper-sticker platitudes. But the likelihood of that happening is nil. Author Eric Hoffer warned in his book, The True Believer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."
Avlon said the concerns over the proceeds have undercut the event's attempt to be a rallying point. "They like to compare themselves to the founding fathers. Well, imagine if John Hancock had been trying to make a buck off the constitutional convention….If it [the Tea Party] just empowers the extremes in the party, then when extremes control parties – when wingnuts hijack a political party – ultimately, they take it off a cliff."
I surely hope so. Then the Republican Party can start over and once again welcome moderates.
During the past few months, several political pundits and Washington, D.C. insiders are already projecting significant Republican gains in 2010.In late August, Fox News contributor Dick Morris gleefully predicted Democrats could lose 100 seats: "It's a disaster for the Democrats. You could literally, at this point, see 100 seats changing in the House."
The Tea Party developed last year in protest to what its supporters say was overspending in Washington – by both Republicans and Democrats – following the stimulus bill, the bank bailouts and President Obama's budget. As it expanded, the protests became more partisan in nature, and the Tea Party established itself as an uprising to the far right of the Republican Party. Over the year, the Tea Party grew into a loose link of groups around the country, protesting the bank bailout, taxes in general, socialism (regardless of their own Social Security and Medicare services), and having a black president.
"The anger over alleged fiscal irresponsibility in Washington is shared by a wider spectrum of voters, including independents," said John Avlon, author of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America. Republicans are trying to co-opt the Tea Party. Democrats are trying to marginalize it. And people with personal aspirations – whether financial or political – are trying to take advantage of it. For example, the Tea Party Express, a conservative bus tour that crisscrossed the country last year, was run from inside a Republican political consulting firm owned by Dick Armey who recruited older, angry libertarian-types and bused them to various town hall meetings to act as an “angry constituency”.
But the same independent voters who are reacting against fiscal “irresponsibility” are also reacting against the polarization of the two major parties. In contrast, the Tea Partiers wanted Republicans and Democrats to become more polarized, Avlon said. The Tea Party groups are trying to flex their muscle and move the Republican Party further to the right. While the more radical activists made headlines, the voices of frustrated independent voters were being heard across the country. The White House said Republican Scott Brown's win in last month's Massachusetts Senate election was "a wake-up call." While Brown captured the support of the Tea Party, he also won over the state's independent voters. And he has made it clear that he is ‘his own Republican’ – as in no party owns him. (We’ll see if he can hold to that once he is in Washington for several months.)
"If the 'Birthers' [those who say Obama wasn't born in the U.S.] and the Tea Party people win most of the primaries in the Republican Party, it may not yield much of a Republican victory in the general election," said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. He pointed to New York's election last November as an example of how the Tea Party's support for more conservative candidates could hurt Republicans in the upcoming elections. Last November, Tea Party groups received credit for affecting the outcome of a special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District. Local Republican leaders backed state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava because they thought she would appeal to centrists and independents. But more conservative party members revolted and instead backed Doug Hoffman, who ran on the Conservative Party ticket. Scozzafava dropped out days before the race and endorsed Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate. The split among Republicans contributed to Owens' win.
How will the Tea Party affect the GOP in the long term?
"What happened over the course of the summer as the town hall meetings got hijacked, you started to see a new kind of activist taking over the Tea Party movement," Avlon said. "As the wingnut fringe blurred with the base, you've seen more unhinged [crazy] attacks proliferate, and there still hasn't been a transition to a positive agenda." Many Tea Party members began directing their anger at Obama, calling him socialist and carrying posters with his face altered to resemble Hitler or The Joker or alluding to Obama being a monkey.
A funny thing about the Tea Party convention: not very many young people showed up. As the Tea Party's first national convention got under way, an overwhelming majority of white, middle-aged (and older) army of angry conservatives/libertarians, furious with government spending and influence, ready to do whatever they can to stop it, united in their anger but divided over the future of the movement. The convention was marketed as an opportunity to bring Tea Party leaders from across the country together to network and support the movement. But the high-priced-ticket convention, organized by a for-profit organization, is contradictory to the group's bottom-up, grass-roots beginnings. The convention has been dogged by infighting, with some protesting its $549 entrance fee and its hierarchical organization.
The organizers say it is all about cultivating the political anger that's out there and generating it to power political change. They do not like Obama Democrats, and some do not like Republicans. But when talk turns to the possibility of a third party, a Tea Party, that is when people in the movement seem to get queasy. Tea Partiers almost unanimously say it's not their goal. Something that is organized and national seems the very antithesis of what they're about -- being grass roots, staying local, more states rights, and less federal government. Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin, founders of the Tea Party Patriots, say they are frustrated that other Tea Party groups are being run by Republican political consultants. Meckler and Martin refused to attend the convention.
"It wasn't the kind of grass-roots organization that we are, so we declined to participate," Meckler said.
Rival Tea Party factions are battling over who will carry the Tea Party banner. Some members worry powerful Astroturf groups are profiteering from the Tea Party. In fact, Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann were supposed to speak at the convention, but both dropped out, citing problems with the for-profit status of the Tea Party Nation, the group behind the event.
For the Tea Party to be a constructive movement, it will need to repudiate the unhinged Obama-haters and then focus its anger at fiscal irresponsibility into policy proposals instead of bumper-sticker platitudes. But the likelihood of that happening is nil. Author Eric Hoffer warned in his book, The True Believer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."
Avlon said the concerns over the proceeds have undercut the event's attempt to be a rallying point. "They like to compare themselves to the founding fathers. Well, imagine if John Hancock had been trying to make a buck off the constitutional convention….If it [the Tea Party] just empowers the extremes in the party, then when extremes control parties – when wingnuts hijack a political party – ultimately, they take it off a cliff."
I surely hope so. Then the Republican Party can start over and once again welcome moderates.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
All you need to know about the Tea Party
As Tea Party activists attend this weekend's convention in Nashville, it is safe to say that shrinking the federal government will be the principle they put forward. After all, to the extent that the group has an organizing principle, it is that Washington spends too much.
And yet, apart from the surging bills that Washington absorbs for health care, the surprising reality is that Big Government is not all that big by historical standards. Even with an economic stimulus, a bank bailout and two wars, non-medical spending by the federal government is a smaller percentage of the economy than it was during most of Ronald Reagan's administration.
Even though Reagan began paring back government, non-medical spending hovered around 20% of the economy during his administration. The reason for this is no mystery, even if it is not part of the daily political narrative. As the government's medical tab surged from $72 billion in 1980 to an estimated $912 billion in 2010, traditional government functions — things like roads, criminal justice and education — had to be more tightly controlled simply to avoid the kind of outlandish deficits we've seen in recent years. In other words, taking care of Grandma is expensive.
In just a few years, as the stimulus shrinks and the economy expands, government spending outside of health care will drop to about 16% of the economy, roughly where it has been since the mid-1990s.
Where government spending is concerned, the Tea Partiers are barking up the wrong trees. If their goal is to control spending, they should be demanding curbs in Medicare and answering President Obama's call for health care reform with counterproposals heavier on cost control. But, in my opinion, controlling government spending is not the main reason for the Tea Party.
Tea Partiers also say taxes are too high, but here, too, perception differs from reality, at least by history's measure. Because of the recession and the Obama tax cuts this past year, tax collections are at their lowest since 1950. In 2009 and 2010, tax receipts collected by Washington will total just 14.8% of the economy.
Tea Partiers seem to be promoting more partisanship, not less, by rejecting candidates deemed too likely to cross over and negotiate with Democrats. That is a recipe for more debt. If the Tea Partiers truly want to reduce the deficit, they would be demanding that the two parties work together. With the minority party always poised to attack when the majority sticks its neck out, nothing gets done. But reducing the deficit is not the real reason for the Tea Party. If it were, the Tea Partiers would have been out en masse during the Bush years when they racked up a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.
This is not to say an uprising against Washington is not merited. Lawmakers of both parties are simply ignoring the nation's drift toward fiscal suicide. Nor is it the case that populist movements cannot serve constructive purposes. The last one – Ross Perot's presidential bid in 1992 – forced both parties to focus attention on the deficits, which then turned into surpluses under a Democratic President.
Until the Tea Partiers can channel their anger toward more productive solutions, the Washington spending machine will continue.
But it won’t happen, because…
Real Reason for the Tea Party
It is being said that "Old racists don’t fade away they just join the Tea Party movement."
Being white no longer guarantees you a pass to the front of the line. That is what is summoning up the hate and fear fueling the Tea Party movement. The shouts of “We want our country back” and “Our way of life is being attacked” say everything about this movement. Individuals who fought against the civil rights movement also make up the core of the Tea Party movement. They now see the Tea Party as a way to once again fight against what they see as the evils of letting everyone into this country.
“People who could not spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English put a Barrack Hussein Obama in the White House,” said former Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tanceredo, as the opening speaker at the Tea Party convention. (Emphasis on the name “Hussein” is his.)
Tanceredo’s statement tells you what the Tea Party is really against. To me, they sound more like the movement that put Hitler in power. Well maybe that is a little over top, but I think that describes the Tea Partiers more than as a group of “Real Americans” because they only consider far-right-leaning, white, rural and small-town Americans as “real”.
Why do I think this? Because as I study this so-called “Real American” movement, I have noticed that many of those who were against the Civil Rights movement now have found a new voice. I recently read an article by the associated press in which the reporter interviewed a 61-year-old woman who repeated the Tea Party line “Our way of life is under attack” and was all too proud about helping ban books from the library in her West Virginia town. Yet, when asked, she didn’t really know who “they” were – other than the fact that she hated Obama. Another woman said, “We want our country back!” Translate that into “our white-ruled, white-dominated country.”
These statements alone tell everything you need to know about the Tea Party. Add to that the horrible, hateful signs that they carry in their demonstrations.
I am not saying all Tea Partiers are racist. Some just plain cannot stand it that the Democrats are in charge. But enough of them (probably a majority) are racist to make that the main reason behind the Tea Party.
And yet, apart from the surging bills that Washington absorbs for health care, the surprising reality is that Big Government is not all that big by historical standards. Even with an economic stimulus, a bank bailout and two wars, non-medical spending by the federal government is a smaller percentage of the economy than it was during most of Ronald Reagan's administration.
Even though Reagan began paring back government, non-medical spending hovered around 20% of the economy during his administration. The reason for this is no mystery, even if it is not part of the daily political narrative. As the government's medical tab surged from $72 billion in 1980 to an estimated $912 billion in 2010, traditional government functions — things like roads, criminal justice and education — had to be more tightly controlled simply to avoid the kind of outlandish deficits we've seen in recent years. In other words, taking care of Grandma is expensive.
In just a few years, as the stimulus shrinks and the economy expands, government spending outside of health care will drop to about 16% of the economy, roughly where it has been since the mid-1990s.
Where government spending is concerned, the Tea Partiers are barking up the wrong trees. If their goal is to control spending, they should be demanding curbs in Medicare and answering President Obama's call for health care reform with counterproposals heavier on cost control. But, in my opinion, controlling government spending is not the main reason for the Tea Party.
Tea Partiers also say taxes are too high, but here, too, perception differs from reality, at least by history's measure. Because of the recession and the Obama tax cuts this past year, tax collections are at their lowest since 1950. In 2009 and 2010, tax receipts collected by Washington will total just 14.8% of the economy.
Tea Partiers seem to be promoting more partisanship, not less, by rejecting candidates deemed too likely to cross over and negotiate with Democrats. That is a recipe for more debt. If the Tea Partiers truly want to reduce the deficit, they would be demanding that the two parties work together. With the minority party always poised to attack when the majority sticks its neck out, nothing gets done. But reducing the deficit is not the real reason for the Tea Party. If it were, the Tea Partiers would have been out en masse during the Bush years when they racked up a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.
This is not to say an uprising against Washington is not merited. Lawmakers of both parties are simply ignoring the nation's drift toward fiscal suicide. Nor is it the case that populist movements cannot serve constructive purposes. The last one – Ross Perot's presidential bid in 1992 – forced both parties to focus attention on the deficits, which then turned into surpluses under a Democratic President.
Until the Tea Partiers can channel their anger toward more productive solutions, the Washington spending machine will continue.
But it won’t happen, because…
Real Reason for the Tea Party
It is being said that "Old racists don’t fade away they just join the Tea Party movement."
Being white no longer guarantees you a pass to the front of the line. That is what is summoning up the hate and fear fueling the Tea Party movement. The shouts of “We want our country back” and “Our way of life is being attacked” say everything about this movement. Individuals who fought against the civil rights movement also make up the core of the Tea Party movement. They now see the Tea Party as a way to once again fight against what they see as the evils of letting everyone into this country.
“People who could not spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English put a Barrack Hussein Obama in the White House,” said former Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tanceredo, as the opening speaker at the Tea Party convention. (Emphasis on the name “Hussein” is his.)
Tanceredo’s statement tells you what the Tea Party is really against. To me, they sound more like the movement that put Hitler in power. Well maybe that is a little over top, but I think that describes the Tea Partiers more than as a group of “Real Americans” because they only consider far-right-leaning, white, rural and small-town Americans as “real”.
Why do I think this? Because as I study this so-called “Real American” movement, I have noticed that many of those who were against the Civil Rights movement now have found a new voice. I recently read an article by the associated press in which the reporter interviewed a 61-year-old woman who repeated the Tea Party line “Our way of life is under attack” and was all too proud about helping ban books from the library in her West Virginia town. Yet, when asked, she didn’t really know who “they” were – other than the fact that she hated Obama. Another woman said, “We want our country back!” Translate that into “our white-ruled, white-dominated country.”
These statements alone tell everything you need to know about the Tea Party. Add to that the horrible, hateful signs that they carry in their demonstrations.
I am not saying all Tea Partiers are racist. Some just plain cannot stand it that the Democrats are in charge. But enough of them (probably a majority) are racist to make that the main reason behind the Tea Party.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
All about Joe
At a rally at Florida International University, McCain made a leap by suggesting that the Obama campaign was somehow maligning Joe the Plumber. He said, “People are digging through his personal life, and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house. He didn’t ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn’t recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.” Never mind that McCain was the one who put Joe into the spotlight during the last debate. McCain brought up Joe’s name and used him as a prop. Now he is trying to blame Joe’s predicament on Obama.
Here is what happened:
When Obama was canvassing a neighborhood in Ohio, going door to door, Joe decided to step out in front of the camera and ask a question about whether buying his boss’s business would force him to pay a higher tax rate under the Obama plan. Obama explained to him that the business grosses more than $250k, that is certainly not his tax liability. He would have to make net profits of more than $250k to be affected by the Obama plan. But 97% of small businesses never make that kind of profit because there are so many expenses to deduct that tax liability is always limited. If the net profit, after all expenses, is more than $250K, there is only a 3% difference between Obama's small business tax rate and McCain's small business rate on anything more $250K. So even if he made more than that, it would be offset by the additional benefit that Obama's plan offers: a per employee tax credit for new employees and the elimination of capital gains for small businesses. Very importantly, the Obama health care savings and benefits to small business would more than make up for any modest tax increase. This doesn’t sound like Obama is “punishing” small businesses.
I personally know and have known several small business owners, including one in my own family who is quite successful, and have never heard one say ‘I'm going to stop making more money because the government is going to take more of it.’ That argument doesn’t hold water.
Joe the Plumber acknowledged during his conversation with Obama that he would be better off with the Democrat's tax plan, if he really was a plumber.
Reporters began digging into records and found out that Joe is not really a plumber and has never held a plumber’s license, which is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities. He never completed an apprenticeship, is not a journeyman or master plumber, and does not belong to the plumber’s union which is quite active in Ohio. Joe has acknowledged he doesn't have a plumber's license, but said he didn't need one because he works for someone else at a company that does residential work. That excuse doesn’t fly in Ohio. According to David Golis, manager and residential building official for the Toledo Division of Building Inspection, Joe does need to be licensed to do plumbing work in Ohio.
Oops.
And then there is the matter of his income taxes. Joe owes the state of Ohio $1,182.98 in personal income tax, according to Lucas County Court of Common Pleas records. In January 2007, Ohio's Department of Taxation filed a lien on his property until he pays the debt. The lien remains active.
Joe’s a real stand up guy, isn’t he?
Here is what happened:
When Obama was canvassing a neighborhood in Ohio, going door to door, Joe decided to step out in front of the camera and ask a question about whether buying his boss’s business would force him to pay a higher tax rate under the Obama plan. Obama explained to him that the business grosses more than $250k, that is certainly not his tax liability. He would have to make net profits of more than $250k to be affected by the Obama plan. But 97% of small businesses never make that kind of profit because there are so many expenses to deduct that tax liability is always limited. If the net profit, after all expenses, is more than $250K, there is only a 3% difference between Obama's small business tax rate and McCain's small business rate on anything more $250K. So even if he made more than that, it would be offset by the additional benefit that Obama's plan offers: a per employee tax credit for new employees and the elimination of capital gains for small businesses. Very importantly, the Obama health care savings and benefits to small business would more than make up for any modest tax increase. This doesn’t sound like Obama is “punishing” small businesses.
I personally know and have known several small business owners, including one in my own family who is quite successful, and have never heard one say ‘I'm going to stop making more money because the government is going to take more of it.’ That argument doesn’t hold water.
Joe the Plumber acknowledged during his conversation with Obama that he would be better off with the Democrat's tax plan, if he really was a plumber.
Reporters began digging into records and found out that Joe is not really a plumber and has never held a plumber’s license, which is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities. He never completed an apprenticeship, is not a journeyman or master plumber, and does not belong to the plumber’s union which is quite active in Ohio. Joe has acknowledged he doesn't have a plumber's license, but said he didn't need one because he works for someone else at a company that does residential work. That excuse doesn’t fly in Ohio. According to David Golis, manager and residential building official for the Toledo Division of Building Inspection, Joe does need to be licensed to do plumbing work in Ohio.
Oops.
And then there is the matter of his income taxes. Joe owes the state of Ohio $1,182.98 in personal income tax, according to Lucas County Court of Common Pleas records. In January 2007, Ohio's Department of Taxation filed a lien on his property until he pays the debt. The lien remains active.
Joe’s a real stand up guy, isn’t he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)