Always do more than is required of you.
George S. Patton
Superficial Progressive Analyses of the Tea Party
I really get irritated at the stereotypes aimed at the Tea Party. Although I have not formally participated in the movement, I have written dozens of commentaries consistently arguing against government scope creep from local issues (e.g., lemonade stands and food trucks; the Kelo decision) to the federal level (e.g., the TSA, the Patriot Act, disturbing expansion of the military tribunal system, particularly at the expense of American citizens). I have talked about across-the-board spending cuts and asset sales, sunsetting regulations, streamlining and consolidating operations, and delegating authority to the state and local levels of government; I have discussed privatizing school and retirement systems and scaling back our international military presence and obligations. I am just as skeptical of growth to feed the military-industrial complex as I am of progressive empire building in the areas of domestic policy. But I have more realistic expectations about what can be done in mixed government at the federal level, I don't overpromise, and I avoid some of the intentionally provocative statements made by Ron Paul, especially regarding American adversaries.
The REAL reform takes shape under the surface; it won't be the real meat goals of say, abolishing the Energy Department or the Education Department. Most likely even if those things were done, relevant programs would simply be reassigned. It will happen in thousands of little ways, like streamlining regulations and the jobs that support unnecessary regulations, downsizing the government through attrition, outsourcing nonessential operations, and offering early retirement packages for expensive government employees.
The fact that progressives have to resort to engage in stereotypes in describing the Tea Party and supported candidates is hardly surprising. Consider the following predictable extract from a typical New York Times progressive columnist:
I think the moral here is pretty clear. We have talked for nearly three years about how the Tea Party is terrorizing the Republican establishment, until the old country-club, deal-making model was verging on extinction. But it now appears that if the new populist right does something that actually endangers the well-being of the old, entitled right, the establishment will rise up and slap those little whippersnappers down faster than you can say Mitch McConnell.She then goes on to say:
This is the song of the Republican establishment, which hateshateshates class warfare. Like when the nonrich start asking why people who make millions of dollars in annual income can’t accept a modest levy to pay for that payroll tax cut.Poor Gail is analytically challenged so let's educate her. There are a lot of moderate Republicans, particularly in the Northeast, part of the mythical "Republican establishment" (take, for instance, Colin Powell) whom in fact are supportive of domestic welfare programs. These programs, beyond temporary short-term fixes, are thought by Republican conservatives and libertarians to be morally hazardous, with citizens effectively developing dependencies on the programs of progressive government. And we have seen long-term Republican establishment types, e.g., John McCain during the initial Bush tax cut debates and more recently Newt Gingrich, whom have engaged in class warfare/populist rhetoric.
"Like when the nonrich start asking why people who make millions of dollars in annual income can't accept a modest levy to pay for that payroll tax cut." When someone writes a statement like that, I have to wonder--is Ms. Collins really that clueless? Or is she exaggerating a point, not intending for anyone to take her seriously? Payroll taxes are really mandatory retirement contributions, not taxes in the sense of underwriting regular government. The FACT is that high-income workers already pay TWICE their share of national income in federal tax burden. On top of that Ms. Collins thinks it's perfectly acceptable for the well-to-do, whom already earn a lower return on those retirement investments than lower-income workers, to pick up part of the retirement tab for everybody else. Where does Ms. Collins draw the line? If a one-percenter eats at a local restaurant, does she think he needs to pick up everybody else's tab? What gives her the right to cast judgment on someone else's property--to think it's only right that she should pass judgment on or control what another person earns as a result of his own hard work?
I have never been a one-percenter and likely never will be, but I'm against class warfare tax hikes, even if it would be in my personal interest. Why? Among other things, I think that the economically successful save and invest their own money more effectively than the spendthrift federal government which would confiscate it but can't even balance its own budget or handle the taxpayers' money more efficiently.
But to answer the economically illiterate Ms. Collins more fully, let us remind her that MONEY IS FUNGIBLE. Out of a greater than $3.5T budget, we can't find $120B or so to sustain a temporary tax cut? And let us not forget during multiple Bush tax rebates/credits and a massive one from Obama (before this year's payroll tax holiday), a large percentage of that tax break did not result in economy-boosting spending but was used adding to savings or paying off debt. In other words, the payroll tax holiday was simply another ineffectual stimulus as usual, but Ms. Collins thinks it's only fair that 1% of the population should have to pay ten years for one year of ineffectual stimulus spending.
Going back to Ms. Collins' earlier cited, nonsensical prose about establishment Republicans putting those Tea Party hotheads in their place, the issue had more to do with political reality. The Left, of course, knows it from their own perspective. Ted Kennedy pressed for decades for a single-payer universal health care system--but he settled for compromise measures like RomneyCare. During the 111th Congress House Democrats wanted a public option and didn't get it.
And so President Obama droned on with his pretentious, "I would like to thank all the little people; you're responsible for making this 2-month extension of the current payroll tax holiday possible." For Ms. Collins, let us review Obama's "leadership" and "accomplishment" here: he wanted a 3.1 point cut--half of the employee share of social security tax--not to mention a business-side tax; he wanted it paid for by a class warfare tax cut over 10 years, but this is paid for by increased GSE loan guarantee fees; he wanted a year long agreement, but he got a two-month agreement. Oh, yeah: Obama really won here, didn't he, Ms. Collins?
Musical Interlude: Nostalgic/Instrumental Christmas
"O Little Town of Bethlehem"
Barbra Streisand
Instrumental
Vienna Boys Choir
Perry Como
