I saw a Tea Party "leader" interviewed on the unfair and unbalanced network--I think fromthe Tampa Bay area and a member of the "Tea Party Express". I almost threw the glass I was holding at th eTV screen, which would have been costly (since I doubt if either the Tea Party or the nfair and unbalanced network would have paid my bill for a new TV).
This guy was talking abut how out of control government now is, and, of course, he is right. But heseemed totally oblivious to the fact that the Tea Party has generally FAILED to do AnYTHHING aobut it. That is especailly true n Washington, as the Tea Party may have had ore success in some states. But Washington iw where the main problem lies. States are FORCED (even with Demorcrats in control) to do SOMETHING when their spending is out of control. Sure, what they do may be WRONG, and come too late, but in the end they have to do something. Taht is why it is MUCH better to have states handle their own problems, instead of looking to "free money" from Washington. States have a fighting chance to realzie that they can't go on the way they are, because they are unable to CONCEAL looming disasters.
But why was I so angry? This Tea Party guy used as his first example of out of onctrol government the fact that President Obama is going to have to go back to Congress for another 1.2 TRILIONI dollar increse in the DEBT CEILING (yes, that again). As this blog has ponted out, the GOP, and even the Tea Party, CANNOT argue that the debt ceiling should not be increased. Why does the debt ceiling have to be increased? Right. Because the GFOP, without MAJOR Tea Party oppositoin, PASSED the spending and deficit bills that rEEQUIRE the debt ceiling to be increased. See the earlier blog article this week, noting that what this blog has been telling you has been confirmed (by the Wall Streeet Juornal, teh Seante Budget Office, and others): TheGOP has managed to "cut" NOTHING--not one dime--in spending. Furtehr, since December of 2010, the GOP has ADDED over 300 BILLIION to the rEQUIRED additoins to the debt ceiling, merely by "cooperating" in those massively expensive "stimulus" GIMMICKS of the "payroll tax cut" and the extension of unemployment benefits. You Tea Party peole an argue all you want that it was jsut not POLITICALLYL possible to do anyting. It won't wash. You can't say you were too COWARDLY to take politcal risks, an dthen say that you are against raising the debt ceiling ON PRINCIPLE. What principle? I don't see any eople of PRINCIPLE here. The "debrt ceiling" is NOT the probllem. IT is the SYMPTON+M. The SPENDING (and gimick additons to the deficit) represents the PROBLEM, and the GOP and Tea Party combined to totally take the focus OFF of the SPENDING until ALL of the spending bills were safely lpassed. DEFEAT THESE PEOPLE, INCLUDING TEA PARTY POLITICIANS THAT WENT ALONG WITH THE GOOP. The Tea Party should have been jumping up and down and SCREAMING (like this bog) about the BETRAYAL of the GOP. Sure, I am sure there were "noises" out there, but they were MUTED "oises". As stated herein, even Michele Bachmann--who formed the "Tea Party Caucus" in the House--refused to make a case AGAKNST THE GOP LEADERSLHIP and take it to the peole. In the end, the Tea Party "movement" went along with the GOP BETRAYALS for the sake of POWER. I don't forgive them for that. I can't forgive thhem for that. Above all, I will NOT forgive them for "fvighting" abut the DEBT CELING again!!!!!!! Some acts of stupidity and DISHONESTY simply cannot be forgiven. This is one of them. I sort of regret not throwing my glass threw the TV screen, and BILLING the Tea Party.
The 2011 spending bill, where the GOP and the Tea Party claimed victeory? NO CU:TS. The 2012 spending bills, whre there were supposed to be that SAME f100 BILLIN dollars in "cuts"? NO CUTS (in fact, probably 50 to 100 billino in ADED SPENDNG). Fiscal restraint? Again, those BRIBES (sold as "middle class bribes", even though you may wonder a little how paying people not to work for 99 weeks rally "helps" the "middle class", but that is true of AL of thhese bribes, which HURT EVERYONE IN THE ENDA) of the "payroll tx cut" and furterh exttension of uneployment benefits aDDED 300 BILLIN to the next required debt ceiling since December of 2010 (assuming taht Congress will "extend" the ridiculous two month Senate bill extension to the full year that everyone assumes will happen, INCLUDING THE TEA PARTY).
Nope. As this blog has shwon, the Tea Party "movement" has been an ABJECT failure. The GOP said that it had "learned" frm the Tea Party, and proomptly showed it had not. Rather, the Tea Party seems to be "learning" "plitics as usual" from the GOP. "Power corrupts, and absolutwe power corrupts absolutely." The problemnowadays is that even a SNIFF of power seems to corrupt absolutely.
Again, the GOP House HAD to vote FOR every single DIME that the government is spendng for 2012. They did not "have" to vote fo rANY of that spending. In toehr words,every dime of additional raising of the debt ceiling can be BLAMED on the GOP and the Tea Party. Sure, the GOP acted RELUCTANT, and the Tea Party "tried" to give backbone to the GOP, but they ALL betrayed us in the end. The Tea Party needed to BREAK with the GOP, or at least make a CREDIBLE threat to do so unless the GOP stood by SPENIDN GUCTS and DEFICT REDUCTION. I agree that it was probably too much to expectd for the GOP to "balance the budget" for 2012, although they had the POWER to do so If the House refused to vote for anyt;hing but a blanced budget, there ws NOTHING Obama and the Democratrs could do (except shut down the government, which they could not possibly have done all of the way to the next electioin). It is DISHONEST for the GOP to say it was "forced" to spend al of this money . That is a LIE. What the GOP is really saing is that it was POLITICALLY AFRAID to really take on the SPONDING IFGHT, not to mentino tthe "fight" (rout) over the "payroll tax cut" bill.
Again, let us acknowledge that it was too much to expect for both the Tea Party and the GOP that they BALANCE THE BUDGET (even though they had the POWER--at least th eGOP did--to FORCE the government to do so). But the GOP "cut" NOTHING. The Tea Party ACCOMPISHED NOTHING. Not acceptable, and it justifies me wanting to throw things at my own TV.
The Tea Party gy, who evidently had SOME shame, did not even tgalk about current SPENDING (eveen though it is INSANE to DEMAGOGUE on the DEBT CEILINGwithout coupling it with spending, because the spending bills and budgetg bills RFEQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised). Then the Tea Party guy went on to tak about STATE pensions--throwing in Federal pensions as an afterthought (although I am not sure how much he was talking about Federal BAILOUTS of state pensions--also a problem). This is actually one of my brother's (the one in Nashville) main issues. My brother believ es, with a lot of justice, that is it vritually CRIMINAL for Federal employees to have these masive pension plans. At least for non-military people, my borther would require that EVERY Federal employuee have only ONE "retirement plan": Social Security. Ye. My bortehr especially believes this should be true of CONGRESS. I, personally, do not understand why EVERY member of Congress is not DEFEATED who does not SCREAM about eliminating the ridiculously generous PESNION received by members of Congress, starting when they win ONE election. But, then, I ahve already called for you to DEFEAT THEM ALL, includng Tea Party politicans who are present incumbents.
When this Tea Party guy was takng about "success", he was talking about electing a Tea Party" governor. I am not sure, by the way, jsut how much success Tea AParty STATE politicinas have had on pensions, outside of Governor Christie of New Jersey. And I am not totally sure EXACTLY how much succes Christtie has had in SOLVING the problem, but I give Christie credit for actualy FIGHTING the battle. I don't give the GOP, or the Tea Party, ANY credit for "fightng the battle" in Wasington. After the 2010 election, the GOP had the ABILITY to at least make PROGRESS in the fight on spending and the deficit. They made NONE, and even made the prolbe m WORSE> The ony things thaey have done are SMLL, FICTIIOUS (likelY) "savings' over the next TEN YEARS (a Soviet-style TEN YEAR PLAN, the concept of which has been ENDORSED by both the GOP and the power brokers of the Tea Party).
N. The Tea Party has FAILED, and guys like this one I saw on the unfair and unbalanced network only make me ANGRY . Taht is because they don't seem to KNOW that they have FAILIED as misarably as any political movement has ever failed (almost as miserably as Ben Bernanke has fialed since being appointed Fed Chariman in relatively EARLY 2006).
Here is my reaction to the Tea Party politicains and "poer brokers' these days: "Tal to the hannd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (Remember that one). I am no longer listeing, and I have no respect for most of you. I am sure there are a FEW Tea Party "leaders" out there who have not betrayed us. But, really, they have had NO effet. They have not even made ANY WAVES. Their big "achievement" was hthat FARCE of a supercommittee, wh;ich ended that FARCE of a "debt ceiling" debate (when the Tea Party should have been trying to COUPLE the debt ceiling with SPENDING, as even that idiout, Ben Bernanke, said was the problem with the debt ceiling not being CONNNECTED to SPENDING). Spending bills, and things like the "payroll tax cut",REQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised, and that should be TRANSPARENT as part of every budget process. Congress should ANNOUNCE how much their budget/spending bills REQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised, and RAISE the debt ceiling at the end of the BUDSGET/SPENDING process. The debt ceiling should be reached at the same time as SPENDING bills are due, or shortly thereafter--AFTER Congress has announced how much their votes have REQUIRED the debt ceiling to be raised.
"Skip, you don't like AnYONE. Whoi can you support, when even the 'extreme' Tea Party are not l'pure' enough for you."
Tehre is SOME justice in this charge, but not much. The problem is that this is NOT a matter of "purity". It is a matter of it being UNACCPETABALE to "cut" NOTHING from spending, after you have PROMISED to do so That kind of "policyy", and COWARDICE, means the COLLAPSE of this contry (eventually), and I refuse to support people who ENABLE that collpase. There are MANY Tea Part people who I could support. But the Tea Party has produced NO LEADERS I can support (that I knw about), and simply has FAILED to turn into a real force for what it professes to believe in. I think the rank and file Tea Party peole,like my friend Tony (an accountant), would SUPPORT a real leader who would INSIST on "shutting down the government" if no progress is being made, no matter what the POLITICAL consequences. It would realy, of course, be Obama and the Democrats how were "shutting down the government, as our SYSTEM is set up so that we are NOT SUPPOSED TO SPEND NY MONEY THAT THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REFUSES TO AUTHORIZE. In other words, our system is set up so that the House of Representatives can FORCE the Federal government to "live within the means" authorized by the House of Reppresentatives, no matter what the President and the other camber thnks. lYes, the Seante has a similar VETO power over spending, and that SHOULD have lmited spending--except for this ridiculous BALCKMAIL of "shutting down the government". We shoudl NOT be albe to SPEND any money upon whic BOTH the House and the Seante do not agree. Sure, you can see that there has to be a little "give and take " in this. But what we have done is the exact OPPOSITE of what our system envisions: We have gotten to a "system" where NO SPENDIN GIS CUT UNLESS EVERYONE AGRESS T THE CUTS.
Not acceptable. Tea Party as now working: Not acceptable. GOP (well, you know this one): DEFEAT THEM ALL (all incumbents of either party).
P.S No profreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).