Ruminations on the Tea Party

by: RSeay

Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 13:48:52 PM EDT

Exemplary of this fact, but certainly not alone, are the self-styled "Tea Party Patriots." This organization of everyday people draws their name from the famous tea party of the American Revolution. As they are a socio-political movement whose primary political agenda is to see radical changes in federal laws relating to taxes in America, they believe, wrongly, that the invocation of references and images of the American Revolution is acceptable and suiting. They, however, forget, ignore, or simply don't know that the Tea Party in Boston Harbor was not directly a protest against taxation but rather, specifically and most importantly, it was a protest against taxation without representation. Frankly, it is the latter two words of that phrase that are most important. The American colonists wanted representation in the English Parliament, and felt that it was unfair of the Crown to tax them without the precondition of representation being met. Thus, their argument was not against taxes but against the lack of representation. I suggest Glen Beck and Sarah Palin read a history book.

Today, no one in the United States is taxed without representation. Our constitution outlines that to every state shall be accorded two senators, and that likewise, each state would have seats in the House of Representatives according to their population. The senate and the house comprise what we collectively call our bicameral legislature, or to use British terminology, our parliament. Thus, to style their movement's name from the Boston Tea Party is absurd and misleading. The espoused and enumerated causes of the "Tea Party Patriots," have nothing to do with the cause of those responsible for the Boston Tea Party. As ignorant, and maddening, as their use of the term "Tea Party" is, I am most offended by the use of the moniker "patriot."  I am reminded of the words of George Washington, "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

The term patriot should never be used in a partisan fashion. Further, their use of iconic symbols of our nation's revolutionary heritage, such as the "Don't Tread on Me" flag is offensive beyond my meager ability to articulate. To apply the moniker patriot to their cause, they are, simultaneously, applying the moniker of unpatriotic to all who disagree with them. I, for one, could not disagree with their slighted, skewed, and illogical political agenda more. However, I love my country as much as any person breathing or dead. Rather than rant of my dislike of these people, I have instead applied my youthful vigor and love of country to disproving every propagandized, uninformed, and frankly stupid tenant of their so called, "Contract with America."

(More below the fold well worth reading. Carnacki)

Of course on the surface, this seems like a good idea. That is because it is a good idea, that's why our founding fathers thought of it and created a system of  checks and balances  when they first conceived the principles of our government at the Philadelphia convention where our Constitution was decided, written, and signed. Whenever the legislature, the branch empowered to make laws, enacts a law it must be constitutional. The constitution is the highest law of the land and all questions of constitutionality are to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, among other functions, is the branch of our government empowered to determine the constitutionality of any and all laws. If they identify that a law is unconstitutional then it shall be deemed such and no longer be effective. Furthermore, if they deem that a law is not unconstitutional then it shall remain effective. And in the mean time, there is always injuctions.

The difference here is that for a question of constitutionality to arise it must go through a system of law. By that I mean a lawyer files a suit claiming that a certain law is unconstitutional. The legislature itself, although it has lawyers who are charged with trying to direct its actions where the constitution can and will allow, and though its membership is comprised of a great many lawyers, is not the judicial branch. For a committee or any sort or governing body of the congress therein, as the Tea party favors, to make decisions on the constitutionality of every new law would not only bring all legislation to a beaucratic, nightmare of a halt but it would also violate the very principles our founding fathers intended when they conceived the new government of our beloved nation. Let me say that again, the very first enumerated point on the Tea Party's Contract with America is in direct violation of the principles of our founding fathers, you know, the very founding fathers whose name they like to invoke and who they proclaim they are inspired by. James Madison and Benjamin Franklyn, I dare say, would agree with my assessment that these people do not represent the values of our founding fathers and are, honestly, idiots for thinking that they do.

2.)  Reject Emission Trading.

Quite frankly I don't think any of the founding fathers, save perhaps Alexander Hamilton, could have even conceived of this notion and by that virtue where very unlikely to have any sort of direct opinion on it. However, many had very strong opinions on the preservation of our earth. Let me be forthright, being against emissions trading, or cap and trade, is placing the interests of industry over the well-being of our environment. Definitively, emissions' trading is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives. Think about this logically, factories that don't worry about how much they pollute are capable of producing their product more cheaply, the economic incentives provided by emissions trading gives capital driven corporations an incentive to be more environmental. Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone educated on the issue can, with a clear conscience, say they are against emission trading. This is especially a touchy issue in West Virginia.

The words of Thomas Jefferson, "The earth is given as common stock for man to labor and live on." Common stock, he says, belonging to us all, and thus the burden of us all to care for. I dare say that our founding fathers, would not even for a moment believe that emissions' trading was bad for our country. This position, I believe is most telling because it shows where the true allegiance of the Tea Party's leadership remains. It remains vested in the almighty dollar, to the rich industrialists, not the people, who lose money because they are forced to have care about something as pitiful as our environment. If it is not the charge of the government to protect the air we breathe, then who should be so charged?

3.)  Demand a balanced Federal Budget

Like point one, this, on its surface, seems like a good idea. Essentially, the federal budget is to the government what a check book is to your everyday American family. However, doesn't everyday Americans, from time to time, have to take a loan? What is a loan if not spending money that you don't yet have. Most everyone uses loans, from the federal government and private lenders, to finance their educations. Furthermore, most Americans could come nowhere near gathering the capital necessary to purchase a home without a loan of some kind. At times, even the wealthiest nation on the planet, must also for lack of a better term take a loan - or spend money that it does not yet have. I have an example of the benefits of deficit spending that I assert is irrefutable. The New Deal, of FDR, was nothing if not defecit spending on federal programs to get people back to work in order to get our economy moving again. Those programs, though symptomatic, kept millions working and millions more fed. Our economy has been devastated by the high price of a fruitless war. The very acts of deficit spending the Tea Party attack specifically are those targeting to alleviate the finical struggles imposed upon the poor and the middle class by our recession: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Emergency Economic Stabilization act. The charge of our government is to provide for the well being of its citizens, allowing the market economy to simply fix itself doesn't work. Just ask former President Hoover. It's the exact polices that drove us into the depression. Yet, ask these people to help balance that budget by cutting defense spending and they will nearly have a heart attack. No it is much better to cut social programs, like the ones that loan money to low income students to go to college. Only the rich need an education right?

4.)  Simplify the Tax- Code (specifically adopt a single rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with a code no longer the 4,543 words- the length of the original constitution. )

This is the dumbest one on the list. First, giving a word limit is acceptable on an 10th grade English paper. To set any limit, especially such a small one, on something so important as our tax code is ridiculous. Furthermore, a single rate tax code would benefit the super rich and hurt the poor. A single rate tax code would broaden the gap between rich and poor in our country, because poor and middle class Americans have to spend a significantly higher percentage on their annual income on basic needs like food and utility bills. There is no hiding their agenda's bias toward wealthy Americans. What is most disturbing is that they don't even try to hide it. They take for granted that most Americans are either not educated enough on the issues or too stupid to see them for what they are. The leadership of this movement, is, mark my words, demagogues invoking themes of patriotism and scenes and images of our revolution to suit their elitist agenda. There is nothing revolutionary in that and there sure as hell isn't anything patriotic in that.

5.)  Audit Federal Agencies for Constitutionality

See point one. Further, however, the solution they propose to determining the "duplication, waste, and ineffectiveness" of federal agencies is to create another federal agency, rather a 'duplicate' agency of something that already exists for this purpose: the Supreme Court. To be advocates of original intent they seem to often forget the very law that was created by that intent- the Constitution. All questions of constitutionality are to answered solely by the judicial branch of which the Supreme Court is, well, supreme. Just as with acts of congress, the creation and specific works of federal agencies is, and has always been, required to be within constitutional parameters- and those that are not shall be dissolved by a ruling of the supreme court. For example, some agencies created by the New Deal were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

6.)  Limit Annual Growth in Federal Spending

This is about as stupid as placing a word limit on the tax code. Any limit one placed would be arbitrary, how are we to know the demands of necessities of our government 100 years from now, 10 years from now, or even a day from now. The way to ensure that spending is fiscal enough to your liking, is being active in government by choosing leaders that you believe are fiscally minded- not by establishing arbitrary limits based on today's logic that will be antiquated by tomorrow. Had there been a limit on federal spending in 1932, we'd still be in the great depression, or at very least still have been in it well into the 1960s and would have never been able to fund our participation in the second World War.

7.)  Repeal the Health Care Legislation Act

This is a contentious one. Let me see, if I can, explain the logic of their argument before I dismantle it. It is ok to waste billions of tax dollars to fight a war based on faulty intelligence, but is not ok to spend those same tax dollars on ensuring that every Americans are capable of going to see a doctor when they need to. Or to phrase it simply (they like simple phrasing) money is for killing not for healing! This is ridiculous. Millions of hard working Americans are simply not capable of affording health insurance while simultaneously putting food on the table for their families and themselves. I'm not saying the health care bill is great, in fact, I believe that is flawed legislation. However, my disagreement with it is the opposite of theirs. The Health Care bill does not go too far as they assert, but rather it did not go far enough.

8.)  Pass an All-of-the-Above Energy policy

What this means, exactly, is not what they say it means. However, given its approximate definition I actually agree with the Tea Party here in principle. This means, basically, explore any and all ways of cutting America's dependence on foreign energy [oil] and reduce all regulatory barriers to other forms on energy creation. Sounds great doesn't it?! However, what this means is drilling in the Alaskan wildlife preserve and also a lessening of environmental regulation on power sources like nuclear energy. This is a terrible idea. If you are not familiar with the Chernobyl disaster, I suggest you look it up. Certainly we need to get away from dependence on oil, but the key is we need to get away from dependence on any oil and the best way to do that is no by being lax on regulations that govern corporations that deal with dangerous energy sources.

9.)  Reduce Earmarks

Point nine is really an extension of point three. They want a moratorium on earmarks until the budget is balanced. Earmarks are necessary to ensure that money is going exactly where it needs to be going- that is to ensure our government is not simply righting blank checks. To be proponents of supposedly strong fiscal policy this is counterintuitive from a principled standpoint. This is intended to be a political tool, for if achieved, it would be harder for the legislature to get internal support for any bills that require spending because where the money was to be spent couldn't be dictated. A moratorium on earmarks would be a moratorium on all legislation, it would cause, in all actuality, the legislative branch of our government to stop working. Furthermore, I argue that earmarks are necessary for the regulation of intrastate commerce, a power specifically enumerated to the federal government- thus a moratorium on earmarks is unconstitutional. Wait! I thought the Tea Party was all about constitutionality?

10.)               Lower taxes (AKA extend Bush tax cuts FOREVER)

This is another policy so obviously established for the benefit of the super rich. The Bush cuts on income tax, estate tax, and capital gains tax where far more beneficial to the super rich. I am of the firm opinion that a school teacher deserves a tax break more than the Paris Hilton's of the world.

Let me close by adding this point, before our constitution was framed the United States of America was a confederacy of states under a ruling document called the "Articles of Confederation." This document was soundly flawed and the government it produced was a weak and inept failure. The reason this government failed was because it did not have the express authority to lay and levy taxes- nor did it have an executive capable of doing anything. It is well known that the intent of our founding fathers at the Philadelphia convention was to conceive a new government, a federal government, which would specifically have the enumerated power to tax. To give that power to the federal government, as well to address other problems with the articles of confederation, was the reasons for the Philadelphia convention. The fruit of that convention was our Constitution. Thus, for the Tea Party to invoke images of our revolution and proclaim to represent the intent of our founding fathers is absurd and offensive, because the fact is, clearly, that the Tea Party is antithetical with everything our founder believed save one. Our founders believed whole heartedly in the freedom of speech. Thus, as much as it annoys me to see these buffoons dressed in breeches and tri-cornered hats carrying anti-tax signs and waving revolutionary war banners, it their right to do so. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, "" I  disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."- even if you are a collective of demagogues and idiots like the tea party.