Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Bitter Tea

.
I found this online after a brief Google search asking “what does the Tea Party stand for?” Considering the fact that the “Tea Party” now appears to be shaping the course of our current elections, I thought I should know:

The issues and ideas that are at the core of the Tea Party movement:

1) All forms of government must abide by the boundaries set forth in state and federal constitutions.

2) All pork and earmarks in the stimulus, omnibus bills, and bailouts must be reversed and repealed. The national budget must be balanced. Spending cuts, not increased taxation should be used to balance the budget.

3) Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness implies personal responsibility, not handouts, free-enterprise and capitalism, not government controlled economies. Some people choose to be irresponsible (and of course some fall on hard times due to circumstances), but it is not the responsibility of the general public, vis-a-vis government intervention, to guarantee or bailout irresponsibility and failure. Private individuals and organizations give out of compassion and generosity, not compulsion through taxation. laws, and pork barrel projects.

4) ALL elected and appointed officials are under the employment and serve at the will of We the People.

5) Excessive tax burdens kill prosperity.

6) Excessive national debt is generational theft, and stealing the future of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

7) Neither major political party is "clean" on these issues. Both Democrats and Republicans have taxed excessively and neither have restrained the hand of government effectively. There are certainly individual representatives who have been faithful to their constituents and to the Constitution. However, too many are engaged in protecting their congressional positions and turf. The majority of government officials have insulated themselves from the people they serve, and hold themselves above the law. We are simply saying, "No, you aren't above the law".

8 ) The American public at large is ignorant of the purpose of government, the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. As a result, they allow politicians to sell them false hope and "rights" and "entitlements" that are not guaranteed by the Constitution. By educating the American people on the foundations of our history, we hope to bring sanity to the election and legislative processes.

9) As a group, we are appalled at the audaciousness and arrogance of our government in the last few years, particularly the proposals and bills passed in the last few months, despite massive public disapproval.

The Tea Party is a wake-up call to all Americans.

I read through that explanation a few times, and I have to admit, I agree with a lot of it. I hate big government (despite the fact that I am a tiny cog in the machinery and my families livelihood depends upon the paycheck I receive from the taxpayer treasury). I’ve jokingly said for years that there are entire branches of government that could likely be shut down today and the only one noticing tomorrow would be those not getting a paycheck.

I believe we should have a balanced budget. I believe our elected officials should be responsible to the voters, not lobbyists and special interests. I hate earmarks and pork spending. I don’t like high taxes.

But if it’s all so good, why does my nose keep twitching from the odd smell? What is it that makes the whole Tea Party movement seem so…fishy?

For me, and I think a lot of others, it mostly comes down to timing. How strange that the movement didn’t truly kick off until the fall of 2008 and the election of Barack Obama. Despite explanation #7 (that both parties are dirty), and assurances from leaders and members of the party that they are neither “Republican” based nor “racist,” it seems highly coincidental that the election of the first black president and the overwhelming defeat of the Republican party marks the sudden awakening of patriotism in America.

Really bad timing.

There was no uprising during the George W. Bush years, while our national debt spiraled out of control and government grew to unprecedented levels with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Where was their concern during those years?

We are beat over the head at work about ethics and the terrible “appearance of impropriety.” This is explained to us as something that might be perfectly innocent, but still “looks bad.” I would hope that this is the case with the Tea Party. I am sure that there are many followers of the movement who truly are free of prejudice and only want what’s best for our country…but it still “looks bad.”

I’m not saying that because Barack Obama is black that he should be given a free pass…far from it. He was elected to one of the most powerful positions in the world and should be held accountable for each decision. He made the choice to accept this position, and in the brilliant words of the Spiderman universe, “with great power comes great responsibility.”

But seriously, the man had not arrived at the White House before he was being picketed. He had barely had time to unpack before protesters were calling for his impeachment. Not since Lincoln has a President stepped into office facing such immediate and destructive animosity.

With such stubborn, bitter opposition, there can never be compromise. The decision of who Obama was and what he stood for was made before he was elected, and there would be no dialogue or debate.  There appears to be only one goal, and that is a removal from power as soon as possible.

That is the most frightening part of this movement.   They don't want him to do anything good for our country, nor help in any way for him to do it.   So assured are they that he will fail, they wish for it to be so…and therefore, in the blind pursuit of their own interests, wish failure upon us all.  

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Trigger Effect

Yesterday New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg made his way to Capitol Hill to ask Congress to consider passing a bill that would prohibit anyone on the FBI’s Terrorist Watch List from purchasing a gun or explosives. When I heard this, my first thought was, “isn’t this a law already?” I mean, seriously, why do we have a list of potential terrorists and then willingly allow them to purchase an AK-47 or sticks of Dynamite. That’s kind of like going on a donut diet. It’s a diet in name only and the outcome won’t be very pleasant.

Of course, the mere mention of a gun law brings out the raised hackles of the sworn protectors of the second Amendment. Terrified that someone might dare take their gun from their cold, dead hands, they don’t care who can buy them or how anyone gets them. Our forefathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave every American citizen the “right to bear arms,” so by golly, that means you’re absolutely un-American if you don’t believe that means complete and unfettered access to every possible weapon conceived or manufactured.

Senator Lindsey Graham R-S.C. stated his fears that this would infringe upon innocent citizens constitutional rights. He, and others who refused to support the law, said that the Terrorist Watch List is inaccurate and often contains names of people who are completely innocent of any wrong-doing. Gun enthusiast blogs are saying that if the law is passed the list will be expanded and used as a way to keep any American citizen who doesn’t agree with the government (like Tea Party members) from owning a gun.

While I have to agree that the last thing I want is a group of angry, possibly racist, Glenn Beck worshiping protesters to be forced to riot without the protection of their weaponry, I still think that there is room to negotiate. Is it even conceivable that the flag raising patriots of the NRA would want guns or explosives to be sold to a potential terrorist? Are they so terrified of losing the semi-automatic assault rifle that they use for duck hunting that they are willing to endanger the lives of other American citizens?

Sarcasm aside (at least for a moment), is it really that hard to find a middle ground here? I can understand the justifiable fears that a “watch” list could be inaccurate or used inappropriately. If someone hasn’t thought of doing that already, they probably will. But does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water?

If the list is inaccurate, the common sense thing to do might be to FIX THE LIST. Set some iron-clad rules about who goes on the list and why. Make sure that there can be no confusion with a three year old that happens to have the same name. With today’s technology, should this really be that difficult?  Develop an expedient and reasonable review process if someone challenges their entry on the list.

As usual, both sides of this argument need to listen to what the other is saying. They need to sit down and work out their concerns like adults given a serious responsibility. Extremists from either side need not apply.