paul ryan vs. david brooks

[Azazello1313]

first, op-ed by paul ryan and arthur brooks (of the AEI):

What we must choose is our aspiration, not whether we want to zero out the state. Nobody wants to privatize the Army or take away Grandma's Social Security check. Even Friedrich Hayek in his famous book, "The Road to Serfdom," reminded us that the state has legitimate—and critical—functions, from rectifying market failures to securing some minimum standard of living.

 

However, finding the right level of government for Americans is simply impossible unless we decide which ideal we prefer: a free enterprise society with a solid but limited safety net, or a cradle-to-grave, redistributive welfare state. Most Americans believe in assisting those temporarily down on their luck and those who cannot help themselves, as well as a public-private system of pensions for a secure retirement. But a clear majority believes that income redistribution and government care should be the exception and not the rule.

...

Unfortunately, many political leaders from both parties in recent years have purposively obscured the fundamental choice we must make by focusing on individual spending issues and programs while ignoring the big picture of America's free enterprise culture. In this way, redistribution and statism always win out over limited government and private markets.

 

Why not lift the safety net a few rungs higher up the income ladder? Go ahead, slap a little tariff on some Chinese goods in the name of protecting a favored industry. More generous pensions for teachers? Hey, it's only a few million tax dollars—and think of the kids, after all.

 

Individually, these things might sound fine. Multiply them and add them all up, though, and you have a system that most Americans manifestly oppose—one that creates a crushing burden of debt and teaches our children and grandchildren that government is the solution to all our problems. Seventy percent of us want stronger free enterprise, but the other 30% keep moving us closer toward an unacceptably statist America—one acceptable government program at a time.

 

david brooks responds

 

As Paul Ryan and Arthur Brooks put it in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, “The road to serfdom in America does not involve a knock in the night or a jack-booted thug. It starts with smooth-talking politicians offering seemingly innocuous compromises, and an opportunistic leadership that chooses not to stand up for America’s enduring principles of freedom and entrepreneurship.”

 

Ryan and Brooks are two of the most important conservative thinkers today. Ryan is the leading Republican policy entrepreneur in the House. Brooks is president of the highly influential American Enterprise Institute and a much-cited author. My admiration for both is unbounded.

 

Yet the story Republicans are telling each other, which Ryan and Brooks have reinforced, is an oversimplified version of American history, with dangerous implications.

 

The fact is, the American story is not just the story of limited governments; it is the story of limited but energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth and social mobility. George Washington used industrial policy, trade policy and federal research dollars to build a manufacturing economy alongside the agricultural one. The Whig Party used federal dollars to promote a development project called the American System.

 

Abraham Lincoln supported state-sponsored banks to encourage development, lavish infrastructure projects, increased spending on public education. Franklin Roosevelt provided basic security so people were freer to move and dare. The Republican sponsors of welfare reform increased regulations and government spending — demanding work in exchange for dollars.

 

Throughout American history, in other words, there have been leaders who regarded government like fire — a useful tool when used judiciously and a dangerous menace when it gets out of control. They didn’t build their political philosophy on whether government was big or not. Government is a means, not an end. They built their philosophy on making America virtuous, dynamic and great. They supported government action when it furthered those ends and opposed it when it didn’t.

...

Republicans are riding a wave of revulsion about what is happening in Washington. But it is also time to start talking about the day after tomorrow, after the centralizing forces are thwarted. I hope that as Arthur Brooks and Paul Ryan lead a resurgent conservatism, they’ll think about the limited-but-energetic government tradition, which stands between Barry Goldwater and François Mitterrand, but at the heart of the American experience.

 

rejoinder from ryan

 

David Brooks agrees that government ought to be limited – but he is most eager to get on with the “day after tomorrow, after the centralizing forces are thwarted.” I’m as eager as Brooks is for the day after tomorrow. But the critical debate about just how and why the expansion of government needs to be “thwarted” is more important and more interesting, I think, than Brooks acknowledges in his column.

 

The lines have been drawn. As espoused openly by the current Congressional Majority – and as manifested in their recent, sweeping legislative “achievements” – the core duty of government is no longer to protect natural rights; it is to invent, redistribute and ration new rights. Don’t take my word for it. In a revealing response to questions regarding Constitutional constraints on government, my colleague who sets health care policy in the House Ways and Means Committee responded: “The Federal government can do most anything in this country.”

 

The challenge goes beyond “the current concentration of power in Washington,” which Brooks rightly opposes. For the record, I first introduced A Roadmap for America’s Future when President George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office. The explosion in government spending and overreach has been a bipartisan failure, not for years but for decades. Politicians continued to make promises that simply cannot be kept. But reaping comes after sowing – and we now face a debt so massive that it will cause, sooner than we think, the collapse of our social safety net. Contrary to David Brooks’ assertion, “simply getting government out of the way” is not our prescription to meet our pressing fiscal and economic challenges.

 

This is certainly not the case made by Arthur Brooks in his book The Battle. Nor is it the case I make in A Roadmap for America’s Future. In fact, our aim is the same one David Brooks says is the aim of millions of voters who are alarmed by the Democrats’ lavish spending: for government to play some positive role in their lives. That is actually what we are after – government playing a positive role, respecting its proper limits.

 

Let me be specific: I propose to modernize Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security so these critical programs can meet their mission in the 21st century; secure access to universal health coverage where patients and doctors – not government or insurance company bureaucrats – are the nucleus of the system; restructure Federal job training programs of the past century to better prepare our workforce for the challenges in today’s global economy. There are dozens of additional policy reforms in the Roadmap consistent with the mutually reinforcing goals of individual opportunity and income security.

 

The Roadmap’s reforms are – contrary to the frantic attacks made on it by some of its more partisan critics – fair, gradual, sensible, and aimed specifically to avoid the harsh austerity that will result from maintaining the status quo.

 

some more good commentary on the exchange here

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I'll just put this here instead of starting another "political" thread:

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...09/16/tea_party

 

The misguided reaction to Tea Party candidates

By Glenn Greenwald

 

The "tea party" movement is, in my view, a mirror image of the Republican Party generally. There are some diverse, heterodox factions which compose a small, inconsequential minority of it (various libertarian, independent, and Reagan Democrat types), but it is dominated -- in terms of leadership, ideology, and the vast majority of adherents -- by the same set of beliefs which have long shaped the American Right: Reagan-era domestic policies, blinding American exceptionalism and nativism, fetishizing American wars, total disregard for civil liberties, social and religious conservatism, hatred of the minority-Enemy du Jour (currently: Muslims), allegiance to self-interested demagogic leaders, hidden exploitation by corporatist masters, and divisive cultural tribalism. Other than the fact that (1) it is driven (at least in part) by genuine citizen passion and engagement, and (2) represents a justifiable rebellion against the Washington and GOP establishments, I see little good in it and much potential for bad. To me, it's little more than the same extremely discredited faction which drove the country into the ground for the last decade, merely re-branded under a new name.

 

All that said, there are some reactions to the Tea Party movement coming from many different directions -- illustrated by the patronizing mockery of Christine O'Donnell -- which I find quite misguided, revealingly condescending, and somewhat obnoxious. In two separate appearances -- one on Hannity and the other on some daytime Fox show -- Karl Rove, that Paragon of Honor, insisted that she lacks the "character and rectitude" to be in the Senate, and raised these points in support of his accusation:

 

 

One thing that Christine O'Donnell is going to have answer is her own checkered background . . . . These serious questions: how does she make her living? Why did she mislead voters about her college education? How come it took nearly two decades to pay her college tuition? How does she make a living? Why did she sue a well-known conservative think tank? . . . . questions about why she had a problem for five years paying her federal income taxes, why her house was foreclosed and put up for a sheriff's sale, why it took 16 years for her to settle her college debt and get her diploma after she went around for years claiming she was a college graduate. . . . when it turns out she just got her degree because she had unpaid college bills that they had to sue her over.

 

 

Most people are not like Rove's political patron, George W. Bush, who was born into extreme family wealth. O'Donnell's financial difficulties, which Rove is describing, and implicitly condemning, are far from unusual for ordinary Americans. In 2009 alone, there were 2.8 million home foreclosures. Contrary to what Rove is trying to imply, an inability to pay one's college tuition bills or a struggle with taxes are neither rare nor signs of moral turpitude. Those are common problems for a country whose middle class is eroding as the rich-poor gap rapidly widens. If the kinds of financial struggles O'Donnell has experienced are disqualifying from high political office, then we will simply have an even more intensified version of the oligarchy which our political system has become.

 

It's hard to avoid the conclusion, at least for me, that, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, much of the discomfort and disgust triggered by these Tea Party candidates has little to do with their ideology. After all, are most of them radically different than the right-wing extremists Karl Rove has spent his career promoting and exploiting? Hardly. Much of the patronizing derision and scorn heaped on people like Christine O'Donnell have very little to do with their substantive views -- since when did right-wing extremism place one beyond the pale? -- and much more to do with the fact they're so . . . unruly and unwashed. To members of the establishment and the ruling class (like Rove), these are the kinds of people -- who struggle with tuition bills and have their homes foreclosed -- who belong in Walmarts, community colleges, low-paying jobs, and voting booths on command, not in the august United States Senate.

 

You want to know why it's so unusual for a U.S. Senate candidate to have what Rove scorned as "the checkered background" of O'Donnell, by which he means a series of financial troubles? In his interview with me earlier this week, Sen. Russ Feingold said exactly why. It's not because those financial difficulties are rare among Americans. This is why:

 

 

It's not a new thing; it's been going on for a couple of decades. If you look even in the Senate, I'm one of the very few people in there who doesn't have a net worth over a million dollars; my net worth is under half a million dollars, after all these years.

 

 

And as poor as Russ Feingold is relative to his colleagues in the Senate, he's still a Harvard Law School graduate who owns his own home and has earned in excess of $100,000 as a U.S. Senator for the last 18 years. People with unpaid Farleigh Dickinson tuition bills and home foreclosures just aren't in the U.S. Senate. And there are a lot of people -- those who see nothing wrong with the U.S. Senate as a millionaire's club and as an entitlement gift of dynastic succession -- who want to keep it that way.

 

And this ethos is hardly confined to admission requirements for the Senate, but extends to the entire Versailles on the Potomac generally. The Washington ruling class is embodied by the vile image of millionaire TV personality Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan, going on GE-owned MSNBC and announcing that it's time for ordinary Americans to "sacrifice" by giving up Social Security benefits (that she, of course, doesn't need). All sorts of right-wing extremism is tolerated and even revered in Beltway culture provided it comes from the Right People. A Washington political/media culture that rolls out the red carpet for every extremist Bush official is now suddenly offended by these Tea Partiers' extremist views? Please. What's most frowned upon is the inclusion in their circles of those Who Do Not Belong. Hence, the noses turning upward at Christine O'Donnell's lower-middle-class struggles and ordinariness as though they disqualify her for high office. If anything, one could make the case that those struggles are her most appealing -- perhaps her only appealing -- quality.

 

These socio-economic biases have been evident for many years. Bill Clinton's arrival in Washington caused similar tongue-clucking reactions because, notwithstanding his Yale and Oxford pedigree, he was from a lower-middle-class background, raised by a single working mother, vested with a Southern drawl, and exuding all sorts of cultural signifiers perceived as uncouth. Much of the contempt originally provoked by Sarah Palin was driven by many of the same cultural biases. As I wrote at the time, the one (and only) attribute of Palin which I found appealing, even admirable, when she first arrived on the national scene was that she came from such a modest background and was entirely self-made (Obama's lack of family connections and self-made ascension was also, in my view, one of the very few meaningful differences between him and Hillary Clinton). So much of the derision over Palin had nothing to do with her views or even alleged lack of intelligence -- George Bush, to use just one example, was every bit as radical and probably not as smart -- but it was because she hadn't been groomed to speak and act as a member in good standing of the elite class.

 

I'm not defending Palin or O'Donnell; they both hold views, most views, which I find repellent. But it's hard not to notice the double standard which treats quite respectfully many politicians with the right lineage who espouse views every bit as radical. This is the kind of condescension that causes Sarah Palin's anti-elitism screeds to resonate and to channel genuine resentments.

 

* * * * *

 

This is the principal reason I simply do not believe the high-minded claims that these scornful reactions to Tea Party candidates are primarily based on ideology. On Monday, The American Prospect's Jamelle Bouie -- last seen condemning Markos Moulitsas for the crime of comparing the Iraq-War-and-torture-loving American Right to "killers and terrorists" (perish the thought!) -- absurdly lamented the Tea Party movement on the ground it is undermining the "moderating" influences in the GOP and causing a "rigid conservatism" to dominate. I have no idea what Republican Party Bouie has been looking at for the last couple of decades, but it isn't the same one I've been looking at. As Atrios responded -- and I couldn't agree more -- Tea Party extremism isn't an aberration from what the GOP has been; it's perfectly representative of it, just perhaps expressed in a less obfuscated and more honest form.

 

For as long as I can remember -- decades -- I've been hearing that the new incarnation of the GOP is far more radical and dangerous than anything that preceded it, and it tragically threatens to banish the previously Reasonable, Serious, Adult version of that party. That was certainly said about Ronald Reagan, as he argued for the elimination of the Department of Education, brought in cabinet officials like Ed Meese and Jim Watt, catered to Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, and nominated people like Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. That was certainly said about the Gingrich-led GOP of the 90s, with their Contract with America, obsessions with law-enforced morality, and impeachment of Bill Clinton. And it was said over and over about the Bush/Cheney era that ushered in the Iraq War, the torture regime, broad executive lawlessness, and an endless roster of vapid, know-nothing ideologues and religious fanatics in the highest positions.

 

Given all that, I'd really like to hear what it is about Christine O'Donnell, or Sharron Angle, or any of these other candidates that sets them apart from decades of radical right-wing elected officials who came before them? They seem far more similar to me than different. When was this idealized era of GOP Adult Reasonableness?

 

During the Clinton years, Jesse Helms was the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and threatened the President not to go on Southern military bases lest he be killed. The Wall Street Journal called for a Special Prosecutor to investigate the possible "murder" of Vince Foster. Rush Limbaugh -- along with people like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Bill Kristol -- have been leaders of that party for decades. Republicans spent the 1990s wallowing in Ken Starr's sex report, "Angry White Male" militias, black U.N. helicopters, Clinton's Mena drug runway and the "distinguishing spots" on his penis, Monica's semen-stained dress, Hillary's lesbianism, "wag the dog" theories, and all sorts of efforts to personally humiliate Clinton and destroy the legitimacy of his presidency using the most paranoid, reality-detached, and scurrilous attacks. George Bush spoke routinely with people like Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham, and unleashed untold violence, destruction, corruption and lawlessness. How is the current American Right -- and these Tea Party candidates -- any different? Warning that the other party is More Radical Than Ever is a reliable tactic to win elections, but in the case of Republicans, they seem every bit as radical to me now as before, just a bit more pure, primitive and aggressive about it.

 

As Atrios also suggested, these Tea Party candidates differ not in their views but in their untrained, unsophisticated style of expressing those views. They just haven't been groomed yet to comport themselves with Ruling Class mannerisms, which is what is causing most of the consternation. A perfect example of this occurred during the 2008 presidential campaign, when Palin said in an interview with Charlie Rose that the U.S. should be prepared to fight a war with Russia in order to defend Georgia and other republics, such as the Ukraine. That caused widespread outrage as Democrats everywhere rushed to condemn her as a crazed warmonger.

 

But as Matt Yglesias accurately pointed out in an interview I did with him, Palin's view was more or less shared by both Obama and Joe Biden, both of whom had expressed support for admitting those countries into NATO, which would obligate the U.S. to wage war to defend them. As Yglesias explained, Palin's real offense was that she used uncouth language -- meaning language that was too honest and clear -- to describe the implications of this policy:

 

 

Sarah Palin's real mistake in that Russia interview, was being sufficiently inexperienced and unsavvy to just state plainly what's become consensus American policy, which is that we should risk a nuclear war with Russia, that would kill billions of people, and possibly lead to the total end of human civilization, over boundary disputes about Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in Georgia. When she said it, it sounded a little bit crazy, and I think it is a little bit crazy, but Joe Biden just has a more sophisticated way of saying the same thing, and certain routine formulations about this.

 

I had a conversation with a progressive ally who specializes in national security issues about this, and he was talking about the desire to go after McCain-Palin on this, and I was saying, I thought it was hard because they were really wrong -- that it's Obama's position too, and he was saying to me, you know, the real problem here is that, even if your policy is that these countries should join NATO, you don't talk explicitly about the fact that that might mean you go to war.

 

But, I'm not really sure why we don't talk about that.

 

 

The same thing happened when Obama caused great (and absurd) controversy among foreign policy elites with his campaign statement that he would consider escalating our bombing campaign in Pakistan if they refused or were unable to capture Al Qaeda elements: his desire to bomb Pakistan was not (of course) controversial, but merely the fact that one does not say such things out in the open. The Ruling Class code is that a desire to bomb is kept secret, away from the masses, talked about only among elites, and Obama deviated from this code by telling American voters of his intentions.

 

The Republican Party has thrived by keeping much of its real agenda and many of its tactics hidden from public view. These unsophisticated Tea Party candidates are unpracticed in those skills of deception and thus far too harsh and declassé for our effete Guardians of Elite Political Power to bear (watch David Ignatius today long for the glory days when old, wise "centrists" like Lee Hamilton decided everything in secret, bipartisan harmony). It's all perfectly fine to crave cultural and religious wars, to start actual wars, to despise marginalized minorities, to want to slash the safety net for an already vulnerable population, to adhere to extremist religious dogma, and to endorse lawlessness in the name of Security. You're just not supposed to say any of this -- at least not so bluntly, without obfuscating code. And it's especially uncouth when the person violating this code isn't an industrial billionaire like Ross Perot -- whose vast wealth entitles him to some maverick eccentricities -- but some poor, unprivileged, very ordinary Walmart shopper like Christine O'Donnell. Nobody wants someone like her coming in and trashing David Broder and Sally Quinn's place.

[westvirginia]

I'll just put this here instead of starting another "political" thread:

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...09/16/tea_party

 

K, me too.

 

Forbes: How Obama Thinks

 

Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama's approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

 

The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling." Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.

[bpwallace49]

K, me too.

 

Forbes: How Obama Thinks

 

Both parties suck . . . why bother searching for drivel that supports one side or the other? Or to your point, only searching for articles that attack the "Obamessiah"?

 

Neither the right or the left have done ANYTHING AT ALL to distinguish themselves as doing what is best for the country for years. Obama swept in after the trainwreck that was GWB and his cronies and has managed to do the unthinkable . . . DO JUST AS BAD A JOB. Throwing darts at either side it just too easy, and neither side can really defend themselves. This election cycle will keep the violent swings to the opposite parties fanatics continuing. Until the swing from far left to far right stops IN THE MIDDLE the average citizen will never be represented.

 

I really like a lot of Paul Ryan's Roadmap . . but the fact the GOP wont push it is very telling. The left wont even BEGIN to look at it either. Another example of common sense being trumped by electability . . . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

I'll just put this here instead of starting another "political" thread:

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...09/16/tea_party

 

The first paragraph proves to me that guy has never been to a TEA party gathering. Yes some of the people that would like to claim the mantle of leadership within the TEA party hold some of those ideas, but the TEA party has no leader. Most are split 50/50 on the war, I've seen very little racism and when I've seen it has been denounced by those that witnessed it. The TEA party does not have religious or moral undertones unless you count trying to get people to be self sufficient as a moral objective. If anything it strives to protect civil liberties. For the most part it is a bunch of people that want a smaller less intrusive government. Sure there are some fringe people that might have another agenda but they are a very small minority.

[bpwallace49]

The first paragraph proves to me that guy has never been to a TEA party gathering. Yes some of the people that would like to claim the mantle of leadership within the TEA party hold some of those ideas, but the TEA party has no leader. Most are split 50/50 on the war, I've seen very little racism and when I've seen it has been denounced by those that witnessed it. The TEA party does not have religious or moral undertones unless you count trying to get people to be self sufficient as a moral objective. If anything it strives to protect civil liberties. For the most part it is a bunch of people that want a smaller less intrusive government. Sure there are some fringe people that might have another agenda but they are a very small minority.

 

It is truly amazing that every single experience you have in life is completely the opposite of what the majority opinion is. Truly amazing.

[Savage Beatings]

It is truly amazing that every single experience you have in life is completely the opposite of what the majority opinion is. Truly amazing.

 

 

Please. I hardly think that Glenn Greenwald represents the majority opinion.

[matt770]

I like puppies

[bpwallace49]

Please. I hardly think that Glenn Greenwald represents the majority opinion.

 

But what he put in that article is very apt. According to Perch all TEA party rallies are down home patriots singing Kumbayah and intelligently talking about multiple issues facing our country. The point is perch may observe the tiny exception to the rule, and them attempts to project it on a larger scale.

[Jimmy Neutron]

The first paragraph proves to me that guy has never been to a TEA party gathering.

 

Exactly. Yet another "journalist" :mouthing: about something he/she has zero understanding of...

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Exactly. Yet another "journalist" :mouthing: about something he/she has zero understanding of...

Well for one thing I believe is refering more to tea party leaders and candidates rather than the emotionally distraught electorate they are trying to exploit.

[Azazello1313]

The point is perch may observe the tiny exception to the rule, and them attempts to project it on a larger scale.

 

are you absolutely certain it's perch who's doing that and not you/greenwald? exactly how many tea party gatherings have you been to?

[bpwallace49]

are you absolutely certain it's perch who's doing that and not you/greenwald? exactly how many tea party gatherings have you been to?

 

Admittedly one. At the same time I can try and look at it from a larger viewpoint than someone that is actively trying to defend the party itself. I was disgusted with GWB, and am now disgusted with the Dems in charge. The TEA party is just another extension of the same republican claptrap, just like Nader was an extension of the same old Democrat claptrap.

 

 

Spinning otherwise is attempting to justify and legitimize the TEA party people as an independent movement that is somehow separate from the Republican party when it is 95% same old same old, and 5% invective to incite the masses.

Edited September 16, 2010 by bpwallace49

[Ursa Majoris]

Anybody actually got a tea party manifesto? Other than "we've got to get rid of big gubment" have any of them got any actual policies a la Paul Rand?

[Perchoutofwater]

Anybody actually got a tea party manifesto? Other than "we've got to get rid of big gubment" have any of them got any actual policies a la Paul Rand?

 

Here is the Tea Party Manifesto as defined by the Tea Party Patriots

1. Protect the Constitution

 

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

 

2. Reject Cap & Trade

 

Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

 

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

 

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

 

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

 

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words — the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

 

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

 

Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

 

6. End Runaway Government Spending

 

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

 

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

 

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

 

8. Pass an All-of-the-Above Energy Policy

 

Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

 

9. Stop the Pork

 

Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

 

10. Stop the Tax Hikes

 

Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

 

You will not it says nothing about religion, sexual orientation, or race. It is about fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

[bpwallace49]

Here is the Tea Party Manifesto as defined by the Tea Party Patriots

 

 

You will not it says nothing about religion, sexual orientation, or race. It is about fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

 

Soooo again. 95% Republican. Got it.

 

If you are all about Perch more power to ya . . . but why pretend that it is something soooo different than the Republican party line? Why even bother trying to pretend that your new "party" isn't a thin veneer away from the status quo GOP?

 

Own it man . . . stand true in your porkpie hat and be true!

[SLAYER]

My basic opinion of politics. Both parties suck and unless we get rid of all the bs we will go like the Romans and Egyptians.

[wiegie]

anyone else find this amusing?

Here is the Tea Party Manifesto as defined by the Tea Party Patriots

1. Protect the Constitution

...

 

3. ... Begin the Constitutional amendment process

[Perchoutofwater]

Soooo again. 95% Republican. Got it.

 

If you are all about Perch more power to ya . . . but why pretend that it is something soooo different than the Republican party line? Why even bother trying to pretend that your new "party" isn't a thin veneer away from the status quo GOP?

 

Own it man . . . stand true in your porkpie hat and be true!

 

It has many of the same fiscal objectives as the GOP, but lacks the social objectives that many find objectionable. The GOP has been just as bad and the Dems when it comes to assuming powers not granted to the federal government. The TEA party wants to whittle away at those powers not granted to the federal government by the constitution.

[Perchoutofwater]

anyone else find this amusing?

 

Not really since the constitution provided for an amendment process, and the TEA party want to use the amendment process to change this rather than using the courts or unchallenged legislation.

[Ursa Majoris]

It has many of the same fiscal objectives as the GOP, but lacks the social objectives that many find objectionable.

Maybe.....maybe not. I think Ms O'Donnell has some pretty firm ideas about social issues. I mean, it's an ultra-conservative movement so how could it not carry the social ideas many of us find repugnant? Basically the Tea Party is just a rebellion by the GOP grassroots on fiscal issues.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Basically the Tea Party is just a rebellion by the GOP grassroots on fiscal issues.

 

I think that's largely true, but there is also a serious libertarian and independentbody there as well - based on the one event I've been to. There was plenty of GOP bashing to go around.

[Perchoutofwater]

Maybe.....maybe not. I think Ms O'Donnell has some pretty firm ideas about social issues. I mean, it's an ultra-conservative movement so how could it not carry the social ideas many of us find repugnant? Basically the Tea Party is just a rebellion by the GOP grassroots on fiscal issues.

 

I'm sure that some socially conservative candidates like O'Donnell will be put forth, but they are being put forth for their fiscal views not their social views, and if and when their social views take a more prominent position than their fiscal views I see that candidate being voted out at the next election, or at least would hope that is the case.

[matt770]

Especially Daschunds. For my money no puppy is cuter. I find that the labs are also a quality puppy.

[Azazello1313]

all these replies and not one has anything to do with the ryan/brooks exchange. oh well, I thought it was pretty interesting.

 

as far as this whole question of whether the "tea party" is just typical republicanism or something somewhat new and distinct....well look, of course as the movement du jour it's going to draw all sorts of right-wingers to the flame. some religious right, some nativists, probably even a few actual racists. but if you think it's just the same old same old, you're missing (purposefully ignoring?) quite a bit. the lifeblood of the whole thing is a populist libertarian backlash against both parties. it's a backlash that hates obama more than it hates bush, but that's only a matter of degree. there is no doubt that this whole thing is shaking the foundations of the republican party, marginalizing -- in relative terms, not absolute -- social conservatives (the religious right sure doesn't have the pull it did 5 years ago), marginalizing "establishment" republicans, and so on. it's a double-edged sword for the party politically -- it's injecting new life and vitality, but it's leading to some real bonehead outcomes as well, like throwing away this delaware race, and discarding top shelf public servants like bob bennett.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Azazello1313