Skip to main content

The following are the next five (the first five covered in Part 1) of 15 "non-negotiable core beliefs" the Tea Party holds, according to www.teaparty.org (with subsequent responses):

"Six. Government must be downsized."

Government has already been downsized if deregulation is considered. Initially pushed under the Reagan administration, deregulation has made inroads. Corporations have become untamed in contributing to the gutting of regulations beneficial to the public good, whether dealing with the environment, labor or social services.

Private monopoly has expanded through an out-of-control financial sector that offered special enticements like derivatives, hedge funds and subprime mortgages from investment banks and brokerage firms, creating wild speculation over the years which, as a consequence, led up to the 2008 Great Recession (the documentary, "Inside Job," by director Charles Ferguson, gives the sordid details).

There has been the existence of a private corporate bureaucracy with close ideological ties with the government where politicians become corporate consultants and vice versa in a politically-incestuous relationship.

There have been threats by GOP members to cut the funds to the Environmental Protection Agency-or to eliminate the department altogether; as well as to Social Security, OSHA and unions serving the public's interests.

This is a Tea Party version of downsizing. Meanwhile, the military and intelligence budgets are hardly affected, if at all.

"7. The national budget must be balanced."

Anyone would agree on this, but it's a matter of how it's done. Cutting/gutting social programs, the EPA, OSHA, etc. and leaving the military and intelligence budgets untouched, or actually raising them further, as with point six, sounds like a Tea Party policy. One could say, war prioritized over peace, like the Orwellian motto, "war is peace."

"8. Deficit spending must end."

Another issue people could agree on, but, once again, it's a matter of what is prioritized, as with point seven. If Tea Partiers voted for George W. Bush Jr. for president, and yet they want to end the deficit, it's a crazy contradiction. Under the Bush Jr. administration, the deficit reached record highs, with an "orgy" of borrowing and spending.

Starting with a surplus of $27 billion inherited from the Clinton administration, Bush Jr.'s administration started and continued running up an increasing deficit each year until 2008, the end of Bush Jr.'s second term with a loss of $-459 billion. (www.davemanuel.com)  Barack Obama inherited the Bush Jr. deficit, where by 2009, it totaled $1.4 trillion. (Murse, "10 Biggest Budget Deficits, www.about.com)

Looking at points 6 - 8, Tea Party goals, and how they would be potentially implemented in relation to government practices,  wouldn't be ethical or efficient.

"9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal."

What "commoner" wouldn't agree on this? President Obama talked of protecting Main Street against Wall Street in his 2008 presidential campaign. But that quickly evaporated when his economic advisor Larry Summers headed the efforts for a bailout (Bush Jr.'s administration contributing before that) for Wall Street, the banks, etc. If corporate/banking/investing behemoths build up private monopolies, while decrying government interference in those monopolies, then government shouldn't bail them out when a recession, or even a depression, strikes.

Bail out Main Street. Do Tea Partiers agree with this? Or do they adhere to the GOP economic agenda? Probably the latter. However, given the loose association of Tea Party chapters, there could be disagreement on this issue.

"10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must."

The working class pays the vast majority of income tax. Corporations are further down the list. It should be the opposite. But Tea Partiers think that the rich would be treated unfairly. No. Tax loopholes and offshore tax havens provide the rich ways of not paying the taxes they should pay, thus, stealing money from U.S. taxpayers.

A flat tax has been favored by the right, but an across-the-board tax percentage would not work since there is gross economic inequality. The 1% already have an advantage. A flat tax would give them more of one.

Part 3 will present the last five beliefs of this Tea Party agenda.

David Starr writes on social and political issues, both national and international.

©

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The evil TBAGS can go to the ninth circle of hell (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 11:50:00 AM PST

  •  I guess I'm "no one"... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    godwhataklutz

    ...or at least I'm not "anyone" since the things you write that "anyone would agree" with, I find I don't.

    Not accepting most of the premises from which you begin, there's very little I can say to the conclusions you come to.

    what about we no ones who don't start from the same premises you do?

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 12:35:36 PM PST

    •  Anyone to No one (0+ / 0-)

      There were clear issues put down that would no doubt have majority support, e.g., opposing the bailout and stimulus plans for Wall Street/the banks, etc. A clear issue, at least for the masses.

      I took that angle only with certain issues that can be agreeable to. For the rest, the responses were different based on the issue, itself.

      So, using that one example again about bailouts, do you support them for Wall Street, etc. rather than "Main Street"?

      Regarding premises, start with what ever you think is worthy on an issue or issues for whatever use you make of them. I'm not your keeper.

  •  David - for individual US taxpayers (0+ / 0-)

    offshore "tax havens" offer no legal tax advantage or avoidance. The taxes due to the US Treasury on any income producing asset held by an individual is the same regardless of whether that asset is held in the Cayman Islands or New York City.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 01:09:18 PM PST

    •  Taxes (0+ / 0-)

      I should be more specific. I'm referring, e.g., to corporations in particular, not the average tax payer with no corporate power.

      You use the word "legal." I'm not exactly seeing this as legal. I am prompted to further research the "nuts and bolts" of how this specifically works.

      If offshore tax havens don't offer an advantage, legally or illegally then why have them? Because U.S. corporations are simply doing business in a place like the Cayman Islands and thus are paying their fair share of taxes to the U.S. treasury?

      THAT, I don't believe.

      But maybe I'm missing a "key ingredient."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site