Foxfyre, I have some concerns with this statement. While I will agree that there are a number of questions that need answers, the Tea Party seems to have an agenda which is not at all consistent with Constitutional rights. In fact, it's more consistent with corporate rights. Having it's roots based in the machinations of a couple of "robber barons" - brothers by the name of Koch - does nothing to instill a great deal of faith in their long term objective. My greatest fear is that instead of returning us to our post-Revolutionary dogma, the Tea Party is inadvertently (or maybe not) opening the door to corporatism and replacing democracy with plutocracy.
One could argue that the current manipulation of our news media is a necessary first step in establishing control over the people of this country. This was the exact tactic the Soviets used to instill Communism. Although we have the freedom of the press, "grass roots" bodies - which according to many of the documentaries I've watched on the subject - are in fact organized by groups like Americans For Progress, a Koch funded organization. They exert a great deal of influence mainly because they ask the questions that are on everyone's minds but fall short in the answers to those questions. Their main tactic has been to attempt to discredit any idea which is anathema to their positions - and constant ridicule in the press rather than objective examination is not an answer. The main theme, however, is consistently "Being rich is good" - any argument to that statement draws calls of "socialism".
To be fair, the business model of the Tea Party press is sound. Conservative viewership sells products - no doubt about that. In response, other media outlets are attempting to cash in and serve a liberal point of view. It still doesn't make it right, and in the end destroys the objectivity we need to solve the problems we're facing.
There are a number of ways in which we could effect a better economic outlook and save the entitlement programs. The fact is though, that if our system worked the way our models show, entitlements would be minimal on their own even with all the so-called give-aways. One could make the argument that the corporate structure and tax law has shifted in a way which precludes those on the low end of the scale from ever being able to rise above their stations, and that current philosophy will do nothing more than INCREASE the number of people in need. This, to me, is the driving principle behind the Tea Party and has nothing to do with the principles this country began with - where we helped our neighbors to establish themselves all the while knowing that the favor would be repaid in the future.
I'm sorry - this country has lost it's way. But the Tea Party shows me the bleakest possible outcome.
I am a dedicated Tea Partier and I can assure you that though there are those in the Tea Party who have personal social agendas, the vast majority of Tea Party groups do not. The single focus of almost all of the Tea Party is:
1. To restore fiscal integrity in government at all levels.
2. To restore individual liberties as intended by the Constitution.
3. To decrease the size, power, scope, and expense of the Federal government.
That's it. And in my opinion, if the Tea Party was able to get that agenda back into the hearts and minds of the majority, that would restore America's greatness.
And to that end, what a wonderful thing to get behind.
Yet, every Republican president since the depression has done his level best to DECREASE fiscal integrity. Especially the last Bush to sit in the oval office, who let the Democrat "pay-go" system lapse and thereby allowed spending to increase without looking back.
The restoration of liberties, as long as we don't talk about contraception, abortion, ending the so called war on drugs, or marrying the person we love regardless of sexual orientation. And let's not forget providing a path for the naturalization of undocumented aliens who have only known life in this country. Exactly which liberties are we really talking about?
And then, decreasing the size, power, scope and expense of the Federal government... to which, I'd ask: To what end? This is the part that scares me the most. Decreasing the size, power, and scope of the Federal government means dropping regulation - which not only protects our businesses, it protects us. It protects the environment in which we live. The Koch brothers would love nothing better than to have a free reign in this regard. Big oil has been salivating over all the land that they can't put a derrick on - despite the increase in places they can already drill. This is also the same government which protects businesses from each other in the form of copyright law and anti-trust regulations. It brings us food which is (more or less) safe to eat, and is supposed to be on guard against large-scale infectious diseases. Does this limitation actually make sense to the American public?
And then comes the expense part of the claim. It's hard to argue that what our government costs us isn't getting out of hand. I could make an argument that the cost of government services has ballooned considerably as more fluff has been added without due consideration of cost and real need. However, before taking out the fiscal machete wouldn't it make more sense to reshape these services to make them more efficient before sending them out to the individual states which are already, themselves, overburdened?
I find it increasingly hard to accept the precepts of the Tea Party - especially as they seem to benefit the very few and to do exactly the opposite of what groups like American Crossroads and Americans For Progress tell you. Each of the terms that you mentioned above were contradicted by every party member supported by the movement. And, although the victory margin was slim, clearly the majority whose hearts and minds were affected the most is still unaffected by the continual brain-washing efforts of the hard right.
