#teaparty

The "Tea Party Federation" - a group that purports to represent tea party groups across the country - has exorcised a demon from its midst.

Mark Williams, a radio talk show host by trade, and a self-proclaimed "tea party leader" has been banished from the TPF for writing what might be the most tone deaf, racially insensitive blog post this side of an article praising the Confederate Battle Flag.

And it was all going so well for Democrats and liberals in the media.

Display a picture or vid clip of angry, contorted faces of the tea partiers, add the race card, accuse the “core” of the movement of being birthers, and generally play to the idea that this vast, grassroots movement is a small, insignificant bunch of sour grape Republicans who hate Obama.

Well, it worked for a while. But something funny happened on the way to smearing millions of ordinary Americans worried about the future; surveys of tea partiers show them to be almost as mainstream as a McDonald’s french fry:

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.

The Winston Group conducted three national telephone surveys of 1,000 registered voters between December and February. Of those polled, 17 percent – more than 500 people — said they were “part of the Tea Party movement.” …

Yeah, yeah OK. Let’s trash the results because the Winston Group is “Republican leaning.”

I suppose Gallup is in the GOP’s pocket too?

Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That’s the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.

In several other respects, however — their age, educational background, employment status, and race — Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large. (Emphasis mine)

Gallup actually gives better numbers for party affiliation than the GOP leaning Winston Group; 48% Republican and 43% independent with 8% self identified Democrats. And did Gallup really measure 32% of all Democrats in America supporting the tea partiers?

Ooops. There goes the narrative - mostly. With 28% of all Americans supporting the Tea Partiers and 26% opposed, you are bound to get a few kooks and crazies. You know the type; the one in ten thousand who hold up a sign comparing Obama to a witch doctor who somehow is portrayed as representative of protestors.

But I find it interesting that a group that is representative of the racial makeup of the US would be…racist. Can’t use the excuse that voters aren’t aware of the charges of racism made so casually, so nauseatingly by opponents. They’d have to be oblivious to the avalanche of media reports and opinion pieces that make the racist charge so cavalierly.

Beyond that, it is also not surprising that the majority would be conservative Republicans, although one might refer to most tea partiers as “nominal Republicans” in that I doubt whether there are more than a handful of GOP politicians that tea partiers are happy with.

I have been very critical of those in the tea party movement who seek to use anger and fear as a wedge to gain support for their cause. It is still my belief that reason wins a lot more converts than screaming, and fear mongering is self defeating - as seen by the failure to stop Obamacare. That vocal minority has done more damage to the tea party movement than most are willing to admit.

But the left is going to have to start coming to terms with this group based on reality, not their own, politically motivated smears. It is possible to argue against their positions without referring to them as racist, although I admit it’s a challenge to defend deficits of more than a trillion dollars as far as the eye can see. It is also possible to critique their arguments without trying to marginalize them as kooks. “Birtherism” has been so discredited that only a fringe now tries to keep the idea alive that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen. At any rate, is is a deliberate smear to posit the notion that the “core” of the tea party movement are birthers, as the president suggested in his Today Show interview.

Is the conservatism of the tea party movement farther right, in general, than the mainstream? We have little relevant data to make any kind of intelligent determination but my sense is that there is a distinct hard right flavor that, as Gallup might indicate, places the tea partiers on the edge of mainstream politics; not fringe by any means but some distance from the “center-right” that makes up the bulk of American voters. I would peg them as more ideological than much of the mainstream which skews their views in many respects. The fact that only 28% of all adults support them while 46% either have no opinion or don’t know shows there are a lot of adults in America who are suspicious of the tea party movement, as most Americans tend to be of excessively ideological people.

But even with those caveats, you cannot escape the notion that the narrative created by tea party opponents to smear them has been dealt a serious blow by these surveys. I’m sure on April 15th, when the tea partiers gather en masse once again, that we will get the same kind of coverage in the media that we have gotten previously; ignoring the tens of thousands of peaceful, reasonable, passionate demonstrators and highlight the kooks. At least, judging from the results of the surveys, the American people appear to be looking beyond that narrative and are focusing on the message of the movement; that we are spending too much and burdening future generations with obligations they will not be able to meet.

Politicians have always been accused of flip flopping, but now, as is evidenced in the recent town-hall meetings, they have reached the point where they just plan ignore the voters wishes and desires and do whatever they want. They no longer claim to represent the voter, but represent themselves once elected.

Baron Hill (IN-09), refuses to allow his constituents to tell him how to run his office. I suppose being a Representative for him means ignoring the voters wishes.

'Let me repeat that one more time. This is my town hall meeting for you. And you're not going to tell me how to run my congressional office. Now the reasons why I don't allow filming, is because usually the films that are done end up on YouTube in a compromising position."

Of course, if he behaved like a Representative and didn't do anything compromising, he wouldn't be on YouTube so much in compromising positions.

Eric Massa (NY-29), also thinks he knows better than his voters.

"I will vote adamantly against the interests of my District, if I actually think what I am doing is going to help them... ...I will vote against their opinion."

"Every town-hall meeting, show of hands, 90% against and 10% for. Ok, got it, no problem. There comes a time when members of congress sometimes must vote against popular opinion because they know it is in the interest of their districts and the country..."

So Rep. Massa let's the cat out of the bag. Congress-persons think they know better, they are the parents and will vote what they think is best. The voters aren't grown up, or intelligent, or knowledgeable enough to know what is best for them. So the peoples representatives will vote their way, and not represent you and your needs. After being elected, they represent themselves, and their opinions and desires. The opinions and desires of the people aren't worthy of being represented.

You can do something about it. Fill out and mail them the Tax Expenditure Allowance (TEA) form. Tell them where you want your tax money spent, and on what. Put your congressperson on an allowance, they are behaving like children and spending your money any way they please. The real adults in this country have to put the spoiled spendthrifts in Congress on a shorter leash.

If your share of taxes for the Federal Department of Education is to high for what you want or desire from them. Then lower the allowance congress gets for it. Make your share of taxes paid to that Department lower, and spend that money on a Department you think is underfunded. Or tell congress to use it to pay down some of the National Debt and stop borrowing from your children and grandchildren to pay for congressional pork. Pork for their friends and  family, paid for by money borrowed from your children and grandchildren.

TEA form at : http://www.braindeadrepublican.com/tea/tax_expenditure_allowance.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJdsrByTV8U

Tax Expenditure Allowance

by Michael DeWeese

Permission is hereby given to reprint this article without permission according to the Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ . The article must be reprinted in its entirety including all links and be an exact copy of the original at: http://www.braindeadrepublican.com/Wordpress/economy/tax-expenditure-allowance/

The United States Congress seems to like to get voted into office and then spend the taxpayers money any way they see fit. Instead, the taxpayer should be sending a Tax Expenditure Allowance to congress directing them where each taxpayer wants their taxes they pay spent. A simple form to send in to Congress giving them an allowance to spend on each Department and Program according to your desires.

This is a paradigm shift. In the past, voters elected a legislator to represent them in congress to determine budgets and on what their taxes would be spent. It was to cumbersome with the technology available at the time this system was designed to run a large government any other way.

With today's technology, such outdated methods to determine what each individuals taxes need to be spent on is archaic. Each individual can represent themselves in their general desires for the expenditure of their taxes they pay. A form can be filled out and sent to the federal government to be processed that has an individuals desires for where they give an allowance to each government Department or Program.

The details of the expenditure can be determined by their elected representative since most taxpayers lack the time or desire to micro manage the government entities. Determining how many new aircraft should be built or which bridges should be repaired is a tedious chore and can be delegated to legislators and bureaucrats.

Providing an overall allowance for the government agencies and programs as determined by the taxpayer, will do more to guide the legislator in where the taxpayer wants their money spent. With this process, people determine where their money is spent, and if they want more of their share to go to a particular project and less to another, they can do that. It could even be conceivable that folks who really care about the funding of a particular project can pay extra taxes to be designated to fund their pet projects.

No longer will Legislators get into office and spend taxpayer money on their personal pet program or agency, but will have to spend it on what the taxpayer wants funded, and not spend it on projects of no worth to the taxpayer. Now the legislators will need to justify to the taxpayer the reasons they should put in an expenditure allowance for them to spend on programs.  Once again, the legislators will be working for the taxpayer, instead of the taxpayer working to fund the legislators frivolous wishes.

And legislators that don't support T.E.A. will do so because the people that vote for them, are people who pay no taxes and will be afraid they will not get any welfare from the ones that do pay taxes anymore.

Alexander Tyler - 17th century historian:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;From spiritual faith to great courage;From courage to liberty;From liberty to abundance;From abundance to complacency;From complacency to apathy;From apathy to dependence;From dependence back into bondage.

From Barack Obama, August 28, 2008:

"the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it."

Demand change. You are the American people, bring change to Washington.

If you don't, more and more will be taken from you to pay for things that are frivolous and useless until you are taxed beyond your means. When America is taxed beyond her means.

John F. Kennedy understood the conundrum of high taxes. And that is where we will eventually go if we do not take a firm hand upon our employees in Congress and give them a strict allowance to spend where we want it spent. Legislators will simply continue to vote higher taxes, if not on income, then on consumption as a sales tax or a value added tax (vat). Let them know enough is enough. Tell them what you want your taxes spent on.

John F. Kennedy was at the Economic Club in New York in December of 1962.

He said:

"It is increasingly clear that...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

Another President understood more about the prospect of a government that looks after you than anyone. Letting the politicians take your money and spend it on what they think is good for you becomes truly frightening.

"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help."Ronald Reagan

Any Departments or Programs that do not get enough of an allowance from the taxpayers get shut down. Maybe not immediately, perhaps a 10% reduction in funds per year maximum until they reach the taxpayers allowance level or are completely shutdown after 10 years.

Taxpayers can put their money where their ideals are. Want more money for education, tell congress to put a larger expenditure of your taxes into the Department of Education. Want more of your taxes to go for Police, Firefighters, give congress a bigger allowance towards the Department of Justice.

 There are 138,394,754 taxpayers (latest figures available are 2006) per year. Each taxpayer has an average tax share of $122,951.19 for 2009. It is time to take back control of your money.

Stop letting Congress put you and your children and your grandchildren into monstrous debt.

Stop letting the non productive vote in legislators to steal your families hard earned wealth and put your family into debt for generations to give them benefits they have not earned.

Stop letting your legislator tell you where they will be spending your money, fill out and send them the T.E.A. Form and tell them where you want your money spent.

Click here for a PDF, or OpenOffice copy of a T.E.A. form ( 5 pages ) to fill out and send to your Congressperson(s):

References and Links:

There are 31 Departments / Agencies / Programs that are funded by the 2009 Federal Budget.

There are 32 Departments / Agencies / Programs that are funded by the 2010 Federal Budget.

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 was a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008-September 2009.

The President's budget for 2009 totals $3.1 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2008. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

Mandatory spending: $1.89 trillion (+6.2%)$644 billion - Social Security$408 billion - Medicare

$224 billion - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) 

$360 billion - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending 

$260 billion - Interest on National Debt 

Discretionary spending: $1.21 trillion (+4.9%) 

$515.4 billion - United States Department of Defense 

$145.2 billion(2008*) - Global War on Terror 

$70.4 billion - United States Department of Health and Human Services 

$59.2 billion - United States Department of Education 

$44.8 billion - United States Department of Veterans Affairs 

$38.5 billion - United States Department of Housing and Urban Development 

$38.3 billion - State and Other International Programs 

$37.6 billion - United States Department of Homeland Security 

$25.0 billion - United States Department of Energy 

$20.8 billion - United States Department of Agriculture 

$20.3 billion - United States Department of Justice 

$17.6 billion - National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

$12.5 billion - United States Department of the Treasury 

$11.5 billion - United States Department of Transportation 

$10.6 billion - United States Department of the Interior 

$10.5 billion - United States Department of Labor 

$8.4 billion - Social Security Administration 

$7.1 billion - United States Environmental Protection Agency 

$6.9 billion - National Science Foundation 

$6.3 billion - Judicial branch (United States federal courts) 

$4.7 billion - Legislative branch (United States Congress) 

$4.7 billion - United States Army Corps of Engineers 

$0.4 billion - Executive Office of the President 

$0.7 billion - Small Business Administration 

$7.2 billion - Other agencies 

$39.0 billion(2008*) - Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending 

The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.

$75.8 billion - Supplemental and Emergency spending ($70 billion for Global War on Terror - and $5.8 billion for Gulf Coast Hurricane relief)

Along with this is a Debt. With projected receipts significantly less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately 407 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $10.2 trillion.

Details of the 2009 Federal Budget are at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/tables.pdf .

 More budget information at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/budget.html .

The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (-17.9%) 

$695 billion (+4.9%) - Social Security 

$453 billion (+6.6%) - Medicare 

$290 billion (+12.0%) - Medicaid 

$0 billion (-100%) - Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) 

$0 billion (-100%) - Financial stabilization efforts 

$11 billion (+275%) - Potential disaster costs 

$571 billion (-15.2%) - Other mandatory programs 

$164 billion (+18.0%) - Interest on National Debt 

Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+7.0%) 

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) - Department of Defense (including Overseas

Contingency Operations) 

$78.7 billion (-1.7%) - Department of Health and Human Services 

$72.5 billion (+2.8%) - Department of Transportation 

$52.5 billion (+10.3%) - Department of Veterans Affairs 

$51.7 billion (+40.9%) - Department of State and Other International Programs 

$47.5 billion (+18.5%) - Department of Housing and Urban Development 

$46.7 billion (+12.8%) - Department of Education 

$42.7 billion (+1.2%) - Department of Homeland Security 

$26.3 billion (-0.4%) - Department of Energy 

$26.0 billion (+8.8%) - Department of Agriculture 

$23.9 billion (-6.3%) - Department of Justice 

$18.7 billion (+5.1%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

$13.8 billion (+48.4%) - Department of Commerce 

$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of Labor 

$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of the Treasury 

$12.0 billion (+6.2%) - Department of the Interior 

$10.5 billion (+34.6%) - Environmental Protection Agency 

$9.7 billion (+10.2%) - Social Security Administration 

$7.0 billion (+1.4%) - National Science Foundation 

$5.1 billion (-3.8%) - Corps of Engineers 

$5.0 billion (+100%) - National Infrastructure Bank 

$1.1 billion (+22.2%) - Corporation for National and Community Service 

$0.7 billion (0.0%) - Small Business Administration 

$0.6 billion (-14.3%) - General Services Administration 

$19.8 billion (+3.7%) - Other Agencies 

$105 billion - Other

More details at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf .

Detailed information can be found at http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html .

Congressional Budget Office Projections. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml

On the Mackinac Center for Public Policy website - three important items that answer the questions Tea Party activists have been asking, “what next?” and “what else can we do?”

Pasted below is the first, “Tea Party Activists have Attitude.” Also check out “Ten Minute Tea Party Activist” and “Candidate Quesionnaire for Tea Party Activists.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Tea Party Activists have Attitude

Samuel Adams, widely believed to be the instigator of the Boston Tea Party, once said that it didn’t take an activist majority to prevail, “but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

Setting brushfires requires attitude, especially during a time described by Adams, “when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, (and) our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

The following describes an attitude that, if widespread, would vastly improve the incentives of lawmakers to honor the principles of limited government.

1. Tea Party activists aren’t impressed that their politician is a “nice guy.”

Being likeable isn’t needed for a person to succeed in America. An insufferable jerk can build a billion-dollar corporation from scratch, employ thousands, save the whales and cure cancer.

What he can’t do is win an election. To gain votes in a democracy a candidate must be likeable. The reason political campaigns feature photos of the candidate’s family and pets is not because they want voters to assume that he or she has a responsible record on taxes and spending.

Therefore, the last thing that should ever impress a Tea Party activist is a politician who’s a “nice guy.” Simply put: They’re all nice guys, so get over it and ignore it. Hold them accountable for their deeds rather than their smile. The Tea Parties were a reaction against a lot of very nice guys doing very bad things.

2. Tea Party activists don’t presume virtue in party labels.

Political parties are extensions of the politicians that they elect. They are mere instruments to gain power, not virtuous machines that exercise that power in noble ways.

Example: During the term of President Bill Clinton the budget actually had a brief surplus, while spending soared under President George W. Bush. Likewise, while Michigan Republican lawmakers boasted of their collective resistance to the $1.4 billion income and business tax hikes passed in 2007, most of them voted for most of the increased spending it funded.

There are countless other examples. An experienced patriot treats the promises of politicians and political parties with equal (and substantial) skepticism. Use political parties only as tools toward your ends, not theirs. Your loyalty is too valuable to sell so cheaply.

3. Tea Party activists really know their own lawmakers’ voting records.

If the “nice guys” aren’t a reliable source for a full and accurate picture of their records, and the party label doesn’t do it either, then experienced patriots need to find this information on their own.

At the state level, two free tools make this much easier in Michigan. The first is MichiganVotes.org, which provides a plain-English description for every vote cast by every member of the Michigan Legislature since 2001. The second is Michigan Capitol Confidential, a periodical that gives more details on votes involving concerns regarding limited government.

An experienced patriot should use both of these tools, and compare how his or her lawmaker measures up by asking these critical questions:

• Does the lawmaker always vote with their party, no matter what?
• If there are a handful of dissenting votes for or against the limited government side of an issue, which side does he or she tend to fall on?
• Do most of the bills he or she introduces expand the size of government, or reduce it?

4. Tea Party activists follow the money.

Is your lawmaker getting financial support from those whose values do not match up with your own? It’s not hard to find out. For most past and current Michigan legislators, go to the “Search Voting Record” tab on the MichiganVotes.org homepage, choose a representative or senator and click “search.” A link to a list of the legislator’s campaign contributors appears below his or her photo. For members of Congress find this information at OpenSecrets.org. (Go to “Politicians and Elections,” “Donor Lookup.”)

5. Tea Party activists know they don’t have to get elected to change the world.

They understand that electing a handful of virtuous lawmakers won’t solve the problem either, because what needs to change are the incentives operating on the entire political establishment. Here’s how Milton Friedman described it:

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”

More often than not the most important effect of an election is who gets defeated, not who gets elected. When a politician loses for “doing the wrong thing” the incentives change for all of them.

6. Tea party activists don’t “repress their feelings” regarding fiscal malpractice.

Having discovered the real records of elected officials in their own area and elsewhere (see Items No. 3 and 4), Tea Party activists share this knowledge widely with friends, family, colleagues, internet contacts, etc., letting all and sundry know how their lawmakers are behaving, and sharing their feelings regarding the ones who are misbehaving.

7. Tea Party activists focus on what unites them, not things that may divide. Those uniting things are:

• Grievance: Chronic fiscal irresponsibility, now become acute fiscal extremism.
• Target: A self-serving, self-perpetuating political class that no longer represents the will of the people.
• Goal: Restore genuine representative, limited government by changing the incentives on elected officials.

See also: “Ten-Minute Tea Party Activist” and “Candidate Questionnaire for Tea Party Activists.”