Friday, September 17, 2010

I was Tea Party, when Tea Party wasn't cool

Peggy Noonan explains the motivating force behind the phenomenon: "Why it's time for the Tea Party"

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, "We should spend a trillion dollars," and the Republican Party would respond, "No, too costly. How about $700 billion?" Conservatives on the ground are thinking, "How about nothing? How about we don't spend more money but finally start cutting."
Testify, sistah!

The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the Tea Party: They know what time it is. It's getting late. If we don't get the size and cost of government in line now, we won't be able to. We're teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world - states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn't "big spending" anymore. It's ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.
So there's a sense that dramatic action is needed, and a sense of profound urgency. Add drama to urgency and you get the victory of a Tea Party-backed candidate.
Anybody who has read this blog knows I'm mortified by the unprecedented accumulation of debt on the personal, municipal, state, and federal level. Michael Kinsley (no conservative, he) hit upon our national disconnect in the Atlantic:

Debt is everywhere you look. Here’s a short inside piece in The New York Times Magazine about state and local unfunded pension obligations for retired employees. They add up to between $1 trillion and $3 trillion. Until that article, I had given no thought whatsoever to shortfalls in state employee pension funds. You? Now we can only say, "Add it to the pile." Then there is all that consumer debt - those underwater mortgages, those credit cards. And you can pick almost any number you wish, for what Medicare and Social Security will cost above and beyond their alleged "trust funds."
Where are we heading? What is the trajectory of the country? With respect, it's almost silly that we're having these debates on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts. We need to raise taxes and cut spending even more (in my opinion, much much more.) This country is on the path to a federal deficit equal to 100% of GDP – a level not seen since World War II – just to pay for the general budget and entitlements. The critical difference is that we voluntarily owed that money to ourselves in World War II through the sale of war bonds. A big chunk of the debt we'll owe in the 21st century will be to foreign countries who have stocked up on T-bills and don't exactly have our best interests in mind.

In other words, when the government had debt problems, at least it owed the debt to Americans. It was our problem. This brave new world puts this country in a box because our addiction to debt can only be fed by the very countries who wish to supplant us as a world power.

That can't be good.

3 comments:

Nigel Tufnel said...

It is refreshing to hear a conservative say we need to combine tax increases with budget cuts. You are courageous, and more importantly, correct.

The lack of full flame responses to your assertion is intriguing. Could it be that way down deep everyone really knows that, but just won't admit it?

Politicians know they can't tell this fundamental and obvious truth on the campaign trail. People prefer the fantasy answers.

Let's hold out hope that honest talk will start after November.

It really is a matter of national security.

Eric said...

Occam's Razor teaches us that the lack of responses means that nobody's reading this blog.

Yet I press on. Why? Who knows?

Nigel Tufnel said...

Offering rational analysis is like putting a bunch of those foamy pointy things inside the echo chamber.

On the other hand it does improve sound quality.

Keep the faith. For inspiration dig up old copies of National Review from when WFB ran the show.

Stand athwart the Internet and yell "Stop!".