There's A Party Going On And On And On...

During the most recent election, you know the one that was a "mandate" from the people, the Republicans rolled out their "Pledge to America," which read suspiciously like every talking point they've used since 1994, and was short on actual details and long on partisan bluster. They promised to go to Washington, D.C. and turn things around, fighting for deficit reduction, smaller government, and the repeal of the Health Care Law, among other things. They were going to work for the people, because the people had spoken, and they didn't like the direction the country is going in. Strangely, they neglected to mention that it was a Republican administration that had put the country on this course in the first place, and that captain had rowed away, leaving the current one with a ship with a mighty gash in the side, taking on water. In the end, some Americans, spoke, and because of the apathy of other Americans, the Republicans got half a loaf and turned it into a feast... sort of.

You see, the party of fiscal conservatism, that stood on the rock and howled at stimulus spending, big bailouts, and health care reform, has been selling America a rotten bill of goods. You see, they are determined not to spend another penny of Federal money -- unless it happens to be going to their friends in Corporate America or those who feed off it for their riches. Rather than ensuring that everyone making two hundred fifty thousand dollars a year or less gets to keep their tax cut handed them by President Bush, they are insisting that their rich friends get their fair share, too. Of course, there's the several hundred billion dollar hole in the budget that will create, but hey, that's just a trivial annoyance.

Will The Real Sarah Palin Please Stand Up?

Not being part of the "lamestream media," perhaps Demi-Governor Sarah Palin would mind explaining to me, a member of the "Main Street" that she speaks of so often, just what she stands for. I'm serious. I am not a political pundit, not a talking head, not even affiliated fully with a political party (save having worked on Election Day in 2008 as a Democratic Party poll challenger at my local polling place). Being a lover of reason and logic, though, I am often troubled how she seems to say one thing, then say something else that does not mesh with something she previously stated.

Take, for example, fiscal responsibility. From what I gather, she is all for government having to pay for the things it does. Well, who doesn't? We'd love the Federal government to have the funding necessary to pay for things without driving up the national debt. However, if that is the case, then how come she is advocating for the continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts, tax cuts which had no funding source behind them? That would seem to be contradictory to her message; if we do not collect enough in taxes, we will not have enough money to pay for necessary government programs.

Of course, that would lead naturally to her position against big government. The problem is: she has given no indication as to which parts of government are no longer necessary, and how much it would cost to shut them down, because it's not just a question of letting everyone go and closing the doors and turning out the lights. Then there would the problem of all these people being suddenly unemployed; of course, they could simply pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

There are her constant statements about her belief in, and the need to defend, the Constitution from the current administration, which is busy subverting it. Mind you, she has not told us how it is being subverted, nor can she point to one thing she has done to prevent the "subversion" from going on. It may be that her mere presence in the public arena is enough to keep the administration in abeyance, so that when people inconveniently point out that no subversion is going on, she can claim credit for it.

Also, when it comes to her love of the Constitution, she seems to have a hard time accepting that the provisions of it apply equally to all Americans. Take her opposition to the Muslim Community Center to be built two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. Despite the fact that the developers have every right under the provisions of the First Amendment to build their center, to promote worship of Islam and better relations with other religions, Mrs. Palin is vehemently against their exercise of their rights. Such a contradiction must not have escaped her notice... or did it?

She is very big on freedom of speech, especially where that speech is hers. Strangely, again at odds with her persona as "Defender of the Constitution," is her opposition to those who protest against The Tea Party at rallies. What does she have against the right to peaceably assemble and express disagreement with the positions The Tea Party holds? Does she honestly believe that all those who do not agree with her are not entitled to voice their opinion?

While we are on the subject of personal freedom and liberty, can we discuss her opposition to abortion? Now, abortion is not a good thing, in and of itself; the fact is, there should be no necessity for it, but in the world we live in, it is a necessary evil, owing mainly to the machinations of men who do not have the honor for or the respect of women to do what is right, or whose intent is malevolent and malicious. Add to that an imperfect system of sexual education, and you have a prescription for increased abortion. It is a choice we hope a woman never has to make, but if she finds herself in such a situation, it is a choice she should have, as master of her own body. Unless, of course, you live in Sarah Palin's world. She, who chose to bring a child to term with a developmental disability, would seek to remove that choice from other women, and at the same time, make it harder for them and their peers to get the education necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place.

Let's not even get started on her desire to "Drill Baby, Drill"; she would tie us even further to a finite resource that is becoming harder and harder to obtain without extreme measures or without selling ourselves politically to other nations who hold the supply. An expansion of solar, wind, water, and nuclear power would severe our vulnerability to the whims of foreign powers, who could cripple us through the mere choking off of our fuel supply. As the recent Gulf Coast Oil Disaster pointed out, the lengths we must go to, to secure energy independence through drilling for more oil, will lead to even more wide-ranging consequences than trying to wring a depleted resource out of every nook and cranny of the Earth.

It is clear from her rhetoric and her staunch belief in the righteousness of her "cause," that she is not subject to self-doubt or self-analysis. The contradictions of her positions, and the hypocrisy they represent, show that, rather than being the "savior" of America, she is yet another in a long series of political busybodies whose goal is to impose her view upon the rest of us, running roughshod over the civil liberties that we all enjoy. She is unwilling to address these issues, preferring to blame her lack of critical reasoning on attempts by her opponents to discredit her. She would rather deflect criticism than meet it head-on. She believes that she knows what is best for us, and what is best for us is to cede control to her and her cronies.

It is clear that Demi-Governor Palin chooses not to see what is so clear to the rest of us -- that America is stronger for a diversity of opinion and for the ability of any citizen to live as they would, protected by a strong government, which will not allow others to usurp or invalidate their liberties. Given her myopia, the idea that she and her compatriots in The Tea Party are somehow going to "restore America," is as laughable as it is ludicrous. America does not require restoration; it does require strong and reasoned leadership, and that is something Mrs. Palin has proven that she cannot provide.

Bag It

I won't go into the inappropriate use of the Internet-spawned phrase "tea-bagging"; you can go to Wikipedia and look it up yourself.

As I wrote two days ago, I think it's safe to say that the Founding Fathers would be confounded by the system by which the Federal Government collects levies and taxes in this country, and how the money is then spent. It seems nonsensical in the extreme to tax people constantly to make up for shortfalls in the Federal budget, shortfalls caused by poor budgetary oversight and spending control. Not that the country was a model of fiscal prudence in the beginning, but back then, having fought a war for independence and requiring the aid of other nations to accomplish it, the Continentals were perhaps a bit more wary of plunging the nation into debt for no purpose.

And now, as if to hearken back to the days of the Revolution, Republican organizations around the country are holding "tea parties," designed to show their displeasure at the tax policies of the current administration, and their frustration with fiscal irrresponsibility in Washington, D.C.

But...

The revolutionaries of the late 1700's held their tea party to send a message to the crown, that they would not continue to pay high tariffs on tea (or anything else for that matter), to a government that was, in effect, an absentee landlord. England saw fit to glean what it could from The Colonies without placing too much stock in them, forcing the inhabitants to work harder and harder, only to see more and more of their wealth transferred across the ocean, to be foolishly spent.

While the modern parallel is striking, it's harder to justify it in the same terms today, because the seat of power sits within the nation itself, and is populated by duly-elected representatives from each state. The people have control over this government, and if the government has shown imprudence in the spending of tax dollars, well, the citizenry only has itself to blame.

The current administration is in a pickle, having to undo the damage done by the previous administration (a refrain that is not new in the annals of American politics), while at the same time trying to establish new guidelines for making government work more efficiently. The cognitive dissonance that must currently be flowing through Congress and the White House is not to be envied, but many a resident of Congress was there when the mess began, and they have very little cause to be back-biting about it now, given they were part of the original problem.

So a lot of "tea" is going to spilled today, in a gross and appalling display of ignorance. The very people protesting were the genesis of the problem, by not holding their legislators to account for their wild spending, then re-electing them to continue their spendthrift ways, all the while watching the economy come to a crawl and begin to slide back down the hill it had just ascended. Unlike The Boston Tea Party, the government that is taxing them is under their control, and they have chosen not to exercise that control as judiciously as required. They continue to elect the same people, based on partisanship and vague promises left unfulfilled.

This exercise in rule by the people known as the United States of America is not a simple proposition. To allow us all to claim our share of freedom and peace, we must pay. We can complain about our taxes, as is our right, but we must understand that we hold some of the responsibility for them being as they are, because we have consistently not held the feet of our elected representatives to the fire. It is not enough to throw out a handful of the most egregious abusers of the public trust, or even to change Presidents; we must change how we view our government, and remember that we are the ultimate arbiters of what happens at the seat of power.

If we want change, real change, then we must start with ourselves. We must demand more. We must help each other more. We must take the reigns and drive our country to the prosperity that it deserves and ensure that prosperity cannot so easily be squandered. And we must be willing to say to ourselves that the things we clamor for sometimes are not as important as providing every American decent education, affordable health care, and stable food and housing. We must be willing to be a union in fact, not just in spirit. We must all be willing to work for the greater good.

Taxation With Representation

If the Founding Fathers were irked at the idea of having to pay taxes to The Crown without fair representation in Parliament, just imagine how they would feel now. The government they worked so hard to put together has taken the idea of taxation and turned it on its head. While I'm sure they would agree that tax revenue collected by the Federal government was to be used for the good of all Americans, I don't think they'd be too pleased with how that is accomplished and how the money is apportioned.

I am sure they would see the Democratic point of view, which says that the money needs to be spent towards the general welfare, to ensure that no American should suffer through life with a lack of food, shelter, and education. I am also sure they would see the Republican side of the equation. Government must do these things effectively, efficiently, and above all, with as little cost to the citizen as possible. Large government benefits no one if its size is not a function of what it does but how it does it.

All that said, I'm sure the Founding Fathers would look upon the current system and see that it is a shambles of their original model. No doubt they would be horrified at the inefficiency and waste inherent in the current budgeting process. What would have them no doubt even more perplexed is how so much of the money is being misspent and misused. Despite representation, it is as if the whims of Congressmen are more important than the needs of the people.

For the American Republic to work, it must provide equal access to all, access to those things that are the fundamental right of citizens: health care, food and shelter, education. It must provide defense of the nation without becoming embroiled in every petty foreign war. It must show other nations through deeds and words, how the lamp of democracy may be lit by the people of a nation. Mostly, each and every citizen must do their share, whether they would agree with the policies of the government or not. Elections are held to give the citizenry a chance to change the course of the nation when they feel it is headed towards the shoals.

For all of this to work, the sweat of the American brow must not be spent perpetuating the same tired policies based on self-aggrandizement, appeasement, and chest-thumping. The taxes we pay must come with their own price tag: the promise by all our legislators that they will treat them with care, will portion them out to provide for all, and will ensure our safety and security, all this without the rancor and partisanship that has so mired us in the mud for so long. Perhaps it is too much to ask, but ask for it we must, each and every time we pay our taxes or go to the ballot box. We must hold those we elect to represent us to the highest standard, until it becomes clear to the establishment in Washington, D.C. that they work for us.