September 12, 2009
“Tea Party” – one of the new rallying cries for the GOP. We all know the supposed reason behind these parties; to protest big government spending. Ordinarily a very good cause. Certainly something I am in favor of; stopping the spending, that is. I’ve been on my soap box for years about the spending. Unnecessary spending has resulted in our large deficits and a growing, uncontrolled debt. So I would normally be among those who are opposing the spending, but there’s only one problem; I will not support hypocrisy.
As we all know, this tea party business has only surfaced since Barack Obama took office. And it is promoted by the extremist in the Republican Party and supported by their blind followers. Few centrist and hardly any Democrats are among them. All the lies can be told and those lies can be regurgitated by the clueless followers, but it doesn’t change the fact that these people are not against the spending — they are against the President and the Democrats. Spending has nothing to do with it; it’s only a tool to obtain more sinister objective. If-this-were-not-so, where were these “Tea Partiers” and supporters when President Ronald Reagan was nearly tripling our national debt and President George W. Bush was nearly doubling the national debt? Where were they when trillions of tax dollars was being blindly handed over to Wall Street before January 20th of this year? I can tell you: they were no where to be seen or heard, even though the majority of today’s protestors were around back then. Therefore, there is only one conclusion: they are hypocrites hell bent on destruction.
When Ronald Reagan took office in 1980 the national debt was $829 billion (that’s with a “b”). When he left office eight years later, the national debt was $2.6 trillion and growing (that’s with a “t”). When George W. Bush took office in 2000, the national debt was $5.6 trillion. When he left office eight years later, the national debt was nearly $10 trillion and growing. So Reagan increased our debt by 213 percent and Bush increased our debt by 78 percent. At the same time, both Presidents was cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy by a hefty percentage. But these “holier-than-thou’s” were sitting quietly back then and hoping no one was noticing. And the Democrats supported them simply by kept their normally big mouths shut. By comparison, Clinton increased our debt by 40 percent, and estimates for Obama’s first four years is 65 percent. However, a great portion of Obama’s will result from the financial meltdown Wall Street so proudly handed us last year.
As long as we were “borrowing and spending” these “tea partiers” seemed not to have a problem. But now that the opposition is in office, they want to protest spending and reignite the old “tax and spend” catch phrase. Well, I’m for neither. But if I have to put up with one or the other, I vote for “tax and spend”, not “borrow and spend”. At least by taxing we will pay for a large portion of our spending as we go along. But the Republicans seem to have no concern as long as “taxing” doesn’t come along with spending; but only if it’s a Republican administration that does it. Therefore, just so you’ll know, and for the record, that’s known as hypocrisy and having no credibility.
Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs [with] facts.
Economist Henry Rosovsky