This country survived for many years without an income tax. As far as most of the programs you mentioned, those could be paid for by state sales tax. It is ludicrous to think that the abolishment of the federal income tax would lead to the shutdown of the federal government. If we stopped loaning money to third world nations, that we know we will never be repaid, we would have a surplus. Only a fool would believe that the social security program will be around when they reach retirement age. The big push for the taxpayer to invest his money wisely, is the governments attempt to move away from social security. Social Security is just another welfare program. Worried about the war on terrorism? If we stop sticking our nose into other countrys' affairs, terrorism would drastically drop.
Tea Party participants have the right to protest government. It is our duty to question the actions of our leaders. It's also your right to express your opinion.
An interesting piece reflecting on the Tea Party.
oUR vIEW: discombobulation, government, spending, conservatives - Opinion - Colorado Springs Gazette, CO
Our View: Discombobulation
Comments 28 | Recommend 5
April 15, 2009 - 4:56 PM
NAMENEWSPAPER
In House
It was good of Republicans and self-professed "conservatives" at Wednesday's TEA parties to protest massive federal spending. It was a righteous action with a righteous message.
Unfortunately, some of the rhetoric and vibe at various TEA parties made clear the fact conservatives remain discombobulated, devoid of a clear direction or a unified understanding of where this country should go to maximize freedom and minimize government. Mixed in with an extraordinary and mostly sincere theme of advocacy for lower taxes and less spending was advocacy for a variety of big government Republican schemes. Though the Colorado Springs party stuck mostly to fiscal matters, speakers, protesters with signs, and supportive radio talk show hosts at some events throughout the country sprinked the TEA the parties with messages about illegal immigrants, and advocacy of American domination and foreign intervention to spread "democracy."
One Colorado radio host, broadcasting from the TEA Party at our state capitol, began the morning by inviting nearby Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter to join him on air. After the governor declined, the host insulted Ritter for not protecting him from illegal immigrants. Weren't these protests about less government intervention in the course of human events, not more? No serious, limited government conservative wastes time and effort fretting about the comings and goings of immigrants and whatever civil disputes they may have with the federal government regarding their residency status. Serious conservatives want a government so small it can't possibly worry about peaceful, law-abiding immigrant laborers working at will in private agreements with private employers. Real conservatives would leave that concern to union goons, the folks who've traditionally advocated third party interference in employee-employer relationships.
Sean Hannity explained the TEA parties were about lower taxes and less spending, of course, but were also to promote "American Exceptionalism" (read: "American imperialism"?).
Anthony Gregory, writing for LewRockwell.com, said Hanity and his wannabes promote "the idea that the American national warfare state is just and good, even holy, and that we oppressed patriots will not countenance a president insufficiently enamored of American imperial glory. Presumably, as today's conservatives see it, the American colonists dumping British tea were also upset that the British Crown was inadequately boastful of English Exceptionalism, cutting spending on the British Empire and coddling the enemies of England's occupying armies." Touché. Gregory went on to explain that interventionist conservatives shouldn't complain about Obama, who is increasing military spending and exceeding Bush in advocating "secretive, unchecked presidential power, widening the war into Pakistan and redirecting military resources toward uses of active belligerence."
His article enumerates various contradictions of some conservative tax protesters who staged no opposition to the big government, interventionist, debt-funded policies embarked upon under the Republican brand.
At the Colorado Springs rally, a young Gazette opinion contributor explained to a mostly Republican crowd in this mostly Republican city the right wing hypocrisy that facilitates big government spending and taxing.
"We rail against the pork-barrel spending and the tax increases coming out of Washington, but we're totally complacent when it comes to things happening in our own backyard, even though these are the things fueling the destructive taxes and out-of-control spending," said Dan Cole, by all appearances a genuine limited-government conservative.
Cole explained that Colorado Springs, known as a bastion of Republicanism, asked the federal government for four times more money from Obama's stimulus package than was requested by Denver's predominantly Democrat leaders. Cole said the board of El Paso County Commissioners, comprised entirely of Republicans, pays roughly $80,000 a year in dues to Colorado Counties Inc. - a group that consistently lobbies to maintain the state's anti-free enterprise business personal property tax.
"So while we're all ticked that the Democrats in Denver opposed and defeated this tax cut, it was our tax dollars down here in Republican El Paso County that helped make that defeat politically possible," Cole said.
Most of the Republicans and "conservatives" who protested Wednesday were well-meaning, patriotic citizens angry at Obama. Yet they never protested a Republican president who more than doubled our federal debt and mired us in efforts to gift other countries with freedom and economic development. Too many of them want less government, while asking government to fence out Mexicans. They want less from government, but more American imperialism. Unless they change their vision, embracing a non-partisan and genuine love of freedom through limited government, Obama is their man. He's a lot like George Bush, a big government president under a different brand.