Let’s have a Tea Party! Part I

Your not so humble columnist will make every effort to be even-handed with this piece, but sometimes you just run out of lipstick.

Tea Partiers claim that their movement is a Populist grass roots phenomenon, but there is much evidence that it is more Astro Turf and less natural grass. That aside, a few quick Tea Party factoids:

The Tea Party Contract from America

  1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
  2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the “cap and trade” administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
  3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.
  4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words — the length of the original Constitution.
  5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities.
  6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
  7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the HCR.
  8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation.
  9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.
  10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and  estate taxes currently scheduled to end in 2011.

These are the “official” Tea Party positions.

What do you think?


(Part II tomorrow, Part III Wednesday.)


William Stephenson Clark

Advertisements

62 Comments

Filed under Tea Party Movement

62 responses to “Let’s have a Tea Party! Part I

  1. I’m only to Item 4, but must stop and comment here.

    …the length of the original Constitution…

    Before those annoying parts allowing women to vote and stupid stuff like that!

    • indypendent

      When I read that, I thought that must be their 30-second soundbite moment.

      You know, one of those down-home, common sensical ideas that spews from the mouth of people who claim to be just an ordinary person but likes to wear designer clothes.

      The original Constitution was not designed to be a finite document – was it? Didn’t the Founding Fathers knew the Constitution would become a living document and would need to be changed in the future – which is why they designed the process of amending the Constitution.

  2. Overall, my impression of “The Tea Party Contract from America,” is they are angry sore losers.

    Seemed like they wanted to abdicate their duty as voters. Assign watchdogs to the people elected. That should reduce government, huh? You elect someone and hire someone. Uh Huh. How about keeping them accountable and UNelecting them when they disappoint? How about acknowledging that people duly elected by the majority may disagree with your particular philosophy, but were absolutely duly elected by the majority. If you can’t muster a majority to elect or UNelect someone, you may have to face the fact that your philosophy isn’t shared by an adequate number of people to influence the election.

    Did anyone else read through the lines this sentiment — get Republicans in so we can stop paying any attention?

    • WSClark

      We have elected representatives that are charged with the responsibility of items 1 and 5 and a Supreme Court to rule when there is question, after a law is passed.

      The Tea Party, apparently is not satisfied with that arrangement that has more or less worked over the past 235 years and wants to replace it with a “panel.”

      I could imagine that they foresee as the make up of that panel.

      Scary thought.

      • indypendent

        Let’s face it – some of these Tea Partiers don’t want a democracy or a republic, they want their socialism but wrapped in a theocracy

        And that thoeocracy, of course, will be ruled by their God and no other gods need apply.

        And they want their socialism in the form of government health care. And don’t even think about taking it away from them.

  3. wicked

    Where were they when the Republicans held the majority and the White House?

    As someone stated here or somewhere else, until Obama was elected President, there was a void. Nothing happened and apparently there was no U.S.A..

    Until they take responsibility for their own past mistakes, they need to sit down and STFU.

    And, yes, these people are Republicans. Trying to say they aren’t is almost laughable.

    • tosmarttobegop

      “Where were they when the Republicans held the majority and the White House”

      There is a question that occurs to me almost every day.

      • indypendent

        Easy answer – they did not care as long as the picture looked right and the unemployment line did not come to their front door knocking.

    • Of course I have nothing to back up this opinion, but I think they were happily conducting their lives and paying no attention. In fact, I think that’s what most people of all political persuasions (or none) do. Seems to me the only time many people actually get interested is when they can longer ignore that something must be happening because the news is full of politics…

      Republicans began making dissatisfied noise before President Obama ever took office. And all their criticisms were aimed at democrats. Think back. They made lots and lots of noise and never once held bush accountable for anything. Their noise has continued unabated and they’ve rallied the old white folks that make up the tea party to help them make even more noise. They make enough noise that the average disinterested American can’t ignore it.

      They use talking points and platitudes, they say nothing loudly. Take the subject of taxes — lowest for everybody in 2009 in over 50 years. Then after you know this fact, compare it to the noisy platitudes you heard from the tea baggers. So what does the person who isn’t interested enough to be informed of the truth hear? The noise.

  4. wicked

    Here’s a thought. Let’s give the T.P.’s Alaska for their own country. They can run it any way they want. It’s theirs to do with as they please. Win or lose, succeed or fail. It’s a huge state and there’s plenty of room for them. For those who don’t want to go and live there (too cold? too far from family?) they should sit down and STFU. (Am I repeating myself?)

    • I know a not quite half a term governor who is a quitter — she knows the terrain and could lead them. Off a cliff probably.

  5. Today’s local newspaper reprinted at least part of an editorial than ran in the Winfield Daily Courier. It makes sense. Pay special attention to the last two sentences (emphasis mine) which sum up the tea party quite well.

    Pitiful debate —A televised debate on KWCH, Channel 12, among Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate was pitiful. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, was almost incoherent at times. Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Hays, was smooth but pandered just as much as Tiahrt to the worst instincts of the GOP electorate. Also-runner Tom Little of Mound City led the march to bash illegal immigrants. Tiahrt and Moran joined in, with gusto. Between barbs thrown at each other, Tiahrt and Moran managed to trash the Constitution, scapegoat terrorists and tell unlikely stories about their votes on taxes. The debate demonstrated more than ever that the race to the far right has taken both Tiahrt and Moran off the charts. They are talking only to the 25 or 30 percent of Republicans who are angry, scared, anti-government voters. The rest of the party is left out.— Winfield Daily Courier

    • wicked

      That 25 or 30 percent comment may be true, but who else will the Republicans vote for? Or is this the race that has upteen candidates? I haven’t been paying attention close enough to know. Or care.

  6. WSClark

    I have asked this question many. many times and never gotten anything but a “bumper sticker” answer:

    “Replace HCR with what?”

    Should be easy to answer, right? If you know that you want to repeal the current HCR, then you must know what you want instead, or you wouldn’t be whooping and hollering about repealing it.

    So?

    “Replace HCR with what?”

    Never an answer.

    • I heard an answer once a long time ago — the only thing needed is a cap on liability claims. Don’t you see? If all the doctors and health-care providers and institutions knew negligence couldn’t cost them more than _____ dollars they would provide better, more widely available and less expensive care. It would solve all the problems!

      • WSClark

        I hear that – they fail to recognize that liability and malpractice costs only make up about 1% of the total of health care costs.

        Same with earmarks – about 1% of the Federal expenditures.

        If we want to look towards fiscal responsibility, we need to look no further than military spending.

      • Now come on, ask one question at a time! ALL you asked was what would replace HCR, you didn’t specify it had to make economic sense (or actually any kind of sense at all). One thing I’ve learned about those who want to repeal HCR is that they make no sense, they are the most angry sore losers of all of them.

        In fact, that list above could be reduced to read — “Here they go again.”

        Enough of allowing those democrats to actually pass legislation and help Americans who aren’t uber wealthy! Let’s take our country back and move toward relying on people whose “quality” was established the moment they were born into one of “the better families.” Well, of course, excluding females who only deserve a supporting role.

    • wicked

      My best friend is losing her health care September 1. The small company she works for doesn’t insure enough people to suit BC/BS, so they’re dumping her. She has several pre-existing conditions and is currently paying her share of insurance premiums not paid by her employer, plus over $200 a month on medication not covered by her policy. (They put a cap on the amount of meds they’ll pay for monthly.) At this point, she’s uninsurable, unless she’s wealthy, which she’s not.

      2014 will be too late for her. She may not be alive by then.

      My other friend in Texas has been spending her time since Thursday at the beside of her husband with Parkinson’s, waiting for him to find peace. Could stem cell research–the funding for it stopped by the previous admnistration–have helped?

      When health care became something other than saving lives, we all lost.

    • itolduso

      Here is my answer, the same as it has been since the issue came up, and sent to all my representatives.

      Basic Healthcare reform

      1. Deport all illegal immigrants. Prior to deportation, all medical care for illegal immigrants reimbursed by the Federal Government. No cost shifting to states, counties, or any other entities.
      2. Revise tort laws. Examples could be: Lawyers fees fixed at 20% of damages awarded. Damages awarded limited to actual and anticipated costs and losses. Penalty awards limited to 1x actual damages. .
      3. Doctors found to be grossly negligent, found to be incompetent, found to file fraudulent claims lose their license to practice medicine for a minimum of five years
      4. Insurance companies Required to renew subscribers for any reason other than premiums not paid. Insurance companies cannot disallow preexisting conditions UNLESS change of carrier by personal choice, and not foisted upon by conditions outside the control of the applicant. Rates to be based on general population actuarial tables for person type primarily as a function of sex and age. Poor lifestyle choices (such as smoking, obesity, etc) could result in higher premium. Preventative medicine takes higher priority, and lifestyle remediation paid for.
      5. All persons required to own health insurance plan or be self insured. . Those without health insurance still treated for emergency conditions-whether life threatening or not and will be responsible for the cost of care.. Any person responsible for the care of another, and not providing insurance, or self insurance sufficient to cover the medical needs for that person, will be subject to criminal or civil penalties.
      6. Basic plan would be $1000 deductible per person $3000 deductible per family, 80/20 cost sharing. Premiums based on aggregate population groups. . Lower deductibles, lower cost sharing ratio, higher first cost allowable made available for optional purchase.
      7. Premiums may be paid by employer but not required. Insurance premiums paid by either subscriber, or by employer, to be treated as a deduction for tax purposes by the payer. Persons in the lowest quartiles of income receive subsidy to help pay for premiums, based on a sliding scale.
      8. Medical bankruptcy formed as a special subset of bankruptcies and could only be used if insurance was in existence. Cannot lose home, necessary transportation, etc. Small percentage of disposable income able to be attached to satisfy debt. Medical bankruptcy not counted against personal credit, unless no insurance in the effect.
      9. Medicare coverage reduced to deductible exposure only. Medicaid/schipp etc eliminated as a program.
      10. Those with preexisting condition not currently with insurance, or unable to get insurance, moved to a high risk pool. Premiums based on current standards for non-high risk policies for subscriber. Extra premium paid out of Federal tax dollars under the Medicare umbrella.

      • WSClark

        Not bad, Told You, at least what you have put on the table was well thought out and not a knee jerk response.

        I disagree with number one – at least the deportation part – the cost of deporting 12 million people would be astronomical. One estimate I read was $300 billion.

        I’m not saying grant amnesty or move them to the head of the line for citizenship. Have them apply for a Green Card while here and go through that process.

        But, that is a topic for another thread.

      • I’ve a bit of a problem with 7, but my problem isn’t with you; it is with the exclusion from income of employer-paid premiums under existing law. This should be taxed as ordinary compensation, with the premiums paid deductible by the payer, subject to the applicable rules in effect or as the same may be amended from time to time.

        I’ve some other problems with your well thought-out response, but duty calls right now.

      • wicked

        You have some excellent points and ideas, itoldyouso.

        I, too, am discouraged with the illegal immigrant problem. I’ve had fellow liberals call me racist because I’d like to see something done. But, like WSClark, the stats I’ve heard on the cost to “send them home” aren’t good. Let’s start where it’s easier, with the employers who are hiring them. Once we get that under control, we can certainly look at more things to do. Current INS agents who milk the system, would be another.

        As for your #10, I can’t agree. You see, I’m one of those uninsured who now has pre-existing conditions. I pay for my health care as needed and don’t go running to the emergency room, leaving it to everyone else to pay for my care.

  7. indypendent

    The main talking point I get from Tea Partiers is this: they are not the Republican Party.

    One read through their own contract makes it pretty clear they are targeting Democrats and even uphold Bush/Republicans tax cuts for the wealthy.

    Actually, I agree with several of their goals. I want to see the tax code simplified, earmarks reduced, audits of federal budgets, limiting annual growth in federal spending and even balancing the federal budget.

    But when have the Republicans ever done that?

    But one thing I see is their goal of identifying th constitutionality of any new law. How convenient they are wanting this only on new laws.

    That saves their precious Medicare from the chopping block – huh?

    And if Tea Partiers can get their government subsidized health care through Medicare, why can’t all Americans get some form of government subsidized health care?

    Aren’t we all Americans deserving of the same rights? Or is the Constitution reserved just for the Tea Partiers?

  8. wicked

    What I find funny and horribly sad about the TPers is their denouncement of the current president, who knows more about the Constitution than most people, especially them.

    It’s difficult to believe that this is a party thing (R v. D) when they sat back and let Bushco do anything, without blinking an eye, much less asking questions.

    It’s the epitome of hypocricy.

    • wicked

      Sorry, that should have read…It’s difficult to believe this ISN’T a party thing…

      The only people they’re fooling is themselves. Once again, they’re being led by their noses. No rational thinking involved.

      • indypendent

        I think they are being led by former Republican Congressional elected officials and billionaires who don’t want to pay for anything but sure do like their government handouts from that evil government they profess to hate so much.

      • wicked

        No doubt, indy.

  9. tosmarttobegop

    Actually quite a bit of it sounded good to me, cap and trade is needed.
    More then once I have accused the Federal Government of stretching their power in creative ways.
    “I want to control Brown lighters, the dirt is brown and passes between states, since the dirt is brown and passes between state lines. We claim the power to regulate Brown lighters!”.
    The only time that any law is consider whether it is Constitutional or not is when it finally is challenged.
    Otherwise they are all treated as well the Government did it so it must be OK!

    I am not allowed to simply when I do not have the money still go out and buy what ever I want or do what ever I want to do. I actually brought this up recently with a friend of mine who attended Immanuel during Terry Fox’s reign. He preaches the “Gospel of Prosperity” you want it go a head and get it because God loves you and want you to have what you want!

    The money contrary to what they will say about it is not the Government’s.
    It is the Americans money that is to be used to fund the operations of they Government.
    They should be as responsible in its use and management as I am to be.

    Yes, the tax code is a mangled mess that often is like, if it is Tuesday and the wind is blowing out of the east then you will pay one/ eighth of two percent to not be more then one quarter of two percent of the amount paid on a Wednesday when the sun is five/eighth of the way up in the sky with the wind blowing at fifteen miles an hour out of the North/west.

    As many complains I have about HCR no to repeat. I just know not to trust them with any wet dreams!

    The estimate I heard was that if we pumped up every drop of oil domestically, it would take ten years and net only one years usage. But then don’t let fact counter any argument we need to drill baby drill!

    Earmarks are the whipping boy of everyone who believes the Government is spending too much.

    I am still waiting for my Bush tax cuts to kick in, until then I have extra money withheld to cover the tax cuts.
    Before I started doing that I was having to pay in every year since the tax cuts were done.

  10. WSClark

    “Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.”

    Dumb.

    Point 1, earmarks amount to about 1% of expenditures, as noted.

    Point 2, requiring a 2/3 majority would be unconstitutional unless an amendment was passed.

    Point 3, how easy would it be to work around that? Simple, instead of earmarking an item, make it a normal appropriation, passed by majority vote.

    Like I said, dumb.

  11. itolduso

    Saw the problem. Bad email listed. Too much weekend, not enough week. My bad. Editors, please delete previous attempts at posting.

  12. itolduso

    WS-

    I have changed my thinking somewhat on the deportation of all illegals. It is what I would like, but most likely, as you point out, impractical. However, if the feds as a policy will not deport, then they must be financially responsibile for their “guests” In my way of thinking, and not just pass the costs off to states, charitable clinics and hospitals, and even for profit medical suppliers.

    But you are right, deportation itself is a whole different subject.

    • WSClark

      Well, the are booting them out at roughly the rate that they are coming in (300,000 a year – but I need to find a link to back that up) so something is being done.

      Yeah, I wish Obama had a magic wand to make them all go back to their country of origin, but they forgot to give him one at inauguration.

      I would like to see illegals be required to pay back taxes and repay any benefits received before they could apply for citizenship.

      I also do not want them given any special consideration in applying for citizenship.

  13. Did I read that illegals have taxes deducted, including FICA, and no vehicle for claiming the benefits of those deductions? If true, they are contributing more than many Americans. I’m not complaining, just looking for facts. I don’t think it’s possible to find solutions until we can agree on facts.

    • WSClark

      I suppose that it depends on who they work for and how they got past citizenship or proof of status requirements.

      Some – farm workers and “contract employees” bypass the tax system entirely – paid in cash with no deductions.

    • tosmarttobegop

      For many that is the exact case, often the same S.S. number is being used by several people.
      In that case the same person is paying in with many people using that S.S. number.
      But of course there is no way for them to claim it or expect a refund on taxes.

      There can only be one Juan Rodrigo with that number.

  14. itolduso

    “Did I read that illegals have taxes deducted, including FICA, and no vehicle for claiming the benefits of those deductions?”

    The only vehicle for that to happen would be for the “illegal” to break another law….providing false identification with a “fake” or “consficated” social security number.

  15. In the past few months I’ve learned a great deal about how documentation required for working in the U.S. is obtained and how it’s used.

    Once the prospective employee has shown the documents the employer requests and has secured the job, aren’t there some (maybe many) who never file taxes? Yet, the employer deducts taxes, matches the FICA and sends those monies to the government. Would some of those have qualified for a refund? Would some have met the requirements for social security retirement benefits? But since they didn’t file, the money stayed in the government coffers. How much money?

  16. itolduso

    fnord-

    Your point being what? exactly?

  17. No point, just a question. If I didn’t make my question clear, I’ll try again. Are illegals paying into the American system?

    • indypendent

      What is the difference between illegals not paying inot the system and these corporations who are given taxpayer money subsidies to outsource American jobs and yet still pay no taxes?

      At the end of the day – the government is paying for both of these people and the taxpayers get what in return ?

      Zilch – nada – zip and big fat zero.

  18. itolduso

    As pointed out above, some are, some aren’t. Those that are have broken the law, or their employer has. Whichever needs to go to jail. Or in the case of the illegal….deported.

    • Yes, I understood the answer to my question. I was able to read what was pointed out above, just like you. Then I had to repeat my question in order to respond to your question about what was my point.

      It gets real tiresome when we can’t just converse, ask the questions we don’t know answers to, without having to defend our rights to ask such questions. There aren’t always ulterior motives. Simple people like me are just simple — when I don’t know, I ask. I don’t know a lot of things so will probably ask a lot of questions.

      If you see a question and have an answer you’d like to share, do so. If you don’t want to for whatever reason, don’t. Pretty simple, and a respectful way to interact with all bloggers.

    • The problem with your position is the “needs to go to jail”. I believe the status of the current law is such that, at least on the employer side, no one goes to jail, just pays a civil penalty/fine, generally less than the anticipated or realized savings from hiring the illegal. Now, to put real teeth into the law, the law should provide for a knowing hiring of illegals, the penalties should include, but not be limited to, total forfeiture of all assets of the business; if a corporation, the shares of the same held by any shareholder are also totally forfeited. Additionally, the penalties/fines should be not less than 3 times the calculated savings to the business (e.g., illegal works for $8/hr., legal or citizen $20/hr, difference of $12 per hour tripled), together with savings realized on FICA, UI, etc. Jail time for officers, directors with knowledge, at a medium felony level, homes of officers subject to forfeiture (same with directors with knowledge).

      Safe harbor: the employer exhausts all reasonable attempts to verify prospective employee’s status. Bright line is reliance upon government maintained data base with error rate of <1% as to social security numbers. Strict liability for hiring without checking with data base.

      Just a few thoughts on the employer side (without the demand, the supply is nonexistent).

      • tosmarttobegop

        You and I can both see how well that would go over! Hee

      • itolduso

        I think you have the right idea, but way overboard.

        “but not be limited to, total forfeiture of all assets of the business; if a corporation, the shares of the same held by any shareholder are also totally forfeited”

        Totally out of line. Punishing the innocent for the guilty

        “Additionally, the penalties/fines should be not less than 3 times the calculated savings to the business (e.g., illegal works for $8/hr., legal or citizen $20/hr, difference of $12 per hour tripled), together with savings realized on FICA, UI, etc. ”

        Sounds good to me.

        “Jail time for officers, directors with knowledge”

        Good with that also.

        “medium felony level, homes of officers subject to forfeiture (same with directors with knowledge). ”

        I am not sure about that.

        “Safe harbor: the employer exhausts all reasonable attempts to verify prospective employee’s status. ”

        If the prospective employee provides all information required by the I-9 forms, and there is no flag in the everify system that should constitute “reasonable attempt”

        In addition, I would suggest that anyone profferring evidence of status not their own, anyone profferring fake or stolen ids, is deported immediately or charged with a mid level felony, and treated accordingly.

  19. itolduso

    Excuse me for stepping on your toes. My apologies.

    Never desired you to defend your right to ask questions, nor did I attack you for doing so. Nor did I claim to not understand your question. Repeating it wasn’t asked for, nor required for me to understand your question.

    I simply asked what your point was.

    Sorry I didn’t answer you directly. I guess I will live and learn

  20. indypendent

    Isn’t it naive on the Tea Party’s end to think all illegals will be deported when it is well known (and has been for many, many years) that the Republican Party is the politics of Big Business.

    And what part of Big Business and cheap labor exploitation do these Tea Partiers not get?

    Of course, that is probably why the tea drinkers profess to be non-partisan but one glance through their contract and one glance through their big money supporters, that claim of not being an arm of the Republican is laughable at best.

  21. indypendent

    I wonder if these Tea Partiers would be willing to make a deal?

    If we repeal the health care reform bill – then they have to give up their Medicare?

    I’m sure these for-profit-health insurance companies will be lining to sign up all those seniors who are used to being able to go to the doctor for whatever ails them. And that’s not even counting all the physical therapy, their drugs, their Viagra and their motorized scooters. I know of several men on Medicare that has gotten their vacuum penis pumps at no cost to them through Medicare.

    Why are my tax dollars going to pay for a pump and wicked’s friend cannot even get health insurance?

    This is wrong – just totally wrong.

  22. Here’s an interesting interactive graph showing trend in party identification. Slide from one year to another.

    http://people-press.org/party-identification-trend/

    Seems to be the tea party goals veer to the right, at a time when the middle road is the only one that might appeal to those who will be the deciding votes.

    • indypendent

      I think that Republican Congressman from South Carolina that lost his primary to a Tea Party candidate said it best.

      It is one thing to be stupid; but to be proud you’re stupid is something else.

  23. “In that case the same person is paying in with many people using that S.S. number.”

    However, if any one of these people file taxes and don’t report ALL the income that was reported under this SS number, the IRS will come asking questions. And, if this leads to something that seems fishy the feds step in with an investigation…

    • indypendent

      That is obviously what happened to my daughter about 5 years ago. When she got her SSN, we were living in Arizona.

      My daughter got a letter from the IRS wanting $_____ of delinquent tax due because $_________ amount of income had not been reported on her income tax return for that certain year.

      My daughter was in her mid-20’s and freaked out. She had gotten her SSN number when she was in the third grade.

      Anyway, we wrote a reply letter to the IRS telling them that she did not live in Arizona and she requested a photocopy of the W-4 form that went with this unreported income and she wanted to know the name and address of the employer.

      In a few months, the IRS wrote her again and told her there was a misunderstanding and to disregard the first letter. There was never an explanation of what they learned from any investigation and she never did get a copy of the W-4 with a signature or the name/address of the employer reporting this income.

      So – I know things like this happen. What we figured was some illegal immigrant got my daughter’s SSN and because it was obviously a number that was given in Arizona from the first 3 digits – who would ever ask any questions?

  24. tosmarttobegop

    True Fnord so it works for both side to not make an issue of it.

    Money coming in that no one will claim.
    And the illegals get to work without real threat of being caught.

  25. Get ready for the official House Tea Party Caucus: Conservative firecracker Michele Bachmann, a Republican representative from Minnesota, announced via Twitter on Monday that the Committee on House Administration has approved her proposal to create a caucus for the right-wing movement. “This caucus will espouse the timeless principles of our founding, principles that all members of Congress have sworn to uphold,” Bachmann wrote in a statement. “The American people are doing their part and making their voices heard and this caucus will prove that there are some here in Washington willing to listen.” Other caucuses already in the House range from the Congressional Black Caucus to the Wine Caucus. While not all GOP members will be eager to join the Tea Party Caucus, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence has already committed. When asked if he’d join up with the new group, Pence told CBS, “You betcha.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010958-503544.html

  26. indypendent

    Did anyone else hear about the Tea Party Express got itself kicked out of the Tea Party?

    Now follow carefully – Rachel Maddow covered this in great detail.

    It seems a man named Mark Williams posted a very nasty and racist diatribe on his blog site and it was so bad that the Tea Party people actually kicked Mark Willliams and his Tea Party Express off the TP train.

    There are several Tea Party groups – but there is not one centralized group – so how can one group kick out another group when they are separate groups?

    I guess that is why all Tea Parties require Mad Hatters in attendance?