One Big Government Party - Two Wings

Well the budget messages just keep flooding in.  Below is the latest from former NJ Tea Party congressional candidate Richard Luzzi (his emphasis below) who has as little use for the majority of Republicans pretending to be Tea Partiers as I do - which is none.  Mr. Luzzi points out that outside of Senators Jim DeMint (SC), Rand Paul (KY), & Mike Lee (UT) there is nobody watching the store including talk radio who is obsessed with MO's travel schedule or BO's basketball brackets.  All of this as the financial condition of America deteriorates right under our noses except for the work of the three aforementioned senators & another handful of Representatives in the House.  These thoughts start to make it plain who the enemies of America - both foreign & domestic - really are.

 

Most Republicans remain as committed to big government as the Democrats 

As the Tea Party continues to set its sights on astronomical and unsustainable government growth, Republicans have been eager to sing the movement's tune. Promising to cut spending and balance budgets, the GOP's newfound right-wing fiscal rhetoric has been characterized by mainstream pundits as a once "respectable" Republican Party kowtowing to conservative "extremists" for whom the debt crisis continues to represent the one and only crisis.

But mainstream defenders of America's economic status quo can rest easy. Washington's political establishment has nothing to fear from the Republican Party. Though good at talking the conservative talk, when it comes to actually walking the walk, the GOP remains as handicapped as ever.

Just ask the man The Daily Show's Jon Stewart recently described as the "walkiest" of Tea Party Republicans, Sen. Rand Paul. Paul rejected the budget proposals of both parties last week, pointing out that the Democratic plan features a $1.6 trillion deficit while the Republican plan includes a $1.5. trillion deficit.

While Democrats, predictably and laughably, could only come up with $4 billion in budget cuts, Republicans, whose Pledge to America during the midterm election promised to slash spending by $100 billion, could only come up with $57 billion in cuts. To put this in perspective, recently deposed Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak received more than $60 billion from the United States during his reign. To further put this in perspective, when Sen. Paul proposed we cut foreign aid last month, critics, including most Republicans, dismissed his proposal and pointed out that what America spends on foreign aid is too small to substantively address our debt.

Now many of these same Republicans expect grassroots conservatives to be satisfied with a paltry $57 billion in cuts. Paul isn't completely alone. Joined by Mike Lee of Utah and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Paul was one of only three Republican senators to reject the GOP's budget plan as being so weak it means virtually nothing. Not surprisingly, Paul, Lee and DeMint make up the Tea Party Caucus in the Senate, a group Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who rode the Tea Party wave into office, says he will not join, fearing that the movement could be co-opted by the Washington establishment. Not surprisingly, Rubio voted for the Republicans' weak budget plan last week.

In Rubio's defense, this is what Republicans typically do. For decades Republican politicians have used conservative rhetoric to win elections but come to Washington, D.C., to spend as much as the Democrats. Critics on both the Left and Right who say the Tea Party represents a radical departure from plain, old vanilla "conservatism" are correct; so-called conservative Republicans haven't accomplished anything conservative for decades. For the Tea Party to mean business, it must deviate dramatically from the Republican status quo, and given the weight of our debt and the radical growth of government, any Tea Party-worthy proposals must be comparably radical in the opposite direction. How radical? Paul has proposed $500 billion in cuts, which, as he explained on the Senate floor this week, still isn't drastic enough:

"I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts, and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they're right ... $500 billion is a third of one year's problem. Up here that's way too bold, but it's not even enough ... So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we're not doing enough. You must cut more."

Despite their rhetoric, the vast majority of Republicans are wholly unwilling to do anything to substantively address our big government woes, including some who've carried the Tea Party banner. The chasm between voters' desires and the establishment's will remains as wide as ever, reflecting the same disconnect that has long frustrated Americans from across the ideological spectrum.

Any real conservative movement would be up in arms that more Republicans didn't join Paul, Lee, and DeMint in rejecting the GOP's joke of a budget. But American "conservatism" has confused partisanship for principle for so long that talk radio finds more value in complaining about the First Lady's travel schedule or worrying about the Muslim Brotherhood than discussing the fiscal terrorists in this country and in both parties who continue to hold America's children and grandchildren hostage.

The Senate Republicans who voted for the GOP budget proposal proved once again that they are not the revolutionaries they pretend to be. They are liars. And the Tea Party must not forget it.

Reprinted with permission from the Charleston City Paper