Where the Tea Party is Right

Members of the Tea Party have always claimed their central rallying point is the federal budget--they will do whatever necessary to save their children and grandchildren from fiscal ruin. (Of course, this begs the question of where they were during the Bush years, when the financial infection became life-threatening. Or the Clinton years, when the only four budget surpluses of the last 40 years were crafted. Somehow their cheers for Bill weren't heard). But for the moment, let's take them at their word. They want fiscal responsibility.

Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. He answered, 'cause that's where the money is'. Using that same flawless logic, attacking the national debt should naturally start where the most money is spent. And everyone knows where that is--Social Security. In theory, there are pretty simple solutions: raise the retirement age; reduce benefits, particularly for the financially well off; or giving a nice portion of that huge fund to the same Wall Street wizards who passed you the bill once the housing bubble burst. Amazingly, not many Americans support any of this. In fact, even the Tea Party would rather not talk about it.

OK, next, Medicare and Medicaid together are in the same ballpark. But seeing as the battle over health insurance continues under its own power, there's no need to digress here. That sign held by an elderly Tea Partier at a political rally last year said it all: 'Keep your government hands off my Medicare!'

However, the knives are sharpened and clearly unsheathed, ready to eviscerate any number of 'wasteful' and 'worthless' federal agencies--health and human services, transportation, housing and urban development, energy, education, the EPA. You know the list. But here's the problem: put every one of these agencies together--combine every tax dollar they spend--and the total isn't even half of what we pay in another area--defense. So any Tea Partier worth his salt is going to turn his Sutton-like eyes on the defense mega-bank. Go where the money is.

But do they have the courage and common sense to do that?

Turns out, some do.

Max Pappas of Freedom Works says, "we have some who think you just can’t cut defense spending, it’s just not possible". (But) there’s waste there, there’s the wrong incentives, there’s room for them to cut.”

Chris Gibson, a retired U.S. Army colonel and freshly-minted Tea Party congressman adds, “this deficit that we have threatens our very way of life, and everything needs to be on the table.”

And former congressional leader Dick Armey, no stranger to Republican politics, chimes in, “A lot of people say if you cut defense, you’re demonstrating less than a full commitment to our nation’s security--and that’s baloney".

In fact, no uncompromised person can argue with this. Defense spending takes up nearly 20% of the total federal budget...or over 40% of all discretionary spending. America represents 43% of the total world spending on defense. There is no force on earth--even every other force on earth combined--who can challenge us militarily. Pick a fight with us--you will perish.

And beyond the pure funding of the military industrial complex is the question of how the money is spent. Which I would like to spell out for you now. But I can't, because no one really knows. The Government Accounting Office in 2009 was asked to come up with an answer. In the end, they just threw up their hands: "...serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense made its financial statements unauditable." 'Serious problems'? 'Unauditable'?

Well, damn, them's fightin' words! Positively socialistic! Certainly the head of the Defense Department will have a thing or two to say about that, right? Well, look at how Secretary Robert Gates responded: "This department simply cannot risk continuing down the same path - where our investment priorities, bureaucratic habits and lax attitude towards costs are increasingly divorced from the real threats of today."

Yeah! See that, you Tea Party pussies! 'Lax attitude towards costs!' Ha!

No, wait...

So, if both sides are really fighting for the same thing here (and I'm just taking a leap of faith and assuming most Democrats are on board with saving the early childhood nutrition program rather than killing a few more innocent Afghans), what could possibly be the problem?

We can encapsulate that answer in a single human life form: Congressman Howard 'Buck' McKeon. And what a man he is.

Buck spent two of his formative years on an LDS mission...then returned to graduate from Brigham Young University with a degree in animal husbandry. (I know, I know, it's too easy--insert your own joke). Additional credentials qualifying him for his current job as head of the House Armed Services Committee include running a Western wear store; being available to become the first mayor of Santa Clarita, Ca. when it was incorporated; being available to represent California's 25th district after it magically sprung to life by reapportionment; and then shifting over one seat to slide into the armed services chairmanship after the gavel was left sitting on the table when the Democrats lost the House. So Howard has hit the good fortune trifecta, never having to face an incumbent in a meaningful election. But from this, you should never judge him worthless. In fact, to some, he is money in the bank.

First, we must understand that Howard is a fierce defender of America. All you have to do is ask him (comments mine):

“A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline.” (Anything less than the current three-quarters of a trillion, and we all go the way of ancient Rome. And for the record, no one except Barney Frank has actually suggested cutting the budget, only reducing its rate of growth.)

"Let me put this in the simplest terms possible: Cutting defense spending amidst two wars is a red line for me and should be a red line for all Americans.” (Translation: you disagree with me? You're a terrorist.)

"I will not support initiatives that will leave our military less capable and less able to fight." (How do you know they would be less capable...when no one knows how the money's being spent in the first place?)

"I cannot say it strongly enough. I will not support any measures that stress our forces and jeopardize the lives of our men and women in uniform" (Yeah, I think we got that the first time.)

"The concern I have is that defense spending is being based on budget rather than defense needs." (Yeah, you see Buck, that's the whole point. We need to start basing things on how much money we've got, not how much you wish we had.)

“I will also oppose any plans that have the potential to damage or jeopardize our national security.”

Aha! Now, here's where it starts to get interesting. Note that we've moved from our 'forces' to our 'national security'. And that subtle little gap in semantics is where Buck earns his pay.

California's fighting 25th is home to the following: Fort Irwin, Edwards Air Force Base, Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, and the Marine Mountain Warfare Training Center. It's also home to development and manufacturing of some of the most ambitious weapons programs in U.S history...paid for by U.S. taxpayers...funneled through middlemen including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. In fact, by the most unpredictable of coincidences, these were the three largest contributors to Buck's most recent election campaign.

But one has to wonder if those donors believe they'll get their money's worth, even with Buck in the big chair. After all, during Buck's time in Congress, they've suffered some severe setbacks:

• The order for Northrop's B2 bomber was cut from 130 planes to 21
• At one time, the Pentagon ordered 450 of Lockheed's F22 fighters; now that's been reduced to 188
• GE and Rolls Royce are in partnership to build a backup engine for Lockheed's jinxed F35, a project so horrible that funding was cut not only by the traitorous Obama, but also that celebrated fighter pilot, George W. Bush.

So Buck sort of found himself in a corner. It's time to pay back his political debts, but even with the Democrats cowering, those pesky Tea Partiers are now getting in the way. Egads--what to do?! Fortunately, the crafty Buck has a plan of attack:

“While China today may not intend to attack our carriers, neutralize our bases in Japan and Guam, or push back our naval presence out of the South China Sea, they are without question making the investments and developing capabilities to do just that."

See that? The snap of a finger, and a new threat is born. We are effectively doomed if we cut a dollar. Our children could all wind up speaking Mandarin.

But wait...could there be a way to defeat that threat? Well, yes, with the Aegis anti-missle shield, of course! Silly! You thought Buck wouldn't have come up with something?

And who are the prime contractors for such a program? Well, ironically, Lockeed and Northrop. And in a development too strange to imagine, just this week the Navy announced the first successful test of the Aegis system. Shazam!

And we can attribute much of this to our boy Buck. He will never rest easy. If you're a tireless defender of our troops, you always have the courage to speak the truth. For example, what would happen, Buck, if we cut a dollar?: "my concern is we end up back with a ‘bow and arrow’ -- I’m hoping not.”

So, Tea Partiers, there you have it. There's your opposition. A guy with expertise in both Western wear and animal husbandry...a guy with the full support of the military contractors...a red-blooded American who fears we'll have to try to shoot deadly Chinese missiles out of the sky with bows and arrows.

You keep asking for your stupid cuts...and this is the America you'll be responsible for.

Tucson, Jefferson and God

One week ago today, gunfire erupted in a Tucson shopping center, killing six people, including a little girl who went there to learn more about American politics. What lesson did she take to her grave?

Contrary to early suspicions, there is no evidence that the gunman was motivated by any political dogma, from any point on the spectrum. Thus, President Obama and most of his critics on the right have agreed to drop pursuit of such claims. And consequently, arguments for the moment have shifted to gun control, or more accurately, to gun safety considerations.

The arguments have quickly devolved to the extremes: 'bans' on one hand, 'second amendment rights' on the other. It's as if there is no middle ground worth considering. I would ask this: how would Americans respond to the following question: "would you be willing to at least discuss ways to minimize the chances of U.S. Representatives, federal judges and nine-year-old girls from being shot?" I'm guessing there would be a clear majority in favor.

And the extreme second amendment advocates realize this, as well. This is a conversation they don't want to have.

Which leads us to the following quote to the New York Times from Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America:

Why should the government be in the business of telling us how we can defend ourselves? These politicians need to remember that these rights aren't given to us by them. They come from God. They are god-given rights. They can't be infringed or limited in any way. What are they going to do--limit it to two or three rounds? Having lots of ammunition is critical, especially when the police are not around and you have to defend yourself against mobs."

Let's quickly deconstruct that.

• First of all, there is no evidence that God wrote the Bill of Rights, nor is there any mention (to my knowledge) of Glocks or extended clips in the Bible;
• Who are the mobs coming to take Mr. Pratt's guns away? Highly unlikely they will be the non-gun owners, since by definition they would be at a severe disadvantage;
• Actually, a limit to two or three rounds could be very helpful--particularly when someone decides to kill as many people as possible in a Tucson shopping center.

But what's most evident here is the immediate resurrection of God into any argument concerning guns, no matter how clumsy the implementation. God is the ultimate bullet-proof shield against logic. It's apparent that God is an invincible repellent to common sense reasoning; never mind the revered founding fathers, who actually did create the right to bear arms.

Surveys have shown that conservatives are 50% more likely to own guns than liberals. And conservatives are certainly far more likely to be members of the Republican party. So why would conservatives bother enlisting the defense of an other-worldly God rather than the former real world colonists who actually drafted the second amendment?

The answer, I believe, is the confounding legacy that is Thomas Jefferson.

In many ways, Jefferson is the patron saint of modern conservatism. He was a champion of the rural farmer, distrustful of cities. He was an expansionist, negotiating the Louisiana Purchase, and sending Lewis and Clark on their way. He consistently opposed a strong federal government, preferring ultimate power to reside with the states. He wrote vociferously against British taxation, and as Governor of Virginia, twice saw the British invade his state. He was unflinching in his belief in freedom, liberty and individual rights--after all, the guy wrote the Declaration of Independence! By many, he is considered 'the first Republican'.

With such credentials...it would seem logical for current conservatives to consider him not just a founding father, but in fact the Godfather of their movement.

And yet, they seldom mention him.

The sticking point, of course, comes from his views on religion. Yes, he is well known for his "wall of separation between Church and State". But his words and actions are far more definitive than that:

• As governor, he disestablished Anglicanism as the official state church, and abolished 'religious tests' for citizens;
• He wrote, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection..."
• He wrote, "The clergy had a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity throughout the United States; and as every sect believed its own form to be the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own. (But) the returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly..."
• He wrote, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

These are hardly words a modern conservative can abide by. The feelings of this perhaps most prominent founding father are clear: liberty, freedom and religion do not live in the same neighborhood much less room together. It is no wonder that people like Erich Pratt bypass the founding fathers altogether in defense of their fetishes and phobias. To him, the god of his own invention provides the only 'true' answer.

The New York Times should be quoting Jefferson instead of Pratt.

And the fact that automatic weapons are not a god-given right is the lesson that nine-year-old Christina Green might have lived to learn.

2011: The Year Ahead

Three things you can take to the bank in 2011:

In Politics: it will be conclusively proven that Democrats have brains but no balls; and Republicans have balls but no brains.

In Business: The U.S. economy shed 40,000 manufacturing plants (not jobs, plants) during the Bush regime...and saw the share of all U.S. corporate profits earned by Sleaze Street grow from 18% to 33%. Thus, we will conclusively demonstrate that the U.S. economy has moved irrevocably from making shit...to making shit up.

Where Politics and Business intersect: the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will not propose a thing--not one...single...thing--that would not shovel more money to their corporate masters.

That is all.