Want to see diversity in the Republican Party? Look to the Tea Party
December 18, 2012 at 10:08 am in News by Dustin Siggins 49 Comments
Yesterday afternoon, National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar wrote a fantastic article praising the impact on the diversity of Tea Party-minded politicians:
For Republicans who believe the tea party is responsible for the GOP’s struggles, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s decision to choose Rep. Tim Scott to replace Jim DeMint in the Senate would have come as a stunner. The nation’s second Indian-American governor appointed the only African-American who will be serving in the Senate come 2013. And not only are they both Republicans, they are tea party-aligned conservatives who took on the party establishment and won.
It’s ironic that at a time when party strategists are publicly panicking over the party’s need to diversify or face extinction, they’re blind to the reality that if it wasn’t for the much-maligned tea party, the Republican Party would be even more homogeneous than it is today.
Kraushaar decimates the establishment’s thinking on diversity, noting that Tea Party-minded candidates are gaining relatively wide support for their principles:
Rubio, a fresh young Hispanic face who called for entitlement reforms in his 2010 campaign, nonetheless comfortably carried the Hispanic vote in Florida. Susana Martinez, running a conventionally conservative campaign for governor, won in heavily Hispanic and Democratic-leaning New Mexico that same year. Scott, a tea party conservative, won a handful of Obama supporters in both his general election campaigns, outperforming Romney by four points in 2012.
But the most devastating criticisms of the Republican Party are at the end of the piece:
Why can’t party campaign committees work to identify local officials or community leaders who best reflect the face of a diversifying America? Why don’t parties spend resources on Major League Baseball-like scouts who pore over states to encourage the next Mr. (or Mrs.) Smith to come to Washington? If popular reality shows like American Idol can identify the next big singing star, surely party leaders could be resourceful enough to find under-the-radar political outsiders with an interest in shaping public policy.
And in his closing:
…[T]he tea party provided a playbook for how it can be done. Forget one’s political history and reputation. Stop obsessing over which candidates can raise the most money, increasingly an anachronism in today’s super-PAC fueled political environment. Look for qualified outsiders who can put the best face forward for a Republican Party, with a message centered on opportunity. Nikki Haley and Tim Scott proved it can be done, and they are now two of the most powerful officeholders in South Carolina–in the heart of the old Confederacy.
In Washington, it’s often said that one has to go along to get along. That’s why when Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) opposed renewal of provisions of the Patriot Act to uphold a campaign promise, he was accused of just trying to get attention. It’s why Speaker Boehner purged four fiscal conservatives from two influential financial committees. It’s also why too many in Washington compromise their principles over and over in order to – as Senator Coburn (R-OK) noted in his book “The Debt Bomb”– wait until the perfect moment to stand on principle. Of course, that perfect moment rarely arrives.
The Tea Party was founded on principles of fiscal responsibility and constitutionally-limited government. We don’t look at who your father was, or how rich you are, or what your skin color is. Principles are blind to all of that. We want America to flourish, and look forward to working with Senator Scott and any other Tea Party-minded officials to make that happen.
One crazy bagger appointing another. Double crazy
Goodness. What a statement of tolerance and understanding for those with whom you disagree. I will strive from here on out that when I grow up, I want to be such a perfect specimen grace and propriety as you so obviously have become.
Sillybaggers is probably one of the brain washed college freshmen that has drank to much cool-aid . I think he probably hasn’t found work with an attitude like his. He still has his computer and Obama phone etc. He is a typical young uninformed Obomination type. I hope he can be cured of his infliction before we lose our country completely. Maybe growing up more will help.
Sillybaggers:
Crazy or not, how does a snid and rude comment advance your position or argument? More importantly, how does attempting to insult and demean a fellow American advance the country and/or the people’s welfare.
P.S. I am not a TP believer and am probably against most of what they stand for. I am an American and am sorrowful for the pain being inflicted on America from all this anger and vitriolic dialogue. Surely you should realize that the only thing name calling accomplishes is to show how uneducated and/or inarticulate the name caller truly is!
Joe, the TEA Party believes in the Constitution and fiscally sane government. We also believe that a patriotic American has a goal of working to earn their living standard, and strives foremost to be self-reliant. Additionally, the TEA Party believes the government is the subject of the people, as opposed to the people being subjects of the government.
What problems do you have with that?
Take an objective position and tell us why you think this obviously centrist view is anything but centrist.
DBWriter:
As a broad proposition, it is quite reasonable to say the TP believes in the Constitution and a fiscally sane government. The problem I have is that the TP is very selective when it comes to belief in the Constitution. It appears to me that the TP has a tendency to declare “Unconstitutional” any program or policy they don’t agree with! Our system, for over 200 years (since the finding in Marbury v. Madison) has been that the SCOTUS is the only entity with the authority and responsibility to determine what is or is not Constitutional. Under our system, which we have operated for over 200 years, there is not a single law or policy currently on the books that is unconstitutional. It is the narrow view of “Strict-Constructionists” that unless an item is specifically listed in the Constitution as a responsibility of the Federal Government, the power to regulate that activity rests with the states or the people.
Who is to decide what is or is not a “fiscally sane government” Throughout our history, we have moved in and out of fiscal deficits. From the inception of our government, progressive taxes has been used to pay for wars and expansion. In modern times, FDR’s “New Deal” was necessary to pull us out of our great depression. World War II provided the manufacturing surge to elevate our country to the leadership of the world. (of course, don’t forget that we were one of the few countries in the world that didn’t suffer war damage to our country!). In the 50’s and 60’s it was racial inequality that lead to Johnson’s “great society” In 2008, we lost hundred’s of thousands of jobs monthly; wall street was collapsing and the auto and housing industry was falling apart. Yea, it was a result of self-inflicted wounds, but regardless of the cause, the future of our entire society was in dire jeopardy (as well as the economy of the entire world). It was an extraordinary time which called for extraordinary solutions. I would agree that the solutions presented by Congress were less that optimum and could have been structured, as well as managed, much more efficiently and effectively, but the decision was made by the elected representatives WE THE PEOPLE sent to Washington!
You claim the TP believes in the Constitution, yet, it seems to me, that as an organization you forget that, in accordance with the Constitution, the Executive (meaning President Obama) can’t spend a single penny that CONGRESS hasn’t allocated! Further, the executive can ONLY spend funds that have been allocated for the specific purpose for which it was allocated! As for “FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY”, Constitutionally, the President should not be mentioned in any conversation regarding overspending or cutting of funds. That is a political issue, not a constitutional issue!
You say you “…believe that a patriotic America has a goal of working to earn a living standard and strives foremost to be self-reliant.” Considering the vast majority of Americans (I can’t attach any percentage to that estimate) are doing precisely that, I consider this “principle” to be mere fire-brand rhetoric! Yes, there are a very small portion of people that are taking advantage of our society, but I contend they are a very small portion of the general populous (keep in mind that we are a population of over 300 million people, with that figure in mind, 3 million people taking advantage of the generosity of the Federal government amounts to 1 percent of the populous.)
You say “…the TP believes the government is the subject of the people, as opposed to the people being subjects of the government..” This too, to me, is mere fire-brand rhetoric. That is exactly the system we operate under. Every two years we have an election within which the people have the right and opportunity to select their representatives and provide guidance to the direction of the country. We just had an election, yet the TP doesn’t seem to accept or recognize the will of the majority. I have heard blame laid on voter fraud; on “RINO’s”; on the candidates etc. I have not heard blame placed on the true reason for the loss. That reason, in my opinion, is the Republicans, in general and the TP, in particular, didn’t articulate a message that the majority of voters agreed with! They tried to buy the election – that didn’t work! They tried to manipulate the voting process (gerrymandering and laws which were designed to suppress voting) – that didn’t work! They tried to “game” system through pandering– that didn’t work. They even tried, in some cases, articulating their true feelings (ie: 47% comment; legitimate rape, etc) and were rejected decisively!
In 2010, the TP advocated fiscal responsibility and in a “perfect storm” environment, were elected to serve. When they arrived in office, they changed direction and focused on social and self=perpetuating issues and left fiscal issues at the polling place. State legislatures and Governors focused on abortion, unions and voting issues – where were the employment issues? I firmly believe that if there is a “silver-bullet” solution to our problems, it is focusing on reaching full employment. By increasing employment, we increase our tax base. By increasing our tax base, we are increasing our revenues, by increasing our revenues we are capable of paying down our deficit and debt! Additionally, by increasing employment, we are putting more money into the hands of consumers who are then more capable of purchasing more goods and services. It is an upward spiral that leads to prosperity. Yet, the focus of the elected representatives was on making Obama a “one-term President” They, in my view, obstructed any progress that may have been achieved for political purposes while the general populous suffered.
If the TP agenda was truly centrist, they would have my complete support and, I would guess, would have done much better in the election of 2012. If the TP had the slightest ability to be put the needs of the country ahead of its own interests, I would be completely supportive.
I don’t want Obamacare repealed! I want it modified so that it is beneficial to as many Americans as possible. I want the anti-trust exemption and monopolies which the medical insurance companies now enjoy taken away and to let the free market determine the cost of insurance. I want the religious zealots to get back into their churches and stay there. I want the anti-abortionists to mind their own business. I want the segregationists to keep their prejudices to themselves. I want the political parties to advocate for the welfare of the country and not their self interests. Finally, I want to live and to let live which is the true American Dream!
Joe, one of the most brilliant aspect of the Constitution is it is easily read and understood by a person with an average ability to read and comprehend the written English language. Obviously, the TEA Party isn’t the only people who have objections to majority Supreme Court rulings. It seems that very often Supreme Court justices have the same objections. I don’t recall vey many unanimous rulings from SCOTUS. To infer that the TEA Party is subjective in its agreement or disagreement with a majority ruling ignores the fact that the TEA Party agrees with justices of the Supreme Court.
Some rulings that are ludicrous:
The federal government has the authority to confiscate agricultural products legally grown within a state for personal consumption because it has the possibility of impacting existing ILLEGAL interstate commerce.
Give me a break here….
An unelected municipal body can force the transfer of private property from one private individual to another private individual based on the assumption that the intended legal use of the land differs between the private individuals.
Give me another break here….
The list of insane majority opinions from the Supreme Court is extensive.
The most recent is a piece of legislation states “penalty” and the majority opinion is that Congress was so ignorant they don’t know the difference between the words penalty and tax, and changed the word to tax. If Congress writes the word “penalty” in legislation, then that is what it is. The Supreme Court was actually writing legislation when they changed the meaning of the word used in the text of the legislation.
Fiscally sane means the means of collecting revenue collects enough to pay for government. The only revenue plan being discussed cannot possibly collect enough revenue because the source of that revenue doesn’t even have that much money if you taxed their earnings at 100%. Therefore, the plan is to borrow money perpetually until money starts growing on trees. That’s insane… if the intent is to maintain a solvent government, that is.
Your comment about what happened after 2010 is the result of electing a RINO as Speaker, and a weak RINO at that. Your comments apply to what the Speaker allowed to be put forth. And, we admit we were fools to a) put him in as Speaker, and b) follow his lead. We are trying to rectify that catastrophic mistake. We need a new Speaker.
Centrist… like I said, the Constitution is easily read and understood. There is no scrutiny of the ludicrous decisions coming from SCOTUS, just a couple I pointed out. There are a plethora more. If you are an unthinking person who mindlessly accepts anything from the government, then, yes, you would have a problem with the TEA Party. Even if the TEA Party dominated government, there would still be skepticism because skepticism is a necessary component of making the government justify everything it does.
Adhering to the Constitution is centrist.
Expecting everyone to work to become self-reliant is centrist.
Having a government live within its means is centrist.
And, expecting EVERYONE to pay their fair share of what the government costs is centrist.
Yet, the perspective has been skewed so far, these obviously centrist principles are viewed as radical.
My comment is awaiting moderation.
Joe, one of the most brilliant aspect of the Constitution is it is easily read and understood by a person with an average ability to read and comprehend the written English language. Obviously, the TEA Party isn’t the only people who have objections to majority Supreme Court rulings. It seems that very often Supreme Court justices have the same objections. I don’t recall vey many unanimous rulings from SCOTUS. To infer that the TEA Party is subjective in its agreement or disagreement with a majority ruling ignores the fact that the TEA Party agrees with justices of the Supreme Court.
Some rulings that are ludicrous:
The federal government has the authority to confiscate agricultural products legally grown within a state for personal consumption because it has the possibility of impacting existing ILLEGAL interstate commerce.
Give me a break here….
An unelected municipal body can force the transfer of private property from one private individual to another private individual based on the assumption that the intended legal use of the land differs between the private individuals.
Give me another break here….
The list of insane majority opinions from the Supreme Court is extensive.
The most recent is a piece of legislation states “penalty” and the majority opinion is that Congress was so ignorant they don’t know the difference between the words penalty and tax, and changed the word to tax. If Congress writes the word “penalty” in legislation, then that is what it is. The Supreme Court was actually writing legislation when they changed the meaning of the word used in the text of the legislation.
Fiscally sane means the means of collecting revenue collects enough to pay for government. The only revenue plan being discussed cannot possibly collect enough revenue because the source of that revenue doesn’t even have that much money if you taxed their earnings at 100%. Therefore, the plan is to borrow money perpetually until money starts growing on trees. That’s insane… if the intent is to maintain a solvent government, that is.
Your comment about what happened after 2010 is the result of electing a RINO as Speaker, and a weak RINO at that. Your comments apply to what the Speaker allowed to be put forth. And, we admit we were fools to a) put him in as Speaker, and b) follow his lead. We are trying to rectify that catastrophic mistake. We need a new Speaker.
Centrist… like I said, the Constitution is easily read and understood. There is no scrutiny of the ludicrous decisions coming from SCOTUS, just a couple I pointed out. There are a plethora more. If you are an unthinking person who mindlessly accepts anything from the government, then, yes, you would have a problem with the TEA Party. Even if the TEA Party dominated government, there would still be skepticism because skepticism is a necessary component of making the government justify everything it does.
Adhering to the Constitution is centrist.
Expecting everyone to work to become self-reliant is centrist.
Having a government live within its means is centrist.
And, expecting EVERYONE to pay their fair share of what the government costs is centrist.
Yet, the perspective has been skewed so far, these obviously centrist principles are viewed as radical.
Test post
As a broad proposition, it is quite reasonable to say the TP believes in the Constitution and a fiscally sane government. The problem I have is that the TP is very selective when it comes to belief in the Constitution. It appears to me that the TP has a tendency to declare “Unconstitutional” any program or policy they don’t agree with! Our system, for over 200 years (since the finding in Marbury v. Madison) has been that the SCOTUS is the only entity with the authority and responsibility to determine what is or is not Constitutional. Under our system, which we have operated for over 200 years, there is not a single law or policy currently on the books that is unconstitutional. It is the narrow view of “Strict-Constructionists” that unless an item is specifically listed in the Constitution as a responsibility of the Federal Government, the power to regulate that activity rests with the states or the people.
Who is to decide what is or is not a “fiscally sane government” Throughout our history, we have moved in and out of fiscal deficits. From the inception of our government, progressive taxes has been used to pay for wars and expansion. In modern times, FDR’s “New Deal” was necessary to pull us out of our great depression. World War II provided the manufacturing surge to elevate our country to the leadership of the world. (of course, don’t forget that we were one of the few countries in the world that didn’t suffer war damage to our country!). In the 50’s and 60’s it was racial inequality that lead to Johnson’s “great society” In 2008, we lost hundred’s of thousands of jobs monthly; wall street was collapsing and the auto and housing industry was falling apart. Yea, it was a result of self-inflicted wounds, but regardless of the cause, the future of our entire society was in dire jeopardy (as well as the economy of the entire world). It was an extraordinary time which called for extraordinary solutions. I would agree that the solutions presented by Congress were less that optimum and could have been structured, as well as managed, much more efficiently and effectively, but the decision was made by the elected representatives WE THE PEOPLE sent to Washington!
You claim the TP believes in the Constitution, yet, it seems to me, that as an organization you forget that, in accordance with the Constitution, the Executive (meaning President Obama) can’t spend a single penny that CONGRESS hasn’t allocated! Further, the executive can ONLY spend funds that have been allocated for the specific purpose for which it was allocated! As for “FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY”, Constitutionally, the President should not be mentioned in any conversation regarding overspending or cutting of funds. That is a political issue, not a constitutional issue!
You say you “…believe that a patriotic America has a goal of working to earn a living standard and strives foremost to be self-reliant.” Considering the vast majority of Americans (I can’t attach any percentage to that estimate) are doing precisely that, I consider this “principle” to be mere fire-brand rhetoric! Yes, there are a very small portion of people that are taking advantage of our society, but I contend they are a very small portion of the general populous (keep in mind that we are a population of over 300 million people, with that figure in mind, 3 million people taking advantage of the generosity of the Federal government amounts to 1 percent of the populous.)
You say “…the TP believes the government is the subject of the people, as opposed to the people being subjects of the government..” This too, to me, is mere fire-brand rhetoric. That is exactly the system we operate under. Every two years we have an election within which the people have the right and opportunity to select their representatives and provide guidance to the direction of the country. We just had an election, yet the TP doesn’t seem to accept or recognize the will of the majority. I have heard blame laid on voter fraud; on “RINO’s”; on the candidates etc. I have not heard blame placed on the true reason for the loss. That reason, in my opinion, is the Republicans, in general and the TP, in particular, didn’t articulate a message that the majority of voters agreed with! They tried to buy the election – that didn’t work! They tried to manipulate the voting process (gerrymandering and laws which were designed to suppress voting) – that didn’t work! They tried to “game” system through pandering– that didn’t work. They even tried, in some cases, articulating their true feelings (ie: 47% comment; legitimate rape, etc) and were rejected decisively!
In 2010, the TP advocated fiscal responsibility and in a “perfect storm” environment, were elected to serve. When they arrived in office, they changed direction and focused on social and self=perpetuating issues and left fiscal issues at the polling place. State legislatures and Governors focused on abortion, unions and voting issues – where were the employment issues? I firmly believe that if there is a “silver-bullet” solution to our problems, it is focusing on reaching full employment. By increasing employment, we increase our tax base. By increasing our tax base, we are increasing our revenues, by increasing our revenues we are capable of paying down our deficit and debt! Additionally, by increasing employment, we are putting more money into the hands of consumers who are then more capable of purchasing more goods and services. It is an upward spiral that leads to prosperity. Yet, the focus of the elected representatives was on making Obama a “one-term President” They, in my view, obstructed any progress that may have been achieved for political purposes while the general populous suffered.
If the TP agenda was truly centrist, they would have my complete support and, I would guess, would have done much better in the election of 2012. If the TP had the slightest ability to be put the needs of the country ahead of its own interests, I would be completely supportive.
I don’t want Obamacare repealed! I want it modified so that it is beneficial to as many Americans as possible. I want the anti-trust exemption and monopolies which the medical insurance companies now enjoy taken away and to let the free market determine the cost of insurance. I want the religious zealots to get back into their churches and stay there. I want the anti-abortionists to mind their own business. I want the segregationists to keep their prejudices to themselves. I want the political parties to advocate for the welfare of the country and not their self interests. Finally, I want to live and to let live which is the true American Dream!
It is interesting that your lengthy post gets past the censors, and only yours.
Now, what would cause this….
You spew the left-wing propaganda party line, and inaccurate. Just to keep it short in an effort to statistically avoid the censors, I’m going to point out one example.
You state that the vast majority of Americans strive to work for self-reliance. Yet, that “vast” majority, 47 percent, won’t pay income taxes like the other 53 percent. Moochers, and they know it. What percentage of American households are taking aid from the government? Is it 50 percent yet? And do you think they know who’s paying for them to live? Of course, they do.
I’ve been poor and I worked my way out of it without taking anything from the government. They can do that, too, if they are the type of person who strives to be self-reliant. If they are just moochers, then they will take money from the government and vote to make sure the money keeps coming.
Your assertion is not only inaccurate, it is the exact party line mantra Democrat indoctrinated response.
I’m thinking you are a plant here.
It is interesting that your lengthy post gets past the censors, and only yours.
Now, what would cause this….
You’re a plant here.
Joe, your post is too long for me to reply point by point, so, I’ll just say that John Jay, Founder and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, believed that all questions as to the meaning of the Constitution MUST be referred back to the People, since the People had granted the powers to the government in the first place.
Having the Supreme Court declare that it was in sole possession of a power that isn’t granted to ANY branch of our government is simply a tyrannical usurpation of power from the People to the government.
Wow, it would be great if we could become free men again. However, 51% of the population thought it would be better to keep their free phones, free food, and unemployment. RIP America
There is a plan among Libertarains to start their own country by SeaSteading. That is creating artificial island on the high sea in international waters.
Jerry, you spelled libertarians incorrectly, and it should be with a lower case L, since the idea is not a Libertarian Party idea or project.
The idea has been around for a long time, but it’s never seemed practical or feasible to me.
That’s one of the great things about free countries, you can dream and be free to try to turn your dreams into reality.
Just look at how many communal living dreams have been tried in the America, starting with the Pilgrims.
Of course they all failed, so we know communism is dream that only someone completely divorced from reality could have.
Craig,
It was on the news today. The group seems to have some big money behind it. The idea is the have the sea state home to profitable companies (high value, low space operatioons).
The are starting by buying ships then go to making islands
The first one will be off the coast of California
And I wish them luck. I’m also happy that they aren’t getting a government grant or subsidy for their project.
Craig, who made you the English teacher on this message board? Seriously, now you are cherry picking people’s spelling?
Sorry, I won’t comment again on spelling or usage.
I only wanted to make the points that this libertarian idea isn’t a Libertarian Party idea, and that it’s not nearly as pie-in-the-sky crazy as the various “progressive” plans for communist communities. The libertarian idea might even work. Communism never has.
Jerry:
Why would an American, who professed to love this country and act as a “protector of the Constitution” choose to leave the country rather than stand on their principles and work with the rest of us to find a reasonable solution to our problems?
Perhaps they see nothing reasonable about the insanity of our current government. Perhaps they see Obama unconstitutionally issuing edicts directly to the population as if he can write his own laws, and there is no protection of the people in the House of the people. Perhaps he can do simple accounting and see that we are near collapse. Perhaps he opposes the institution of Marxist communism, and can actually define the word, and sees the obviously Marxist legislation becoming law. Perhaps he knows the difference between the truth and a lie, and has been paying attention to what the administration has been doing throughout their entire term, and they were just re-elected.
Here’s a question. For example, Exxon pays 12.3 billion dollars in taxes just because they are an American company. However, they only earn 9.6 billion dollars from their investments within the United States. Why shouldn’t Exxon move to another country where they are not taxed more than they earn in that country, and take an entire industry with them, putting in effect millions of people out of work and onto the government dole?
DBWriter:
I would submit that President Obama has not issued any “unconstitutional” edicts. He has exercised his Constitutional Authority. If there is a question as to whether he has or has not exceeded his power, there are remedies available to the public to seek redress of any grievance. They can go to court and challenge the edict. To arbitrarily or capriciously declare an act “unconstitutional” because you don’t agree with its provisions is foolish!
Regarding your Exxon example:
1) I challenge your figures. I don’t believe Exxon pays almost 3 billion dollars more in taxes than they do in making profits! The very definition of “profits” would indicate that is an erroneous statistic. Profit is, in my mind, defined as that income received above all expenses. Taxes are computed as a part of those expenses. (business expense equals 1) R & D; 2) the cost of producing the commodity; 3) overhead – buildings, equipment and administrative costs; and 4) taxes paid)
2) Further, in principle, business don’t pay taxes! Tax liabilities (of all natures) are computed into the price point of an item and, thus, are paid for by the consumer, not the business
Under any business principle I am aware, the executive or decision making body of any business has the absolute right to make any decision they choose to make regarding that business. That right includes shutting the business down or moving it to a different country. A business owner has no legal responsibility to the government or the people of the country. They do have a moral responsibility. If Exxon wanted to move its entire operation overseas, they can do so at anytime they choose. If that means loss of millions of jobs, so be it! Businesses are making that decision every day. So there are two separate issues. The first is their legal authority to make business decisions regarding how their business is to be conducted and second, any moral obligation they may have to the country.
The fact of the matter is that Exxon stays in America because it is in their businesses interest to stay here. It is neither my prerogative nor yours to question the business decisions of Exxon. Our choice is limited to our decision to buy or not to buy their products. Beyond that, it’s none of our business!!!!!!
Obama’s very first executive order:
There was the affordable care act which is what the text says it is in the afforcable care act as passed in Congress and signed by the president. This law cannot be changed.
If the legislation allows government funds to be used for abortions, then THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
Obama signs an executive order prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions (like that order will be enforced, about like the immigrations laws are enforced) disregarding what is written in the law.
Here’s how it works in the United States. The president does not have the authority to change any law. The law is what the text of the law states.
You’d think someone who was (supposedly) qualified to be on the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School would know that. I think he would know it if he had ever read the Constitution at least once in his life.
And, how about ordering that contraceptives be covered in private insurance plans? That is an edict issued to the population. That is Obama assuming he can just write whatever law he wants.
Joe, please don’t act as if everyone out here is ignorant of events. There are other message boards you can put the stuff you write on where the audience is a lot more ignorant than here.
Obama’s very first executive order:
There was the affordable care act which is what the text says it is in the afforcable care act as passed in Congress and signed by the president. This law cannot be changed.
If the legislation allows government funds to be used for abortions, then THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
Obama signs an executive order prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions (like that order will be enforced, about like the immigrations laws are enforced) disregarding what is written in the law.
That came from a statement by the CEO of Exxon published in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.
And, “challenge” means you have some fact that is an argument against it. All I see is the usual denial with the assumption that just making the statement has standing.
Since there is a published article in the Wall Street Journal giving these numbers, you obviously have a reference that gives different numbers.
What are the numbers you reference?
So far, the only published numbers are 12.3 billion paid in taxes and 9.6 billion earned in the United States.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
The figures are real. Reference the Wall Street Journal. I do hope you consider the Wall Street Journal as a reputable publication.
You seem to have written a lengthy response without being subject to “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” I am not afforded such a priviledge here.
Obama’s first executive order is intended to contradict text in the Affordable Care Act, thus writing his own laws and issuing edicts to the population. Explanation and details are censored.
DB – Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall St. Journal so it must be true!
The Constitution clearly provides only certain powers and obligations to each branch of the government we created.
Only Congress is given powers to write laws, raise money, and decide how the money is spent.
No provision is made to allow Congress to change the Constitution without the approval of the People. Congress cannot delegate any of the powers we gave to it.
If we wanted the President to have the power to make laws on his own, it would be in the Constitution. It isn’t.
The Courts are another branch of our government with no legislative power, no power to raise or spend money and no power to alter the Constitution, or even to propose alterations to the Constitution.
Why shouldn’t Exxon move to another country? Perhaps because America shells out trillions of dollars and the blood of her sons and daughters in military costs to protect their right to obtain and process their raw materials. Maybe they can move to China or Russia, if they don’t like kicking in a bit of tax towards that.
I agree Teapot, we should stop ALL corporate welfare, just as we should stop using our military to try to control world commodity markets. And of course we should bring equality under the law back for everyone, even giant corporations and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
The party line mantr from the Democrats is “corporate welfare”. I hear it very frequently. Yet, I have never seen anyone cite any details. So….
What corporate welfare does an oil company receive?
Why not serious moves to start a third party (a truly conservative party) as the answer to the Republican establishment? If nothing else, it would get them more afraid of losing us than being so obsessed with appealing to moderates and liberals
Mike,
Your right on target, we need to start (today) a Fiscal Conservative Movement that can grow into a truly Conservative Party.
Only problem is that there is a huge stinking bloated mass of a rotten carcass in the road and that goes by the name of the Grand old Party. It is simply in the way.
Another problem is that there are still many GOP Zombies within the Tea Party. Be sure to spray them with cockroach spray every time they reply to your posts with their brain washed dribble. The GOP is now nothing but a Socialist Lite Party.
Keep thinking outside the box Mike
Happy holidays from the teaparty . net,
what say you all about the speaker reining in the good folks we sent there.hope the patriots can remind them that we are sitill here for them and ask them to hang tight, good men all. what is latest on Caritable deductions caped? caps? or not? Voted perot TP.N
I just had to step away form the computer and swallow hard after reading this article. I want diversity in the Tea Party Movement and I feel we can have it. But first we need to clean up the BS that is served up daily. I have been posting on TP sites for over two years, several thousand posts to my credit. And I spend most of my time trying to get some good old boy with a ax to grind to step away from the wheel long enough to consider how other might view his idiotic post.
So if your reading this ask yourself if you could stand in a group of Homosexuals, Atheist, Blacks, Muslims, Union Workers, Hispanics and well, you know the rest, and feel good about having them on your team?
If the Tea Party can put to bed its mightier than thou attitude towards others that are other than the majority we might have a chance, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
With any individual, there will be different emphasis on any particular set of principles. Given a group of individuals, there will be a variety of ideas receiving emphasis. There must exist core principles that all who choose tojoin agree to.
The Constitution is as written, and must be adhered to.
The populationmust be taxed fairly.
The primary function of Congress, in particular the House of Representatives, is to protect the population from the naturally existing inclination of government to increase its authority and power, and make the population its subordinate subjects.
If we can agree on these core principles, then the next step is to develop and agree to plans to put these core principles into the logic of government.
DBWriter
In principle, I don’t disagree with your opening remarks. Yes, individuals will differ as to what a problem may be and what solution would be best to solve the problem. I would also agree that there must exist core principles that all who choose to join must agree.
To accomplish that end, compromise is necessary! That is not to say capitulation of principles. It is to say that each individual allows sufficient latitude in their position to find a mutually agreeable solution while still adhering to their core convictions.
You start to run into problems with me when you start enumerate positions:
1) “The Constitution is as written and must be adhered to.”: I interpret your statement as meaning the Constitution is a “literal document” which must be strictly adhered to. I don’t believe it can or should be taken literally. Since Marbury v. Madison, the meaning of the Constitution has been the responsibility of the SCOTUS, not the public. The preamble lists general responsibilities – “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. All of which meanings can be interpreted differently by differing individuals. In their infinite wisdom, the founders gave that interpretation responsibility to the SCOTUS. For over 200 years, the SCOTUS has decided many cases and implemented the theory of “Stare Decisis”. As a result, the meaning and interpretation has evolved as the country has grown and as majority public opinion has changed. This, to me, indicates the Constitution is a living, breathing document whose meaning changes as the country grows.
2) “The population must be taxed fairly.” : What does “fair” mean? To some, fair means that everyone should pay the same percentage of income as a tax. Others would argue what is and is not income, while others would argue that X percentage would be a greater burden on the poor that it would the wealthy. Who is to make that determination? I believe that determination should be made by Congress. For our entire history, Congress has indicated a progressive tax is fair to all. They have also decided that the tax system should be used as incentive for businesses and for managing social problems. I disagree with using the tax system as an incentive and for managing social issues, but it is what it is. I consider it irresponsible to shut off the spicket too fast when it has take years to develop the philosophy of dependency on the government.
3) “The primary function of Congress.. is to protect the population from the naturally existing inclination of government to increase its authority and power…” : I consider this to be a totally absurd notion. As a strict constructionalist, you know very well that there is no language in the Constitution that alludes to the protection of the population against the Federal Government as a “primary function” of Congress! Quite the contrary, the primary responsibility of Congress, I believe, is to pass legislation that enhances the life and opportunity of the populace and to legislate laws that protect the majority from abuse of the few. It is certainly not the responsibility of Congress to obstruct the identity of problems or the proposed solutions to those problems. Congressmen ARE the representative of the people. Their votes SHOULD be for the will of the majority of the people they represent, not what their party line might be and certainly not with the stated purpose of making the duly elected President a failure!!!!
John, there are narrow minded bigots in every party, every movement, on every part of the political spectrum.
I don’t oppose “progressive” ideas and policies because there are bigots who hold “progressive” views, I oppose them simply because they are dangerous and wrong, and
I oppose bigotry, period.
DBWriter:
I will not comment on the Wall Street Journal as a publication. I will say that I am skeptical of any and all publications that tend to lean left or right. I form my opinion by researching multiple sources. In this way, I can identify bias and eliminate it from my decision making process.
Regarding quotation of statistics. I am sufficiently aware that any quotation of statistics needs to be evaluated in lieu of the specific numbers being referenced. It is too easy to manipulate numbers in an attempt to prove a point.
You alleged Exxon paid $12.3 Billion in taxes. What taxes were included in that figure? Did they include the amount paid to the Government for leases to drill? Did they include the 12.5% royalty payment sent to the Government for every barrel of oil and every cubic foot of Gas delivered? Did they include the other federal and state taxes paid for doing business?
Further, you quote the article as specifying $9.6 billion earned from investments within the US. That is a peculiar way of phrasing the statement. Why is there profits limited to “investments”? Why to they stipulate “within the US” They certainly have holdings outside the US that provide them income (as well as cost them expenses) Are they shielding some of their profits with off-shore accounts and manipulation to limit their exposure to taxes due the US?
Quoting two numbers may be fine for you, but it’s too superficial for me.
I reiterate the point that any taxes paid did not come from the company, but came from the consumers of Exxon products. If that’s the case, you are calculating $12.3 Billon twice! First as the amount actually sent to the Government and second, the amount computed into their price point to recoup the tax from their customers! So for Exxon, taxes are a net zero!!!!!!
Again you get past the automated censor algorithm here with a relatively lengthy post. It seems you are the only person here able to do that, thus making a discussion with you impossible. Relating that fact to tactics of what is commonly called “brainwashing”, the primary component of a successful indoctrination setting is achieved – creating a condition of allowing only a one-way conversation.
You are a plant here.
It’s 9.6 billion dollars net earnings. With 9.6 billion dollars net earnings, they pay 12.3 billion dollars in taxes.
And, of course, the taxes any company has to pay is an expense to that company. The goal of any company that relies on its business to stay alive, as opposed to relying on government handouts, must have revenue that exceeds expenses. Taxes has just as much of an effect on the price of a product as any other necessary expense, like, for example, cost of manufacturing. All costs must be below net revenue of the company dies…. with every company except the banks that caved in to the Democrats and instituted their subprime housing mortgage underwriting program, and companies like GM, and other “preferred” companies the government chooses to keep alive when they should be allowed to naturally downsize to a size consistent with their ability to manage a company. If they could manage a company of that size as well as Ford, then they wouldn’t have needed a bailout like Ford didn’t.
There are many minorities, gays, lesbians, non-believers, and women who are good people with fiscally conservative values. Unfortunately, many of the Tea Party candidates are hung up on pushing their personal religious and moral beliefs on their fellow citizens. As long as this is the case, that commie bastard O and his cronies will control the country, because no one wants the Christian Taliban in power, except for the Christian Taliban. Time to put a muzzle on the Neanderthals and put up some fiscally conservative, socially neutral women, LGBTs, and minorities as candidates. The Dems have succeeded in painting the Tea Party as fascists, racist, homophobic and misogynist. That doesn’t go over well with the majority of Americans.
ATTENTION EVERYONE!
Enough is Enough! Hidden in the 3,000 page Affordable Care Act, aka OBAMACARE, which the supreme court declared is A TAX, has somehting much more terrrible than the infringement of our liberties that we all know about. Starting in 2014, a small, but morally significant increase in our payroll taxes are going to THE UNITED NATIONS! We are paying a UN TAX, to go to poorer countries to pay for THEIR HEALTHCARE. HE IS TRYING TO USHER IN A WORLD GOVERNMENT, through sneaky tactics like this. WE NEED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE, and STOP THE UN TAX!
Craig Sickler:
I have a couple of questions regarding your John Jay Comment:
1) You say: …believed that all questions as to the meaning of the Constitution MUST be referred back to the people…
a) Where is such a belief articulated?
b) If there is such a source, what is the context of said statement?
c) If such an action (referral back to the people) is appropriate, what form does that referral take? Is it by popular vote in a referrendum; is it by state vote where by the states poll the populous then report back to the SCOTUS? What is the mechanism to accomplish this referral?
d) The holding of Marbury v. Madison was given during the Jefferson Administration. Now, Jefferson had a very unique perspective of the Constitution. He was involved in the theory of government during the discussion of and writing of the Constitution and he, then had to administer the reality of the government under the Constitution as President. If what you claim to be true, is, in fact true, why is Jefferson silent on the issue? If the SCOTUS wasn’t INTENDED to have the power of Judicial Review, why did it survive Jefferson? For that matter, why has it survived for over 200 years?
Your argument seems to be more emotional than factual! That may be how you want it, but that isn’t how it is and/or has been for over 200 years!
DBWriter:
I have noticed you infatuation with the term “Your comment is awaiting moderation”!
I have no idea what that means. I am simply a poster on this site, I have nothing to do with the administration of the site. And, yes it has appeared on some of my posts.
Plant? Plant for what purpose? What could anyone gain by my presence or lose because of my absence? It is an absolutely ridiculous assertion, especially in the absence of any tangible evidence in support of you assertion. I would suggest keeping your paranoia in check with medication!!!
It must be really terrible to go through life that suspicious and untrusting!