Conservative Hideout 2.0 Rotating Header Image

The Narrative has been Tweaked: Republican Tea Party Contract on America


This just in, from the brain trust known as the DNC; the new strategy for the Democrats in 2010 is to promote the idea that the Tea Party and Republicans are one in the same.  The snake oil they’re trying to sell to the American people is that it’s a scary and extreme ideology to embrace the concepts of limited government, fiscal responsibility, reforming or ending unsustainable entitlement programs, promoting states’ rights, and challenging unconstitutional laws that encroach on the individual liberties of each and every one us to include the seizure of private property (Financial Reform).  They call it theRepublican Tea Party Contract on America.

They couldn’t resist the urge to throw Bush under the bus again by misrepresenting the truth about his tax cuts that are actually cuts across the board and not just for the wealthy, but that’s a predictable class warfare tactic they have used for years.  An original thought would have been refreshing.   Oh yeah and they also had to sprinkle the big bad oil companies in the mix and how the evil Republican Tea Party wants to protect them.  Hmmm I wonder if they realize that some of the biggest recipients of big oil money were members of their own party.  I wonder if they know that BP actually wrote a large portion of the Cap and Trade bill.  So it does appear that big oil does have a seat of influence at one of the two political parties table.  I’m just not sure it’s the Republican Party’s table.

Below is a video clip of their new ad from the Huffington Post.

So let me see if I’m getting this right.  If you want to repeal two laws that are a direct assault on our individual liberties (ObamaCare and Financial Reform) and that congress had no Constitutional authority to even pass you’re extremists.  What side of the issue do you think Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, or George Washington would have fallen on?  I mean after all they were radical extremists in their own day.

The other positions about ending the unsustainable programs of Social Security and Medicare have me scratching my head as to why this is such an extreme idea.  Didn’t anyone bother to tell the DNC and the Democrats that Social Security has an unfunded liability of over $14 trillion and Medicare’s unfunded liability is a whopping $76 trillion for a total of over $90 trillion for both?  Unfunded is exactly how it sounds, we don’t have the money to pay for it.  The extreme and maybe even bizarre position to take on these issues in my mind is to actually believe these programs are in good shape and at some time in the future the magic money fairy (The Fed) is going to save these programs.

Now we have the elimination of three agencies that are not authorized by the Constitution and have been granted powers that were created in thin air to infringe on our individual liberties.  The EPA created under the Nixon administration in 1970 at the time was charged with enforcing environmental laws passed by congress.  Since then they have morphed into a powerful agency that believes it has the authority to regulate every aspect of our lives.  They also have been granted authority by the President to bypass congress and regulate CO2 (cap and trade) without the approval of congress.  Doesn’t this seem a little extreme considering our Constitution doesn’t authorize any of these powers?  So who are the extremists here, the ones that want to enforce the limits placed on our government by our Constitution or those that want to disregard our Constitution.  Once again, who are the radicals on this issue?  I say the radical and extreme idea is to believe that the EPA actually has this authority.

Next we have the Department of Education.  This agency has been nothing but a money pit of failed policies and ideas since its creation in 1979 under the Carter administration.  This unconstitutional agency has done little to nothing to improve the quality of education in this country.  They have intruded in the local educational affairs of states by imposing national standards while disregarding local needs.  Individual states are in a better position to not only identify but address educational issues that pertain to the local community.  The quality of our education has greatly diminished since its inception and they have a proven track record of inefficiency.  Why should we even continue to fund this failed agency?  Maybe the extreme idea is to continue to throw away money on an agency that has no constitutional authority to exist and does little or nothing to enhance our educational system.

The Department of Energy is another organization that was created during the Carter administration in 1977.  Its original charter was to end U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  Tell me how that’s working out.  Since 1977 our dependency on foreign oil has increased dramatically.  The below chart illustrates this.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

So what is the extreme position to take here?  Is it extreme to eliminate this agency that has no constitutional authority to exist or to continue supporting it?  You decide.  It’s clear that the original intent of creating it has not been met.

The last area of this “Contract on America” I want to address is repealing of the 17th amendment.  There are number of very good articles on this topic.  It’s a debate that should not be simply dismissed as radical or extreme.  After all our Founders believed it was important enough to address in our Constitution.  They also did not create the current process of electing Senators by popular vote; this was done in 1913 during the “Progressive Era.”  The Founders locked onto the belief that federalism and the balance of power between the states and the federal government was vital for a republic form of government to be successful.  States had to have some sort of guarantee that their interests would be properly represented.  This is why the Founders wrote into the Constitution that Senators would be appointed by state legislators.  It created an environment where Senators and the decisions they made were representative of the positions on issues their states held.  If they voted for something that didn’t represent the position of their respective states they could be held accountable by their states.  After the 17th amendment passed and amended our Constitution this was no longer the case.  It greatly diminished the influence of the states by shifting the balance of power towards the federal government.Check out the Tenth Amendment Center for a very good article on this topic.

The truth is there is nothing radical or extreme about wanting to shift power back to the states and finding that balance again between the two.  This is a good thing for the Republic.  Federalism and the relationship between the states and federal government is an often overlooked component of our Republic, but it’s also a crucial element for our Republic to be successful.  Having this debate should not be a scary thing, it should be welcomed.  For the DNC to use it as a scare tactic tells you just how shallow their thinking is.

This campaign ad from this DNC shows us how out of touch their party is with America.  I find it hard to believe that most American view these concepts as extreme.  This is why the Democrats are going to suffer huge loses this November because they just don’t get.  They don’t understand that the political paradigm has changed and we aren’t the same voters that existed in 2008.  Americans each day are learning more and more about the Founders and our Constitution.  They’re reading, blogging, standing up for our Constitution.  The Tea Party movement isn’t about a specific political party;  it’s about something much deeper.  It’s about relearning who we are, what we stand for, and where we want to go as a nation.  This is why this “Contract on America” strategy is going to fall flat, because neither party has figured out that things have changed.  We have changed.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  The Current