The debt problem extends back to FDR's administration and the Keynesian economic theory that the federal government has to save the economy by infusing dollars into the economy. There are two basic problems with the theory: even Keynes himself said that when the economic crisis passed, the programs that were used to infuse the money should be eliminated. Politicians won't do that, because programs bring jobs and pork to their districts. So, each time there is a bump in the economy, the Congress uses it as an excuse to buy more votes. And the programs never go away regardless of whether they are effective or not. The second problem: Economists (Paul Krugman being the current Keynesian banner-bearer) insist that programs, such as the $900 billion "we found that not all shovel-ready projects weren't shovel-ready" stimulus, weren't adequately funded. There's never enough money to satisfy the Keynesians, but it's a "progressive" philosophy, so the Democrats buy into it.
I'm a tea party participant. I subscribe to the classical economic theory that created the most powerful economic engine in the world. An economic theory that understands basic human nature. "If you give something away, people will want more of it" explains why every welfare, medicaid, medicare, obamacare or other "entitlement" program costs more than was projected. "If you continue to provide money without requirements, then people will adjust their behavior" explains why someone on 99 weeks of unemployment will not take a job, any job, to get them through until conditions improve. "If you increase the tax rate on the wealthy, they will adjust their behavior to avoid paying the tax" explains why Carter's luxury tax on yachts almost destroyed the boat building industry in the United States, while prices on untaxed used yachts went up as the wealthy bought those instead.
The tea party was successful because they insisted their candidates restrict their campaigns to limited government and reduced spending. Unfortunately, presidential candidates must take positions on social issues. Even limited spending becomes a social issue: reducing spending by limiting or eliminating federal funding for birth control, for example.
But solely blaming the tea party congressmen for the debt crisis is sophistry. The house of representatives vote for the debt deal was 269-161. There are about 40 tea party representatives and not all of them voted against the bill. So, what about the 121 representatives, including 95 House Democrats who voted against it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/us...pagewanted=all The tea party watched as Speaker Boehner cut a deal for an advertised $1.1 trillion on FY 2011 budget deal, which after passage we found that it became $5.4 billion, and then CBO revised the reduction as $38 billion, less than one day's interest on the debt. After being side-swiped once, the tea party was going to insist on real reductions, and the only way to get it was to refuse to vote for debt ceiling. We are tired of accounting games and out-year reductions that will never come to pass.
And yes, I must be a racist because I want to de-lect an unqualified man who never ran a business, never served as chief executive of anything (the Harvard Law Review doesn't count), didn't serve a full term in the Senate, never sponsored any significant legislation as a Senator, voted "present" an inordinate amount of time as a state senator, supported a bill that would allow the murder of attempted aborted babies after birth, has a mindset that European socialism is better for America (that a vast majority of Americans reject), has little or no understanding of how private jobs are created, excoriates Wall Street while at the same time courting millions in campaign donations from them, promotes class warfare, and - most importantly - doesn't support the Constitution because it only has "negative rights". And because he's half-white. Okay, skip the half-white part. I just wanted to show how ludicrous the whole race card thing is.
