Obama is primarily responsible for the Tea Party movement, despite the fact that it is the nemesis of the President and the political establishment.
The movement is predominantly composed of a small number of Libertarians and a large number of Conservatives. The Tea Party Conservatives are formerly Conservative Republicans who have given up the notion of having a moral government and are tired of funding an immoral government. They are disconnecting from the Republican establishment, which today seems more comfortable managing big government than ultimately reducing it. Herein lies their commonality with Libertarians. The Tea Party is thus at the vertex of this confluence that emphasizes as its central theme the notion that the U.S. must return to a Constitutionally limited federal government.
The catalyst of this political migration is Obama’s stated goal of a “fundamental transformation of America.” Indeed, the Tea Party can most accurately be described as a popular revolt and instinctive response to such statements from this administration. Obama’s speech on the national debt reinforced the logic behind the movement; the President’s extremist economic goals further imperil our nation’s already dire fiscal situation.
“The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.
“Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.”
By referring to deductable expenses as “spending in the tax code,” the President indicated his belief that a person’s income is for the discretionary use of government, or for whatever Obama deems our nations “investments.” This then clarifies the enormous difference between the beliefs of the contemporary Democratic Left and those of free-market capitalists. The former believe that an individual’s labor product is a resource that belongs to the state, which may then be allocated, or, more accurately, appropriated it in a manner that it sees fit. The latter argue that a person’s labor belongs to them and them alone, and are thus the ultimate deciders of its fate.
“But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.”
The “fundamental commitment” that Obama speaks of is not a promise that American citizens made to one another. Rather, it is a promise Obama and the Left made to people who take from the system and a promise paid for by people who provide that system with money. This is possible because the voters who take far outnumber the voters who pay. Obama’s promise is that he will use force to take from a few to provide for the many in exchange for their political support. This he calls “courage.”
Today, fewer than 10 percent of Americans provide almost all federal income tax revenues. As it so happens, Obama and the Democratic party’s chief constituency is part of the 90 percent who think the top 10 percent can afford higher taxes. This explains why the Left defines democracy as the power for those who take from the system to decide how to spend the money of those who pay for the system. Over the years, this concept has been dressed up in all too many guises; social justice; economic justice; economic democracy, social democracy, and others.
The Tea Party emerged out of the fact that this narrow definition of democracy has grown steadily and unchallenged ever since Obama began campaigning for President. The Democratic Party has slowly built its base upon a dependency class, all while the Republican Party has provided only a modicum of resistance. This has set the national interest on drastically divergent paths and shattered American history’s political status quo.
Most importantly, however, it has allowed for the rise of political migrants who desire a return to the founding principles that made our nation prosperous in the first place and produced the wealth and power that the political class now seeks to redistribute to itself.
This article originally appeared in The Hill on April 25, 2011 and can be found at: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/157555-president-obamas-economic-deviancy