Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Teabag movement and what it means
The teabag movement is interesting for several reasons. The first is that the movement is successful when you are asking people to protest the programs that largely benefit them. There have been no teabag protests of the trillions of dollars given to the financial institutions. But there have been countless protests against the $700 billion stimulus program. The vocal complain that the stimulus hasn't benefited them. How so? The money has gone to build roads, bridges, fund science research,... It was never a jobs program along the lines of the WPA but an investment in America's future. Maybe it should have been. Secondly there is the socialism argument. There have been far more socialist movements in that past and there weren't these types of protests. The big difference was that past movements were led by tougher leaders FDR, Eisenhower). Third that by taking over healthcare the government will control 1/3rd of the economy. This is true, but should healthcare be 1/3rd of the economy? I think not. Fourth that the Obama administration is unconstitutional. He is in fact doing the same thing Bush did as far as curtailing civil rights. He has the same number of offices of the President, those un-elected Czars, President Bush. The only difference is health reform. There was a video of a woman nearing retirement age reading the preamble to the constitution and after reading promote the general welfare of the people said that no where in the constitution does it say that everyone was entitled to healthcare. Most people would contend that promote the general welfare would apply to a healthy population. Using the teabag logic do you know what else is not in the constitution? Social security, interstate highways (roads were private at the country's founding), police, fire, large standing armies, medicare, unemployment, disaster relief,.... In other words most of what we expect a government to do.