A recent poll says that Americans want Washington politicians to compromise. When the super committee sits down to discuss the nation’s budgetary concerns based upon the S&P downgrade, the resultant market crash, and their effect on individual Americans, how many people picture the Democrats selected saying, ‘you heard the people. They want you to compromise’? Most people wouldn’t think this on partisan grounds. It’s just kind of the way Washington has been for most of our lifetimes. Most of the politicians sitting in power positions in the House and Senate have been there so long that they don’t care for the way these (fill in the blank Tea Party members) are sassing them. I know there are no Tea Party members sitting on the super committee, but if you listen to the powerful people in Washington, The Tea Party contingent has had an influence, and they don’t like it. If you listen to what some of them have said lately, they want to return to the days of the rightful order of Republicans swearing allegiance to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. John Kerry appears to want this. So does John McCain.
David Axelrod, John Kerry, and Harry Reid have claimed that the S&P downgrade is a downgrade on The Tea Party. There are some individual citizens who will undoubtedly believe this, and they won’t see it as the political scapegoating it is. For those that choose to blindly follow their leaders in this manner, they may want to take a look at the raw numbers. The debt-ceiling compromise passed the House by a margin of 269 to 161. The House of Representatives currently has 56 Tea Party members, so if the compromise passed by 108 votes, 56 members couldn’t have overturned the compromise even if they had all voted against it. They didn’t. 23 Tea Party members (half of the Tea Party members in the House) voted for raising the debt ceiling. On the Democrat side of the House, 95 Democrats voted against the compromise and 95 voted for it. In the Senate, the bill passed 74-26. In the Senate, all four Tea Party members voted against it, but six Democrat Senators also voted against it. So, if you look at the raw numbers, Democrats more than tripled the number of Tea Party members who voted against the compromise. In the end though, Democrats got their 2.7 trillion dollar raising of the debt ceiling. Why are they still griping? They got what they wanted as far as spending is concerned. They just didn’t like the process they had to go through to get it. They didn’t care for people questioning them in such a manner. Then, after they got what they wanted, the insolent S&P proceeded to downgrade. Even after Democrats warned Senators and Congressman that if there wasn’t a debt ceiling hike the S&P would downgrade. It made them look incompetent. It made them look like they don’t know what they’re doing. “Tea Party did it! I swear it wasn’t me!! It was the Tea Party!!!”
Democrats might say we’re not talking about raw numbers when it comes to the Tea Party, we’re talking about influence. They might say The Tea Party influenced the government to bottle up the legislation to a point that brought us to the brink of catastrophe. The question is how long has The Tea Party been in existence? Another question to ask in this debate is how long did it take for this economic debacle that the S&P downgraded to develop? How long did it take for The Tea Party to gather up even the paltry influence they now have over the government? In legislative terms, it could justifiably be said that the debate over raising the debt ceiling was the first time The Tea Party flexed its muscle. Some would say that The Tea Party has been exerting its influence (Democrats would say intimidating) since its official foundation in 2009. If that’s true, and very few of those of us who attended those early Tea Party rallies would acknowledge that, but if you are one of those who insist that The Tea had influence back then, then you must ask the question how effective were they? We had record amounts of spending, tripling the massive amounts of spending of the Bush administration from 2008 on. One of the primary tenets of The Tea Party movement is that government is spending too much. If The Tea Party had as much influence as the Democrats purport back then, even casual observers would be forced to admit it wasn’t very effective. If they’re saying the influence is relatively new, and it’s powerful, and it has caused political delays in their voting process that almost brought us to the brink. Then one has to ask, aren’t you a politician? Isn’t debate and haggling and the sausage making of legislation part of the deal you signed onto? Well, the Democrat might say, they caused many members to vote against it. You got your bill. You got the 2.7 trillion dollar increase that no one is ever going to be able to pay for. What do you want? Someone to blame, so people don’t look at you and your record over these last few years?
Rational types, or those who make an attempt at looking at matters objectively, will state that The Tea Party didn’t have significant influence over the federal government until after the 2010 election in which they had a significant influence in the Republican Party taking control of the House. So, rational types, with a clear mind, and a bipartisan approach to looking at the issues cannot say that the S&P downgrade on the federal government’s debt rating is a statement made on a movement that has had a mere eight months of influence over the federal government.
The question is if they don’t blame The Tea Party, who do they blame? They can’t simply accept blame on the chin. Republicans wouldn’t if they were in a similar situation. If the Democrats simply said that their massive spending (on money we’ve never had) were to blame, they would most assuredly lose more seats in the House and Senate, and they could even lose the office of the president. As any good defense lawyer knows, when faced with a guilty client, you present the jury with “possible” alternatives for them to consider. You present them with a little confusion here and a little obfuscation there, and if you’re really good you can have them questioning some very fundamental truths they thought they had a hold on.
Lawyer speak: “If you look at the raw numbers from 2007 on with Democrats in charge (chart above), you could assume that Democrats should assume the lion’s share of the blame for the soaring public debt, and the resultant S&P downgrade, but have you ever considered that maybe they aren’t to blame? Have you ever considered that it might be The Tea Party, the entire Republican Party, or how about The Grand Old Party? Have you even bothered to consider that it might have something to do with corporate jet owners, big oil, big energy, the Boy Scouts of America, or could it have been Colonel Mustard in the library with a wrench? I simply ask you to consider these possibilities. I ask you to trust no one. The truth is out there. Don’t believe what they tell you.”
No one expects the Democrats to one day admit that their agendas and plans caused the S&P downgrade, the awful economy, or the soon to be 16.7 trillion dollar debt, but we should expect those that hear these Democrats say such things to listen to them with reason and objectivity. If not, Democrats may be able to get away with the unbelievable feat of performing the acts that have destroyed our economy without paying the consequences for doing so. It will be the political equivalent of Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson times ten, and historians may be taking about it for decades.