Tea Party Pooper

At first glance, the Tea Party appeared to be a positive for our country. Although extreme, they are a passionate group. These people are conservative and want to make sure the government does not have too much power. They say they are concerned with our rights according to the constitution.  At second glance, party seems like the wrong word to associate with these people. They are angry and pessimistic about every issue imaginable. They say they are not happy with Obama, health care, taxes, government spending, and on and on. I am confused on whether they want to become a third party or if they just want to push the Republican party more to the right. This party consists of predominantly white, middle aged males, with higher levels of education then the average American and higher incomes as well. Even though these members of the community claim to be fighting to prevent socialism, when asked in a poll, their main concern is with Economics. Oh, and don't forget they are in favor of Social Security and Medicare even though these are government programs. This seems to be a little selfish, they want what's best for their pocket books. Government, don't get involved in our lives, except when we benefit from it. The Tea Party claims that Obama favors the poor and ignores the middle and upper classes. But what more do they want? If we don't take care of the poor, our country will become just like a third world country; more crime, more homeless, and many many more sad stories of people who are not able to take care of themselves. So, until the Tea Party gets more organized and proves that their interests are not selfish, I am not going to R.S.V.P to this party.

"Sclerosis to blame for paralysis of government"

This article, found in the opinion section of the Houston Chronicle, begins with the local issue of the lack of funding for a much needed tunnel between New Jersey and New York. Governor Chris Chistie of New Jersey says this is a huge spending project which they can not afford. Critics argue that it is necessary in order for New Jersey to prosper in the future. This problem is just an example of the national problem we are all facing. When governments were much smaller, they could afford huge projects like the Interstate Highway System and the space program, and now that governments are larger, the funding is not available. The author of this article, David Brooks, says this is being called demosclerosis. Governments have become so entwined in arrangements that drain money from productive uses and direct it to unproductive ones. This doesn't allow for governments to prosper because they are struggling to meet their obligations. Some examples that are given are the benefits packages for New Jersey's state employees are 41 percent more expensive than those offered by the average Fortune 500 company and yet the much needed tunnel mentioned earlier can not be afforded. New York City has to strain to finance its schools but must support 10,000 former cops who have retired before age 50. California can't afford new water projects, but state cops often receive 90 percent of their salaries when they retire at 50. Public sector unions can use political power to increase demands for their products. I believe this article was intended to show taxpayers where their money is going and where it is needed. I think it is also intended to persuade public officials to stand up to the demands of unions and start directing money to where it benefits the entire state and not a select few. In this article Brooks gave several examples from different states to show this is a national problem. He listed facts to prove his points, so it is not just the opinion of one person. Although there are always two sides to every story, in this issue, I would have to agree with Brooks.