Response to comment #102393

Recently the young lady who writes as "Final Frontier" had this to say about an earlier comment in my post announcing the July 4th TEA Party:

That’s easy–you don’t want big government, right? No socialized medicine (take away Granny’s Medicaid immediately!). Those football teams? Paid for by my tax dollars. We need to get rid of them right away so “big government” doesn’t start calling the plays, literally. Why should we all pay for the highways when we don’t all use them? I say privatize them. After all, the roads the elite media use in the north tend to be more costly due to bad weather. Privatize the police and let capitalism determine which towns have officers and which do not. If we cannot trust the government to educate our kids, why on earth would we trust them to defend us? Privatize the military. Outsource it. After all, veterans get a lot of socialized medicine–it really is a drain on our society. Don’t let some Muslim non-American President tell us we should provide the same health care for average Americans that elected officials get! That is not the American way! The rich and the elite deserve to get all of the breaks, and the poor should just quietly go about their business and continue to vote aaginst (sic) their self-interest.

I'm as much for using hyperbole to make a point as the next guy, but she WAY oversimplifies the argument for limited government. And, FF, the argument is for LIMITED government. To have no government would be anarchy and no one I know in the TEA Party movement is seriously in favor of that. I don't recall you being at the TEA Party and having the opportunity to pick up one of those nice pocket-sized copies of the Constitution I took the picture of. (If you were, why didn't you say hello?) I keep a similar one which also features the Declaration of Independence on my desk (which came to me courtesy of the Patriot Post newsletter - that's my shameless plug for them.) Anyway, what those patriots who attended the TEA Party and wish to reverse the course that President Obama and Congress seem to be taking us on want is a return to a government that follows what the Constitution says it's supposed to do, particularly in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Moreover, Congress is limited in what it's supposed to do - refer to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. "Cap and Tax" and nationalizing health care REALLY bend that "general Welfare" part, in my humble opinion. But her argument is most specious when it gets down to legitimate functions of local government, such as roads, drainage, and public safety. These are but a few of the numerous functions that we as a society ask our government to accomplish and it's their place to do so, whether as ensrined by the state or federal Constitution or as accepted local custom, like maintaining a county road. There are legitimate uses for the tax dollars we provide, and we expect those we elect to be wise and careful stewards of OUR money. To us, that definition doesn't include enriching themselves or those who contribute money to political causes expecting a quid pro quo through steering government works their way or by rent-seeking. This problem tends to arise when government moves from those "public good" items into areas best left alone or to the private sector. We accept some intrusions onto our rights for the common good but not those we feel are excessive (such as cap-and-trade, socialized medicine, gun grabbing, or eminent domain abuse), particularly when those intrusions only serve to sate the thirst of those who lust for power - at least for a brief moment. It's like they're alcoholics, as that dose only lasts for a short period before the craving returns. I understand how humor can make a point; truth be told I'm not really big on the amount some colleges and universities spend on athletics either. But when it's her thought that the TEA Party movement exists just so "the rich and elite...get all the breaks" she completely misses the point and reveals the class envy so rampant among those on her political side. In many cases, it's those "rich and elite" who abuse the proper role government has in order to enrich themselves. We don't elect Congressmen and Presidents to become the "rich and elite" - we elect them to represent our interests and spend OUR tax dollars wisely on legitimate functions of the federal government. It's our opinion that those who were installed in the last election aren't doing so and they should either straighten up or be relieved of their duty at the next opportunity.