Or so says a very interesting article by Michael Lind:
I also enjoyed most of the first response - perhaps one of the best defenses of the Tea Party I've yet read. In part:
"The radical right, if you mean Tea Partiers like me, do not want to destroy social security, and we sure as hell do not want a mandate to buy annuities. ... Tea Partiers just don't want to pass on debt to our descendants. We have no problem with safety nets. In fact, most of us believe those should be the second last to go (behind national defense -- if we're dead or conquered, we can't help anyone). If America could afford it, you would see Tea Party rallies for increasing Social Security, Medicare, and even health care benefits. There would still be Tea Party rallies against taxpayers funding cowboy poetry, boondoggles for Mitch McConnell's district, studies of how shrimp run on treadmills, tax exempt status for the multi-billion dollar NFL, tax credits for Hollywood (not exactly a struggling industry trying to break into the global marketplace), hand-outs for Wall Street Banks without congressional approval, ... cutting food stamps to shore up union teachers' pension benefits ..., etc., etc. Stop the crony capitalism and so-called government investments. The government does not know how to invest, and even if it does it ignores solid investment principles and "invests" with an eye toward a political outcome - both GOP and Dems -- not with an eye toward efficiency or fairness."
(god I hate this forum software sometimes)