Justice John Roberts and The Roberts Court - Health Care Act Legal as a Tax – A Political Ruling - Opinion

We the People - the Great Awakening After the Act was passed in 2010 - image: rossputin.com

The Affordable Health Care Act passed by Congress in 2010 became a “call to action” for millions of American’s who found themselves suddenly faced with the realization that Congress and the Executive Branch under the control of President Barack Obama and the Democrat Party was, indeed, plotting a pathway to more taxation and government control over individual rights – the result was a watershed election in November of 2010 which cost the Democrats control of the Congress. The movement became the “Tea Party” and the rest, as they say, is history. Yesterday the Roberts Court ruled that the act was Constitutional based on the fact that the Affordable Health Care Act passed by Congress was intended as a “Tax” – immediately the assumption by conservative pundits and individuals was that Chief Justice Roberts was somehow flawed – and the Courts ruling a death knell to individual liberty – with one glaring exception – a brilliant statement by Erick Erickson of RedState in an email: “Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.” .

Robert’s, in his ruling noted:

“Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Im¬posts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Put simply, Con¬gress may tax and spend. This grant gives the Federal Government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.”

The message: The Affordable Health Care Act, which cost the Democrats the Congress in 2010, was indeed a Tax – had an immediate effect – a political and financial effect that will have far-reaching consequences for both major political parties and the American people in general.

From the New York Times article: “Justices Allow the Term ‘Tax’ to Embrace ‘Penalty’” :
“The law in question did not call it a tax. It called it a penalty for not buying health insurance. To the dissenters, that proved it was not a tax. To the chief justice, the choice of words could not obscure the reality. He noted that those who chose to pay the penalty rather than buy health insurance would be writing checks to the Internal Revenue Service and would not end up with a criminal record.” …

“The second health care bill passed by Congress in 2010, devised in part to fix errors in the first law and in part to pay for it, raised the Medicare payroll tax rate by 0.9 percentage points, to 3.8 percent, effective in 2013.

It also extended that tax to income on investments, including capital gains, interest, dividends, annuities and royalties, but only for individuals with a total income of more than $200,000, or $250,000 for married couples filing a joint return.
For people whose incomes are that high, the effective tax rate on dividends and long-term capital gains will rise to 18.8 percent from the current level of 15 percent, said Robert N. Gordon, president of Twenty-First Securities, a brokerage firm.

It could, of course, go even higher if Congress fails to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts that are now scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Mr. Gordon said that could encourage some taxpayers to sell investments before the year ends, rather than wait. “We know taxes are going up,” he said. “It is just a matter of how much.” (New York Times – read the complete article here

The fact that not purchasing health insurance is perceived as a “criminal act” is correct as one not purchasing heath care is, under Roberts ruling “evading federal taxes” – therefore committing a crime. In Massachusetts, under the mandate, individuals who cannot afford the high monthly premiums, elect to pay a “tax” to the Mass. Department of Revenue rather than pay the hefty monthly premiums. Premiums are set by the insurance carriers based on a “pool” of individuals and the mandated coverage by state. In Massachusetts the number of carriers is limited (as it is in many states), therefore, the pool is limited, the risk is greater and premiums are adjusted upward accordingly – the affordable insurance becomes unaffordable. The monthly premium of $1,000 for a family plan, when compared to a $2900 fee payable to the State and the end of the year, makes the fee more attractive – those individuals are “deemed” by the State as “covered” as they have paid the “tax” – therefore, not subject to criminal penalties. The fees set by the Federal program are upwards to $25,000, dependent upon income. In the case of individuals who, subject to individual state regulations, cannot afford monthly premiums, must now pay two “Caesar’s” the state and the federal government. The Act upheld created multiple taxes on individuals making average incomes - an unintended consequence of the “Affordable” Health Care Act.

The additional taxes levied to pay for the program, through higher tax rates on capital gains, not only effects those that are “rich” by standards set by political necessity, but by every single American citizen who is the recipient of a gain in income as determined by the Internal Revenue Service. This gain in income can be a pension received in a lump sum as a death benefit crucial to a widow upon the death of his/her spouse – a sudden life savings of $60,000 is immediately reduced by both Federal and State taxes. Those saving in individual retirement programs, specifically the baby boomers, now are finding that retirement savings, now withdrawn in harsh economic times, at retirement age, are subject to Capital Gains Taxes – the amount can be as little as $10,000, and the return needed to survive substation ally reduced, specifically in one lives in a state that also taxes a “capital gain”. Those politician’s on the drumbeat of “tax the rich” and “distribute the wealth” citing Capital Gains, are deceiving the “masses” who will and now are discovering that “wealth” is subjective to the standards of the Federal Government.

Those “investors” who will be pulling investments prior to the implementation of the new plan/tax, are in most cases, likely to be businessmen, who will also not be “hiring” – therefore affecting the employment rate and Wall Street. Wall Street to those who are so enamored of pointing fingers at the “few Wealthy who should pay more” also is tied to every single pension or retirement plan, either corporate or individual – see Capital Gains Taxes and the reduction of retirement savings of millions of baby boomers as a result.

The political aspect was immediate as both political parties sent out letters, made robo-calls and appeals of all sorts for funds: From the DNC’s email calling for support for Obama, now that the health care ruling was in his favor – to protect him from those who would see him “overthrown”, to every single Conservative Congressional Candidate, Senatorial Candidate and especially the Tea Party calling for help to overthrow, not only the President, but every Democrat who supports the bill down to the office of Dog Catcher.

GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney fared exceptionally well receiving “more than $2 million and more than 20,000 donations, as of about 4:50 p.m. ET.” yesterday (USA Today).

Indeed, a tax, and indeed one would be best served not playing a round of chess with Chief Justice John Roberts.

Final note: In Massachusetts the Daily Hampshire Gazette offered a list of politicians who both applaud and oppose the Decision to Uphold the Healthcare Tax Act: “Massachusetts politicians who support health care law celebrate ruling”: Supporting: All Democrat Congressional Representatives, the Candidate for Senate, Elizabeth Warren, and Opposing, all Republican Candidates for Congress and one “shot heard round the world in 2010” – Senator Scott Brown.

Calls in support of Brown are now coming in from all area codes, into Massachusetts, - these calls are by individuals, who are making “calls from home” - the increase was immediate upon the Courts decision. One can bet the House and the Senate, that 2012 will be an election, as historic, or perhaps more historic than that of 2010.

The Message the “Tea Party Is Over” – Not Quite Right – Wishful thinking from Dems and Big Spend Republicans – The Tea Party – The Next Party - Opin

The Tea Party - Visits Washington DC - Dismissed by Media, Carried by C-Span - image realhonestthinking.com


Of course, the Tea Party isn’t officially a political party yet – it is more of a loosely based, national movement, with a variety of spokespersons, most of whom are conservatives, some social, some fiscal, some both. As a group – they represent those that work for a living, pay taxes, and are as diverse a political movement as they come. Having looked at the Tea Party from its early stages, when a few hundred thousand people showed up at various locations across the nation to protest taxes – thus the moniker TEA Party (Taxed Enough Already), to the present stage of greater organization, and greater dismissal from the left and the right – they are often pronounced weakened, redundant, or simply non-existent by those who would like to see them simply go away. That includes the two major political parties. The Democrats, who are often the target due to massive spending (see Fiscal Conservatives), and cannot fathom a protest group, whose members, some of which might even be stay-at-home mom’s – have a better grasp of the Constitution than say – certain members of Congress. In 2010, the drubbing taken by the Democrats in Congress was largely at the hands of Tea Party candidates – who ran as “Republicans”.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are being co-opted, they more than the Democrats (as far as anyone knows) has a real beef, as the nervy Tea Party candidates, run as Republican’s and have a habit of running against their entrenched politicians. Sure they are Republicans, but they are in favor of spending, pork projects, and that does not fly with the Tea Party. Not unlike Libertarians, Tea Party candidates will run as Republican’s as it is a brand – that’s so far. In states where there may not be a large enough Republican Brand – they may even be running as Democrats. The point for the Tea Party - get elected to office and “fix” the legislature - One big point of order – they firmly believe in a limited government run by, no kidding, citizen legislatures - In other words, the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

As of now, there are Tea Parties in every state and hamlet in this nation – with a few exceptions – to locate a Tea Party – See theteaparty.net/locate a tea party group, or www.teapartypatriots.org where one can “find a local group” by zip code from their home page. As of today, in both instances, there are 56 Tea Party Groups in Massachusetts.

Organizing the groups in 50 states as they group and coalesce could see a distinct third party develop, one with a strong local organizations, with candidates in place, including those elected to office as either Republicans or Democrats on a par with the other two main parties who now control the U.S. Government – within two to three years – and that’s a conservative estimate – no pun intended.
The best instance of denial: James Carville, pundit of the left, Democrat operative, and contributor on a cable news is suggesting that the “Tea Party is Over”. This is about a race in New York State, the 28th District, and Carvel wants that District firmly in Democrat hands - so he paints a picture in a fund-raising email the Democrat Candidate Louise Slaughter, basically stating the annoying Tea Party isn’t gone yet, and the Democrats need money to fight them – he goes on to suggest that they are aligned closely with Republicans and that “big money” is funding their election efforts. Nice Try. Maggie Brooks (www.maggiebrooks.com) is running against Louise, but on a platform that is decidedly fiscally conservative. She appears to be more Republican on the surface – yet, compared to Louise, www.votelouise.com Ms. Brooks does appear to be a rubber stamp politician, rather more of a citizen – the standard fare of issues (women’s rights, war in Afghanistan, and especially: Protecting America from the Republicans) , is decidedly partisan, and is exactly the type of politician that will go to Washington and be a rubber stamp. Which may be why the Democrats are a tad concerned about those “Tea Party” candidates taking away their ability to stonewall and spend.

On the flip side, Redstate.com, offers a look at a little watched primary in Oklahoma – the 1st district - A little known, underfunded, citizen runs against an entrenched Republican who is big on subsidies, somehow, to everyone’s surprise, upends the incumbent. The incumbent ran on farm subsidies, which, one would think would be huge in that district, however, the challenger, Tea, ran on conservative principles (getting the fiscal house in order, ending those subsidies and balanced budgets). Red State’s reporting suggests that even those who are receiving government benefits (subsidies), are willing to give them up to have someone in office that will work to get the Federal Deficit under control and limit government growth.

The Tea Party – members do not discriminate, be it a Republican or a Democrat, and once they are organized into wards and precincts, city by city, state by state, they will be, more than probably the most popular political party – despite the negatives in the Press, or perhaps because of them.


A Tea Party Meeting in Concord, NH - images muellerstuffblog

A Gallop Poll on Political Parties suggest that voters, in general, are sick of both major parties, and are registering as independents, in fact, independents (or non-affiliated, or unenrolled), are growing – in January of this year 40% considered themselves non-affiliated. . There exists a growing distaste for the two major political parties, and the time is right, from an historical perspective, for a new party to emerge. The Tea Party, at this point, is the strongest, best organized of the bunch of ideological parties (Libertarian, New Party (Communist), Socialist Party, Green Party to name a few) and as members of the aforementioned (obviously Communist and Socialist would not vest themselves in a Party that is for limited government growth), align with the Tea Party, adding disgruntled Republicans, and disgruntled moderate to conservative Democrats (they exist), as well as those who are tired of the two-party system (see 40%) this could be one heck of a party.

Which is not news to James Carville, or to those entrenched Beltway Republicans and Democrats who on the one hand dismiss and one the other, embrace tentatively – so far – simply because they are portrayed as Republican in nature. That is partly true, if the Republican Party was still Lincolns Party, but...that ship sailed a long time ago. They are who they are, and it is refreshing to see these “guerilla politico’s” taking on the establishment in true “revolutionary” style. This is going to be another one of “those” years, 2010 was just a warning shot (See Concord), 2012 will be Yorktown.

*Note: If one has never attended a “Tea Party Meeting” one might want to give it a try – especially if one is under the impression that it is a rather rag-tag bunch of crazy people (see press). The meeting might consist of educational sessions, speakers of noted pedigree lecturing on the economy, or perhaps a three part series on Communism and the development in the 1930’s, or perhaps a course on the Constitution. There may be local political activism, as in reviewing candidates for election, inviting them to speak, going over their issues. One might find discussions on growth and membership, as well as involvement in grassroots organizing, and charitable works on a very basic local level. It’s almost as if one has walked into an Urban “Grange” (if one is in a “City”). Members are from all political parties, but basically unenrolled (Massachusetts) - and all have a goal – to learn – to become active – from the least to the greatest.

Are there crazy people who populate the Tea Party – of course, but on the flip side, take a look at duly elected officials from both Major Political Parties and compare – or their supporters, even better, and it’s all fairly normal, more normal than either major Party would care to admit.


Tea Party Meeting and Recruitment in Brooklyn - image the midwoodblog

As Clock Runs Out on Tax Cuts and Unemployment Benefits, Obama and Democrats in Senate Move to Middle.

Growing Public Disgust of Big Government pushing Politicians to Choose Will of the People

With unemployment benefits for those who have been collecting for 99 weeks expiring this month, and the unemployment rate jumping to 9.8%, the need to reassure businesses and economic stability in an extension of the Bush tax cuts, took shape in the Senate this weekend when Senate Democrats joined with Republicans in blocking a “middle class tax-cut” only bill, that the Congress and Obama administration had hoped for. Several key Democrats joined with Republicans to advance a “simple majority vote” to overcome a filibuster. Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA) and Rockefeller (D-WV) also voted against the so-called “millionaires tax”. (New York Times)

On Sunday’s talk show circuit, it appeared that a deal would be reached between Senate Republicans and the Obama administration that involved a trade-off for a 2-year extension of the tax cuts for another extension of unemployment assistance for those whose benefits expired. . This signaled, for the first time, a move to the middle by the Obama administration, who has been taking hits from the hard left over several issues including the extension of tax cuts at any level.

Although it may be argued that with a new GOP controlled House and increased clout in the Senate set to take the reins in January will push Obama to concede points on the tax cuts, it is also possible that the President could stand firm in Progressive ideology and refuse to budge. It is most possible that a chess game is being played out with America’s fortunes and basis needs of millions of jobless American’s in a compromise between the political think of both parties in order to avoid what would be a more than a mere public relations disaster.

That said, with the increased clout of the fiscal conservative Tea Party and a growing interest and acceptance of the Constitutionally based, fiscal conservative group by American’s, both major political parties would be best served to pay attention and work towards putting the U.S. Financial House in order above all else. With the 2012 elections on the horizon, and the White House at stake, Obama, who appears, at this point, unelectable for a second term, and a majority of Democrat Senators up for reelection, a move to compromise would, at the very least, possibly save proverbial political hides that otherwise would be ousted. The Republican’s, however, are not out of the woods, as those such as Susan Collins (D-ME), voted against a ban on earmarks, with 6 other Republican’s breaking ranks with the Party. (Alternately 7 Democrats, including Claire McCaskill (D-MO) who sponsored the bill to ban earmarks broke ranks with the Democrats.) It appears to be a case of “those who get it” and “those who don’t – the “it” being the millions of American’s who have had it with government spending, the sheer size of the federal government and the political futures of each Senator and Congressional Representative.

A ban on earmarks, many of which are frivolous at best, would go a long way towards paying for the unemployment extension which is badly needed for those who are about to lose their benefits in states that signed on for Federal aid in extending Unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, including Massachusetts. Interestingly, those States that did not accept the Federal Aid in extensions, have lower unemployment rates (see U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of October 2010). A map from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, shown below outlines the benefits offered by all states. However, those States that did accept the aid, such as California and Massachusetts, have higher percentages of individuals on the “public dole” than those that did not, some might argue by sheer volume of population coupled with the state’s high dollar “give-away” programs, as well as impending bankruptcy, makes it imperative to continue to fund those programs. That said, it is also true, that those states also have higher corporate tax rates (8% plus) (Tax foundation tables here), literally sending job creators running for the border appear to be on the list, for the most part, of those states seeking Federal assistance. One would think, at some point, those that are elected to run both the State and Federal governments, would get the bigger picture - Lower corporate tax rates, equal less unemployment. The Progressives who would have tax increases across the board (mainly academics, students, certain elected officials and the professional press), apparently do not grasp the premise that tax cuts offer incentives for corporations (which these same people feel are the root of all evil), to hire people (who in turn pay taxes, in order to prop-up the entitlement programs favored by the same ivory tower idealists.).


Map of States Taking Fedederal Aid for Unemployment Benefits - image Center for Budget and Policy Priorities


Although the aforementioned may hold sway with the President and even share his ideology, surely at some point, the light bulb must turn on, and understanding of how a simple economic principle which has been successful since the nation was founded (few to no taxes and a limited Federal Government), would continue to work as long as the Federal Government and those same progressives, keep their nose out of economics and stick to their chosen fields; union bosses, professional anarchists and teachers.

For a rousing take on State Government versus the Unions see Video Below where NJ Govenor, Chris Christie (R), takes on the Teachers unions (Unions = Progressive Doctrine) who cost taxpayers millions.

Obama and Clinton Differ On the Tea Party – Too Little, Too Late to Salvage 2010 Mid-Terms – Is Clinton Laying Groundwork for 2012?

Bill Cliton On the Stump for Democrats - Image Sun Sentinal

There’s been a dearth of talk show appearances for former President, Bill Clinton this past week, from the Sunday morning news shows to an appearance last night on Fox News with Greta Van Susteren – the main topic – The Tea Party movement. Clinton, according to Politico, is suggesting that politicians listen to the Tea Party, while at the same time, suggesting they are “funded” by right wing extremists. The same theme was reiterated last night in an appearance on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, with the exception that in this particular interview, Clinton referred to the polls, and incidentally appeared exhausted (see video here). Clinton, who has been on the campaign trail with Democrat candidates (incumbents) as an alternative to President Obama (even in Massachusetts, where he’s been on the stump for for Stephen Lynch (D-MA), during a primary fight with a Progressive Democrat and will be appearing in Tuanton at the High School to support an endangered Barney Frank against Republican challenger, Sean Bielat at 2 pm on March 26th.)looks exhausted as it appears to be an uphill battle.

Bill Clinton, who is generally popular as a moderate Democrat, especially among the all important independent voter, has been looking at the polls – the Tea Party appears to have the support of a majority of voters, and some members are Democrats or independents, that would vote for a Democrat. It’s a fine line to walk, supporting candidates who are the nemesis of the Tea Party movement, such as Rep. Barney Frank, while trying to garner Tea Party support for the Democrats. He is potentially laying groundwork for a 2012 run at the White House by Hillary Clinton, who has been rumored to be considering mounting a challenge against sitting President Barack Obama. Clinton is no dummy; he’s survived impeachment with high approval ratings, and has generally followed polls in order to understand what it is that voters want from an elected official.

It must be taxing to attempt to stump for a Political Party one loves and believes in, while the Party “leader”, in this case President Obama, is doing just the opposite. Clinton is caught in the twilight zone of Progressive dogma and incompetence, with Obama challenging the “Tea Party” to come up with a plan, if they are not happy with the way he and his administration (Congress included) have run the government. (NY Daily News). Obama, either apparently understands that, contrary to many of the press who characterize the Tea Party as a “philosophical movement”, it is a fledgling Political party, one which may marginalize the Democrats, rather than the Republican’s should it continue to gain mainstream prominence - or he’s moronically hitting back at the core electorate he needs – independent voters and women, the majority of which, make up the movement.

At this point in the game however, Democrats are still desperately trying to either marginalize the Tea Party as “fringe” or tie them to the GOP (and considering Tea Party candidates have, in the same way as Progressives candidate to the Democrats, run as Republican’s and have been extremely successful) with both tactics being rather self-defeating.

In reviewing polls at Real Clear Politics.com, the numbers are not good particularly good for the Democrats. The methodology employed by Real Clear Politics in assessing a particular race, is to include all polls taken, regardless of accuracy, which may move the numbers into a “tie” where none exists. In addition, congressional districts across the nation which are competitive are not being polled – the prime example is the MA 4th District where Sean Bielat (R) is challenging Barney Frank (D-MA) who is, for perhaps the first time, actively campaigning in the district. Therefore, there may be more Republican gains than anticipated at Real Clear Politics.

There is a reason why Bill Clinton is going to Taunton to stump for Barney – where the former President will be greeted with respect from what is anticipated to be a well-attended rally the troop’s event, compete with an Anti-Barney Protest that may rival the attendance inside the school. (The rally, announced by the Bielat campaign on Facebook, is working to ensure that protesters are covered by all applicable laws and have the correct permits.) Given that one has to wonder just how many voters vested in the 4th district are planning on attending. That may have added an extra bit of “angst” to the already overburdened Clinton (unless of course, he plans on skipping out on Barney to hand out Hillary Clinton 2010 bumper stickers to those Independents and Democrats who will be at the counter-Barney rally.)

Of the two men, one a sitting President and the other a former two-term President, who managed to work with a Congress in total political opposition, the one to watch in the coming weeks will be Bill Clinton as he attempts to undo what Obama does naturally, offend potential mainstream voters. Should Clinton manage to at least salvage some shred of dignity on a road paved with Congressional misery, it will be a coup. One has to understand that Clinton coming to rally for Frank, instead of Obama is a huge signal that Obama has lost even Massachusetts, and sends clear signals to those who would have rather seen a Clinton in the White House, that it may still be a possibility.

Hillary Clinton 2012 Update – U.S. News Picks Up John Kerry (D-MA) Rumored as Next Secretary of State – PUMA and Palin Analysis

John Kerry (D-MA) image bokertov


An interesting blip in the September 15th web edition of US. News and World Reportnotes that John Kerry (D-MA), who will be up for re-election in 2014, is being considered as a replacement for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State by the Obama administration. The article goes on to note that Clinton has been “hinting” at leaving the post, and as the mid-terms approach and the 2012 presidential campaigns will begin on November 3, if Clinton is to make a run at the White House, and try and save the Democrat Party from implosion, (and by that, the nation by kicking the Progressives to the curb), that announcement should come sometime before or immediately following the installation of the 112th Congress.

Kerry, who is likely to face fierce opposition from the renewed Massachusetts GOP, would likely jump at the opportunity. The Sr. Senator was most recently hounded by the local press for docking his newest “boat” in Rhode Island to avoid paying $500,000 in Massachusetts taxes and after the news broke, relented in time to avoid a Mass. Department of Revenue inquiry on possible tax evasion. Kerry was also one of the first “Democrats” to bring the first-term Illinois Senator Obama into the national spotlight at the 2006 Democrat Convention and also caused a stir among Bay State Dems by coming out early to endorse Obama over Clinton (who won the MA popular 2008 primary vote). Kerry’s chances of reelection after the routing of Obama favorite, Martha Coakley (then summarily shoved under the bus) by Republican Scott Brown in the January 19, 2010 special election are questionable, therefore a post such as Secretary of State would at least extend his public career until 2014.


Hillary Clinton - 2012 Democrat Nominee for President? image top news India

Does Clinton have the support, however, to win a primary? With the Democrats in Congress trying to distance themselves from Obama in the midterms, while being forced by DNC party leaders to find funds, even if it means breaking the law (see audio of Congresswoman calling Lobbyist for funds here), Clinton should have the support necessary to garner super-delegates and take the reins of the Democrat Party in a 2013 convention).

An interesting article on the Tea Party, published by a Clinton PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) supporter, post Republican Primaries is a must read. The article entitled “The Blood of Revolution” addresses the successes of the Tea Party during the September 14th Republican primary, and interestingly enough, gives “bona fides” to the Tea Party as a Movement by quoting Scott Rasmussen article in the Washington Examiner which the Puma article notes “explains the significance of the Tea Party Movement”. Although the article begins with a partisan jab at a list of GOP “Tea Party/Sarah Palin” successes by calling them “losers”, it goes on to accurately depict the movement as one of the people, calling the Tea Party a “revolution”. Also somewhat insightful is the paring of Palin with the Tea Party, as Palin’s popularity with the G.O.P. electorate (not necessarily party leadership who would back a Romney) make her the likely party standard bearer in 2012. These supporters are laying the groundwork now, for a Clinton vs. Palin match-up in 2012.


Sarah Palin with Supporters, image Hartford Courant

As Obama’s popularity among the important unenrolled electorate fades completely, and the Tea Party is drawing from an electorate that is mixed with Conservative Republicans, Independents, Moderate Democrats (thus the revolution), the fact that Palin is at the forefront and acknowledged as being so by Clinton supporters sets up a scenario for, what would be, a grounds breaking American historical event – the choice between one of two women for the top job in 2014.


Suffragettes 1920 not that long ago image constitutional conflicts


What is not necessarily understood about the oppression of women in the United States, (or more to the point, shoved under the proverbial rug) is the fact that until 1920, and the ratification of the 19th amendment women did not even have a voice in government. Palin, has given that voice to an unprecedented amount of conservative women his election cycle, by supporting candidates either backed by Tea Party activists (see Christine O’Donnell’s upset in DE) or GOP party favorites (see Kelly Ayotte’s victory in New Hampshire), while Clinton as a potential 2012 counterpart, has been a stalwart supporter of women’s rights throughout her political career (which incidentally began as a Goldwater Republican (see 2000 article Berkeley article that makes Clinton’s personal believes sound somewhat more conservative than Palin’s (Side note: the Berkley article, although condensed, is similar to information available in the book “”The Truth About Hillary Clinton” by Edward Klein which both conservative (Fox News Bill O’Reilly) and left of moderate’s tagged as a “smear book”, once read, actually invites the Conservative feminist reader to like and understand Clinton – which may explain the pundits aversion to the book on both sides of the aisle).

As a Conservative Feminist who agrees to disagree with friends that stand on the opposite side of the political spectrum (liberal feminists), a Clinton-Palin match up would ensure, regardless of the outcome, a win for women specifically, and the nation as a whole, the media and male establishment in the combined political party’s hierarchy will, undoubtedly do their best to undermine any chance of this occurring, but with confidence in the media (Gallop Confidence in Institutions) ranking right above Congress and Unions, 2008 may have taken the ability of that medium to effect the “masses”. In fact, judging from the growth of the Tea Party and events sponsored by individuals such as Glenn Beck one sees the more the media “tags” Tea Party members/events as radical, the more “revolutionary” they become. The next two election cycles will, in all likelihood, bring change to a broad spectrum of the political establishment in the United States.

Tea Party in Boston – AP suggests 10,000 in attendance, while focus remains on Palin and Brown.

Tea Party held in Hartford, 2009 - Image TMP

The Associated Pressis suggesting that the Tea Party in Boston will draw an estimated 10,000 people today – the article then goes on to speak to the absence of Senator Scot Brown, who will be in Washington going about the people’s business. The deluge of articles on the subject, from the Boston Globe ”Welcoming Palin to Boston” to Business Week’s ”Palin’s Boston Rally With Tea Party Fails to Draw Senator Brown”, one might get the erroneous impression that the Tea Party is all about Palin and Brown. What the press does not seem to understand, or wishes to ignore, is the fact that neither Brown nor Palin are of import in regards to the Tea Party Movement, other than the fact that Palin is speaking (and Brown’s presence is not required.) The Tea Party Movement is a rally designed to protest excessive taxation and certain State and Federal policies that place an added burden on the “masses”, and also play fast and loose with the Constitution.

There are big questions that aren’t being asked (or are being avoided), for example: why are independents and Democrat joining the movement? Followed by: How come the Tea Party Organizers are mainly women? Finally, how many Tea Party chapters are there? Basic demographics might help the media understand why the Tea Party is making headway where traditional political parties appear to be standing still, or more to the point, attempting to downplay (The Democrats) and align (The Republicans) with members of this movement?

It is in reality a movement by and for the people, with an undefined central leadership, but the ability to communicate across state lines in order to draw significant attention (through large crowds in rallies) to policies they feel are not helping our economy, or more to the point, the middle class and those who are bound by fixed incomes. They are patriotic, and contrary to the continuous media sledgehammer, educated, every-day, Americans who are fed up with the way the government appears to ignore the people that fund and hire. One can meet a Tea Party activist in the grocery store (or outside collecting signatures for a particular fiscally conservative candidate), in the library researching the constitution, arms loaded with books including the Federalist Papers, and the guy next door.

On any given day of the week, a Tea Party meeting is taking place in towns and cities across the country, and on any given Saturday, one might find a band of protesters on a street corner holding signs and waving flags. A recent Rasmussen poll suggests that 24% of the general public considers itself part of the Tea Party Movement, with an additional 10% with a close friend and or relative belonging to the group.. In addition, 48% of those polled believe that their views are more closely aligned with Tea Party philosophy opposed to the 44% who believe they are closer in view to the Obama. The kicker, 52% believe that any Tea Party Member understand the Constitution better than their Congressional Representative. (Rasmussen).

Obviously, major political parties, the Obama administration and the press are aware of these statistics, which is most likely why the continual downgrading of the Movement, with a focus on Palin and Brown, (rather than the aforementioned) is what one finds in the daily news.

This morning, as the Tea Party members from across Massachusetts, and New England gather in Boston, it will be the rally itself, rather than the headliners, that should be the wake-up call that business as usual is on the way out, and that the people will exercise their right to hire or fire their representatives, both at the state and the Federal level, should they not reign in spending. It is a simple theme that transcends politics and politicians and resonates with every American regardless of party affiliation. That is the bigger story.