From The New York Times:
When talking about the Tea Party movement, the largest number of respondents said that the movement’s goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit or lowering taxes.
And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.
But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”
Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.
Others could not explain the contradiction.
“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
3 comments:
You're all secretly Tea-baggers, aren't you?
Speaking for everyone, here: no Bastard would want to be a part of any club that would have him as a member.
Speaking for myself, I derive considerable amusement at the TP phenomenon. A group of people theoretically incensed at government spending. Theoretical because they don't want any of their own entitlements touched, and theoretical because they never voiced a complaint prior to the last year or two.
David Walker, the former U.S. comptroller general - the nation's chief accountant - has been a hero of mine for years. He had a great piece on 60 minutes a few years back. Just nonpartisan, non lobbyist-tainted "here's the numbers" stuff. I bet few tea partiers even know that their country has an accountant.
And yes, I do pretty much laugh my ass off at Taibbi's coverage of the movement.
Well said, as always. Thanks for the links!
Post a Comment