No house divided

U.S. Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln asserted in his now-famous "House Divided" speech that the United States could not "endure, permanently, half slave and half free." Lincoln believed that the forces behind abolition and those pushing for the expansion of slavery were too powerful and too dynamic to be confined by state borders or latitudinal lines. While we take Lincoln's words for granted today, the prevailing wisdom for generations had been that the states could remain divided over the slave question.

Senator Marco Rubio made an analogous assertion on Senate floor just after that body had voted to raise the debt ceiling. Rubio, who had given several powerful speeches throughout the debate, had saved his most profound sentiments for last. He painted a picture of two Americas. One of a powerful, effectively limitless welfare state where the government acts as guarantor of prosperity and driver of the economy. The other of an America where government is a protector of rights and thereby allows the opportunity-seeking citizenry to create prosperity and drive the economy.

These visions have wrestled for control for roughly 80 years. The recent acceleration toward a "government of guarantees" is why the Tea Party exists. The Tea Party is a national reawakening to the fact that America can become "all one thing," or unfortunately "all the other." In our modern politics it is stylish to suggest that both visions can coexist indefinitely. Most notably, President Obama rose to power on the platitudinal idea of "red" and "blue" state unity. Rubio resists this notion.

These are two very different version of America and two very different types of solutions. And ultimately we may find that between these two points, there may not be a middle ground. And that in fact as a nation and as a people we must decide what we want the role of government to be in America. Like Lincoln, Rubio recognizes the incompatibility of the competing visions of government. (condensed from an article in the American Thinker by Joseph Ashby, 8-8-11)

Reasons for a vigilent Tea Party Movement

Some have wondered why the tea partiers are so worked up about taxes. Why, President Obama hasn't raised anyone's taxes. In fact, he lowered taxes for nearly everyone. This is baloney in its purest form. First of all, a tax rebate or tax credit is not lowering taxes. Only a reduction in rates can be considered lowering taxes. Rebates and credits are manipulations. Second, here is the short list of tax increases that are currently on the table.

1. Increase on stock dividends from 15% to 40% to take effect in 2011 (Senate Budget Committee). This would be a cyanide pill for the economy.

2. Increase in captial gains taxes due to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

3. Increase in the alternative minimum tax.

4. Increase in the inheritance tax (AKA the death tax).

5. The new "bank tax" promoted by Obama in his Cooper Union speech (4/22/10).

6. Last but not least (and not yet officially on the table), the European-style value-added tax (VAT). I might favor a VAT if it replaces income taxes, but if it's on top of the tax on income, then I'm adamantly against it.

These are six good reasons why the Tea Party Movement needs to remain vocal and vigilent.