A taxing question

It's been almost fun to watch the tea party set go through the past week or so.

Last Thursday was the deadline for tax returns to be filed, and the tea partiers did a little protesting around the country to get some attention. Here's a guess as to what is going on, leading to a key question.

I get the distinct impression that the far right wing of the conservative side of the political spectrum started this movement. These are the people who don't trust government to do anything, including deliver the mail, and who still don't believe President Obama was born in Hawaii. I'm not sure I'd like to hang out with any of these people. Their anti-tax, anti-deficit did hit a chord with some people, due in part to the stimulus package and health insurance plan that has gone through Congress in the past year-plus.

We've seen Republicans like Sarah Palin sprint to the right to support these groups in pursuit of their energy and, no doubt, their money. Her brand of anti-intellectualism is popular in some circles but not exactly comforting. We've also seen the classic conservatives -- older and wealthier than the population as a whole -- support some of the Tea Party goals, which helps explain some of the demographic characteristics revealed in recent polls.

One of the public opinion polls circulating centers on the question, "How much are you willing to pay in taxes to the government?" And that strikes me as a far more fascinating question than you'd think.

My answer would not be in the form of a percentage, but rather, "Whatever it takes to run the functions of government properly and efficiently." Representatives figure out what needs to be done, and then collects enough to pay for it. We all might disagree what what those functions are, but that's part of the fun of a democracy.

But few of our political leaders have ever shown the courage needed to make those decisions. They have instead put off those decisions by borrowing money. Both sides have been doing this for 50-plus years. For a more recent example, President Bush started two wars in his Administration, and never bothered to figure out how to pay for them. If the Tea Parties want to hop on that bus, it's great to make room for them.

Otherwise, though, a few specifics would be nice. As in, what part of government spending should be cut -- and cut drastically -- to reduce the tax rate? Let's see -- just try to cut social security benefits and see what the reaction would be about the voting public. Same with Medicare and Medicaid. Defense spending is something of sacred trust for some conservatives. We can't exactly not pay off the interest on the national debt. And that's a vast majority of government spending.

I suppose government support of the financial system and of certain big businesses (General Motors) isn't too popular with the Tea Party set, even though most think it probably was necessary to avoid an even bigger recession than the one we had.

Some protesters will use the old discussion about reducing welfare roles, even if many have come off in recent years and a certain percentage of the population is never going to be a productive part of society. Plus, the social costs of ignoring those people are huge.

And if anyone thinks simply cutting taxes generally will magically create revenues on a huge scale, think again. President Reagan tried that -- he saw growth, but he also saw large deficits.

So, Tea Partiers, here's your challenge. Either step up and contribute some important ideas to the political dialogue, or just sit back and complain. It's a choice between good citizenship and irrelevance.

Having a party

When I got home from work last weekend, I turned on C-Span with some degree of fascination as Sarah Palin addressed the Tea Party convention in Nashville. It's taken me a few days to try to put the pieces together, although I'm not sure how successful I've been.

Palin sure was successful in stirring up the crowd, even if she's become more famous for writing crib notes on her hand like a 10th grader would write down key formulas on her arm in order to cheat on an exam. When she was asked after the speech about directions for the country, she listed three points.

The first centered on lower taxes. OK, no one likes playing more in taxes. On the other hand, no one likes a federal deficit that is already at $1 trillion a year. A tax cut may spur some economic activity in some cases, but it's a lot to ask for them to make up that sized gap.

The answer to that apparent contradiction is in point two, the wish for smaller government. But where exactly will the budget ax fall? Should social security benefits be cut? That's kind of a nonstarter. Medicare benefits? That's a great way to insure your defeat in the next election if you are in politics. Interest payments on the national debt? The bankers kind of like it when people pay those bills, even ones with printing presses at their disposal. Cut the defense department? How long would it take for some to say "our soldiers deserve the best" with some justification?

It's fair to say that those areas are pretty much off the table in budget discussions, even to most Tea Partiers. Care to guess how much of the federal budget that consumes? Try 80 percent.

In other words, you could eliminate everything else the government does, everything from national parks to the State Department to food testing to vaccines to NASA, and you probably still would have trouble getting back to even. We're all for having a lean, efficient government, but it's going to be painful to get there -- and no one seems to have a realistic plan to get there.

Point three from Palin centered on how our political leaders have to become inspired by God once again. Which raises the simple and relevant question, "Who's God?"

It's difficult to give less-than-simplistic answers to questions raised by people who aren't in the mood to hear them. And I'm not sure Palin is the right person to answer them anyway. She rarely has much interesting to say, if she can deliver a good one-liner every now and again.

Still, she's a better choice to speak than Tom Tancredo, who spoke earlier in the convention. Tancredo caused a bit of a stir when he said Obama was aided in his election by the votes of people who couldn't speak English. The former Republican candidate for President said we should go back to having literacy tests for voters in order to ensure an informed electorate.

Literacy tests? You mean like the ones used in the South 50 years ago to make sure African-Americans couldn't vote? This piece of the puzzle I've figured out -- some of these people scare me to death.