Three Cups of Tea Party

True to the heritage of the nation, there is a puritan element in the Tea Party. It's more than righteousness, although that is present. It is more than uncompromising, although that is present too. It is the need to purify mistakes, to persecute error. To cleanse. To exorcise.

Their premises are straight forward. They believe government too big, is inefficient, promises more than it can deliver and consequently is eating into the private sector's productivity. Their opponents insist that government has a legitimate role in many areas other than basic defense and order and that government spending contributes to GDP just like private spending does.

There are many programs in the Tea Party sights. The Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the EPA all are areas where conservatives would wield a less than gentle ax. Another area, a source of great publicity by their opponents with elderly ladies in wheelchairs pushed over cliffs, is social security. While the Republicans decry those charges as libel, The Heritage Foundation's "Saving the American Dream" and candidate Tim Paulenty both advocating dismantling Social Security.

Social security is, in some respects, a perfect Tea Party target. Forced savings is offensive to the Tea Party not because they are opposed to savings but because it is forced. It is also funded by subsequent participants, the definition of Ponzi. It is riddled with fraud the government cannot seem to deal with and it is expanding in its scope, an aspect of government that conservatives despise. Fraud, corruption, overreaching, expanding, illogical and a failed promise--perfect for the Tea Party evangelists.

But the entire system, as flawed as it is, has three important additional qualities. First, it was a promise made that many relied and planned upon, two, everyone paid into it and, three, it is fixable. It will take some work to fix; those in it will probably have to defer their time of retirement and may not get perfect cost of living upgrades, those younger contributors will have to accept a different and more limited safety net. But these promises by government, as unreasonable as they might have been, can be kept.

There have been a number of histories and programs created over the last few years that were imperfect. Several were outright frauds that benefited no one but the creators. But their errors give us no reason to attack the victims. Indeed, reclaiming the aims and ideals of those programs might be good humbling penance for the perpetrators.