Tea Party Movement beginning to fracture

CNN-It emerged in anger and it threatens to split in anger.
One major group in the Tea Party movement -- named after the famous Boston Tea Party -- is set to host its first convention in February, with former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as its keynote speaker.

But there are fractures in the movement that threaten its future. And if history's any guide, such movements tend to flame out.

The Tea Party movement erupted on April 15 -- tax day -- over criticism of President Obama's economic policies and what organizers called big government out of control. The movement, made up of local, state and national groups, continues to protest what it considers fiscally unsound policies.

And the movement is well funded. Action groups like FreedomWorks -- chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey -- helped organize and fund its April 15 rally in Washington.
Other groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party Nation and Tea Party Patriots, are also vying for the helm of the movement, and it's creating what some are calling "competitive chaos."

Some Tea Partiers have voiced anger and concern over whether the powerful groups are "astroturfing'' what is supposed to be a grass-roots coalition -- the idea that the movement is being organized by old-fashioned GOP bigwigs to promote their agenda.

Donna Klink, of the Golden Triangle Tea Party-Texas, said in a post on the Tea Party Patriots Web site that the chaos needs to be addressed.
"We must craft a simple coalition message that we can all agree on. ... We should all remember the simple principles of 'Strength in Numbers' and 'United We Stand, Divided We Fall,' " she wrote.

Klink added that individual Tea Party groups can keep their own identity and beliefs while "still reaching out to and working with other groups that share common goals."
"We MUST stop this battle within and fight together," she insists.
The factions, however, have said they are only trying to engage citizens in fiscal conservatism -- and disagreements are inevitable...

...While anger over economic issues sparked the movement, it has come to represent anger in general -- from anger over health care reform to just anger against politicians, like Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

At rallies over the summer and fall, crowds carried signs portraying Obama as Hitler and likening his policies to those of Nazi Germany. In one case, heavy criticism forced a Tea Party group in Danville, Virginia, to cancel a bonfire in which an effigy of Pelosi was to be burned.
And there's the threat that fringe members will taint the public's perception of the movement.

"The Tea Party combines the best elements of civic activism with some of the worst elements of fringe extremism," said GOP strategist and CNN contributor John Feehery in a CNN.com commentary. "While most Tea Party activists are genuinely concerned about the future of the country, some others see conspiracies around every corner and use unacceptable rhetoric to communicate their displeasure with the president."

Steinhauser noted that the fringe elements only make up a small part of the movement and should not come to represent the cause....

...That issue is similar to what other populist movements in the U.S. have faced over time.
Jon Avlon, author of "Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics," has said that history shows that Tea Party-esque movements and "demagogues rise when the economy turns south."

"They specialize in blaming others for the troubles with wild accusations. It's a time-honored formulation, a powerful narcotic for the nervous and dispossessed, with violent side effects," he wrote in a CNN.com commentary.

The populist movement started in the 19th century. The Populist Party later emerged, made up largely of farmers, and coalesced around opposition to the gold standard as currency.
Its ties to the free-silver movement, among other things, failed to resonate with a broader base of Americans -- especially urbanites in populous states.

Later in the 20th century, populist anger rose up during the Great Depression, focused on big business's role in the 1929 stock market crash and its subsequent effect on American society. And in the late 1960s, populist anger was geared against big government.
"But now we've got both -- anger at big business and big government," said Avlon, a columnist for The DailyBeast.com. "It's a perfect political storm, primed for a return to pitchfork politics. ... The fringe is blurring with the base, creating leverage on the party leadership."

Nathan Gonzalez of the Rothenberg Political Report said that in order for Tea Party activism to blossom into a lasting movement, it "has to exhibit some real influence that goes beyond a set of rallies."
He said that while there's the risk of fading away -- based on the divisions within the movement -- it has growth potential.

"There's certainly a risk of dying out [like many populist movements] but there's the potential for having some staying power as well," he said. "If they become larger or more organized there's a potential to have more influence. It depends on how they're able to harness the energy that's there now and translate that into future success."

And part of that organization could come from having a face to associate with the Tea Party name.
Palin, Fox News' Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, have emerged as Tea Party darlings.
Gonzalez said the Tea Partiers need to have a one person to identify with their message -- much in the way Obama became identified with "change" in the 2008 presidential election.

If the Tea Party movement wants to develop into a political party or force, Gonzalez added, it should take the lessons of the populists and other third-party movements to heart.
"I think if a third party wants to take off, there has to be a face with it. And Ross Perot was a good example of that in 1992 and 1996. It's become more difficult [with this movement]."
----------------------------------------

Watching the tea-party movement, I've seen some things that are worth protesting. But I've also seen the fringe there; those that call Obama a Hitler/Socialist/Fascist etc...I liked that they were protesting fiscal irresponsibility. But I really wish those same people would hold accountable those they hold up as heroes. For example, both Bush and Palin were extremely fiscally irresponsible while they were in charge of their respective states. Bush caused the worst deficit ever (Obama's hasn't hit yet, so it doesn't really count as the worst-yet), and Palin's bridge to nowhere was a disaster (yes, she started the bridge to nowhere, she was for it before she was against it, it was in fact her baby).

What I hope to see if this movement takes hold and becomes a third party, as the commentary above postulates, is true fiscal responsibility [read: fiscal conservatism]. Until then, it's just another populist movement destined to fizzle out.

Republican HealthCare Reform

So this is going to be a list, of sorts, of what an alternative healthcare reform could be from the Republican side.

I'll start this list from comments I've read from other Republicans and conservatives, such as Jennifer and Pamela. The list will expand with other ideas found, or brought into the discussion in the comments. I'll update as we go.

So far, here is what I've got:

From Pamela D. Hart:
Add a policy, something like Medicare, let’s just call it “Medifree.” Medifree will cover anyone who doesn’t have private insurance, isn’t on Medicare, Medicaid or can’t afford insurance through their employer or any other means. Those who CAN afford insurance but choose NOT to purchase it, i.e. the 18-34 yr old invincibles and families who earn at least $50K, would have to purchase their own insurance. Those who truly can NOT afford insurance would get insurance through “Medifree” because they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid and are too young to be on Medicare.

Law and Order Teacher:
Have government and private health care form a partnership, something on the order of the public utilities commissions.

Jennifer:
*Change the tax code. Individuals should have the same tax incentives as employers who offer coverage. For example, there could be an income tax deduction of $7,500 for individuals and $15,000 for families. Over the long-term, people will move to portable, long-term individual insurance.

* Refundable tax credit. A refundable tax credit of $2,500 for individuals or $5,000 for families would eliminate the tax exclusion for those who get their insurance from their employers.

* Allow the purchase of health care insurance across state lines so that individuals have more choices in plans. This will encourage a robust market in individually owned health care.

* Reduce state regulations and mandates on insurance plans to help reduce costs. There are 1,901 mandates nationwide in 2007, up from 1,843 in 2006.

* Expand tax breaks for Health Savings Accounts. HSAs provide for tax-free accumulation and at the same time offer real protection against larges losses.

* Allow for the growth of convenient clinics. There are about 700 retail clinics located in Wal-Marts, Targets, and other Walk-in Centers. Convenient clinics reduce the costs by offering the uninsured an alternative to emergency rooms. It’s also an inexpensive option for people with HSAs.

* Medical Malpractice reforms are needed to help keep doctors’ insurance costs down which will reduce the costs of care. For example, states could enact laws that would put a cap on non-economic damages.

* Provide vouchers for the working poor so that they can purchase insurance from a state pool.

*Make health insurance more like car insurance. Provide choices.

Ablur:
Cost of Illegal Immigration to our healthcare system
Tort Reform - Frivolous and Record Breaking Awards
Education and Personal Health Responsibility
Freeing up Health Professionals to Deal with actual Health issues
Doctor Availability and the lack of new doctors entering the market
3rd party payer healthcare places incentives in the wrong area (HMOs and the real cost)

Progressive Republicans: Time for Red Dogs?

I read an interesting entry over at The Progressive Republican.

In the article, it talks about how the Blue Dog Democrats are the only real opposition to Obama's big plans, like health care, cap & trade, stimulus(es), federal budgets, etc.

What I like about Republicans as they prepare for 2010 is their ability to offer new ideas, to put alternatives on the table, to meet philosophical challenges head on with … oops, its the Blue Dog Democrats doing that. Where are the Republicans?

Its a great point. Where are the Republicans? Since Obama's inaugeration in January, the Republicans have not offered any real alternatives to Obama's plans; they have merely been blind opposition [read, whiners]. The Blue Dogs have been the only ones offering real solutions, alternatives (with real numbers, too!). What is going on?

The GOP is falling sharply in popularity these days (the latest studies indicate another 2 points dropped). Strange, since some studies also indicate the country is mostly conservative (thanks, Bluepitbull!)...

So just what is going on?

The GOP is killing itself by making everyone adhere to the party orthodoxy. Latest example: the eight GOPers who voted for cap & trade at the behest of their constituents are being asked to leave the party by other GOPers.

This happened to the Democrats, too. How did they survive? By getting more liberal and kicking out all who wouldn't toe the party core? No.

The Blue Dog Democrats, and the New Democrats, rose in to balance the party out. And now they run this country.

I blogged about this before, here, here, here, and here.

So this is what we need: Red Dog Republicans. Where the far-left Democrats were choking the fiscal conservative Democrats, the far-right is choking the social progressives within the Republican party. You want proof? The more the GOP swings to the right, going back to "Reagan", the more the party shrinks. The Conservative Bloggers keep talking about the party becoming more conservative, yet every time that has happened recently the party has grown smaller and loses more points. Could they be wrong? Could swinging to the right actually be the reason the GOP is shrinking?

Red Dogs:

• Social Progressives (not necessarily liberal). Example: I'm pro-life, yet also pro-gay marriage.
• Fiscal Conservative (not Reaganomics [voodoo economics], but truly fiscally conservative). Example: I'm not a fan of Obama's spending, but neither am I a fan of supply-side. I don't believe in trickle down; but neither do I believe in hand-outs.

Any others to add to the list? Anyone else want to be a Red Dog?

PAYGO.

Finally, the President actually does something fiscally that makes sense.

PAYGO, a simple stragety for bringing down the deficits in the budget, is being pushed by President Obama.

"The 'pay as you go' rule is very simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere," Obama said, as he announced that he was submitting to Congress a proposal to make PAYGO law.

This is part of the same system used in the 1990s to bring down the Federal Deficit, under President Clinton and the Republican Congress.

Obama repeated his vow to halve the deficit by the end of his first term, and he said PAYGO is an important step toward making that happen.

"Paying for what you spend is basic common sense. Perhaps that's why, here in Washington, it has been so elusive," the president said Tuesday.

It would be nice if the Feds could do what the average citizen's household must do: Not spend more than we make, and pay back what is borrowed.

But Republicans were quick to question the administration's sincerity.

Republican Whip Eric Cantor charged that the administration's focus on PAYGO "seems more driven by polling and PR strategy than a serious commitment to fiscal discipline."
"It seems a tad disingenuous for the President and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi to talk about PAYGO rules after ramming trillions in spending through Congress proposing policies that create more debt in the first six months of this year than in the previous 220 years combined," Cantor, R-Virginia, said in a statement Tuesday.

Republicans point to the $787 billion stimulus package as evidence that Obama is not following
his own advice.

Cantor and the Republicans have a great point here.

However, a group of fiscally conservative Democratic representatives known as the Blue Dogs say Obama's proposal is responsible and necessary.
"President Obama inherited an economy in free fall and a $10.6 trillion national debt," said Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, vice chairman of the Blue Dog Budget and Financial Services Task Force. "While short-term spending was necessary to get the economy moving again, our long-term fiscal problems became that much more urgent."

I know this seems very partisan. The Republicans against it no matter what Obama proposes, and the Dems supporting it. But I think it goes further than that. The Republicans, while it is true that they come off as whiny, have a great point. Obama, so far, has done the opposite of what he is proposing.

And the flip side, the Blue Dog Democrats, are supporting it. But I think it goes beyond blind support: they believe PAYGO is a good step, but even they doubt the President's promise to halve the deficit:

But when it comes to reducing the deficit, even the Senate Budget Committee's Democratic chairman doubts the president can deliver on his promise.
Asked if Obama could halve the deficit -- given the recent government spending --- Sen. Kent Conrad said, "I don't believe so. I don't believe anybody could."

So, to summarize, the President is finally doing something fiscally responsible. PAYGO is a great and much needed step. But it isn't enough. Let's see some more of THAT, please.