Mr. Canin of Senoia wrote a very heartfelt letter recently explaining what the Tea Party is not. He professes the apolitical nature of the Tea Party while acknowledging that it is certainly more closely held by Republicans. He does tell us the Tea Party is not for any government which rings up a 14 trillion dollar debt. I must confess that on that particular note we can certainly agree.
But political change is not wrought by apolitical means. If one is for free markets, that is a practical statement but its enactment is guaranteed only through the political process.
And so it goes with less regulation, and decreased government spending. No idea has the force of government, or in this case governmental restraint, until it passes political muster.
So the ideas of the Tea Party, at least as expressed by Mr. Canin, while broad in scope, are general assertions. They are brush strokes, if you will, which leave to others the privilege of filling in the gaps to produce the desired effect on governance.
How might this take place? Perhaps an overwhelming Republican victory might bring a lethal assault on the Environmental Protection Agency. It is after all a frequent example of excessive governmental intrusion on industry. Whatever environmental laws have been enacted, in the absence of an enforcement agency they are just words.
Perhaps the first to benefit might be a coal-powered electricity plant on the Alabama line. Prevailing winds are southwesterly, which means they blow to the northeast. In making their ECONOMIC decision to burn a lower grade coal, the managers and owners of the plant would believe they are only conducting business according to good business principles.
The EFFECTS of their decision may be manifest in our decreasing air quality; in the increase in heavy metals in our water supply, and in the increased acid rain in our Georgia forests.
If we feel we have a grievance, from whom do we seek remedy? To whom do we appeal? And who are WE?
The plant is in Alabama. Its alleged poisons affect mostly Georgia and Georgians. The owners pay a lot of taxes and provide a valuable service to the people of Alabama. They also have the advantage of immediate vested interest combined with money to press home their POLITICAL message.
Meanwhile the operators will have vastly increased their profit margins by lowering the unit cost of their greatest expense: the fuel they burn to make electricity.
While petitions are brought to the Attorney General of Georgia to bring suit; while data is collected over months and years; while adults and children are exposed to increased heavy metals in their water supply, dangerous nitrous oxides, and all the other deleterious effects wrought by the burning of low quality coal, the citizens of North Georgia suffer in varying degrees depending on their proximity and location in relation to a polluter not even in their own state.
But enough about the EPA. Maybe instead the POLITICAL powers go after the FDA. When the Speaker Mr. Boehner of Ohio wished to make his point about excessive governmental regulation at the President’s address to Congress, he brought along a gentleman whose company manufactures genetic tests which he hoped would be sold by Walgreens pharmacy.
These kits would be used to test for genes which indicate a predisposition for certain diseases, but without FDA approval Walgreens will not sell the kits and Ohio is losing jobs.
Unfortunately the testing of these kits by independent labs had demonstrated that they did not work in providing the conclusive evidence they claimed to provide. Kits testing the same sample often provided opposing conclusions. The company’s own methods were called into question and the FDA refused to give it any blessing whatsoever.
So is it Mr. Boehner’s contention that the public should then be informed that this is a scientifically valid test? Is it the Republican party’s opinion that any capitalism, even capitalism which misleads a person to believe they are prone to a disease when they are not, or safe from a genetic predisposition when they are not; is this satisfactory for our citizens?
The Republican Party is already stepping in to fill the void. Mr. Brad Carter in his guest column in the AJC wrote: “… and overly burdensome regulations that continue to harm our economy, hamper private sector hiring and balloon our deficit via financial reform (Dodd Frank), healthcare reform (ObamaCare) ….”
The fact is neither of these acts has really come to fruition yet so I’m unsure how either could be a drag on the economy. The Dodd-Frank act states that the taxpayer will no longer bail out banks that fail, requires greater reserves depending on the risks, sets baselines for the distribution of mortgages, and will regulate the extremely high risk derivatives markets — you remember —all the stuff that got us into this mess.
But enough of reality. I am not defending every regulatory agency nor every regulation ever promulgated. However, past legislative bodies have brought those agencies into existence for very palpable reasons.
The Tea Party and its adherents attack the broad nature of regulation, which does in fact protect us all from the ravages of unfettered capitalism. Very powerful interests are even now using that energy to attack agencies and regulations which have served to protect us all, just as they have done to the banking and investment industry and which has led directly to the moribund state in which we find ourselves.
As far as being “Patriots” … well, I’ll use a sports analogy. If you have to tell me how good you were in high school, you probably were not.
In my mind there is no greater patriot than one who wants what is best for his country, does not hew to unproven dogma in its administration, and is prepared to stay informed and involved. And he doesn’t have to tell you he’s a patriot!
Timothy J. Parker
Peachtree City, Ga.
