According to Huffington Post:
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said on Monday that her proposal to create a Tea Party caucus in the United States House of Representatives has been officially approved.
Bachmann announced that she had filed paperwork to establish the House group last week. The mission of the coalition she said at the time would be to promote “fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government.”
And now, it seems that Bachmann’s Tea Party caucus dream has become a reality. “Just got word that the Committee on House Administration officially approved the House Tea Party Caucus,” said the conservative congresswoman in a tweet on Monday afternoon.
Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence became the first House member to signal his intention to join Bachmann’s newly-created caucus. Talking Points Memo reports:
At a press availability this afternoon, Pence was enthusiastic. “You betcha,” Pence said when asked if he’d join
Does this mean that there will be real Tea Party leaders? This is beginning to sound fairly formal rather than loose-knit, grass roots organizing.
How many various caucuses are there in the House? This seems like a good time to take a wait and see approach. It will be interesting to see who joins and what all the common denominators are. Birds of a feather will flock together. It should be telling.
As the late, great Jimmy Durante would have said: “EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO GET IN ON THE ACT!!!!” When will these politicians understand? They are not the “leaders” here. They are the “scrutinized.”
These Tea Partiers are full of contradictions.
They want limited government, yet they have no problem pushing for that require United States citizens to surrender their papers to law enforcement.
They demand fiscal responsibility yet they don’t want limits on social security and medicare, the two biggest deficit drivers of all, which are in turn driven by the cost of health care.
They want adherence to the Constitution, yet they have problems with the 14 Amendment that grants citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
How does one reconcile such conflicting, contradictory views?
These people don’t know what they want. Maybe Michelle will figure it out for them.
Can someone tell me what the significance of a caucus really is? Isn’t a caucus just a bunch of lobbyists with a club name?
Not sure Pinko. Club with a common cause? How many are there?
Just had to look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_caucus
It’s like a high school or work clique but with letterhead. The story doesn’t impress me – I share Wolverine’s op on this.
LOL! Marin….
Best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. The idea of a Tea Party caucus reminds me of an old defininition of a horse show. A horse show is a bunch of horses showing their asses to a bunch of horse’s asses showing their horses. Another opportunity for the nation to see the real face of the Tea party.
I’ll say it again, the similarities between the “Tea Party” and the “Know Nothing” party are staggering!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
Now that’s not necessiarly an insult… their were members of the Know Nothings that had a good argument. The problem at the time was a split in principals… some Know Nothings were for slavery, some were against it…
Ultimately the extream diffrences devided what looked like a 2nd American revolution and allowed for an upstart by the name of Lincoln to take control.
I think the Tea Party will suffer the same fate.
The failure of the Federal Government is only half of the problem… Even if you have a full purge, you will never be satisfied because every single person you send in as a replacement will be controled by corporate interests within a year. Your vote is worthless.
If you want to be really free, you need to keep the corporations in check just as much as you need to keep Uncle Sam in check.
If the Tea Party is successful, perhaps government will be less influential and the corporations will have less influence. Smaller government means less influence for the connected.
As to the Medicare/Soc. Sec. fiascos…..they are the perfect example why the TP wants to limit more spending now. We have no money because of those programs.
Privatize my soc sec. Kill it. I would love to have that tax money back. If the gov’t must take it, then put it into T-bills and set up an account for me and my inheritors.
Medicare? Going broke and breaking the government. Its what Obama means when he says he wants to lower costs. Not yours. The Gov’t. A major part of Obamacare is the controlling of medicare/medicaid costs. By the time I need it, I doubt any doctors will be willing to take medicare patients. So lets “incentivize” private companies to take former medicare patients with tax breaks, etc. and phase it out.
Heck, flatten the tax to 15-18% and get rid of the SS tax, and Docs would probably be able to afford to take medicare payments.
Starryflights, whether the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally has never been definitively adjudicated by the courts and remains an open question.
Starryflights: A guy calls in recently to a radio show. Says he is an employer in Michigan. He is hiring — which is great for a state in dire economic distress. He says that many of the people he tries to hire are on unemployment benefits. One of their questions to him is whether he can pay them “off the books” so they can earn that money and keep on collecting the unemployment benefits. Nice, huh? I suggest we can put that one on the table for starters.
The Democratic Party in Congress must love those caucuses. They certainly have enough of their own. Or, is that “cauci”? I would imagine that, if you looked hard enough, you might find a Dem caucus for bald guys— or maybe even congressmen with the gout or with one leg long shorter than the other.
Geez. “…one leg shorter than the other.”
You don’t want one with gout. They have foul dispositions when they are gout attack mode. @ Wolverine
Cargo, they will never give you back your SS. It has to go pay someone who is on it already. What would have become of you if your ss had been privatized in 2008? You would have lost close to half of it.
@Wolverine
Want to start a Moonhowlings Caucus? We can gather under the flag of disagreement.
The left would be very excited if they could only have a classic Alinsky-target to unload their bile upon. That’s the thing about the Tea party that scares the left absolutely to death, no head to fire at. If the tea party ever really has a head….it’s dead.
Yes, lets have caucus for a party whose leadership writes offensive letters about blacks and then denounces anyone who says racism extists within the rank and file of the tea party. This is like Seinfelds bizzaro world episode!
My guess is you feel that way rather a lot.
Elena is correct. That plan is very transparent as of today.
CIF aka SG, did you ever think about Saul Alinksy before say 2008? I didn’t. I don’t think about him now.
@Moon-howler
Actually, no I would not have. I would have put the money int to T-Bills or municipal bonds. For that money, probably T-bills. Which is what Congress will probably restrict them to, if they do privatize the system. They still want that tax money for the general fund.
This way, though, it becomes a retirement account and not a ponzi scheme.
Or, I could have bought Gold and made a fortune. Gold in 2004 was about $440 and 2006 was about $650. Today its almost $1200. But with SS, I don’t have even the choice to buy T-bills.
@Moon-howler
We didn’t because his style of politics was not being used. Now it is. In fact, the current President TAUGHT it to his students.
We’ve learned a lot about the political methods of the left in the last 18 months. 18 months ago we thought that Democrats were still like ol’ Tip O’Niell………today….not so much.
Pinko — That sure would be one heck of a caucus. We wouldn’t be able to get past deciding on tea or coffee for refreshments. If the caucus meetings were held at Moonhowler’s place, I give it ten minutes before Mr. Moonhowler would toss us all out on our asses.
@Cargo, I think we have learned a lot because someone wanted us to learn alot. There were rumblings about Alinsky back in the Clinton years because Hillary once did a term paper or thesis on him. I don’t see the connection between Alinsky and today. Stripe away what was supposed to stick to us. I was taught all sorts of things that I don’t espouse.
I wish I had bought gold also. So I have to settle for ETFs, Any gold I own is …sigh…jewelry. T Bills aren’t paying jack. Municipal bonds are scary right now. I have a friend who swears by them. It takes a lot of upfront money to buy them.
We don’t have a choice about SS. I just wish the cap would be raised. I am not up for protecting people making over $110k. 6% of their money probably hurts less than 6% of someone making 50K. The only reason they are protecting from that raise is politicians are afraid that it might come out of their campaign contributions.
Moon,
Be careful of the ETF’s. I”ve heard that some companies are selling the same gold, over and over……
The first ones to ask for physical are the ones that get it.
Thanks Cargo. Actually my gold is from a precious metals ETF. (DBP)I just bought SLW for silver.
@Wolverine
Hee hee! I think it would be hilarious. Besides, I would love to meet some of you.
I agree, though, that Mr. Howler might have other thoughts on the subject. So we will have to meet at Panera’s where we can have coffee or tea or water or latte and ingest carbs which will soothe all of us into an agreeable stupor.
Moon,
Just looked at SLW. At first glance, looks promising. At first, I thought you said SLV and found the Silver etf, similar to GLD.
Hmmmmmm, have to go figure out what to do with an old 401k…..
I looked at slv also. Slw has a better track record. (at least as far as my untrained eye goes)