Lehigh Valley Tea Party Calls for Government Cuts

The Lehigh Valley has issued a statement on the so-called 'fiscal cliff' government crisis

In response to the current 2013 Government Spending Crisis (deceptively called the “fiscal cliff”), the Lehigh Valley Tea Party (LVTP) asks our Representatives and Senators, as a first step toward a solution to this crisis, to vote for legislation cutting the size and power of government.

The federal government cuts should start with eliminating the wasteful cost of departments performing improper functions of government at the federal level. The first federal departments to be abolished with the control of these functions picked up by the states are: Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency.  These department eliminations will help to eradicate costly waste in addition to the abuse of power by government operatives and regulators.

Further, the LVTP asks our Representatives and Senators to work on legislation dissolving the Federal Reserve System and returning the banking function to its rightful place in the private sector. The Federal Reserve has failed to maintain a sound currency which should have been its primary function.

The LVTP asks our Representatives and Senators to work on legislation that replaces “baseline budgeting” by the federal government with “zero-based budgeting” to terminate the perpetual and unjustified growth of Big Government.

The LVTP asks our Representatives and Senators to fight against and vote against any future attempt to raise the debt ceiling, and especially to fight against any unconstitutional attempt by President Obama to seize Congress’s rightful power to control the debt ceiling and, thus, government spending.

The LVTP judges that these dramatic cuts to government size and power and reductions in government interference in the economy are the only morally, politically, and economically justifiable method for delaying the effects coming from massive and unjustifiable government spending. We hope that these measures will delay the American people having to suffer the collapse of the dollar by inflation or the enslavement of future generations by massive government borrowing. The destructive inflation would be caused by the Federal Reserve System printing outrageous amounts of money (i.e., Quantitative Easing, QE1 & QE2) in order to support unjustifiable government spending. The destructive borrowing would be the result of incurring massive debt to foreign nations that are hostile to Individual Rights in order to support unjustifiable government spending.

-- Executive Board of the Lehigh Valley Tea Party

Tony December 26, 2012 at 03:42 PM
and this is where Ron Paul supporters will never vote or agree with the tea party. The cuts are cuts to American services. That is the first thing the LVTP is suggesting? What about cutting the rebuilding of OTHER countries FIRST. Then after ALL of that is cut, then we can talk about cutting here. But without that as a leading issue and the dismantling of the Fed, those type of republicans will continue to lose elections. For any true conservative to get behind Romney, that is a joke. Mitt was no conservative at all. Big time socialist spender. Should have got behind Paul or Johnson.
Tony December 26, 2012 at 04:20 PM
chris christie is also a socialist. he couldn't wait to take advantage of the free federal funds for sandy hurricane. that is socialism. taking taxes from other to pay others. christie also has done nothing to reduce property taxes that he ran on. he hasn't cut any programs except for going against unions. he loves spending tax dollars. i.e. helicopter trip on tax payer funds, to his kids baseball game. Rubio is also socialist as well. He believes in social programs. Reagan was also a big spender and socialist. To get away from all this...Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. no soclialists there.
Tony December 26, 2012 at 04:45 PM
no it isn't. people want less government and want it left up to the states. the states should fend for themselves. just like the tea party movement in texas to remove its self. the definition of socialism is pretty clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism christie is a socialist, reagan was one too. those are the facts.
Tony December 26, 2012 at 04:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExiQgJ7U6RQ youtube can be great to see how the words just flow from their own mouths
John Reynard December 26, 2012 at 06:20 PM
If Reagan was a socialist you're breaking the meaning down so far that most Americans probably support Socialism. Please leave words with socially accepted meanings rather than making our veterans socialists for collecting their veterans benefits and pensions by your definition. You'll make socialism acceptable before you break the left doing that.
Frank December 26, 2012 at 06:38 PM
The Tea Party is SO out of touch with reality. Thats why their numbers are dwindling. Hopefully we will rid ourselves of the balance these know-nothings in 2014.
Tony December 26, 2012 at 07:23 PM
this is exactly what obama is pushing and what mitt was pushing....wealth redistribution....= socialism....reagan was a socialist if obama is one as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldfIzxc_k4E
Nazaretti December 26, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Jolly entertainment, watching these wing nuts crush the Republican Party to small pieces.
Wayne Schissler December 26, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Is it "passing a bunch of things on to the state" or is it preventing duplication of services and regulations? The federal departments of education, environment, & energy are all recent creations. Has education improved one iota since the creation of the Fed Dept of Ed? Please realize we put a man on the moon without it. Does a federal environmental department have PA's best interests at heart. Does our hard earned tax money somehow increase in value by sending it to DC instead of Harrisburg? Has the department of energy done anything to make us energy independent (it's original goal from +30 ago)? Are we to poor in spirit to manage our own affairs? Really? Are these things that only the feds can do, even if it takes borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent? Sure, we've "always" done it this way... right.
Wade B December 27, 2012 at 03:58 AM
Tea Party should rename themselves the Tea Bagging Fags
Wade B December 27, 2012 at 03:59 AM
Reagan raised taxes 7 out of 8 years in office
Wade B December 27, 2012 at 04:02 AM
Hey Wayne Schissler, why dont you run for elected office? You seem to have many opinions but I cant find you listed as a candidate for anything anywhere... get off the bench and get into the game tough guy
Greg Klepeis December 27, 2012 at 05:13 AM
Frank, how about speaking words of substance, rather then putting down your fellow Americans for standing up for what they believe in.
Nazaretti December 27, 2012 at 02:42 PM
Your taxes will go up to pay off our wars in the Middle East, which were financed on credit.
Wayne Schissler December 27, 2012 at 03:00 PM
Hey Wade, Yes, I am full of.... opinions. Which is a bit better than what you appear to be full of, seeing how you respond with taunts and name-calling instead of ideas of you're own. Of course, having nothing to add is an opinion in itself - a government that picks the winners and losers (mostly losers) with it's regulations, subsidies, & loan guarantees - guess you love that status quo. And no, I will not run for office on the recommendation of people who will never vote for me.
John Reynard December 27, 2012 at 07:45 PM
Sorry I had life commitments and didn't reply quickly enough to you on the internet over the holidays. Obama received significant portions of the Black and Hispanic votes because minorities identified with him better than they did Romney and they believed their interests were better served voting for Obama than Romney. That actually is how democracy is supposed to work, people voting for their interests so the government serves the people. I don't disagree with anyone who is offended by people who collect welfare for years on end rather than using it as a safety net. However if government dependency was why Obama won then why didn't he win Mississippi or West Virginia the two states with the largest number of people collecting what is traditionally called welfare (SS Disability, SNAP, Title 20, etc)? The truth is much more complex that the simple story you are trying to tell here. As for 47% of Americans not paying any income taxes, you do realize that without the tax cuts put in place since 1980 (almost all at the encouragement of the Republican Party) that only 21% of Americans would pay no income taxes. Why whine about the logical result of policies put in place by the people you're purporting to support? Or are tax cuts only for the rich? And if they are because they're job creators why shouldn't we tie the cuts directly to job creation rather than making them just be there and hoping for the best?
John Reynard December 27, 2012 at 07:53 PM
We're not looking to pay more taxes so "Mr. Welfare" can have a better life. We're looking to spend money helping people get their feet back under them with a certain safety net there to help them spring back into productive status again. If people who aren't disabled are dependent on it we should reform the programs to become more of a transition rather than a way of life. Anyhows, welfare spending isn't the largest portion of the government's spending unless you count Social Security and Medicare which are fully funded government insurance programs paid for by FICA contributions (not part of the general budget and not drawing on it either). Why do conservatives always want to cut domestic spending first and then blame Americans for not doing enough for themselves? Why do you want to give yey another tax cut to the rich so they can open another factory in Asia which will take more jobs away from hard-working Americans of both parties? I've never gotten a good answer to that one either.
John Reynard December 27, 2012 at 07:55 PM
The national debt has not doubled yet in Obama's administration. It probably will before his eight years in office are over. A good part of the rise in the annual deficit was due to putting the Iraq and Afghan wars in the budget rather than using Bush's technique of keeping it off the books. As for entitlement spending rising, it always does in a recession. We should make sure we're getting value in return for that spending of course which I don't know that we are in all cases. But, to put all social programs in the same boat is ignoring the ones which have high return rates over time.
John Reynard December 27, 2012 at 08:00 PM
@Wayne -- We've been a federal system for more than two hundred years now. Since 1837 we've had an annual surplus 16 times in almost two-hundred years. During WWII we borrowed at a higher rate than we are now and left the war with a worse Debt/GDP ratio than we have currently. Since we've spiked military spending in the last decade in a way which only significant wars in the past have done I point this out. We need to keep an eye on the long-term goal of course which is to bring annual deficits back to a sustainable level and I fully agree that 40% borrowing to cover our spending will eventually be paid for in higher interest rates on government bonds and inflation. But, at the moment we are borrowing at ALL TIME lows on 10 and 30 year bonds. The free market isn't as pessimistic about our long-term prospects as you are. Why do you hate the free market so much?
Amend December 27, 2012 at 09:59 PM
@Joe- and you want to give tax breaks to the so called job creators knowing that they will most likely use the logic you provided to invest off shore? How is that prudent? How is wealth tricking up not also wealth distribution and equally un American? and shouldn't we, considering the amount of wealth polarization occurring, be seeing unprecedented job creation? I mean, these alleged job-creators have more wealth than ever, yet there doesn't seem to be any return on that "investment" on their part. Where are all these jobs then?
Maynard G Krebs December 27, 2012 at 11:36 PM
The problem with the so-called job creators is that they don't create any jobs. Demand creates jobs, and there's no demand because the middle class has been eviscerated by the "job creators." As to giving more power to the states, no thanks, not with that bunch of jackasses in Harrisburg, especially Corbett. He's more crooked than Rendell.
Amend December 28, 2012 at 01:26 AM
@Joe- no, I'm grasping what you're saying about global markets and the affects of costs of labor. What I'm saying is that there is no reason to reward that sort of preditorial capitalism, with tax cuts or incentives of any sort, when it doesn't benefit our domestic economy beyond access to cheap good. Like I said, if putting more money in the hands of the affluent actually created jobs, we should be seeing tons of jobs because the affluent have more wealth than ever. It a failed premise because those with the wealth are focused on ROI for themselves, not the country of the general populous. I do agree with your POV on Walmart, and don't shop there either. It's hard to blame the workers when few options now remain. They could strike if they were allowed to unionize, but that's a dirty word these days. I also agree with Maynard, in that it's the affluent, these so called job creators, who fleeced the country, and in doing so, the middle class as well. Demand creates jobs. The one thing that we seem to over look is how the consumer, as a general premise, has been a willful participant in their own demise.
Wayne Schissler December 28, 2012 at 03:26 AM
John, Wars end. It's sensible to borrow to fund something that's going to end. That has been the past model that you are making reference to. What we have now is totally different from the past, deficit spending on entitlement programs and departments that not only do not end, but are constantly growing. Since 2010, Social Security has been running a permanent cash-flow deficit - that is not ending. This means SS payroll taxes collected are not enough to cover the benefits paid to retirees. That falls under the borrowing "40 cents on the dollar" dilemma. Medicare is in similar dire straits. Every year the trustee report literally begs for lawmakers to take action, and every year it's a political hot potato. Yes, we've been a federal system for over 200 years - no one is denying that or suggesting we go back to the Articles of Confederation. Like I said, much of what was proposed to go back to the states was with the states 30-40 years ago. America became a great nation without these departments.
John Reynard December 28, 2012 at 02:11 PM
Mr. Sommers is advocating more supply-side economics. We've had it for a generation and seen the largest decline in median purchasing power and wealth in US history. I think we can safely say that supply-side economics aren't helping most Americans anymore. The Democratic response has been ineffective as well however as it doesn't foster long-term job creation here in the USA either. We need to find a way to tie tax breaks to actual new job creation here in the USA. Giving tax breaks to create jobs overseas only impoverishes us all and makes people have less and less work choices and thus less control over their lives. The Republican plan is an abject failure. Lets find a way to move on from it and bring jobs back to the USA without having to drive our own workers down to the level of Chinese or Indian ones (or worse Burmese -- even China is losing jobs to places worse off now).
John Reynard December 28, 2012 at 02:17 PM
And Joe, I know how investments work because I work in the field. Median ROI at companies which have actively traded ticker symbols has risen from 9.7% in the 1980s to 13.4% now. In order to get less than a 4% increase in "efficiency" we've given up more than 15M manufacturing jobs, most of it encouraged by US tax policy passed between 1981 and 1985. None of this was called wealth redistribution because "its just what the marketplace caused to happen". But, without changes in tax policy many of these jobs would not have been lost so that is BS. I'm not saying there is an easy solution. But, we need to start solving and the first key is to tie any tax breaks the wealthy would like to continue to enjoy to actual job creation here in the USA. What is so terrible about that?
Wayne Schissler December 28, 2012 at 03:46 PM
John Reynard said, "...Social Security and Medicare which are fully funded government insurance programs paid for by FICA contributions (not part of the general budget and not drawing on it either)." You are mistaken. It has not been fully funded by the FICA contributions since 2010. Benefits out are exceeding revenue in. This has been the most predicable "fiscal crisis" ever since it is simply a factor of demographics, more and more retirees and less workers. The fictitious lock-box of a trust fund was spent and IOU's need to be paid back to send out the checks. Where does that money come from? There may be some magical accounting trick that tells you that the "trust fund" is supplying the check money (this is what the lying politicians are telling us) but where is the trust fund (IOUs) getting the cash? Borrowing and adding to the deficit. Now, if we want to continue sending the checks to grandma we better find someplace else to cut. We must stop buying the politician's smoke and mirrors accounting gimmicks and demand accountability.
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. December 31, 2012 at 11:49 PM
It appears that the extreme right wing members of the U.S. House of Representatives are punishing us for re-electing Obama.
Wayne Schissler January 01, 2013 at 03:37 AM
Not sure what you mean Wilfredo. This whole fiasco was properly legislated and passed by the congress & senate, and signed by the president back in 2011. Are you telling me that the fools (ALL of them) that passed it then are somehow off the hook if it actually comes to pass?
WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. January 01, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Just a thought, Wayne...We have seen these guys turned their backs on their leader Speaker Boehner embarrassing him no end over his proposal for what reason (Grover Norquest's pledge signing?)...Make it difficult for all in 2012-2013.
Wayne Schissler January 01, 2013 at 02:26 PM
Well, the grand deal of the moment is basically kicking any talk about spending cuts to a March deadline, meanwhile taxes go up. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if the sequestration (the so-called "fiscal cliff") stays in place, discretionary spending would grow from $1.047 to $1.147 trillion. That's right, a cut in growth, not a real cut. And federal workers and congress all get a raise. So the glassy green-eyed envy of the "soak the rich crowd" gets temporarily sated with a tax which barely scratches the total debt while favored businesses continue to pay nothing and federal departments that have demonstrated their inability to preform continue to grow. Welcome to the New Year, same as the old year...


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something