Time for a tea party?

Jack Cafferty wrote in his column today asking if it is time for another tea party.

Time for another tea party?

I understand his criticism of the state of our nation, and his anger at the run away spending. What I don't understand is how he completely ignores the cause of the problems that led to the increase in spending.

I think Mr. Cafferty is referring to the 'tea parties' advocated by the don't go movement. The don't go movement seems to be a conservative group with the sole purpose of building opposition to the increased spending that has resulted from their failed economic policies.

Conservatives espouse the ideals of a free market economy, while whining about government oversight. They also refuse to see how free markets and government oversight have both caused major economic catastrophe, when one or the other gets out of hand. The best way to run an economy is a balance between free market, and government oversight that keeps the playing field even, and promotes safe practices. A move too far in either direction is dangerous to the national economy.

These tea parties are gaining significant support amongst those people who are concerned about the national debt, and its long term effect on the economy and tax rates. People have reason to be concerned. I hear estimates that tax rates as high as 50 percent will be required to pay off this debt. This is debt we are passing to our children and grandchildren.

But, the tea parties only build opposition. They propose nothing constructive, and only serve to criticize the attempts by our government to solve the current economic problems.

Conservatives didn't complain when Bush wanted to stimulate the economy during the last recession. They also didn't complain when Bush lied to go to war with Iraq. The Iraq war has cost over 600 billion dollars so far. Despite this government waste, our economy still tanked. It tanked because under Bush, the government failed to do its job to regulate the mortgage industry.

Do you remember driving down the street in 2003 - 2007? You probably saw lots of signs saying "I buy houses" or "own 4 bedroom home for $575 a month, no credit check", most hand written on little signs stuck in the ground near busy roads. I wish I had the foresight to have called one of these companies to find out who was behind such blatherskite. The crazy thing is, at that time it wasn't blatherskite, it was true. You really could get such a loan.

I realize President Bush isn't entirely to blame for all this. President Clinton started the beginnings of this process by forcing fannie may and freddie mac to lend to people with lower credit scores. This was mainly done to make sure lower income people could be approved for loans to buy their own home. But, other than lowering the credit requirements, a buyer in 1999 would have the same down payment and interest requirements as anyone else.

The real abuse of the system started when President Bush reduced enforcement and oversight of the mortgage industry. That's when sub-prime mortgages took an ugly turn. A turn that eventually took the entire economy off a cliff.