Ya'll had a real nice tea party here...now git...

You hear a lot of talk about compromise today. Having been married for going on 34 years, I realize that sometimes compromise is necessary, if not always gratifying.

And then sometimes it's necessary to stick to your guns.

Like if you're in a bus with a group of people about to drive off of a cliff at 60 MPH. Some on the bus might want to slow down to 40 MPH before you hit the cliff, and the majority might decide to compromise and drive off the cliff at 50 MPH. Some might just want to compromise by changing drivers. You're not going to be happy with the end result no matter what.

I saw Sarah Palin spoke at the Tea Party Convention the other day, and told them that while they had a real nice party, if they wanted to effective at all, they really needed to rejoin the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. I think the assumption was that most would rejoin the Republicans. I imagine a lot of them will, believing that the Republicans they vote for this year will be somehow different than the Republicans they have voted for in the past.

Before the 2008 elections, the Libertarian Party issued this release explaining the fallacy of that thinking:

Sen. John McCain accuses Sen. Barack Obama of being a “socialist,” but it is President George W. Bush, supported by Sen. McCain, who has done the most to socialize the U.S. economy. Courtesy of the Republican Party, the federal government is set to own a sizable chunk of the housing, auto, banking and insurance industries, as well as pieces of individual companies lining up to sell securities to Washington. Even individual homes, with Uncle Sam preparing to become the mortgage guarantor of last resort, are the targets of nationalization.

What will be left for the next president to socialize?

The Republican Party once campaigned against irresponsible federal spending and government red ink. Then George W. Bush became president. With a Republican Congress, he turned a budget surplus into a half trillion dollar deficit, added trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities with creation of the Medicare drug benefit, and expanded virtually every federal program, domestic as well as foreign.

How is this different from what the Democratic Party has been promising to do for years?

Only after the Democrats retook control of Congress did President Bush suddenly become concerned about fiscal responsibility. But that lasted only until the sub prime mortgage crisis enveloped Washington. Taking its cue from Democratic tax and spend policies of the past, the administration then opened the Treasury doors to all comers.

So far, the Bush administration, Congress, and Federal Reserve have provided more than $2 trillion in bailouts. Congress got the ball rolling, with an assist from the administration, with a $300 billion bailout of the housing industry. The president even agreed to a multi-million dollar taxpayer pay-off to the left-wing activist group ACORN to grease the legislative wheels.

Then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson abandoned his contrary assurances and nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at a cost of $200 billion, though the price could go higher. Bailouts began sprouting like mushrooms after a heavy rain—$29 billion to cover Bear Stearns, hundreds of billions of dollars from the Federal Reserve to banks and investment banks, as well as to buy mortgage-backed securities, $85 billion to nationalize the big insurer AIG, followed by another $38 billion for AIG and $25 billion more in loans to the auto industry.

Then there was the grand pay-off to Wall Street. Secretary Paulson came up with the wholly arbitrary $700 billion bailout—his aides admitted that he just wanted a really big number. And the administration accepted an extra $150 billion in pork and special tax breaks to win over reluctant congressmen. The purpose, we were told, was to clear “toxic” paper off of corporate balance sheets.

It turns out this was nothing more than another Bush Administration bait-and-switch.

Now the $700 billion is being used to buy up the U.S. economy. First, the administration decided to “invest” in big banks, whether they wanted it or not. The Bush administration put pressure on even sound institutions and argued that bankers must accept Republican socialism as a matter of patriotism. Who knows when, if ever, the government will sell off its stake in America’s financial system.

Then the administration suggested a new $40 billion homeowners program. The federal government is going to start guaranteeing individual mortgages. A lender who makes a bad loan will be assured of repayment so long as he cuts the interest rate or principal. A homeowner who should never have bought the house will get bailed-out by responsible homeowners and renters.

But the administration isn’t finished. On Friday, October 24, the Treasury Department announced that it was going to buy ownership stakes in major insurance companies. After all, the insurers are in trouble too. So The Hartford, MetLife, and Prudential already are in line for a government hand-out.

Now the Financial Services Roundtable has asked the Treasury Department to buy into securities dealers, auto manufacturers, and even U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies. After all, they “play a vital role in the U.S. economy,” explained the Roundtable. By that criterion, what industry or company doesn’t qualify for a bail-out?

Is Sen. Obama “socialist?” Yes, he wants to “spread the wealth,” as he puts it. But that’s what the Republicans have been doing for the last eight years. We already have "big government," "socialism," or whatever else you want to call it—and it was Republicans who gave it to us.

I know there are Tea Partiers that really want limited government. There are also Tea Partiers that are simply opposed to Democrats. The ones that want limited government had better stick to their guns and find a party that shares their beliefs to change the government's direction.

The others are just looking to change drivers.

40 rod from a galloping horse...

One of my early mentors in the trades was a skilled carpenter who advised me on work ethic as often as he judged my work. Not one to hand out flowery compliments, one of his favorite comments on the acceptability of a mitre cut was " It'll pass at 40 rod from a galloping horse." I guess he meant it would be alright, if you didn't look too close or too long.

I think Sarah Palin is going to work out the same way. It didn't really matter to me who John McCain chose as a running mate, any more than it mattered to me who Barack Obama chose as a running mate. I'm convinced that no matter who they chose, or who wins the election, 4 years from now we'll still have troops in 140 or so countries around the world, our national debt and unfunded liabilities will be approaching $100 trillion, and government taxes and regulation will still consume about half of my income.

But watching from the bullpen, I first thought the presidential election was the Democrats' to lose. Even when they tried to split the party in the primaries, I was half convinced that anybody they ran could probably beat anybody the Republicans put up. Even John McCain. Sarah Palin probably brought enough conservative Republicans back on board to make it an even race. Maybe even enough to win.

But only if they want a win so bad that they don't slow down and look too close. Or too long.