Jump to Navigation

A Tea Party Letter to A President-Elect Romney | Henry Kelley

Our Columnists
Informed Personalities from Across the State, Across the Spectrum
 

A Tea Party Letter to A President-Elect Romney | Henry Kelley

Henry Kelley's picture
A Tea Party Letter to A President-Elect Romney
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 — Henry Kelley

Since Mitt Romney is the official Republican nominee and Gov. Scott Walker won big in Wisconsin, it’s time to address the near future:

Dear President-Elect Romney,

Congratulations on being elected the 45th President of the United States.

And to a lesser extent, Speaker of the House Boehner and Senate President McConnell, though most of us didn’t get to vote for either of you, and believe me, we wouldn’t have.

Let’s clear up a few things about this election from a tea party perspective. Most of us didn’t vote for you, or whatever programs you campaigned on. We voted for “Anybody but Obama,” and you do not have any mandate from us other than to keep the one promise we care about: repealing Obamacare. You just happened to be the lucky person who filled that block on the ballot.

Let me clarify a few points about why the tea party even exists. 

To this day our anger is still directed at Republicans for being so corrupt and incompetent that the nation looked at President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and decided “there’s a good group” to lead our nation.  

We started to complain back around 2004, when Republicans formed the black hole known as Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit.

As things grew worse and everyone with an “R” seemed to want to make government grow even larger, we gave control to the Democrats in 2008 by simply not voting. Then, those Democrats passed a 2,300-odd page bill known as “Obamacare” without even having read it.

That’s how you won “President Elect” status.

Let’s talk about our expectations of you now as president. We want “limited government.” That doesn’t mean “no government,” like the blowhards on the left scream. They didn’t vote for you, but for some reason your advisors will tell you to placate them in the months ahead. Resist your staff.

Don’t pass a “jobs bill.” Americans can create jobs if you just help get the federal government out of the way and remove the fear of an IRS audit and incredibly burdensome regulations to start a business.

Don’t appoint any czars. Period.  

Declare victory in the war on drugs and solve illegal immigration by introducing a guest-worker program so workers can come and go in a legal, easy and taxable fashion.  

Close Guantanamo. And accelerate the return of our troops, along with those pesky contractors, from the Middle East. The military is worn out. They need a break. And we can save billions.

Don’t appoint a Secretary of Education or Health and Human Services. Try it, you might find you can cripple a few agencies by cutting off their heads. Congress might realize they don’t need all those jobs for their friends and donors, and the nation will be better off. 

Try nominating an Attorney General who actually understands the threats to our nation, and will apply the law equally once again.

Get an EPA head who understands you can have commerce and clean water, and don’t need armed agents or drone aircraft to accomplish that.

Act like you care about civil rights and veto the next version of the Patriot Act that the Republican-dominated Congress sends you, or any other law that infringes on our rights. 

We get that the world might cause bad things to happen, but these laws ensure that Americans are not living free anymore. We’ll take our chances with the terrorists, because the IRS, EPA and FDA are more immediate threats to us anyhow.

Make a simple goal that the federal government will be $1 -- one dollar -- smaller in real dollars in 2016 than in 2012. 

We got you elected, but you’re on a short lease. President Obama inherited a mess, now you’re inheriting that same mess on steroids. 

We hope you are up for the challenge, because, and this next thought sent a chill up my spine when I typed it, you may well be the last hope for a prosperous, free America.  

Henry Kelley, a Fort Walton Beach business owner, is a leader of the Florida tea party movement.

© Florida Voices


More Columns By Henry Kelley

Add comment

Log in or register to post comments

Comments

Paul Henry - Wed, 2012-06-13 09:53.

My friend Henry points out valuable information. In my opinion, it is unfortunate and a great indicator of the continued downward spiral of our nation when there was one candidate that indeed stood for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets (the Tea Party values):

Ron Paul

Yet he could not get enough Republican votes because "I don't like his foreign policy" or "He can't beat Obama."

To the former, I say guess what happens when either Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama finishes off the domestic economy? The best foreign policy in the world won't matter.

To the latter, I say, check out where Mr. Romney is as compared to where his predecessor John McCain was at the same time in 2008. Mr. Romney is lagging in the polls far worse than Mr. McCain was. For the short-attention span crowd, John McCain lost in 2008.

As Henry implied, "Anybody but Obama" is a poor reason to vote for a candidate. I found myself doing that in 2008. I try not to make the same mistake twice.

I realize the candidates I vote for never win elections. But do you ever wonder what might happen if they did? Maybe we would not be $15 trillion in debt. Maybe we wouldn't have unconstitutional liberty-killing laws that are also costly and ineffective. This is aimed at my fellow Republicans, since Henry addressed the likewise unconstitutional Democrat-mandated health insurance.

Tom Butler - Wed, 2012-06-13 11:02.

Mr. Kelley wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Please indulge me to comment on a few points:

1. Under the current system and before the ACA passed, 50 million Americans had no health insurance, 1/6 of us. Most of them were people who worked but did not get coverage from their employment and who did not make enough to pay for private insurance; their income was above the Medicaid threshold. These people usually got their health care at hospital emergency rooms, the most expensive place to get health care. Since they didn't pay, we did. Hospital charges are ridiculous. Ever read an itemized bill from a hospital? Those $50 Tylenols and $100 gauze pads make up some of the loss from the uninsured. Since we have insurance, we don't pay much attention, but our insurance company does and bumps up premiums for everybody to cover the high hospital charges. Therefore, under the current system, before the ACA, those of us with health care pay for those who don't. Even people who could afford to buy health insurance can choose not to and allow the rest of us to accept responsibility for paying for them; it used to be conservative to think this was wrong.
2. Many people oppose the ACA because they see it as a government takeover of health care or socialism. Those people have no idea how to read and probably get all of their (mis)information from FoxNews. In fact, the government is not taking over health care. The ACA requires everyone to buy health insurance from private companies. The insurance companies felt that this was such a good idea that they kicked in $8 billion just to kick-start the process. The only expansion of government programs is the fact that the Medicaid income threshold is being changed -- probably too much, I agree -- so that more people will be covered by that program. However, if the Republicans had not filibustered at least 19 jobs bills, most of those people in the expansion would probably be working and not need Medicaid. If the economy turns around, those people will be working and get insurance through group plans.
3. The individual mandate probably sticks in the craw of Mr. Kelley and his fellow tea drinkers. In fact, the individual mandate was proposed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank way back in 1993. The right-wingers at Heritage: "We would include a mandate in our proposal–not a mandate on employers, but a mandate on heads of households–to obtain at least a basic package of health insurance for themselves and their families. That would have to include, by federal law, a catastrophic provision in the form of a stop loss for a family’s total health outlays. It would have to include all members of the family, and it might also include certain very specific services, such as preventive care, well baby visits, and other items." The Foundation thought the idea of individual responsibility through mandated purchasing of health insurance was a good one and they couched it in those terms. Conservatives think individual responsibility is terrible now, especially if the black guy proposed it.
4. We could go back to where we were in 2008. Insurance companies could kick you out of their program if you get sick. Aetna eliminated 8 million subscribers because they weren't good risks. These were people who were paying their premiums but they were not seen as profitable. This is my idea of a death panel. Insurance companies could and did reject you if you had a pre-existing condition -- don't we all? Preventive health care would only be covered at the whim of the for-profit insurer, who resisted preventive care for decades because they couldn't see the relationship between prevention and reduced costs. Private insurers still approve or disapprove procedures based on the profit motive. I'd like to see another criterion, but Mssrs. Boehner and McConnell disagree, I guess. Mr. Kelley and his friends are the wind behind those leaders' desire to maintain the status quo.
5. Health care is not about 20% of GDP. Neither Republicans nor tea-partiers have suggested a solution, except to repeal Obamacare. Thanks for nothing.

Paul Henry - Wed, 2012-06-13 12:59.

Good point about Heritage- they likewise support the unconstitutional federal REAL ID driver license law. The taxpayers have spent millions and according to a study done by Heritage in May 2011 are no safer due to this program. We've tightened up a lot of married and divorced women, though- but of course we were not attacked on 9/11 by married or divorced women. If it makes you feel any better, Heritage was wrong both times.

I suppose a sticking point here is the realization that life is a risk. Some accept this and live their lives loving the liberty to do so. Others feel the government must mandate that people be protected from themselves. I saw this firsthand in 25 years of police work here in Florida. Many people that leave home or work each day never make it to their destination despite law after law designed to ensure they do so- with the lie of red light cameras reducing red light running crashes being the latest.

I am of the school of thought of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", while it seems those in elected office (and by extension many of those voting for them) believe in "Existence, Government Regulation, and the Pursuit of Safety". Bad things happen to "good" and "bad" people alike. The difference is noted in what happens afterwards. While some would wish them well and help if they can, others believe "we need a law" to compel the help. A great example of this are the federal housing programs such as the CDBG, which contain about 40% administrative overhead before the first nail is hammered. A wise man recently said we dump it on the government, they create a bureaucracy, and the cost goes up. As with affordable housing, health care will be no different. How about the federal war on poverty? You need not turn the channel to Fox to read a NY Times story from September 13, 2011 spotlighting the rising poverty rate. These are the same caliber of people that tell me it will take 6-8 weeks just to determine if I am a victim of tax refund fraud, when as a Florida police officer I could work and close a multi-state ID theft case in 10 days.

Once we accept that health insurance must be mandated (and I'll use that term, as otherwise why have a law), what comes next? We can expand upon the concept of "the general welfare of the United States" and easily convert it to "the general welfare FOR the United States."

"The ACA requires everyone to buy health insurance from private companies. "

OK, I feel a lot better about it now- just kidding. Here in Florida, the government extorts, oops, requires, one to pay over $200 for private motorcycle training so they can have an "endorsement" on their license. Who gets the money? No, not the government- but the private companies that offer the training. What happened to the government offering testing as they did for many years so that people that don't need training could avoid this extra cost? Or why test a licensee at all? When I first rode a bike three decades ago, there was no "endorsement". Somehow, I'm still alive after these many years. The same thing is currently being attempted via septic tank inspections without cause- which will line the pockets of the septic tank companies thanks to the law. Guess who supports that law? The septic tank companies and those in government that overlook their oath to support and defend the Florida and US Constitutions. Who opposes it? The Tea Party people among many others.

I'm pleased to report I have not watched Fox News for over 2 years, so the brush was overly broad. I read and analyze laws based on the Constitution, chiefly Article 1 Section 8 and our beloved by some and much-ignored by Congress 10th Amendment.

Oh, and the solution? Life, LIBERTY, and the Pursuit of Happiness. As former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders once said, "You know, we'll all probably die of something someday." If one chooses to have health insurance, so be it. Ditto to do without if they cannot afford it. To mandate via Congress we as Americans purchase something continues the slippery slope of statism.

Tom Butler - Wed, 2012-06-13 15:47.

Paul, you make some good points. Certainly, government screws up a lot and the REAL ID is a good example. I am particularly struck by your "pursuit of happiness" points. Are you arguing that, because people are going to die of something at some time, we should not have health insurance or at least, insurance mandated by the government? I would offer a few examples of why I disagree. As a young man, I pursued happiness by driving way too fast. People in your profession, government sponsored police, pulled me over and ticketed me for the common good. Some folks want to pursue happiness by dropping out of school at a very young age and some want to pursue happiness by not paying taxes to support public schools. Society, through government, has decided that at least some education for all, paid for by the citizenry is in the public good and trumps individual "pursuit of happiness." All of society is benefited by an education population and harmed by an uneducated one. We mandate certain elements of insurance if we operate a vehicle because of the liability to others, even if it hampers the driver's happiness. Similarly, some people may pursue happiness by not buying health insurance. The problem is that we have to treat them and their little children when they get sick or injured. The further problem is that you and I, who have insurance, have to pay for them. Their "pursuit of happiness" costs the rest of us. My pursuit thereof is hampered every time I pay insurance premiums that cover people I don't even know. If there is another way to relieve the insured from the the costs of the uninsured other than requiring all to purchase have insurance, please propose it. Better yet, have your senator propose it.

Doug Watson - Wed, 2012-06-13 11:32.

Very funny article!! It was suppose to be funny wasn't?!



by Dr. Radut.