Charges of racism in Tea Parties are hardly a new. Whenever the left doesn’t like something, they generally resort to name calling. Since alleging racism is only one step above the worst societal insult of all–being called a Nazi!–is it surprising that liberals have tried to brand the masses calling for fiscal restraint as bigoted rednecks?

I’ve been to Tea Parties in DC and my hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee. I’ve shared the freaks, and I’ve been upfront about some of the crazies that attend events (including this guy in Chattanooga), but I’ve honestly never encountered racism.

While racist people probably have attended a Tea Rally somewhere in the country, I’ve encountered thousands and thousands of people at these rallies. The most racist ones are the LaRouche supporters that cling like barnacles to any organized events. They happen to provide convenient cover for video cameras and clever editing. The overwhelming majority are too concerned about fiscal issues to give a damn about something like race.

Why then would the NAACP formalize a charge of racism towards Tea Parties?

Could they possibly want attention? Had the NAACP not made an issue of this, would anyone have noticed that they had their annual conference this week?

What news is going on right now? The BP leak, Old Spice guy, high unemployment, Bristol & Levi, FEC filings for the 2nd quarter, iPhone 4 issues, Lindsay Lohan…

In this environment, social issues struggle. While the abortion debate was renewed because of Obamacare, and the media’s obsession with Sarah Palin has reinvigorated feminism debates for the first time since the Reagan Administration, most social issues struggle during times of financial turbulence.

Unemployment is high, the housing market has crashed, the stock market fluctuating, and taxes are about to hit historically high increases. Frankly, debating social issues feel like a luxury. If we look at issues in the public debate, they match Maslow’s Pyramid. When you’re hungry and jobless, do you care about PETA? Folks who work in philanthropy for social causes only understand this too well.

How do social issue groups make money? Get in the news. How do you get in the news? Somehow peg your group to a current news story. What always makes the news? Charges of racism.

This was a win-win for the NAACP. They got everyone talking about them. Since being a liberal is more important than actually advancing the causes of your race or gender, they don’t care if they tick off Tea Party folks. The media, who are already biased against this grassroots movement since it interrupted Obama love, always enjoys controversy. The NAACP had more to lose by not taking this strategy and playing fair than striking out at Tea Parties.

Adrienne Ross wrote an excellent post about alleged racism and Tea Parties.

The notion that the Tea Party movement is racist is one that has no proof to support it. I have attended tea parties in both Wasilla, AK and Kingston, NY. (See pictures.) And from the Last Frontier to New York’s first capital, I can say that the participants treated one another like family. I was neither mistreated nor ignored. I was not made to feel I did not belong. There was not one racist sign. No one spit on me. No one called me the ‘N’ word. Rather, we had one purpose in mind: to boldly declare that we want to restore sanity to our nation. People protested President Obama’s policies, not because of his race, but because of the dangerous path on which he is steering America. I certainly didn’t attend these tea parties because I have a problem with our president being a black man. However, I was also not going to refrain from attending simply because I share the same skin color as our president. While this is what many on the Left expect of me, I am nobody’s puppet. I think for myself. And I refuse to reside on anyone’s plantation, including any political plantation.

Ross picks up on issues that I wrote about earlier this week. Any deviation from some liberal-approved path is wrong. Empowering individuals, regardless of sex, race, income level or religion, to make their up their own minds and creating a society that allows them to act on those opinions is apparently not the meaning of “equality.”

Anyone who has legitimately given the Tea Party movement a chance will agree with Ross’ assertion:

I wish the Left could just be honest: the Tea Party movement isn’t about race, and they ought to know it. It’s about America. It’s about doing what’s best for the future of a country God blessed us with. And if the President can’t handle the heat of being criticized, then he shouldn’t have signed up to take on an adult job when he only had a child’s experience. It’s that simple; I don’t care what color he is.

Right now, liberals can’t respond to the fiscal debate, so they change the topic. 18 months into Obama’s presidency, everything he touches fails miserably. The American people can only be viewed as an ATM for so long. Liberals know they’ll have to answer for this eventually, so they’re desperate to change the conversation. There’s no better issue than the one that has dogged our society for fifty years now.

As a woman, I get sick of how my uterus is constantly used to win political points with certain factions of our political system. Aren’t black people sick of that happening with their skin color? We won’t be able to enter our post-racial world until the Democrats stop crying wolf.

Racism is terrible, and it does exist. However, until there is solid, irrefutable evidence that racism does occur at Tea Parties, the NAACP and liberals do more harm to their cause. Every fake call of racism cheapens all attempts to repair race relations and call out bigotry. But then winning political points and losing the issue war is pretty much how all liberal causes operate.

Back in the 1980s, my elementary Weekly Reader predicted that “The Big One” earthquake would hit the Eastern US. Apparently, some major fault line is underneath the Mississippi River, and this spelled uncertain doom for half of the country. Perhaps it was the era of paranoia in America since it was the end of the Cold War, but I remember dilligently having earthquake drills in elementary school and being prepared for what to do in the event the armageddon quake happened.*

Earthquake Opportunity #1

An earthquake did happen. Back in 1988, a small tremor shook East Tennessee. My family was out of town. I came back to tales of my friends sharing how a few dishes had fallen off the wall or the deck shook. I was disappointed. I had nothing exciting to say at recess.

Earthquake Opportunity #2

Fast-forward to spring 2002. We had nearly two decades of tectonic peace. One morning my sophomore year in college, my phone rings and wakes me up early. In the immediate post-9/11 days, that was slightly scary. Every Fox News Alert caused a slight heart attack.

“Did you feel it?” My mom asks. She sounds excited. Something must be wrong.

“What?” I sleepily reply, looking at my alarm clock. It was 6:30 a.m.

“The earthquake!

“There was an earthquake?”

“Yes! How did you miss it? It shook the house.”

“No. I didn’t feel anything. I am on the 12th floor and sleeping on a loft. Is anything broken? Are the dogs ok?”

“The dogs? They’re fine. Nothing was damaged.”

“No national emergencies then?

“No. everything is fine. I was just curious if you felt it.”

“Ok. Bye. I’m going back to sleep now.”

Once again, I had missed an earthquake in East Tennessee. Those were the days prior to Facebook, so everyone broadcasted their relationship status, emotional states and drinking locations via IM away messages. That morning they all described their earthquake experiences. For the first time ever, I was disappointed that I was a heavy sleeper.

I had slept through my second opportunity to experience an earthquake.

Earthquake Opportunity #3

This morning, I was sitting down to eat my delightful bowl of Kashi Honey Sunshine and strawberries when I saw the news on Facebook that DC had experienced an earthquake. I immediately sent out a surprised tweet.

Once again, I missed an earthquake…

This time, I wasn’t alone. It seems that everyone else missed it. Kudos to FamousDC for their in-depth coverage of the devastation in the DC area.  I have faith that the community, which collectively whined together throughout Snowmaggedon, will somehow survive.

I don’t want to wish a devastating geological event on the DC area, especially after the horrors of Haiti. However, I keep sleeping through these things.

*We also had at least one nuclear fallout drill, which appeared to be the same as an earthquake drill: get under your desk and kneel on the ground to cover your head. I fail to see how covering your head with your arms protects you in a nuclear holocaust. Looking back, I think my principal was on the paranoid side.

Once again, a columnist at HuffPo proclaims that conservative women are not real women because none of the women she knows are…pro-life.

In Sarah Palin’s recent video, she talks about “a lot of women coming together to get things done for our country.” I also know a lot of women coming together and enacting change — but I don’t think we’re talking about the same group of women.

The women I know — Republicans, Democrats, and Green Party members — are fighters for women’s equality and defenders of reproductive health choices. They’re diverse, like our country. They believe in giving women freedom to make decisions about themselves and their family. They trust women.

Sam Bennett, who happens to be the executive director of the Women’s Campaign Forum, decided to issue her decree that conservative women aren’t real women. Now, if Ms. Bennett managed to know every. single. woman. in. the. world., her argument may have some legitimacy. Per her logic, all fans of football must love the Tennessee Vols because the football fans that I know are supporters of the Volunteers.

This is a tired argument. When will liberals get over it? You aren’t real or legitimate if you deviate from the prescribed position of your identity group. If you’re a conservative woman, you deviate from feminists and are some type of faux-woman. If you’re black and attend Tea Parties, you’re an Uncle Tom. As Michelle Malkin notes today, liberals are oddly obsessed with her race since she’s a conservative of Filipino descent. She doesn’t fit their existing frame of Asian women, so she must not be a real one.

Since their liberalness gives them supreme authority over the universe, we must adjust to fit their definitions of “right.”

Unfortunately, Ms. Bennett continues:

I would love to live in a world where all female politicians support these same values. However, given the recent rise of socially conservative and anti-choice women candidates such as Carly Fiorina, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin herself, we know this is not true.

When will feminists drop the ridiculous notion that women need to vote together as a single bloc because we all have ovaries? That’s a sexist and demeaning view. It expresses a belief that women aren’t complicated, intelligent or capable of making their own decisions. We need to overthrow the patriarchy and obey the whims of the matriarchy.

Honestly Ms. Bennett, get over yourself and realize that no one made you or your liberal elite feminist cronies the queen of all women. I’m sick of being told how to react to the media, politics or fashion through your jaded, bra-burning lenses. I’m sick of being told that abortion is the absolute end-all political issue because I happened to be born with a uterus. I’m sick of being told that because I’m socially and fiscally conservative, something is wrong with me. SHUT THE F*!&$ UP, AND STOP TELLING ME HOW TO ACT. I’M CONSERVATIVE AND PROUD OF IT. DEAL WITH IT.

Ironically, Ms. Bennett starts having issue with her own skewed version of logic.

Luckily, Palin’s band of ‘Mama Grizzlies’ is just a small faction of women. But you wouldn’t guess that based on her overly-generalized video or vague talk of women’s collaboration. And that’s why I want to be clear:

Although most, if not all, of Sarah’s followers are Republican, that doesn’t mean they speak for all GOP women.

I’d love to know how Ms. Bennett knows exactly what percentage of women in the GOP are “Mama Grizzlies.” As far as I know, no poll has asked this question. It’s a number I’m curious to discover, but no one will conclusively know until after the election in November.

Given polling, I’d say my estimates are more accurate than Ms. Bennett’s. A record number of GOP women are running. More Americans identify as conservative than any other ideology group, more Americans are pro-life (including younger generations), a near majority of Americans are opposed to Obamacare and the recent DOJ lawsuit against Arizona, about half of the country disapproves of Obama’s job performance, and a whopping 66% of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. I’d like to know what evidence she has to back up her claim.

Oh, it’s a nice little poll from her Women’s Campaign Forum, a “nonpartisan” group supporting women, which happens to link to only left-wing sites, and supports only liberal women (see a lot of political diversity on this list?). Her amazing statistic, upon which her entire column rests, is likely one of those generic polls that group three or four data points together in order to get a wow statistic that absolutely proves whatever policy point they’re trying to make.  What is her basis of logic for this data point? Per her HuffPo column:

In fact, since 81% of Americans believe that individuals, not politicians or the government, should have control over their own important life decisions, Palin’s staunchly anti-choice beliefs are in direct contradiction of the majority of not just her party, but everyone.

81% of anything, particularly all Americans, should be suspect. What exactly is the question? Only the highlighted finding is published.

A large majority (81%) believe that regarding these important life decisions, individuals, not politicians or the government, should decide which option is best for themselves and their families, according to their own circumstances and values.

I apologize for my language today, but what the hell does that mean? What are important life decisions? That’s a pointedly leading question. When you drill down, that quote doesn’t necessarily just reflect abortion issues, but contraception and sex education. Those are complicated issues, and ones that reflect a myriad of views even among conservative, pro-life communities. For example, I’m staunchly pro-life, but I have no issue with the use of contraception. The two issues can’t be lumped together.

The question originated in a Harris Interactive poll from 2006. Hmmm….what year is it? Who was president in 2006? What was the rate of unemployment in 2006? Furthermore, that exact question is not mentioned anywhere in their limited findings, which backs up my assumption. It’s a nice little statistic designed to be a pull quote in marketing materials but is statistically inaccurate. Also, current polling data conflicts with yours.

The time frame on the poll is also questionable.

While it generally takes a bit of time for organizations to release polls, it never takes…four years.

What happened here?

It looks like–in an effort to be relevant given the success of the Mama Grizzly speech–that the WCF dusted off an old poll and tried to make it appear current.

Even if this poll did not ask leading questions, which by all accounts it does, the world is a radically different place in 2010 than 2006. In 2006 most people thought Hillary Clinton would currently be president or lose to a Republican in 2008. Not many people anticipated the housing bubble bursting or the failure of Lehman Brothers. Even fewer people had heard of Sarah Palin, who was just beginning to serve as governor in Alaska. Polling data relating to women’s issues can’t be translated over the course of the last four years. Too much has changed.

Ms. Bennett, next time you decide to write a little op-ed, perhaps you should realize that women should be free to decide political views for themselves–whether they are liberal or conservative. You may run a nice little liberal group, safe in your left-wing enclave of feminist sisters, but America is far more politically diverse than you’re willing to admit.

You may also want to find a more current poll next time, too.

Fifty years ago today, the Etch a Sketch was invented. This wasn’t my favorite toy when I was a child, but recently I visited The Children’s Museum in Indianapolis where they had an Etch a Sketch exhibit.

They had a giant Etch a Sketch that was pretty cool. It took two people to turn it over.

They also had reproductions of the artwork featured here. Those impress me. I never figured out how sketch more than random lines that intersected with other…lines. With my luck, I’d finally figure out how to create something awesome and then drop it.

The Indy Children’s Museum was very awesome (lots of photos on my Flickr stream). My first professional job was at a children’s museum, so they have a special place in my heart.

Oddly enough, National Review Online reminded me of this historic occasion. NRO, now covering politics, culture and celebrations of classic toys? I’m not going to complain. I look forward to their perspectives on Lite Brites and Glo Worms.

Between the topics I write about and the artwork on this blog, it should come as no surprise that Mad Men is one of my favorite shows. While the show is based on extreme stereotypes, especially Betty Draper’s character, I love the styling, costumes, and of course, Jon Hamm.

Imagine my glee when AMC released upcoming promotional shots for season 4, which begins July 25. I adore the dresses on Joan and Betty. Both could easily be worn to a cocktail party now.

While the 60s are enjoying a resurgence, this has always been one of my favorite style periods, especially the late 50s/early 60s. I love the silhouettes. Even my apartment is furnished with vintage items from the 1940s to early 60s.

Check out this video from costume designer, Janie Bryant. Many of the clothes she highlights could be worn today. In fact, I have dresses similar to the blue Joan dress and the lavender dress Bryant designed for Betty, and I’ve always wanted a toggle coat like Peggy’s. These aren’t vintage pieces. I have a couple of Calvin Klein outfits that are similar cuts to the Joan dress. The styles that start emerging around this period are very timeless.

Bryant has a book coming out this fall on style, which I’m psyched about. (ahem, birthday present…)

Until then, I’ll have to make a few stops by Banana Republic.

Hate mail is an intriguing concept. Our society is growing more and more hateful because we can send horrible messages without suffering the consequences of ever facing that person. I’ve written about hate mail before, and I’m currently working on another project that is the target of a lot of hate mail.

Michelle Malkin’s post on hate mail amused me yesterday. Hate mail laws must be universal.

I’ve said before that the right and left have crazy fringes that send hate mail, and I still believe that. As I told someone on Twitter last week, I’m desensitized to being called a Nazi/Brownshirt/fascist, but it should be noted that it isn’t a very accurate slur. The Nazis were the socialist party in Germany. Plus, there’s a 90% chance you won’t spell “fascist” right.

I fail to understand what motivates someone to send a profanity-laced email. Is that person angry? Can they not process their emotions? Don’t they realize that someone is going to be reading that email, and that someone is rarely the intended recipient? I’m starting to believe that folks who send profane emails are one step above Darwin Award winners. If you can’t deal with your emotions with a complete stranger, I can only imagine how horrible you are in real life.

The notes that bother me are the ones that wish violence or rape upon myself or family members. Malkin highlights the email that wishes her family would die in a car wreck. How can you hate someone that much? I immensely dislike the Climate Change Sex Poodle and Nancy Pelosi, but I would never wish them dead or their families dead. Someone on this planet has to love them. Why do some people struggle to grasp that concept?

Based on Malkin’s post and recent hate mail experiences I’ve had, if you must send someone an angry email, follow these rules:

1. Don’t send it from your work address.

It is way too easy to track you down. Plus, in the event of Malkin, your email may be published. If you’re the kind of trashy person who sends hateful email, I believe your name should be spread all over the web. I’m sometimes tempting to look up the company and forward that hate mail to the writer’s supervisor. I haven’t done it, but I’ve wanted to… Technically, anything that goes through the server of your company is their property, and writing hate mail from a professional account is likely a violation of a workplace policy.

2. Don’t include your name, address and phone number in the footer.

I can’t begin to recount how many hateful messages have included where he or she lives (or ironically a quote from the Dalai Lama.) If you send a threatening note, be aware that your address makes it that much easier for me to file a complaint with the police.

3. Use correct spelling.

Sad, but many people don’t understand this fundamental concept.

4. Understand that there are words in the English language that extend beyond profanity.

I’ve actually written someone back a note for sending a thoughtful attack email. This person took the time to articulate exactly why he or she didn’t like the project. You’ll get further with thoughtful debate than four-letter words.

5. Stop calling women derogatory slurs.

It seems like liberals, especially liberal women, would be the last ones to use words like c–t, yet most conservative females have been called that. What does it accomplish? It just shows that you are tacky and hypocritical.

If Frank Luntz has taught us anything, how you phrase an argument is more important than the actual argument.

“Global warming” is now “climate change.” The “estate tax” is now the “death tax.” Think of popular buzzwords today: sustainable, social justice, rights, etc. All of these are now politically charged words.

Those changes make policy arguments more palatable to average voters, and therefore more acceptable. You should always beware a liberal complaining about the semantics of a political issue. It plays into the larger strategy of some sweeping social change to be unleased on America.

Yesterday, Miriam at Feministing threw a little hissy at the Associated Press’ use of “illegal immigrant.” While her post is laughable (a person with an anthropology degree is telling professional journalists how to write?), it shows the level of detail to which liberals will take their fight.

Miriam is upset that the Associated Press Stylebook* instructs journalists and writers to use “illegal immigrant” over the more-PC “undocumented worker.” She whines:

Screw you AP Style Book.

The AP Style Book is a resource for journalists on language, spelling, pronunciation and proper word usage. I’m not clear how the AP Style Book makes decisions, but it is widely regarded and highly used by journalists.

This explains why most of the mainstream media still uses the term “illegal immigrant.” I find the term offensive and disrespectful, as do most immigration activists. People are not illegal, actions are. The advocate community uses the term “undocumented immigrant” which the Stylebook clearly disagrees with.

Thankfully, they don’t advocate using the term “alien.” But illegal needs to go.

If you want to contact the AP Style Book and lobby them to use “undocumented immigrant” you can email them here: info@apbookstore.com.

This may seem like a silly battle, especially since her argument hinges on personal offense, but phrasing is critical to winning policy battles. One of my graduate school professors proudly explained how she changed the word “terrorists” to “freedom fighters” when working as a copyeditor in the 70s. There’s quite a difference of perspective between freedom fighters and terrorists. (She also brought a union organizer who was a former aid to Cynthia McKinney to class, but that’s another story.)

The left needs to re-frame the immigration debate in order to win. As long as persons who enter the country without permission are known as “illegal immigrants” it reminds voters that they broke the law. Those individuals are starting their American existence as criminals. Liberals want to hide that fact. They want you to feel guilty for your hard work and success and spread your wealth around to “underserved” or “at-risk” “undocumented workers” because it’s just not fair!

Most liberal policy arguments are built on sob stories. How can they evoke sympathy for someone when the proper term reminds you of their criminal activity. Thus, the bland “undocumented worker, which emphasizes “worker,” as in person earning their own living. It’s part of our American pathos to side with the underdog.  “Undocumented” just makes them appear to lack a passport. The term is far more palatable and easier to sell voters on the need for immigration reform that includes amnesty.

Newsflash to Miriam: People can be illegal. The term “illegal immigrant” references their status in this country. If they moved from another country to America, they are immigrants. If they entered this country without permission, that makes them and their actions illegal. Also, it’s Stylebook not Style Book.

It is absolutely critical to the immigration debate that we win this battle over semantics.

*For those outside of writing worlds, the AP Stylebook is the bible of the media. My beloved 2002 edition has literally been bled over from my J-school days. It started out a few pages of guidelines to standardize the newspaper world and is now the voice of authority for the industry. Individual newspapers and outlets can maintain their own style guidelines (such as using Mr. Smith vs. Smith) but the Stylebook is the national standard.

Chattanoogans, particularly folks in Hixson or Middle Valley, have any of you lost a little black dog, know of someone who is missing a dog or have seen a lost dog flier?

This weekend, my parents found this cutie off of Boyscout Road in the Hixson/Middle Valley part of Hamilton County. She was sitting in their front yard when they returned from a Fourth of July barbecue.*

She’s black with brown paws and had a red collar with no tags. She wasn’t micro-chipped. She’s about six pounds and appears to be a Chihuahua mix. My parents describe her as older because her muzzle is so gray. She is also gentle but has plenty of energy.

She’s housebroken and very sweet. She was starving and her ribs were showing when she found my parents. She’s mostly slept the past few days and cowers like she was possibly mistreated by someone.

The dog, which my folks refer to as Little Black Dog or Small Emergency Backup Dog after the legendary Dave Barry column, is a digger. She dug a hole in my parents backyard, escaped and then went to the front door to be let back in.

While my parents wouldn’t mind another dog, Sunny, the Irish Setter/Golden Retriever they adopted from a shelter back in November, isn’t too keen on having a sibling. She occasionally growls at the little dog, and my parents are hesitant to leave them alone together.

Please email me at cosmoconblog@gmail.com if you’ve heard about anyone looking for a dog that matches this description in the Chattanooga area. I’d love to see this elderly pup reunited with her family.

*Can animals sense houses belonging to pet lovers? This is the second time my parents were adopted by an animal. When I was in elementary school, a mama cat adopted my family after watching us for a couple of days. At the time we had two cats and a dog. One evening in the pouring down rain, we heard a cat meowing outside. When we investigated, we found a kitten. This happened three more times until the Mom Cat came in the garage and settled down. When the kittens were old enough, we found homes for them, and Mom Cat disappeared. Perhaps my parents have “sucker” written on their house in some code only animals understand.

In other terrible news facing America, the disaster in the Gulf isn’t getting any better. While Obama and his minions have been a little too “hands-on” with the economy, many have complained that the President has barely acknowledged the oil spill.

This video from RightChange.com highlights the timeline of response from the Obama Administration.

Oil Spill Timeline from RightChange on Vimeo.

It would be nice to pretend that we have an experienced leader in the White House, but do we really want Obama interfering? He could have acted pro-actively, such as lifting the Jones Act and accepting international aid far earlier, but do we want more? His idea of action would be to nationalize all oil companies.

Every time Obama gets involved with something, it gets worse. While the economy is the biggest example, consider his involvement with elections. No candidate that the President has campaigned for has won. That’s bad for a President who once enjoyed 70+ approval ratings, especially when stumping for fellow Democrats.

Look at other situations where Obama has gotten involved: Beer Summit, college football playoffs, and the Toyota recall. Things get worse when the President steps in with this administration.

While the White House needs to stop pretending that they’re on a West Wing episode and actually start leading, perhaps it is best that Obama keeps playing golf. Nashville seems to be recovering, and he never even acknowledged the disastrous flooding there.

Face it folks, we’re never going to get presidential reassurance from Obama. He’s not capable of giving an FDR-esque speech about fear in the face of an economic depression or soothe the nation like Reagan did after the Challenger explosion. In his 18-month tenure, he’s proven to be incapable of anything but a stump speech. Let’s stop complaining about his lack of emotion and be thankful that he isn’t more involved. At that point, get ready for your doomsday scenarios.

Growing up, my parents told me awful stories about the economy in the early 1980s. My dad was finishing graduate school and worked part-time at a grocery store. Inflation was out-of-control, and he spent his days constantly re-pricing items. (This was long before scanners.)

When I struggled to find a job after I graduated from college in 2004 because the economy was in a slump, I put it in the perspective of what my parents had experienced. The economy was growing, and people were hiring.

Going forward, I think the present economic situation may dwarf all previous stories and experience. Check out this graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Americans seeking employment for 27+ weeks.

If government spending was going to fuel economic recovery, we should be seeing it…now…at the very latest. Instead, government interference has prolonged this nightmare. Keep in mind, we don’t know if the housing market has hit bottom yet. Oh yeah, the biggest tax hike in history is about to hit in six months.

Read this if you want some more sobering news.

Update: Apparently, I’m not alone in seeing government as the problem not the solution. Per CNS, Rasmussen released a poll that found:

Less than a third, 29 percent, believe the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus package, improved the economy. Meanwhile, 43 percent believe it hurt the economy.

What’s more absurd? Americans believe that tax cuts create more jobs than government spending. Shocking!

In what Republican lawmakers would likely consider good news, 69 percent in the Rasmussen poll believe tax cuts are a better way to create jobs than more government spending.