Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
Suppose that in a few elections the Tea Party becomes a prominent part of Congress, either as a wing of the Republican Party or as a totally separate party. Now in this hypothetical the TP is not the majority party, but again is prominent. And assume the debt level is at or near where it is today.

A bill is passed through Congress, by the other members, which creates or increasing spending to a program unpopular and generally the antithesis of TP philosophy. However a separate bill is presented which would increase taxes in general to every American to pay for the spending without increasing the deficit, but if the bill is not passed than the funding will come from borrowing which will increase the debt.

Of course this isn't a very detailed question however the idea is to see which option TPers would see as the lesser evil, increasing taxes or increasing the debt.
You probably should have added a 3rd option: decreased government spending.

Ideally, I believe, that would be how most TPers would want to cut the deficit without raising taxes. And to some degree, I agree with that - I'm all for finding effeciencies in government spending.

However, what the TPers, and the Republican Party that those getting elected will caucus with, don't do so well is list which cuts to government spending they propose.

Many of the Republican mainstayers advocate less government spending in all districts and states but their own. This is where we get to the problems non-conservatives have with "corporate welfare" that Republican politicians advocate through their handing out of government contracts to their corporate campaign contributers.

However, I don't think many TP candidates are mainstayers, or are preparing to be mainstayers. I have a feeling that many TP officials will shoot themselves in the foot by rejecting government spending even if it will help their constituents in the short term. For this, I applaud them, because I, like many others, are against wasteful government spending.

On the other hand, I, unlike most TPers, am not against productive government spending. Many TPers want to slash government spending on principle, but I support government spending, especially for long-term gain. I would especially prefer spending to rebuild our infrastructure, especially in rural and suburban areas to provide rail service as well as rebuilding roads to include walkways and bike paths.

So it will be interesting to see where the conviction of TPer candidates lay. Will they vote against government spending even in their own districts? Or will they cut spending even at the economic cost of their constiuents, and therefore imperil their re-election next campaign season?