Tea Party Tory

Before the Tea Party philosophy is ever even tested
in America, it will have succeeded, or it will have
failed, in Great Britain.

For in

David Cameron the Brits have a prime minister who
can fairly be described as a Tea Party Tory. Casting
aside the guidance of
Lord Keynes— government-induced deficits are the
right remedy for recessions— Cameron has bet his own and
his party`s future on the new austerity. He is making
Maggie Thatcher look like Tip O`Neill.

Two headlines Thursday testify that
the Tories have seized the

Tea Party banner. First was the headline in
The Washington
Times,
"Tea Party Urges
Drastic Cutting," that carried a caveat subhead,
"Economists Question If Move Is Wise at This Time."

Second was the
Financial Times
banner,

"UK Unveils
Dramatic Austerity Measures." The
FT story
begins,

"The U.K.`s
conservative-led
coalition
has announced the most drastic budget cuts in living
memory. …

"The sweeping cuts in entitlements and spending far exceed anything
contemplated in the U.S., where Barack Obama … has
proposed only a three-year freeze on discretionary
spending and Congress is still debating whether to
extend tax cuts for the wealthy."

The Tory budget cuts defense 8
percent and military personnel by 7,000. Translated
here, that would mean a cut of $60 billion and about
100,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

By 2015, some 490,000 public-sector
employees, 8 percent of the total, will lose their jobs.
The rest will have their wages frozen for two years and
face a 3-percent-of-salary hike in compulsory
contributions to their pension program. The retirement
age will rise from 65 to 66.

France is in the 10th day of
demonstrations, strikes and riots over

President Sarkozy`s plan

to raise the retirement age to 62.

If Cameron`s plans take effect and
his projections prove correct, Britain`s deficit will
fall from 10 percent of gross domestic product to 2
percent.

Writes the FT,
"The UK cuts …
over four years are the equivalent of 4.5 percent of
projected 2014-2015 gross domestic product. Similar cuts
in the U.S. would require a cut in public spending of
about $650 billion."

Nothing like that is being
discussed here, and even if Republicans capture the
House, cuts of that magnitude appear out of the
question. The correlation of forces would not permit it.

Consider what seems the best
possible outcome, Nov. 2, for the Tea Party. Republicans
capture the House by winning 50 seats and come within a
vote or two of capturing the Senate.

Should that happen, Democrats,
shorn of their centrist wing in the massacre, will be in
no mood to cooperate in cutting Social Security,
Medicare, Medicare, unemployment insurance,

food stamps or the

earned income tax credit, the party`s legacy to the
nation.

They will vote against serious cuts
with as great a unanimity as Republicans voted against
Obamacare. And if the GOP House votes the cuts, Senate
Democrats will restore them. And if President Obama
thinks they are too severe, he will veto the budget, his
veto will stand, and he will run against
"Boehner`s House"
in 2012.

And Obama would do so with
conviction. For neither he nor Fed chair

Ben Bernanke agree with Cameron that

Carthusian austerity is the way to go. They are
Keynesians who think that is

Hooverism.

Both believe the $1.4 and $1.3
trillion deficits they just ran up prevented the Great
Recession from becoming a Great Depression.

Recall. Obama

endorsed George W. Bush`s TARP bailout of the banks.
He enacted a

$789 billion stimulus bill, pushing the deficit to
10 percent of GDP. Bernanke doubled the money supply. He
has now embraced

"quantitative easing." He is going to print billions to buy
bonds and inject the money directly into the economy.

Quantitative easing is another

bailout of the banks, only this time through the Fed
back door.

Hence, the Tea Party faces almost
certain disappointment, if not disillusionment.

Why? Because many in

the Republican establishment also do not believe
austerity is the way to go in a recession. Second, while
most Republicans may favor deep cuts, they know that if
they vote to cut

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment
insurance, but do not get those cuts, they will get the
pain but not the benefit and be held accountable, just
as Democrats were held accountable for cap-and-trade,
which they voted for but did not get through the Senate.

Republicans will come out of this
election with
a tricky hand to play. They will have the appearance
of power, but not the actuality. They will vote for cuts
that will not be agreed to by the Senate or accepted by
the president.

If the economy is in the ditch in
2012, they will seem ineffectual. If the economy is
improving,

Obama and Bernanke will claim credit.

By then, however, we will know the
fate of the Tea Party Tory who will at least have seen
his policy prescriptions put to the test.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Patrick J. Buchanan
needs

no introduction to
VDARE.COM readers; his book State
of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and
Conquest of America, can
be ordered from Amazon.com. His latest book
is Churchill,
Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How
Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost
the World,
reviewed

here by

Paul Craig Roberts.