Originally published on Forbes.com.
TPP, Inc is not exactly a model of transparency. Most not-for-profits make their 990 available on-line through guidestar.org. TPP, Inc does not. They sent me a copy when I asked, which I have to admit is reasonably transparent. I’ve asked them if I can reproduce a couple of pages as part of a post. They are going to be getting back to me. According to the 990, they don’t make governing documents, conflict of interest policy or financial statements available to the public. I wonder how they reconcile that with the statement on their website that:
Tea Party Patriots is a national grassroots organization that exists to serve and support the thousands of local organizations and millions of grassroots Patriots throughout our nation.
Tea Party Patriots is 100% grassroots, 100% of the time.
At any rate what I find really interesting is the mission statement that starts on Page 2 of the 990:
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. These core values are derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist Papers Really ?
If that is the mission of TPP, Inc, you would think that there would be links on their website to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. That might be a little confusing to people, because of what the Federalist Papers said about the Bill of Rights:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.
That’s right. The Federalist Papers say the Bill of Rights was a bad idea. The Bill got added on anyway, because those were guys that were concerned about governing, which meant they had to make compromises including a couple of ugly ones, that would create a lot of trouble down the road.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person..
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Of course when slaves states got their own constitution , they were not so namby-pamby about it
No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
That was down the road, but when I read the Federalist Papers, I mainly see an argument for having a strong federal government that can collect taxes. Unlike the speakers at the Tea Party rally, the authors of the Federalist Papers did not have that high an opinion of “the people”
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
They did not argue that small was better. They thought that democracies that were too small had not done so well.
I’m not saying that Tea Party advocates won’t find things in the Federalist Papers to like:
The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.
The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
Overall, though, there is a lot about having a robust federal government. If there is one thing that the Federalist Papers are not that would be an anti-tax jeremiad
A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events.
As far, as the balance between state and federal responsibilities go, we get this.
The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
That is probably one of the key questions. What are the “great and aggregate” interests and what are the “local and particular” ?
TPP, Inc. implies that the Founders had it all figured out and we just have to look back at what they wrote for the answers. Actually reading the Federalist Papers, I think will give you a difference answer.
What Would Hamilton And Madison Say About Obamacare ?
TPP, Inc would have you think that the response would be that Obamacare is an abomination of the sacred eternal principles that they worked out for us. I think if you read the Papers, you might conclude that there would be a different sort of answer. I don’t know what that answer would be, but I am pretty sure that they would have an argument that considered much that has happened since the last time they checked on the country they helped start.
They would probably examine the systems of other countries. They would look at the current position of the United States as the predominant military power in the world, rather than an odd experiment in democrat republicanism hanging on by the skin of its teeth. Like, I said I don’t know what their answer would be, but whatever it is it would take into account that goods and people now can move thousands of miles in a day rather than scores and information moves close to the speed of light. Maybe I’m wrong. Go ahead and read the Federalist Papers yourself.
You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.