President Obama was being very kind when asked about the Tea Party on the 'Today' show. Treading carefully, as he should, Obama acknowledged that the group accused him, the leader of the most capitalist country in the world, of being a socialist (like that's a dirty word). They also carried on with the silly question of whether he was an American citizen. Obama said the group was "on the fringe" but stopped short of dismissing them outright.

"I wouldn't paint in broad brush and say that everybody who is involved or have gone to a tea party rally or meeting are somehow on the fringe," Obama said. "I think that there's a broader circle around that core group of people who are legitimately concerned about the deficit, who are legitimately concerned that the federal government may be taking on too much."

Very good, Mr. President. Stick to your talking points. But since he can't say what he's really thinking, I will.



The Tea Party is a fake movement drummed up by conservative Republicans. It's filled with people who criticize government spending while at the same time benefiting from said spending. There is also a hint of racism in some of this group's comments about government spending and intervention.

First, it's interesting that the Tea Party is largely financed by conservative Republican groups, such as FreedomWorks, which was founded by Dick Armey, former Republican House majority leader. If the Tea Party believes that both Republicans and Democrats have overstepped the boundaries of what government should be doing, then they wouldn't be associated with either group.

I think it would be a good idea and exciting to see another legitimate independent party develop to challenge both Democrats and Republicans. The two-party system does not provide enough choice, and both parties sometimes seem too influenced by special interest groups. The Tea Party movement, however, seems like an effort by conservative Republicans to criticize Democrats on government spending. As the Tea Party pulls Republicans to the edge, though, that strategy may backfire.

Second, a recent New York Times article pointed out the hypocrisy of those in this movement. While many criticize government spending and the stimulus, they partake of the extended unemployment benefits available because of the stimulus and government spending.

Check out Tom Grimes, a self-described Tea Party activist from South Bend, Ind. He joined the Tea Party after losing his job as a financial consultant 15 months ago. He now rallies against government spending.

"If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own," Grimes told the New York Times.

The irony? Grimes collects Social Security. In fact, the Times article says, many of the Tea Partiers have been affected by economic distress and collect unemployment benefits.

How can you call for less government involvement yet collect government money? Maybe Grimes should figure out how to do it on his own. The point of programs like unemployment or social security is supposed to be one American helping out the next. I pay in to the system so that if I'm in need, I can partake. Social Security has pulled many of our elderly out of poverty. Unemployment helps people stay afloat until they can find another job.

Finally, it's no coincidence that all of this Tea Party stuff started after we elected our first black president. Obama, through health care reform and financial regulation proposals, is attacking wealth inequality in this country. For some people, that means taking away their money to give it to poor, lazy people who don't work as hard as they do. In reality, some of these reforms may help people be treated more fairly by corporate America and not make the government a co-conspirator in some of the ways corporations take advantage of regular Americans.

I wish the Tea Party would look at the real cause of their problems. There is nothing wrong with holding government responsible, but let's not fall in to lies, fear mongering and hypocrisy.