Tea Party also benefits from welfare state
Come November, many Tea Party-backed candidates will most likely be elected to congress. Of those candidates, 100 percent are Republicans. Their main platform tenants surround smaller government, fewer taxes and more fiscal responsibility—in short, no more freebies. However, there is an inherent hypocrisy that needs to be exposed. The Tea Party candidates, like Joe Miller of Alaska, intend to cut what they term “entitlement programs,” ridding the U.S. of any semblance of a welfare state. What I want to know is, how does one define an entitlement? Exactly what qualifies as welfare? Take Mr. Miller of Alaska for example. Does the fact that he received $7,000 in farm subsidies, a low-income hunting and fishing license, while his wife collected unemployment qualify as welfare?