On April 15^th, protesters will gather around the country for TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties. These cleverly named rallies are meant to send a message to President Obama that his stimulus package is not appreciated by all. While I am always pleased to hear of the engagement of citizens in political affairs, the irony of this particular situation is almost comical.

The gist of the TEA partiers woes is what they fear is the impending socialization of our nation’s banking system. As one protest poster reads: Revolt Against Socialism. I will refrain from wondering here why socialism is such a bad thing (after all, the free health care and college education that Western Europe has looks pretty nice from where I’m sitting…) because hatred of socialism is of course a calling card of the Republican Party. And to be fair, the government’s response to the economic crisis is certainly a Republican’s nightmare. With bailouts placing the government as a primary shareholder in many of the nation’s largest industries, it’s easy to see how terrifying this looks to a right-winger.

But what flabbergasts me about these protests is the complete lack of responsibility Republicans are accepting for the crisis in the first place. They should be wandering sheepishly around Washington with their tails between their legs, begging to be given another chance, not organizing large scale protests around the country. It was precisely the extremist ideas of some Republicans which brought us to this mess in the first place.

Of course, we could have had a Republican president to get us out of this mess. That Republican ideas got us here is with little doubt, and that a Democrat is attempting to get us out is the reality, but what if we had a Republican president attempting to get us going again? I have to say, I am at a complete loss wondering what they would have us do instead. After all, the government isn’t bailing out the auto industry or mortgage brokers or banks for giggles and grins. They are doing it because the economy cannot get moving again without these industries recovering. If they were to just let the housing market flounder and writhe in a prolonged death, or the domestic auto industry decay into obsolescence, the effect on the economy would be devastating—possibly irreversible.

Many of the alternative solutions proposed by protesters are actually not bad. Yes, some are horrifically, terribly, dreadfully awful, such as expanding the search for American oil (what part of “The Oil Will Run Out” do you not understand??) but others are worth considering. For example, I would think homeowner’s assistance is something everyone can get behind. The economy cannot recover without a functioning housing market and tax credits to home buyers is a great way to get things moving again. But Congress already approved at $15,000 tax credit to home buyers. Are protesters asking that a larger tax credit be given, or are they just not aware that there already is one?

I also delight in the sweeping naiveté which must have been required for them to come up with the goal of “eliminating Congressional earmarks and wasteful pork-barrel spending.” Well sure, that sounds like a great idea, right up there with getting politicians to actually achieve everything they say they will in their campaigns. While they have been splashed across the headlines throughout this crisis, earmarks and pork-barreling are nothing new to this or any economic climate.

For those not familiar with the lingo, earmarks are special spending items that members of Congress request, regardless of the benefit of those items to the country at large. Sound like a bad idea? Darn right it does. But eliminating this practice would require the dethroning of one of the most powerful pieces of the governmental machinery: lobbyists. Lobbyists wage a huge amount of influence over government affairs (see: unquestioning support for Israel) and elected officials who attempt to rise above do so at their peril. Because lobbyists have the power to give officials what they need most. Think about it: officials need votes to get and keep their jobs. So if a lobby threatens to remove their support if they don’t get 100,000 bucks to build some ice rinks, you fork over the cash. Because really, in a multi-million dollar budget, who is going to miss 100 grand? But the problem is these earmarks add up fast.

The other problem is, in times like this, every penny counts. Am I thrilled that my tax dollars are going to hockey enthusiasts in Toledo? Not particularly—but I’m also not thrilled they’re going to Iraq to help kill people, and I’d like to think I can keep my priorities straight. Still, I agree that earmarks are a pestilence in our budget, and in a perfect world we could be rid of them. And that’s not to say that people aren’t trying. Heck, George W. Bush tried, or at least gave a nod to the effort every now and again. Maybe I’m too cynical, and maybe we can be rid of them, but I think anyone who considers these a primary financial concern on par with energy spending and a health care plan is a bit out of touch with reality.

The same could be said about pork barrel spending. A mainstay in the United States government since the Bonus Bill of 1817, pork barrel spending is much like earmarks except it is the result of a more direct relationship between representatives and constituents, instead of representatives and lobbyists. Funding is given to localized projects in an official’s district, and in return the citizens of that district continue to support that official. From this text book definition, it actually seems like, well, isn’t that kind of the idea? An official is elected to represent the best interests of its constituency, so wouldn’t that include securing funding for projects which would improve the lives of voters? But again, the conceptual notion and the reality are somewhat removed. Especially in a time of national (and international) turmoil, the federal government really doesn’t have the money to indulge in the pet projects of specific representatives, even if they are well-meant and possibly helpful to the beneficiaries.

Will President Obama’s stimulus package work? Only time will tell. It certainly is a shame that we are shouldering more and more debt that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren. But ignoring the ideas that got us here and suggesting we attempt to solve the problem with those very same ideas is preposterous and stupid. After all, the only bad mistakes in life are the ones you make twice.