BY MARK SCHUMANN

Someone suggested to me recently that I need a reality check on the local Tea Party.  When I asked my friend what she meant by a “reality check,” she explained that it is inaccurate to assume the local Tea Party embraces the same extremist views attributed to the Tea Party in the national news media.

“What exactly does the local Tea Party stand for,” I asked.

“Limited government and fiscal responsibility,” my friend replied.

“What is your idea of limited government?” I asked, at which point my friend’s answers became less precise.

Who in their right mind would advocate for a bloated, inefficient, wasteful government intruding in every corner of our lives?  And who would argue that we want a government that squanders valuable and limited resources?

When I asked my friend if she would be more specific about how to “limit” government, I genuinely wanted to know what she would like to see less of in the way of local government services.  To simply argue for less government, without being specific, is to fail to say anything meaningful.

I get it that there is a difference between the so-called blue collar Tea Party crowd, with their more general and understandable frustrations over government’s inability to arrest the downward spiral of America’s middle class, as compared to the white collar Tea Party contingent, which clearly has an agenda that does envision a role for government in restoring prosperity for the masses of American who are slipping closer and closer to the poverty line.

Is the Tea Party looking for government to retreat from efforts to guard against irresponsible and dangerous speculation by Wall Street bankers?  Would they propose to eliminate the agencies that, by enforcing environmental legislations, have cleared the nation’s air of lead and purged its waterways of poisonous chemicals?

Would an unchecked and unregulated free market have brought an end to slavery, preserved the Union, ended segregation or curbed voting rights abuses?

The 2008 economic meltdown was the direct result of lax enforcement of existing regulations, as was the Gulf oil spill.  Clearly there is a role for government in curbing abuses that are otherwise inevitable in an unfettered free market system.

Locally, we can debate whether Vero Beach, or any municipality should be in the business of generating, distributing and selling electricity, or providing water and sewer service, or offering garbage collection, but the fact remains that many cities – with their eyes wide open – choose to continue in the utility business.  There is no right or wrong answer, and every community has a right to choose for itself.

Whether Vero Beach should turn its water and sewer system over to the county, which by the way is itself a government, there is simply no denying the fact that without the city’s investment in utility infrastructure, the barrier island and much of Indian River County would, for better or worse, be nowhere near as developed as it is today.

The farther up the economic ladder one is, the more tempted they are to argue for “limited” government.  After all, if you have your own pool, or are a member of a private club, who needs a public pool?  If you live in a gated community, with your own security guards, it’s easier to argue for shrinking the police force and eliminating crime watch programs.  With a membership in a private beach club, who needs public life guards?

If you are someone who is already receiving monthly pension checks from a generous defined benefits plan, then it is a lot easier to suggest the time has come to shift the investment risk to employees by switching to a defined contribution plan.

If by “limited” government, the local Tea Party is calling for the targeted elimination of only those government services the well-to-do make little use of, then let’s call their agenda what it is, an assault on the middle class.

When I hear City Councilwoman Pilar Turner cite benchmarking statistics out of context, so as to create the false impression that Vero Beach’s city government is grossly overstaffed, I wonder if her real agenda isn’t to work for the eventual disincorporation of the city.

By “limited” government, is the local Tea Party arguing that city and county government are redundant.  If by “limited” government, the Tea Party is calling for consolidated local government, then let’s call their agenda what it is, an assault on the city.

We invite the local Tea Party to more clearly define in this publication specifically what it means by limited government so we all understand precisely what local government and/or government services is proposes be reduced or eliminated.