In 1773, the British government adopted the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea to the colonies duty-free. The purpose was to give the East India Company a monopoly by enabling it to undercut the prices of the tea sold by colonial merchants.

On Dec. 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty, led by Samuel Adams, disguised themselves as American Indians, marched into Griffin's Wharf and boarded the Dartmouth, the Beaver and the Eleanor. Working through the night, they dumped 45 tons of tea worth more than an estimated $1.5 million (in 2009 currency) into Boston Harbor.

Today, as then, Americans' animosity toward the behavior of its government is running high. Republicans and Democrats in Washington are bent on plunging Americans deep into debt, endless deficits and intolerable taxation by lavishing irresponsible corporations with obscenely generous amounts of "bailout" and "stimulus" money.

Recently, CNBC's Rick Santelli -- a modern-day Sam Adams -- issued a clarion call for a "taxpayer tea party."

Citizens have and are answering his call. To date, two dozen tea parties have been held around the country.

Central Pennsylvania residents can make their voice heard at the Harrisburg Tea Party, which will be held from noon to 1 p.m. Saturday on the state Capitol steps (Third Street entrance). The event will be emceed by talk radio host R.J. Harris of WHP 580 AM. Bring your own tea and signs!

Are you making your voice heard?

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and chief executive officer of the Commonwealth Foundation. For more about Brouillette, click here.

Below are the populations at which we were effective in either a local volunteer or a greater amount of firms to set up a “tea party.” Note which there are a few protests in March and April, the we are planning in addition to our nationwide Tax Day Tea Party making intended for April 15th.

We pay literally the most, yet we get one of the worst products – we are at the bottom, or near the bottom in life expectancy, we have one of the highest infant mortality rates, and we don’t survive chronic diseases as successfully as other developed countries.

In my mind that’s a bad purchase, and it’s a ball and chain around businesses who pay the majority of these costs.

It’s time for a health care “Tea Party” and an overhaul of how we pay for it.

NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE -- WHO IS HE TO TAKE LAYERS AND LAYERS OF NEW TAXES FROM HARD WORKING AMERICANS?

It's one of the most widely promulgated myths, not only on Pennsylvania's campaign trail, but even in the public policy arena: Once upon a time, state government funded 50 percent of the cost of public K-12 education in the commonwealth.

Of course, it's understandable that so many people believe the myth when no less of a pol than Gov. Rendell -- not to mention the Public School Boards Association (ostensibly the authority on all matters related to public education in Pennsylvania) utters it as the Gospel.

The truth is this: The state share of public education has never been 50 percent. Until 1983, a law was in place compelling the state to fund 50 percent of public education costs. But, in reality, it never did. The reason? School districts continually increased their spending, making it mathematically and fiscally very difficult for the state to keep up with the 50 percent benchmark.

State funding has, in fact, increased steadily and generously in recent years. But the state's share measured as a percentage of overall education funding has slipped because of runaway spending at the local level. Under Rendell, state K-12 subsidies (excluding the gambling money for property tax relief) increased 33 percent through last year, but local revenues increased 45 percent. Since 1983, state spending has increased 286 percent (79 percent after adjusting for inflation), but has been surpassed by local spending, which increased by 347 percent (109 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars).

Setting a goal of 50 percent state funding without any controls on local spending growth is a perverse incentive. It encourages districts to dramatically increase spending to get even more from the state. If the state was to set a policy of paying half of poor peoples' rent, with no limitation on the size of the domicile, poor people would simply get much bigger apartments!
The only way to get to a state share of 50 percent of funding would be to limit local spending and taxes. We could achieve "funding equity" right now, if we cut local property taxes by 25 percent or so.

Do you think spending by school districts is out of control?

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and chief executive officer of the Commonwealth Foundation. For more about Brouillette, click here.

In the 1980s Americans were paranoid the Japanese would own America.

It was a sobering commentary to think our cars and steel could be made by a country we defeated in World War II. Somehow we managed a reversal of fortunes: Mickey Mouse and McDonald's rule Japan and Rockefeller Center speaks English.

By 2003, "Tokyo's main Nikkei stock index had lost almost three-quarters of its value. The country's public debt had grown to exceed its gross domestic product, and deflation stalked the land. In the end, real estate prices fell for 15 consecutive years."

Our national self-esteem was bubbling over with the collapse of the Soviet Union. We were the winners. Americans spent a decade basking in triumphalism and ignoring economic fundamentals. Millionaires lived on every corner, national debt was erased, and American computers were set to rule the world.

Now America appears to be bankrupt. Nothing seems to work. And bailouts have become a corporate right.

Can we escape our economic malaise by turning Japanese? Should we mimic the Japanese response to their "lost decade?"

The Japanese went down the bailout road, stimulated half-hearted measures, spread low-interest money around, and consumed nothing. Japan still is dependent on the outside world for economic oxygen.

"Only in 2003 did the [Japanese] government finally take the actions that helped lead to a recovery: forcing major banks to submit to merciless audits and declare bad debts; spending 2 trillion yen to effectively nationalize a major bank, wiping out its shareholders; and allowing weaker banks to fail."

America can learn from the Japanese, but we also must refrain from embracing magic bullets. The Japanese economy is still sick, a shadow of its former economic self, and its exports continue to plunge.

The Japanese savings culture is legendary and an important lesson for us. In 1982 Americans saved 10 cents for every dollar they earned. Today we spend $2 for every dollar we make thanks to credit cards and home equity loans.

We are in a consumer recession likely to last 24 months. The Japanese model proved you can't save your way to prosperity. Here's the rub: Yes, we're a consumer culture, but we need to consume within our means. We can't continue to view plastic as one of the main food groups.

We also need to create. We are an entrepreneurial society, and we need to find new ways to solve problems.

But we need to know the rules of engagement. Strong corporate governance, honest accounting and realistic return expectations must replace crony capitalism's old order where everything goes and nobody knows.

Doing nothing or assuming Uncle Sam will tuck you in at night are not viable options. For free enterprise to succeed, it has to have the opportunity to fail.

Eric Epstein is a watchdog and advocate for consumers, good government and safe energy. For more about Epstein, click here.

As for your specific gripes:

1. I believe the writer is referring to the referenced New Yorker article that explores this very notion. And I'm not sure your uncited dismissal is enough to close that door for good. While I don't have an MBA, I am pretty sure our current government with its debt to income ratio would HAVE to declare bankruptcy were it a normal-functioning business.

2. From the average American's standpoint, there have been no successful fixes. Of course, you could probably get into a debate here over whether it's unrealistic to expect one in the first place ...

3. While I can relate more closely than I would like to your statement that some companies are being allowed to fail, I think there is ample evidence that industry leaders in several fields (banking, automotive, insurance) have been given what appears to be unquestioned access to the right for government-assisted survival.

Anyway, sorry for the long post; I probably agree with you on more points than I disagree (I, too, am sick and tired of bashing the attempt to right our ship of state). But bashing those who examine it isn't any more productive. Then again, that's just my opinion ...

Let's start with this brilliant observation: "Now America appears to be bankrupt. Nothing seems to work. And bailouts have become a corporate right."

Flawed premise #1: America isn't bankrupt. Not even close.

Flawed premise #2: "Nothing seems to work." Nothing? Really? Ya sure?

"Flawed premise #3: "And bailouts have become a corporate right." A corporate RIGHT? What about all those corporations that have gone down the drain? Where were THEIR bailouts? Oh, that's right: there weren't any.

The foundation for a useful opinion piece should be a solid foundation of fact. Try it some time.

On July 4, the Pennsylvania General Assembly approved -- and Gov. Ed Rendell signed -- a $28.3 billion General Fund Budget. Since then, a $2.3 billion revenue shortfall has emerged and politicians are scrambling to fill the budget gap. The cause of this budget deficit should be obvious: Overspending by state government.

The state General Fund Budget comprises less than half of the $61.2 billion operating budget, and Pennsylvania local governments are spending nearly the equivalent of state government ($61 billion).

Here are some facts about the growth in government spending:

• Since 1970, Pennsylvania's operating budget has increased by 1,353 percent, from $4 billion to $61 billion in fiscal year 2008-09, an inflation-adjusted increase of over 167 percent.


• Since Rendell took office in 2003, the state General Fund Budget has increased 39 percent (18 percent after adjusting for inflation) -- more than twice the increase in the eight years of Govs. Ridge and Schweiker.


• Even after recent budget reductions, the 2008-09 budget still represents a 2.27 percent increase over FY 2007-08, and a 36.3 percent increase over FY 2002-03.


• Pennsylvania state and local government spending has doubled from slightly more than $4,400 per person ($6,800 in inflation-adjusted, 2008 dollars), in FY 1991-92 to almost $10,000 per person in FY 2008-09 (or from $18,000 to $40,000 per family of four).

Families are paying substantially more of their income to fund government:

• As a share of personal income, the state's operating budget rose from 8.8 percent in FY 1970-71 to an estimated 12.2 percent in FY 2008-09 -- an increase of more than 39 percent.


• Local government spending has mirrored the rise in state spending, increasing substantially faster than personal income. Almost one-fourth of Pennsylvanians' incomes goes to fund state and local government.


• Each 1 percent of state personal income represents $5 billion, or about $400 per capita ($1,600 per family of four). Had Pennsylvania state and local spending remained at a constant level of personal income since FY 1991-92, the average family of four would be paying $3,900 less for the cost of government.

For more facts about Pennsylvania's spending, visit PleaseNoMoreTaxes.org.

Do you think your state and local government are spending enough?

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and chief executive officer of the Commonwealth Foundation. For more about Brouillette, click here.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.