These folks are really, really dangerous.

I think that you are confused. All spending needs to be earmarked so that Congress, which is responsible for it, knows where every penny goes. The idea to suggest that spending decisions made by unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington is preferable does not pass the smell test. What the US needs is a much smaller government that does not have the ability to tax and spend as much as it currently does.

IMO the problem was that most of the colonists had long before severed ties from Britain or had never formed them. They were thought of themselves as citizens of a colony. Virginians, etc.

In New England the problem was religion. Pilgrims and various other protestants and were not about to fall under the official Church Of England again. The area had been ruling itself for about a hundred years with virtually no supervision from Britain. Nominally they were British colonies. In reality they were not British people.

New York and New Jersey were founded by the Dutch and taken by force by the British. A good portion of the population there had no love for or historic connection with Britain.

Pennsylvania had many Germans with no natural attachment to Britain. And the Quakers dissented from the Church Of England. That is exactly why they were in Pennsylvania to begin with.

Georgia was started by British Catholics. Catholics were heavily discriminated against in Britain and many left. Look at Maryland and Delaware too.

The colonies had a veneer of British rule. It was quite shallow but not challenged until Britain started taxing the colonies directly, supervising trade, and steadily tightening their rule after about 1750. That was not tyranny but it was firmer than the colonists had ever known or expected.

Britain may have had good reasons, they certainly thought so, but they overplayed a weak hand. It turned out they were not quite strong enough to bully or wise enough to compromise.

They were also somewhat unlucky, the rebellion was a very close contest. In the end they quit and went home. They faced facts, they would still win some battles but not the war.

It was no doubt as “decent” as any dictatorial rule could be. The Brits did not see themselves so much as conquerors as much as adults taming children. But they did see their external subjects as inferior all around, and this was shown by their language for those they ruled as much as anything — “wogs” and so forth.

And this attitude, between competent adults, is indeed a form of soft tyranny.

It’s also exactly the kind of oversight the Left wants to have over America.