Jonathan Chait marvels at the idea that anyone could have thought that the Tea Party movement would mean the reauthorization of the sunsetting provisions of the PATRIOT Act would be at all in danger.
The Tea Party movement represents an intensification of the ideological forces within the Republican Party, not a change. Its anti-government impulses are focused almost entirely on those functions of government that involve redistribution of resources from the fortunate to the unfortunate. Civil liberties were not and are not on the radar.
Basically, yes--to the extent that "power grabs" are to be feared, it is only in the context of expansions of the social safety net and federal gun regulations. If, on the other hand, you're worried about the limitless power of the surveillance state because such power has a history of being abused it's because you're a criminal with something to hide.
Unfortunately, neither party seems particularly interested in curbing government power in areas of surveillance. Julian Sanchez has a run down on the renewal proposals--only big guvmint liberal Senator Patrick Leahy has proposed mild accountability reforms, Republicans either want to renew the provisions without modification or make them permanent. David Waldman looks at how that meaningless new House rule forcing bill sponsors to cite constitutional authority for particular legislation is going, by noting Rep. George Sensenbrenner's statement:
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
The authority to enact this bill is derived from, but may not be limited to, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.
That of course, would be the same one sometimes cited in defense of the ACA's individual mandate:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Rep. Scott Garrett comically and unsuccessfully tried to add amendment the rule to prohibit anyone from using the “general welfare clause” or the “necessary and proper clause” when citing the Constitution. While presumably Sensenbrenner was relying on "provide for the common Defence," you can basically understand why Republicans didn't end up adopting his amendment. Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, you never know when you're going to need a nice, vague statement on which to base the constitutionality of your preferred policy choices.
