Republican "Pledge to America" introduced

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Well, they did what they said they would do, and brought out something they're calling a "Pledge to America".

Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/pledgetoamerica.pdf .

Seems to contain some wheat and a lot of chaff. Well, that's better than all chaff.

"Wheat" consists of promises whose fulfillment can be checked and confirmed, like "If you elect us to a majority, we will pass a bill in the House that makes the Bush tax cuts permanent". A month or a year later, we can look back and ask, "Well, did they pass that bill?", and get a definite answer of Yes or No.

"Chaff" consists of statements like "We support such-and-such an idea" or "We will fight to pass a bill that does such-and-such". That idea or bill might never get passed, but the politicians can say, "Well, we supported or fought for it." That and a quarter will buy you a big gumball at Safeway. (That means, it's worthless by itself.) Same goes for things like "We will enact a plan to create jobs." Very few plans to create jobs, wind up creating them, except (historically) enacting tax-rate cuts.

Obviously, House Republicans can't make any promises about what the Senate or President will do, only what THEY will do in the House.

Not much point going thru the chaff. That contains lots of nice ideas, and I like them, but no concrete promises.

Here's the wheat, as I see it:

* "We will help the economy by permanently stopping all tax increases, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011." (Page 8)

Excellent idea, a good first step, and solidly conservative.

* "We will allow small business owners to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their business income." (Page 8)

That's nice, but barely a first step. What government giveth, government can takest away. Why not permanently prohibit government from taxing business at all? Businesses don't make money, people in them do. If you want the authority to tax, tell people directly that you are going to tax THEM, don't hide behind "business".

* "...we will require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more." (Page 8)

I assume that means you will make a law. Good if true. What penalties can/will you impose if Congress doesn't follow this law?

* "We will repeal this job-killing small business mandate (1099 reporting of all purchases over $600)". (Page 8)

Good, a repeal of an oppressive govt mandate. Solidly conservative. But again it's barely a start. See my comment above about Small-business tax deductions.

* "...we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels..." (Page 10)

Good, conservative, but again barely a start. Those levels were still wildly excessive, thanks to generations of Democrats (and lately Republican) overspending. You would have done well to mandate a plan for further cuts after this start. It's the biggest hole in this "Pledge to America". Well, it's a start.

* "We will set strict budget caps to limit federal spending on an annual basis." (Page 10)

Fine. But how much will these caps resemble the Cap presently in place on total indebtedness? You know, the one that Congress simply votes to raise, every time they feel like borrowing more? A real cap (Followed by gradual reductions in that cap) would be far more meaningful. I suspect that this is a good idea in theory, but its execution will be next to worthless. The word "strict" is very important here. What does it REALLY mean? And what penalties will be imposed if Congress does not stay under the cap you enated last month, or last year (by simply voting to raise it)?

* "We will cancel the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)..." (Page 11)

Good, conservative... but again simply a return to a previous unacceptable situation. Like curing the Black Plague and returning to the good old days of smallpox. It is a step forward, but barely a start.

* "We will reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by ending their government takeover..." (Page 11)

Sounds good, but vague. Not sure if this one is wheat or chaff. How about, "We will eliminate F&F and turn them over to private operation, with only the necessary regulation that all financial groups much have"? There are even holes in that, but it would be better.

* "We will impose a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees..." (Page 11)

Excellent idea, again just a start. Most things that limit government are conservative. But things that REDUCE government, given how big it is now, are even more conservative. How about following it with some gradual cuts over time? BTW, what's to prevent every clerk and papershuffler you hire from now on, from simply being renamed "Security Clerk" or "Security Papershuffler"?

* "...requiring that programs end – or “sunset” – by a date certain. We will adopt this requirement at the federal level..." (Page 11)

Not bad. Look at what happened to the Assault Weapons Ban and the present Bush tax cuts. Doesn't completely cure the problem, but it's a step in the right direction. Conservative.

* "We will allow individuals to buy health care coverage outside of the state in which they live." (Page 14)

Nice, and a good, conservative step forward. And it even one of the few areas where government was acting within its Constitutional authority, specifically the Commerce Clause. So it's impossible to guarantee govt will NEVER restrict buying insurance across state lines, short of a Constitutional amendment. So Congressional egislative action, however repeal-able, is the best we can expect here.

* "We will repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care...." (Page 15)

Bravo. Nice and direct. Strongest single point of the Pledge. Unfortunately, it's not the only thing promised in this sentence. Read on...

"...and replace it with common-sense reforms focused on strengthening the doctor-patient relationship." (Page 15)

Ummm... what "reforms"? The only ones I can think of that would actually do what you claim, are a wholesale removal of the Federal government from the fields of Medicine and Insurance. I didn't notice that mentioned anywhere. Why do I get the feeling that that is NOT what you had in mind? By rights this second half of the sentence should go in the CHAFF column.

* "We will establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion, this includes enacting into law what is known as the Hyde Amendment." (Page 15)

Conservative... but not because it opposes abortion per se. Rather, because it opposes Federal spending on something no authorized by the Constitution, and so prohibited by the Commerce Clause.

* "We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified." (Page 18)

Nice idea. Unfortunately, the practical result will simply be a universal reference to the Commerce Clause or Welfare Clause for most liberal legislation, including legislation those clauses clearly do not cover. Who polices that? What penalties will be imposed for falsely citing an irrelevant section of the Constitution, to get around this requirement?

* "...we will let any lawmaker — Democrat or Republican — offer amendments to reduce spending." (Page 18)

Okay. But they'll also be able to offer amendments to INCREASE spending, won't they? Still, the openness will probably do more good than harrm, by a slight margin.

* "When asked to provide our troops with the resources they need, we will do so without delay. That means no more troop funding bills held up by unrelated policy changes, or extraneous domestic spending and pork-barrel projects." (Page 19)

Nice. But does this mean you will pass a law REQUIRING Congress to do this? You didn't exactly say that. What mechanism will be in place to cut out such unrelated sections?

* "We will prevent the government from importing terrorists onto American soil. (i.e. from Gitmo etc.)" (Page 19)

Good. Not conservative/liberal, just common sense.


NOTEABLE CHAFF:

* "Repeal the Costly Health Care Takeover of 2010... we will immediately take action to repeal this law." (Page 14)

This didn't say they would repeal it. It said they would "take action to repeal" it. That and a quarter will buy you a gumball...... But there is another section of the Pledge that says they WILL REPEAL it, later on the page.

* "We will work to ensure foreign terrorists, such as the 9/11 conspirators, are tried in military, not civilian, court. We will oppose all efforts to force our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel operating overseas to extend “Miranda Rights” to foreign terrorists."

Good ideas. But no "We will pass a law saying....", so it's just chaff. Same is true for the stuff immediately following that line. These last are all good ideas, but without "We will enact laws requiring or prohibiting..." they are merely chaff.

So, this "Pledge to America" has a number of good ideas, and will help Republicans get elected. And hopefully, help conservatives too (not the same thing). It obviously doesn't cure ALL ills, it would have to be many thousands of pages to even TRY to do that. It was meant as a start, and it accomplishes that, barely. We could have done without all the chaff, though. That just gets in the way.

BTW, where is the part where Congressmen can sign their names to this "Pledge"? I didn't see that either.
 
Werbung:
No balanced budget amendment this time around?

Will they require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress?

Select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse?

Cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third?

Limit the terms of all committee chairs?

Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee?

Require committee meetings to be open to the public?

Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase?

Guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting?

Or is all of that passe now?
 
* "When asked to provide our troops with the resources they need, we will do so without delay. That means no more troop funding bills held up by unrelated policy changes, or extraneous domestic spending and pork-barrel projects." (Page 19)

yea, no more doing what...wait Republicans did that.....

Also where was this idea of giving the troops needed supplies...you know when they sent them off to fight 2 wars?


Of course they did not talk about the 14th amendment...
and when I read this...I keep thinking...I heard this all before...2000, 2004.....

and they forget the part about...also we will pile your SS into the stock market so next time the econ tanks....your F_ed.

Also Medicare...screw it, its gone..don't get sick old people...and if your old...just buy coverage with the money you don't have from SS now....don't worry they will give a 80 year old a great price on health care....( so long as you have no pre existing conditions of course...since thats legal to say no to again)

So lets fast forward to the next econ downturn...( no doubt when republicans have power :) ) and the econ tanked...the stock market is down....people lost jobs...health care cost have kept going up...and old people don't have medicaid anymore....don't worry you have no job...you have no SS to back it up old lady...and sorry your sick, but your to old for insurance...Please take this map it shows many nice places to go die so we don't have to pay for you...thank you and enjoy
 
No balanced budget amendment this time around?

Will they require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress?

Select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse?

Cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third?

Limit the terms of all committee chairs?

Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee?

Require committee meetings to be open to the public?

Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase?

Guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting?

Or is all of that passe now?

Naturally, people who wanted this Pledge to cure all ills and fix all problems is one fell swoop, are disappointed.

My question is, why did you expect them to do all that in one try?
 
I'm not impressed...

It appears to be an expanded version of the "Tea Party" Contract From America:


The Contract from America

September 23, 2010

We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items and advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

An unnamed senior member of the Republican House leadership told Fox News, “That document had a lot of influence on ours. No question about it.”
 
New "pledge to America" - same as the old "Contract with America". No new ideas. That's just sad.
 
New "pledge to America" - same as the old "Contract with America". No new ideas. That's just sad.

I think it does a good job of setting out a framework for how they want the session to go.

That aside, there is all this talk of "new" ideas... but what does that really mean? For example, something like "balance the budget" is not a "new idea", but that does not mean it is not a good idea.
 
The US is ruled on an intermittent basis by two wings of a one-party state.

Nothing will change until there is a revolution in the US.

Pay up citizens !!!

Comrade Stalin
 
I think it does a good job of setting out a framework for how they want the session to go.

That aside, there is all this talk of "new" ideas... but what does that really mean? For example, something like "balance the budget" is not a "new idea", but that does not mean it is not a good idea.

its means its the same crap we have heard for 20 plus years..8 years of it before lead to approval ratings for Bush of 30%...and basically 8 crappy years....so lets do it again! only this time we will really do all that stuff we said before over and over ...but always ignored and did the reverse....vote republican..

also its nice when you say, balance the budget...where the voters don't like it...is when they say how ...( hint...you don't cut taxes , and think it will go down without cutting major programs...that voters like...)
 
Cutting tax rates isn't a "new idea". It just works.

Getting government out of people's private lives also isn't a "new idea". It just works.

Of course, you could always ask for the "new idea" of taking from the people who earned, and giving to the people to the people who didn't (as practiced hundreds of years ago by the Sheriff of Nottingham, and fought by Robin Hood).

Or the "new idea" of everyone contributing (whether they like it or not) to a central pool, and paying people from that pool (as practiced by V.I. Lenin in the 1920s and Stalin in the 1930s).

Or the "new idea" of government setting all prices and wages at fixed levels (as practiced by FDR in the 1930s and Nixon in the 1970s).

Remind me again, of how those "new ideas" worked out back then? And how they are working out in Obama's "new" Hope and Change agenda?

Tell me, exactly what "new ideas" did you have in mind?
 
its means its the same crap we have heard for 20 plus years..8 years of it before lead to approval ratings for Bush of 30%...and basically 8 crappy years....

Uhm...what are you even talking about? Obama's "hope and change" and all his "new ideas" have netted him an approval rating of 40%... what is your point?

Are you arguing that a balanced budget is a bad thing?

so lets do it again! only this time we will really do all that stuff we said before over and over ...but always ignored and did the reverse....vote republican..

So your argument is just basically that Republicans are hypocrites?

also its nice when you say, balance the budget...where the voters don't like it...is when they say how ...( hint...you don't cut taxes , and think it will go down without cutting major programs...that voters like...)

Tough luck... some programs will be cut. Unless of course it stalls in the Senate, and you will come back and blame Republicans for not living up to their promises no doubt.
 
Like we haven't heard the same tired drivel from Democrats for the last 60 years... "Hope and Change" is just a new name for the old policy of "Tax and Spend".

you mean like in the 90's where we actually cut government a bit? When Clinton said the time of big government was over or something?

of course I am not a Dem, so I don't completely disagree...but at least they have shown it can work
 
Werbung:
Like we haven't heard the same tired drivel from Democrats for the last 60 years... "Hope and Change" is just a new name for the old policy of "Tax and Spend".

Why, yes, as a matter of fact we have. Tired drivel is tired drivel, whether it comes from the Republicans or the Democrats. Personally, I'm tired of drivel. Where is the party that is willing to do what is right for America, regardless of what is right for the party? Searching, searching........

Oh! Is that one?

Nope. Just another partisan saying that the other party is just as bad.
 
Back
Top