GOP unveils new agenda, “A Pledge to America”; Update: “Dreck”?

posted at 7:21 pm on September 22, 2010 by Allahpundit

CBS has the full 21-page text along with a bullet-point summary, but if you’re looking for a friendlier rundown, NRO has got you covered. Five key elements: Jobs, spending, ObamaCare, national security, and the crowd-pleaser, reforming Congress. A taste of the last section:

Read The Bill: We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on.

Adhere To The Constitution: For too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government. Further, it has too often drafted unclear and muddled laws, leaving to an unelected judiciary the power to interpret what the law means and by what authority the law stands. This lack of respect for the clear Constitutional limits and authorities has allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year. We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.

Make It Easier to Cut Spending: By forbidding amendments on spending bills, Democrats have denied lawmakers the opportunity to tighten Washington’s belt and slash wasteful and duplicative programs. Structure dictates behavior, so we will let any lawmaker — Democrat or Republican — offer amendments to reduce spending.

Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.

Nothing on ending the filibuster, naturally. Now then, anything notable missing from the list of key agenda items? Right — nothing on cultural issues. In fact, here’s the sum total of language in the document about that: “We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.” One line, buried at the end of the preamble on page one, and according to sources, even that was only added at the very last minute after Mike Pence objected. Think social cons are going to like that, after all the warnings lately about not taking them for granted? In fact, the cursory treatment here reminds me of the Mitch Daniels/Mike Huckabee dust-up a few months ago about whether or not there should be a “truce” on social issues until the country’s financial house is in order. This isn’t a truce, but it’s waaaay further towards the libertarian end in its priorities than the social con end. Sign o’ the times. Hope it plays well with the southern base, or at least that they’re buying DeMint’s argument that fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are inextricably linked.

NRO notes that this is heavier on policy substance than the Contract With America was, which is true — but even so, take five minutes and read Nick Gillespie’s reality check about the CWA and the GOP’s track record after 1994. Despite all the hype, most voters didn’t pay much attention at the time, which may be because the CWA was process-oriented or may be because most people simply don’t have the time for, or interest in, big-think position papers like this. Hopefully it’s the former; at the very least, the news stories about this tomorrow emphasizing the rhetoric about jobs and reducing government should play well. Exit quotation from an unnamed top House Republican: “We have learned our lesson and we are ready to govern.”

Update: Erick Erickson is underwhelmed.

There is a plan to cut Congress’s budget, which is pretty much what was promised in 1994. Seriously? In 4 years did the Democrats really blow up the Congressional budget? No — the GOP did that too.

There is no call for a Spending Limitation Amendment or a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is just meaningless stuff the Democrats can easily undo and that ultimately the Senate GOP will even turn its nose up at.

The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Well, of course Erick Erickson is underwhelmed! It’s from those eeeeeevil RINOs in the scaaaary ESTABLISHMENT. No true conservative would be for it!

It's Vintage, Duh on September 22, 2010 at 8:24 PM

This Pledge is completely unnecessary. The Dims are sinking because they’re inept. The Republican Pledge should be ‘we’re not Democrats’. That’s all they need. Everything else is fluff. Don’t give Dims anything they can rally around.

joejm65 on September 22, 2010 at 8:24 PM

I call BS. These elitist morons are only one notch above the Democlods.

Kick ‘em all out with their fake tans, overpriced suits, and bullsh*t rhetoric.

Metro on September 22, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Yes, so we can have an unelectable Christine O’Donnell candidate. Sounds great.

Cr4sh Dummy on September 22, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Did you notice that this includes a prohibition on insurance companies denying people coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions?

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Yes, so we can have an unelectable Christine O’Donnell candidate. Sounds great.

Cr4sh Dummy on September 22, 2010 at 8:24 PM

So Bush and his gang of GOPers were really that much different. Please .

CWforFreedom on September 22, 2010 at 8:26 PM

did I miss it or did they not address ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!

xler8bmw on September 22, 2010 at 8:27 PM

At first, after reading through the document this afternoon I found my eyes glazing over. But after pondering both the practical and political aspects of such a document…any document of this sort…I find the Pledge a well considered source for inspiration, but only a stepping stone to an atmosphere of Conservative governance.

The Erickson screed seems knee-jerk to me, not well considered and lacking reflection. We Conservatives can have passion and draw inspiration from impassioned rhetoric but the Conservatism we preach demands sober reflection too. I find myself much closer to the National Review’s editorial, uh review, of the document.

After some consideration I can fully support the rhetoric and substance of the Pledge as a marker for the direction Republicans say they want to take the country. In that context the Pledge need not be a comprehensive roadmap of everything that must get done as the future unfolds but as an imprint on our mindset going forward, a start, and a good one.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 8:27 PM

LOL. Now that smells like pork.

Dusty on September 22, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Chicken lips actually. ;)

upinak on September 22, 2010 at 8:28 PM

As a staunch social conservative I believe that if they just stuck to making laws that are CONSTITUTIONAL we wouldn’t have to worry so much about the social issues.

All the meddling that is getting done in the social arena is by and large not Constitutional. If they would knock it off, problem solved.

Lily on September 22, 2010 at 8:29 PM

did I miss it or did they not address ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!

xler8bmw on September 22, 2010

They addressed the issue by stating Congress will pass a law that makes it clear both the Federal and State governments have authority to ENFORCE immigration laws. That seems pretty bold as a statement to me.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 8:30 PM

That one sentence on social issues is more than the Contract with America included.

RightOFLeft on September 22, 2010 at 8:31 PM

All the meddling that is getting done in the social arena is by and large not Constitutional. If they would knock it off, problem solved.

Lily on September 22, 2010

Most every ‘social issue’ is the purview of State governments or the people according to the Constitution. So you’re absolutely right.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Here’s another document that -in this format, also happens to be 21 pages in length- and renders the Pledge to America unnecessary.

BKeyser on September 22, 2010 at 8:32 PM

So, are SSA, Medicaid and Medicare Constitutional?

They are saying they will apply that test to everything… does that include the Dept. of Agriculture? It isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. How about Education? Energy? The EPA?

And if they are sunsetting legislation, does that include the enabling legislation for the above?

In theory if they actually apply these two concepts to everything that comes through legislatively it is a good idea. Somehow, with the way the Establishment Republicans have been acting, I doubt that they will have the guts to actually do as they say.

These Tea Party upstarts, however… they just may be willing to sit down, point out that the procedures will be followed completely or nothing will get passed. That should include shutting the whole shebang down until the Establishment agrees to uphold their word.

I’ve heard nice words from Republicans before.

The spinelessness Upon the Hill makes me doubt the Establishment Republicans to do anything they say. Hopefully more of them will be primaried out in 2012 and 2014.

ajacksonian on September 22, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Think social cons are going to like that, after all the warnings lately about not taking them for granted?

Nope.
If a candidate has no social conservatism, then no campaigning or contributions or stickers or signs from me. He’ll get my vote & that’s it.

itsnotaboutme on September 22, 2010 at 8:33 PM

One more thing on defense: the Army should have a dedicated branch to fighting Unconventional Threats…because small wars ain’t going away any time soon.

Cr4sh Dummy on September 22, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Absolutely. We’re lumbering about in expensive Star Destroyers, but they’re buzzing around in cheap snub fighters, getting through our defenses, and causing all kinds of damage. Time to fight them ship to ship. (/geek)

Did you notice that this includes a prohibition on insurance companies denying people coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions?

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Hoo boy. Wonder how they plan to square that with repealing Obamacare, unless it’s fluff to stave off “mean old Rethugs” from their opponents.

Dark-Star on September 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Thank You!

xler8bmw on September 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Did you notice that this includes a prohibition on insurance companies denying people coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions?

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Hoo boy. Wonder how they plan to square that with repealing Obamacare, unless it’s fluff to stave off “mean old Rethugs” from their opponents.

Dark-Star on September 22, 2010

Its not a prohibition, its allows for a mechanism that enables ‘better funded pools’ for prexisting conditions. Those existed before Obamacare but were poorly implemented. And, these aren’t government run pools, nor are they a mandate for insurers to accept PEC.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM

As a staunch social conservative I believe that if they just stuck to making laws that are CONSTITUTIONAL we wouldn’t have to worry so much about the social issues.

All the meddling that is getting done in the social arena is by and large not Constitutional. If they would knock it off, problem solved.

Lily on September 22, 2010 at 8:29 PM

As I’ve said before, if we simply follow The Constitution the social issues will take care of themselves. Why? Because it will be local communities that will determine social policy, if social policy is needed (which I frankly hope is not needed).

The Constitution is a moral document, it has inherent moral principles. It is, outside of The Ten Commandments, the greatest document of moral law ever penned.

True_King on September 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM

How about passing a 100-year moratorium on new laws except for laws that solely repeal old laws.

fossten on September 22, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Its not a prohibition, its allows for a mechanism that enables ‘better funded pools’ for prexisting conditions. Those existed before Obamacare but were poorly implemented. And, these aren’t government run pools, nor are they a mandate for insurers to accept PEC.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Thank you for the clarification! :)

Dark-Star on September 22, 2010 at 8:42 PM

This gruel is not going to cut it. We need to dump some more.

ronsfi on September 22, 2010 at 8:44 PM

There is a 40+% gap between revenues and spending for the next ten years. This program does nothing to address the real problem- runaway entitlement spending. It is a toothpick where a chain saw is needed.

Scotsman on September 22, 2010 at 8:50 PM

OK, haven’t read much of the rest of it, but I don’t hate this. It’s not a bad start, but it needs a lot of improvement.

Read The Bill: We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on.

I’m sure I’d love this plan if I actually knew what they meant by “ensure”. Are you going to change house and senate rules? A constitutional amendment?

• Adhere To The Constitution: For too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government. Further, it has too often drafted unclear and muddled laws, leaving to an unelected judiciary the power to interpret what the law means and by what authority the law stands. This lack of respect for the clear Constitutional limits and authorities has allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year. We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.

OK, I confess, I do like this. But I would still like to know how. A constitutional amendment for this would really be good.

• Make It Easier to Cut Spending: By forbidding amendments on spending bills, Democrats have denied lawmakers the opportunity to tighten Washington’s belt and slash wasteful and duplicative programs. Structure dictates behavior, so we will let any lawmaker — Democrat or Republican — offer amendments to reduce spending.

OK, I’m intrigued slightly, but if they just lift the restriction on amendments, so that senators can amend to reduce or increase spending, then this is a nonstarter. It better only allow reductions.

• Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.

Seems good, though it better be a formal change to the senate rules – I’m assuming he’s referring to deem and pass, or maybe some similar trickery. I appreciate the thought behind some of these, but if Change(TM) is to last more than a few years, there probably need to be constitutional amendments. These admittedly are hard to pass, but maybe now is the best time in terms of the mood of the country.

One more thing: Obamacare. I notice they say they will immediately “Take action” to repeal it. Dangerously weaselly. What action? How about: “We will bring a repeal bill to the floor and have a vote on it.”

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 8:51 PM

How about: “We will bring a repeal bill to the floor and have a vote on it.”

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010

I like ‘take action’ in this context. The way you’ve put it here is just one action that must be taken because, of course, that bill will get vetoed. Other actions include defunding, other bills to tie it up for a couple of years and so on.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 8:57 PM

So the Dems say for a year the Republicans have nothing…then they put out something and who trashes it? The Republican supporters….fantastic. The Dems don’t even have to lift a finger to do their dirty work, its being done for them.

crazywater on September 22, 2010 at 9:01 PM

Someone in the Tea Party needs to draft a rebuttal.

“Dear Republican Party. We have a counter-proposal. Here are our demands. Meet them or die(politically).”

Any talented person, sharp but with common sense, could do it. If Palin posted it (maybe she herself could write it, after soliciting suggestions from the Tea Party at Large), it would go viral like an STD at a left-leaning college campus (but I repeat myself).

By the way:

As long as we’re talking serious reform, can we do something about the interstate commerce clause? Ideally, we shouldn’t have to, but since the supreme court has become willfully obtuse, we should maybe make it much more specific – something like “Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce only through rules that respect specific transactions. No ridiculously sketchy bullcrap.” Yes, that last sentence needs to be in the amendment too.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 9:08 PM

If each bill must show how it fits in the constitution, I await their introduction of the replacement Health Insurance package. That should get interesting. Or SSA, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or any welfare program. We should be so lucky they do away with those things.

Oleta on September 22, 2010 at 9:10 PM

I like ‘take action’ in this context. The way you’ve put it here is just one action that must be taken because, of course, that bill will get vetoed. Other actions include defunding, other bills to tie it up for a couple of years and so on.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Good point. But I still think “take action” itself is too weaselly. How about “We will take every action to dismatle this bill. The first of these will be a vote to repeal.”

The vote to repeal the whole thing is important, not because it will pass (it obviously won’t), but because it will force someone to actively kill it – either congressional dems/RINOs, or Obama – tying them more closely to Obamacare.

Either one helps conservatives in 2012. If we somehow win the senate, it helps even more, because then the dems would need to filibuster to block it in the senate, rather then just killing it in a committee.

RINO in Name Only on September 22, 2010 at 9:15 PM

A “balanced budget amendment” could be a bad idea.

If we had such a law now, under these Progressives that run the Democrat party, taxes, borrowing, or inflation would be be astronomical in order to “balance” their (non-existent, BTW) budget.

In other words, a “balanced budget amendment” could end up being another weapon of the Left to punish the middle class & “rich.”

visions on September 22, 2010 at 9:16 PM

I thought their sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution already covered all this.

Wonky and uninspiring.

They need to say WE WILL FIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE-WHO ARE BEING ROBBED BY A BLOATED GOVERNMENT! , not give out rambling, turgid wishlists that no one trusts them to fulfill anymore.

profitsbeard on September 22, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Why does it take 21 pages to say we are going to abolish anything unconstitutional and abide by the Constitution from now on.

You d***h**ds just need to get out of the way and let the women handle it.

davidk on September 22, 2010 at 9:17 PM

The GOP could simplify a lot of the political mess by simply pledging to repeal the Budget Act of 1974 which requires the President to spend all the money that Congress allocates — to take effect in 2013.

Prior to 1974, Presidents of both parties would strive to make ends meet by this or that budget action. Not so since — it’s been almost pedal to the metal in spending by Congress without any power by the President to stop it.

Let the 2012 election AND Presidential election be all about electing someone with a record of actually balancing budgets… Not some wimpy community activist who can read a teleprompter.

drfredc on September 22, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Its not a prohibition, its allows for a mechanism that enables ‘better funded pools’ for prexisting conditions. Those existed before Obamacare but were poorly implemented. And, these aren’t government run pools, nor are they a mandate for insurers to accept PEC.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Thank you for the clarification! :)

Dark-Star on September 22, 2010 at 8:42 PM

See below:

Ensure Access For Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions: Health care should be accessible for
all, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses. We will expand state high-risk pools,
reinsurance programs and reduce the cost of coverage. We will make it illegal for an insurance
company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition,
eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just
because you get sick.
We will incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower
premiums and reduce the number of uninsured Americans.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Good point. But I still think “take action” itself is too weaselly. How about “We will take every action to dismatle this bill. The first of these will be a vote to repeal.”

Yeah I like that too, even better.

JonPrichard on September 22, 2010 at 9:56 PM

The entirety of this Promise is laughable. Why? It is an illusion that fixates on stuff the GOP already should be doing while not daring to touch on stuff that will have any meaningful longterm effects on the size and scope of the federal government.

Underwhelmed, indeed. As am I. We don’t need a Contract With America Redux. Try again, GOPers.

gryphon202 on September 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM

There is desperate need for some brains.

How about a requirement that the federal budget must not exceed x% of the previous financial year GDP? Spending cut is generic nonsense. It needs to be specific.
How about banning any reconciliation tricks?
How about providing congress more authority over executive? For instance making EPA answerable to congress. Or better banning it.
Except matters of war, limit Presidential authority.

antisocial on September 22, 2010 at 10:22 PM

We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.”

So if the GOP wins, they’ll probably say that this gives them a mandate to ban gay marriage and abortion nationwide. It’s in their document, after all.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 10:27 PM

• Adhere To The Constitution: For too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government. Further, it has too often drafted unclear and muddled laws, leaving to an unelected judiciary the power to interpret what the law means and by what authority the law stands. This lack of respect for the clear Constitutional limits and authorities has allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year. We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.

That’s generally pretty simple: The Commerce clause, and the Tax and Spend clauses probably cover 80% of federal legislation.

Jimbo3 on September 22, 2010 at 10:30 PM

It takes 21 pages to write down one page worth of pledges.

faraway on September 22, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Another contract with America. OK, this time I believe you.

rjl1999 on September 22, 2010 at 10:44 PM

OK, lets use Peggy Noonan’s yardstick analogy where Dems always start at the 36 inch mark, and RINO/GOP starts at the 18 inch mark.

This is a 20 incher. Let’s start at ZERO and negotiate from there.

faraway on September 22, 2010 at 10:52 PM

This thing sucks. I hope this isn’t what you tea party types pushed for. If so, you have been duped yet again.
The very first and highest priority needs to be a balanced budget required by law and introduced as an amendment to to U.S Constitution. Without that, they rest of it is just orifice licking without doing anything substantive.

paulsur on September 22, 2010 at 11:12 PM

I like the part on p.16 “We will hunt down those Marxist dogs that stole your kids money”

faraway on September 22, 2010 at 11:14 PM

The R’s need to perform a program by program review with respect to the Constitutionally directed role of government. Sh*tcan programs, departments, and regulations that exceed Constitutional limits.

The problem with the economy is crony capitalism caused by government picking of winners and losers. Republicans have done this. Democrats are doing this. Knock it off!

exdeadhead on September 22, 2010 at 11:23 PM

There’s nothing in there about keeping Lindsey Lohan in jail.

faraway on September 22, 2010 at 11:28 PM

This should be the agenda to get America back on track:

1) Stop foreign aid (we have given trillions for years and they are still third world countries) Where has the money gone? Why should hardworking Americans tax dollars support the world, Is that what you are working so hard for.

2)Get out of the UN, IMF,OPEC (Drill baby drill)

3)Go back on the gold standard (heard on a business talk show we have 500 tons of gold in reserve) with the price to-day we could pay back all our loans and give our grandkids a break.

4)Cut all government staffs in half, do not allow unions for gov. workers, let them get real jobs when American business is allowed to flourish again.

I think this is a good start

concernedsenior on September 23, 2010 at 12:54 AM

Nothing on ending the filibuster, naturally.

My understanding is that the filibuster is a tool used only in the Senate. Since this document is from the House Republicans why would there be anything about ending the filibuster?

jstjoan on September 23, 2010 at 1:06 AM

Scr3w pledges. Show us the action.

Fighton03 on September 23, 2010 at 1:15 AM

For those of you who are “underwhelmed” and consider this pablum and dreck, what would you prefer, exactly?

Look, we can’t run on “Blah blah blah damn Democrats blah blah blah.” We need to stand for something as a party. Even if it’s not perfect, and even if it doesn’t contain all of your pet policies and favorite wording.

Will they hold up to this? Who knows… CWA II? Maybe. But you can’t just say that they all suck and kick the bums out. You can’t have hamsters running the damn place.

You need to vote for someone and this pledge is something, and a hell of a lot better than the Dems’ plan of “Those dirty rich, we’ll fix them!”

I frankly don’t understand the whining about this. It touches on most of the important issues and gives voters a measuring stick to use in November. Who wants more government, who wants less? Who wants to control spending, who wants pork?

The Repubs absolutely needed to do this, or something very similar. Will it pan out? Will they hold up to their end? Dunno… but this had to be done, and is a damn lot better than going into November with voters thinking both parties are just the same.

12thMonkey on September 23, 2010 at 1:24 AM

Consider this: When have Democrats EVER kept their campaign promises? The 1994 Republicans did try to do as promised via the Contract With America, and that will scare IT right out of the Communist styled Democrat Elitists.

So what if this isn’t everything we had hoped for? It is a start.

DannoJyd on September 23, 2010 at 1:24 AM

What the Republicans promise – which isn’t all that much – doesn’t matter because we can’t trust them to deliver. I am pretty sure that after the election the Tea Party Movement will be telling them what their policy is, anyway.

PersonFromPorlock on September 23, 2010 at 2:46 AM

So Bush and his gang of GOPers were really that much different. Please .

CWforFreedom on September 22, 2010 at 8:26 PM

What office does O’Donnell hold again? I not clear on that.

Start looking at the substance of the candidate. O’Donnell just regurgitates tea party talking points. She offers nothing of intrinsic value; recent polls prove this. At least Bush got elected twice.

Absolutely. We’re lumbering about in expensive Star Destroyers, but they’re buzzing around in cheap snub fighters, getting through our defenses, and causing all kinds of damage. Time to fight them ship to ship. (/geek)

Dark-Star on September 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Lol. I remember John McCain proposed something along those lines (creating an OSS type unit) during the 08 campaign, unfortunately, we ended up with Obama who want to cut and run.

For those of you who are “underwhelmed” and consider this pablum and dreck, what would you prefer, exactly?

12thMonkey on September 23, 2010 at 1:24 AM

I think this should have been done a long time ago. But this does need to be more comprehensive; that’s my only gripe with it.

Cr4sh Dummy on September 23, 2010 at 5:05 AM

I don’t really care what Erick Erickson thinks (nor Rove, nor Krauthhammer for that matter.)The alternative is Pelosi-Reid and more Socialism. This is the time to unify, not give the opposition quotes and sound bites.

If you see this document as only a beginning, it is moving in the right direction. The real “Young Guns” have not been elected yet – so let’s keep our eyes on the prize. We have to get enough of them elected so they will have a large say in governing and begin to take our country back from the Progressives.

Done That on September 23, 2010 at 6:49 AM

It is just meaningless stuff the Democrats can easily undo

This is my fear. Gingrich passed a lot of stuff to give the minority more say in what goes on. This allowed people like Barney Frank to continue us down the road toward collapse. After Pelosi took power, the first thing she did was repeal all that and House Republicans were shut out.

I love the part about citing constitutional authority in bills. I hope they’re serious about this and make it something the Dems can’t repeal the next time they take power.

Kafir on September 23, 2010 at 6:58 AM

Read this dreck from the Republicans then read the ten point Tea Party manifesto; NIGHT AND DAY.

ncjetsfan on September 23, 2010 at 7:34 AM

Term Limits were part of the Contract with America, quickly ignored and forgotten (except by some of us).

Where are the Term Limits this time?

MrLynn on September 23, 2010 at 7:40 AM

I’ll rejoin the Republican Party when they push for and pass term limits. The number one reason why there is corruption, they make careers out of it. And while I’m at it, get rid of Social Conservatism to be more in line with a true conservative, Barry Goldwater. Social Conservatism is as evil as social justice and income redistribution. Just comes from the other side of the aisle.

adamsmith on September 23, 2010 at 7:49 AM

Politico is reporting (carrying the water for) the WH talking points re “what drove us into the ditch,” wholly misrepresenting what really has sent this economy into its deepening tailspin. The Dem/Leftie focus is a distraction from the real issues, and its purported “solutions” have added to the deficit with no engagement in tackling the crux of the matter. Education, infrastructure, and health care were not the triggers for the collapse. The Dems’ imposition of even more crippling regulation never took on the culprits behind our economic problems.

onlineanalyst on September 23, 2010 at 8:32 AM

They failed to eliminate the death tax. It is my understanding that it is coming back next year, but with a 35% maximum tax rate instead of the previous 55%. This is a missed opportunity, and shows that they are still infected with Washington-think. This agenda is a start, but it is going to take some serious tea party pressure to keep Repubs from lapsing back into their Democrat-lite days. November is only a start– then the real work begins!

gajaw999 on September 23, 2010 at 8:48 AM

There is no call for a Spending Limitation Amendment or a Balanced Budget Amendment.

It requires an agreement of a super-majority of just about every body in the country to amend the Constitution: rightfully so. I doubt that there currently exists any serious issue upon which we so agree.

Anyone who bases their agenda on amendments are more into philosophy than politics.

We need to address our problems without trying to ensure that we prevent them from ever happening again. Let’s concentrate on low hanging fruit which will allow us to rein in government and free the markets so that the deeply flawed system of capitalism can grow us out of the mess we have gotten into.

Laurence on September 23, 2010 at 8:54 AM

“For those of you who are “underwhelmed” and consider this pablum and dreck, what would you prefer, exactly?”

You asked. How about the Tea Party’s Contract from America.
These ten points were taken from an article from ABC News.

(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

(2) Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumers prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

(3) Demand a Balanced Budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.

(4) Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words — the length of the original Constitution.

(5) Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington: Create a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s meaning.

(6) End Runaway Government Spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

(7) Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care: Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries.

(8) Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs.

(9) Stop the Pork: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

(10) Stop the Tax Hikes: Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.

ncjetsfan on September 23, 2010 at 9:30 AM

You asked. How about the Tea Party’s Contract from America.
These ten points were taken from an article from ABC News.

(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

(2) Reject Cap & Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumers prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

(3) Demand a Balanced Budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.

(4) Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words — the length of the original Constitution.

(5) Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington: Create a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s meaning.

(6) End Runaway Government Spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

(7) Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care: Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries.

(8) Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs.

(9) Stop the Pork: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

(10) Stop the Tax Hikes: Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.

ncjetsfan on September 23, 2010 at 9:30 AM

The GOP has been promising to do four of those things for at least twenty years without any success (hell, Carter even was for a “fair flat tax”), there already is a blue ribbon panel on spending in place and the answers to Constitutionality for 90% of the bills involve the commerce clause and the tax and spend clause.

Jimbo3 on September 23, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Where’s the new logo? /

Fallon on September 23, 2010 at 10:55 AM

I write environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, and the like for a living. We always have to have a section in there that shows how the proposed action, expected impacts, and mitigation measures proposed are in accordance with the Forest Plan or whatever the higher planning document is.

Why is this not currently the case with legislation?

thomashton on September 23, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Salesmanship 101: Never remind your potential customers you were once a failure.

JellyToast on September 22, 2010 at 7:33 PM

Domino’s Pizza comes to mind.

ProudPalinFan on September 23, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Man, it seems like there is a lot of scrutiny and petty sniping here.

For the social cons objections, they need to understand that they are not the intended audience. That would be preaching to the choir. The intent is to win the majority back and commit to a path of conservative governance. If we get the country going in that direction, then the social conservative progress will be a natural consequence of having our representatives in there instead of the Dems.

The document is public now. Not sure what the point of picking it apart is. It’s not like it can be edited on the fly – the elections are too close. Get on board – this red train is about to ROLL.

connertown on September 23, 2010 at 11:59 AM

I like it.

jeanie on September 23, 2010 at 12:01 PM

The document is public now. Not sure what the point of picking it apart is. It’s not like it can be edited on the fly – the elections are too close. Get on board – this red train is about to ROLL.

connertown on September 23, 2010 at 11:59 AM

I am concerned about that part. If someone forgot to add or take away anything, it’s gonna bite us back. Throw more suggestions? The more the merrier, keeping in mind that these “promises” if implemented with success in the beginning, they can be stronger or leaner as the economy improves and jobs go way up.

Like the other poster wrote-there’s no main backup documentation to make their case stronger. It’s them, their ideas and they put them on paper.

I blog. Who else blogs here? Write an article, check our sources, proof-read and hit the “Post” or “Publish” button. It’s all good as long as you check your sources are correct, and you can back up what you are writing about. Then DELIVER. Lots of bloggers got their street cred (Ed for example) by doing what I wrote.

Hope someway somehow I can get that credibility; now I’m in diapers. :D

ProudPalinFan on September 23, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Snipe, snipe, snipe. Whine, whine, whine. Some people here want to return to 1776 in one fell swoop, as if this whole boondoggle can be undone in one election cycle.

It’s nice to cling to your ideals, folks, but conservatives (used to) live in the real world. We (used to) reserve the pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams for the lefties.

Now I’m not so sure. Reading these threads, seems to me like a lot of you are happy to witness this nation’s demise while you cling to your conservative purity tests.

Pointless. Inane. Destructive.

Grace_is_sufficient on September 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM

3)Go back on the gold standard (heard on a business talk show we have 500 tons of gold in reserve) with the price to-day we could pay back all our loans and give our grandkids a break.

concernedsenior on September 23, 2010 at 12:54 AM

Hate to rain on the gold parade, but all the gold in Fort Knox won’t back the Monopoly money we’ve printed over the decades.

We’d probably need to reissue the whole currency line – and very carefully at that. It will be a delicate thing, but either we do it or we’ll see within our lifetimes the total collapse of the dollar.

Dark-Star on September 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM

My Congressman uses a 4-way test before considering any legislation:

1)Is it Constitutional and a proper function of government?
2)Is it morally right?
3)Is it something we need?
4)Can we afford it?

By sticking to this test, he has at times voted against legislation that most other conservatives supported and opened himself up to criticism from his very conservative district. But he has established this as his personal creed; every 2 years we the voters can say either “We don’t like your creed anymore” or “You failed to live within your creed to my satisfaction.” In the meantime he is quite open and available, but the cornerstone of his accountability is not some PAC’s scorecard as much his own integrity to his pledge.

The Republican pledge allows them to establish the criteria by which they will be tested. The test itself shows good faith, allows all representatives to speak for their constituents, and shows a marked improvement on the manipulative tactics used by irresponsible Democrat leadership, the violations of which are the triple daggers of evil that will forever distinguish the Pelosi Speakership. The Tea Party is an essential device for restoring communication between the people and their government. But when the anger is over and many of us have much less time and our resolve to march and rally and protest isn’t as necessary, what criteria will demonstrate that the GOP is still worthy of the responsibility of governance? The only answer is a pledge and our ability to cite violations of it.

Maybe the TEA party has a uniform set of beliefs I’m not aware of that would make a better criterium, but if so I haven’t heard of it.

rwenger43 on September 23, 2010 at 3:35 PM

I heard Rush’s take on the Pledge today and it’s truly a weak pathetic piece of crap with no real teeth to slash the cost of governmet. I want to see ENTIRE agencies done away with. I want to see COMPLETE buildings along Constitution Ave. emptied out and put up for sale, etc. I was in DC recently and was disgusted to see miles and miles of Federal buildings lining both sides of the streets adjacent to the Mall etc. full of bureaucrats costing us BILLIONS a year to shove mandates on the states. Depts. of Energy, Labor, Education, Small Business, IRS, Treasury, Environment, Land Mngmt., and on and on for MILES!!! This phony pledge does NOTHING to address them.

roninacreage on September 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM

The Pledge should be summarized in one sentence.

“WE WILL DEFUND THE LEFT AT EVERY LEVEL OF EVERY AGENCY”

Take away their money, and you take away their power.

roninacreage on September 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Well, of course Erick Erickson is underwhelmed! It’s from those eeeeeevil RINOs in the scaaaary ESTABLISHMENT. No true conservative would be for it!

It’s Vintage, Duh on September 22, 2010 at 8:24 PM

yep, it’s rino dreck kiddies…..oh wait!

Taking the Pledge! Americans should be proud to support the commonsense,Constitutional solutions;NRO spot-on editorial http://bit.ly/ahw0ch
about 2 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®
Retweeted by 74 people
.SarahPalinUSA

here is the rino NRO editorial Sarah wants you to read, run along Pbots for Purity :)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/247475/we-ll-take-pledge-editors

windansea on September 23, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2