Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sounds like a plan... ^ | May 22, 2008 | Josh Painter

Posted on 05/22/2008 8:04:24 PM PDT by Josh Painter

The Republican Survey Committee (RSC) has a plan. RSC is a caucus of more than 100 of the U.S. House of Representatives' most conservative Republicans, and their Action Plan for GOP members of the House was announced two days ago. You probably haven't heard about it before this posting, because the media is unilaterally ignoring it.

Here's a summary:

1) THE END OF PORK-BARREL SPENDING House Republicans are committed to ending pork-barrel spending. We will not wait on the Democrat Majority to end “Bridges to Nowhere” and “Monuments to Me”— we declare an immediate earmark moratorium and pledge to reform the system. We also pledge to uphold any future veto of a spending bill that is pork laden and does not lead to a balanced budget.

2) LIMITING WASHINGTON TAXES AND SPENDING TO WHAT MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES CAN AFFORD House Republicans are committed to eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax and preventing the scheduled tax increases in 2010 from taking more from the paychecks of hard-working, middle class families. We are also committed to amending the U.S. Constitution to limit the growth of federal spending to the level at which middle class Americans can afford. Except in time of war or national emergency, our spending limit amendment would prohibit federal spending from growing faster than the economy.

3) A FAIR, SIMPLE TAX CODE THAT AMERICANS CAN UNDERSTAND AND HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT House Republicans are committed to ending a tax code that is too long, too complex and too unfair. Specifically, our legislation would provide comprehensive, individual income tax reform by providing individuals an alternative, two-tier flat tax system that can be filed on one page. Taxpayers can choose the new, simplified system or stay with the current tax code—whichever option suits them.

4) A FAMILY-FOCUSED, PATIENT-CENTERED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM House Republicans will reform and improve our current health care system, by 1) providing a refundable health care tax credit to every American to purchase affordable health care coverage, and 2) broadening the array of choices for health insurance plans, by allowing individuals to purchase plans available in other states. These measures will allow Americans who like their current health plan to keep it, while encouraging all individuals to own and control a personal and portable health insurance policy.

5) AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE THROUGH INCREASED EXPLORATION House Republicans are committed to increasing American energy supplies to lower prices and reduce dependence on Middle Eastern Oil by incentivizing conservation and allowing energy exploration in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf, as well as the development of cleaner coal technologies and alternative fuels.

6) A LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT ALLOWS US TO PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACKS House Republicans are committed to preventing terrorists from attacking America. House Republicans will empower our intelligence agencies to intercept terrorist communications with sources outside of the United States without the lengthy process of getting a warrant that could jeopardize the ability to thwart an attack.

7) A MORAL APPROACH FOR PARENTS TO PROTECT AND EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN House Republicans are committed to supporting parental rights, by 1) ensuring that a child cannot be transported across a state border for an abortion without the consent of a parent or legal guardian, and 2) empowering parents to maintain control over their family’s personal education decisions.

8) A WELFARE SAFETY NET THAT FOSTERS MARRIAGE AND WORK House Republicans are committed to extending many of the current welfare work requirements to other programs — namely food stamps and housing—so that those who are not old, young, or disabled are either working in the private sector or serving in their community. Such reforms will ensure a more stable environment for low-income children by encouraging their parents to marry and raise them in two-parent homes.

With many less-than-conservative House Republicans joining their Dem colleages to vote down domestic drilling and override President Bush's veto of the disgraceful farm bill this week, the RSC Action Plan is welcome news for Reagan conservatives. It's about time that conservatives started to show some genuine leadership in their party and in the U.S. House. New ideas have been few and far between from the right lately, and this effort by the RSC breaks the drought.

The plan is timely in that it addresses issues that are key concerns to most Americans today. But it is also timeless in that it builds on a solid foundation of conservative principles which were formulated and refined over many years and stated so well by Ronald Reagan and more recently by former Sen. Fred Thompson. The need for connection to those principles was expressed by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) in an op ed published on National Review Online the same day RSC's plan was announced:

There was a time when the Republican party was rightly seen as the party of ideas. Under Reagan in the Eighties and the congressional revolutionaries of the mid 1990s, ideas were free flowing as our leaders focused first on American principles as the foundation for their policies. Somewhere along the way we lost this and began replacing principled convictions and forward-looking policies with nostalgia for policies and politicians of past eras. When that happened we stopped connecting with the American people.

Given the choice between policies that spring forth from American principles and those that do not, the American people will chose the former every time. These are the principles that are engrained in the American character. Our fellow citizens agree that principles like liberty, economic opportunity, self-government, equal rights, and the rule of law should form the bedrock of public policy.

Now, if we can just get the politicians to agree.

I suggest, Senator, that one way to get politicians to agree is for rank and file conservatives to use the RSC plan as a bull whip to bring into line those House and Senate Repuplicans who shamelessly work against conservative principles and the good of the nation by voting for bad legislation such as the recent farm bill and the measure which prevents new domestic drilling at a time when Americans are seeing their food and fuel costs rising through the roof.

We need to contact our GOP Congress Critters to let them know that if they don't sign on to the RSC Action plan, we won't sign on to their bids for re-election. We need to also offer some positive reinforcement to RSC chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and his conservative House brethern, who are standing up for principle at a time when others are sitting down on theirs. Please send them your thanks.

- JP

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: gop; house; republicans; rsc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 05/22/2008 8:10:16 PM PDT by Josh Painter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

#5 is a loser. Nukes? nukes? Nukes?

2 posted on 05/22/2008 8:18:26 PM PDT by stravinskyrules (Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don't like, it's always by Villa-Lobos?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
5) AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE THROUGH INCREASED EXPLORATION House Republicans are committed to increasing American energy supplies to lower prices and reduce dependence on Middle Eastern Oil by incentivizing conservation and allowing energy exploration in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf, as well as the development of cleaner coal technologies and alternative fuels.

Yada yada yada

Just more promises.

Politicians have been 'advocating' these kinds of things since gas prices skyrocketed during the Nixon Administration. 35 years later, and we still haven't seen much effort to break the dependence on foreign oil.

Until they actually act, do something, this is just more empty promises, more yada yada yada.
3 posted on 05/22/2008 8:19:03 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

It might be useful to publish who the members of the RSC are so that donors can help them and tell the rest of the interlopers to take a hike and support conservative candidates against them in their next primaries.

Good luck to those who do get “it”.

4 posted on 05/22/2008 8:19:40 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline 1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I'd also like to know how many of them that oppose earmarks just voted for this monstrosity of a farm bill, and then also voted to override the president's veto.
5 posted on 05/22/2008 8:27:32 PM PDT by willgolfforfood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

RSC Members List - 110th Congress *

Jeb Hensarling, Chairman (TX-05)
Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
Todd Akin (MO-02)
Rodney Alexander (LA-05)
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
Spencer Bachus (AL-06)
Gresham Barrett (SC-03)
Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Brian Bilbray (CA-50)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Marsha Blackburn (TN-07)
John Boozman (AR-03)
Kevin Brady (TX-08)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Henry Brown (SC-01)
Vern Buchanan (FL-13)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Dan Burton (IN-05)
Dave Camp (MI-04)
John Campbell (CA-48)
Chris Cannon (UT-03)
Eric Cantor (VA-07)
John Carter (TX-31)
Steve Chabot (OH-01)
Tom Cole (OK-04)
Mike Conaway (TX-11)
Barbara Cubin (WY-At Lg)
John Culberson (TX-07)
David Davis (TN-01)
Geoff Davis (KY-04)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
John Doolittle (CA-04)
Thelma Drake (VA-02)
Mary Fallin (OK-05)
Tom Feeney (FL-24)
Jeff Flake (AZ-06)
Randy Forbes (VA-04)
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01)
Luis Fortuno (PR)
Virginia Foxx (NC-05)
Trent Franks (AZ-02)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Virgil Goode (VA-05)
Bob Goodlatte (VA-06)
Wally Herger (CA-02)
Pete Hoekstra (MI-02)
Duncan Hunter (CA-52)
Bob Inglis (SC-04)
Darrell Issa (CA-49)
Bobby Jindal (LA-01)
Sam Johnson (TX-03)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Steve King (IA-05)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
John Kline (MN-02)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Ron Lewis (KY-02)
Frank Lucas (OK-03)
Dan Lungren (CA-03)
Connie Mack (FL-14)
Don Manzullo (IL-16)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Michael McCaul (TX-10)
Patrick McHenry (NC-10)
Buck McKeon (CA-25)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05)
Gary Miller (CA-42)
Jeff Miller (FL-01)
Jerry Moran (KS-01)
Marilyn Musgrave (CO-14)
Sue Myrick (NC-09)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Steve Pearce (NM-02)
Mike Pence (IN-06)
Joe Pitts (PA-16)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Tom Price (GA-06)
George Radanovich (CA-19)
Denny Rehberg (MT-At Lg)
Tom Reynolds (NY-26)
Peter Roskam (IL-06)
Ed Royce (CA-40)
Paul Ryan (WI-01)
Bill Sali (ID-01)
Pete Sessions (TX-32)
John Shadegg (AZ-03)
Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Mark Souder (IN-03)
Cliff Stearns (FL-06)
John Sullivan (OK-01)
Tom Tancredo (CO-06)
Mac Thornberry (TX-13)
Michael Turner (OH-03)
Tim Walberg (MI-07)
Zach Wamp (TN-03)
Dave Weldon (FL-15)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-08)
Joe Wilson (SC-02)
Robert Wittman (VA-01)

* Partial list

6 posted on 05/22/2008 8:28:23 PM PDT by Josh Painter (First, the GOP became a big tent. As a result, it became Democrat Lite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
Not one word about immigration?

Oooh, brave Conservatives.

7 posted on 05/22/2008 8:31:47 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Too little too late.

8 posted on 05/22/2008 8:35:07 PM PDT by WesternPacific (I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

This plan is not specific enough. On taxes the GOP should say they oppose what the Democrats will do—no increase in the capital gains rate, keep the present Bush tax cuts, end inheritance taxes, index the AMT to not hit middle class payers, keep the child care credit (Dems want to cut it in half) etc.

On energy drill ANWAR, in the Gulf and off both east and west coasts, plus allow refineries and nuclear plants to be built.

Others can add to my list as I have run out of stuff.

9 posted on 05/22/2008 8:36:12 PM PDT by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Their grand plans seem to be promoted, made law, and then not funded.

10 posted on 05/22/2008 8:38:32 PM PDT by WesternPacific (I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter


11 posted on 05/22/2008 8:39:17 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

All I know is, the Republican Party is done, stick a fork in it, have a mass exodus of conservatives FROM that party and let’s form a new one or join an existing 3rd party and start over.

10 to 15 years we can be back in the Majority without the baggage of the likes of Mclame.

12 posted on 05/22/2008 8:46:18 PM PDT by tueffelhunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WesternPacific

“Too little too late.”

Aren’t you the actor who played C3PO in the Star Wars movies? “We’re doomed!”

13 posted on 05/22/2008 8:48:59 PM PDT by Josh Painter (First, the GOP became a big tent. As a result, it became Democrat Lite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

More empty platitudes. Why can’t Republicans just go for the jugular? Limit government, completely reform the tax system, secure the borders, build nukes and drill for oil, and most of the problems would end right there. Notice how they have to explain each proposal with a detailed paragraph. It’s the same socialism, just repackaged under a different party.

14 posted on 05/22/2008 8:49:21 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Bipartisanship: Two wolves and the American people deciding what's for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tueffelhunden
Conservatives have too much invested in the GOP to throw it all away. It is, after all, the party of Goldwater, Reagan and Thompson. When things looked darkest for the party, Barry Goldwater in his day and Fred Thompson 44 years later never considered - not for even a brief moment - turning away from it. Nor did Ronald Reagan, who went one step further. On February 6, 1977, he spoke to conservatives gathered for the 4th Annual CPAC Convention and not only rejected the notion of abandoning the Grand Old Party, but shared his vision of a New Republican Party:
What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights?

I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends -- perhaps including some of you here tonight -- who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party...

Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.

Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.

Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.
Conservatives are understandably disgusted with how moderates have let the GOP drift far off the course that Reagan charted for it. Some have opined that the Republican Party has outlived its usefulness and that it's time to start that new party. They are only half right. We have seen numerous third parties formed, but none have had much of an impact in the modern era, with the exception of Ross Perot's venture into political pary building. And we all know how that turned out.
The trouble with third parties is infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. It takes a lot of time and treasure to build a third party, and you end up with an infrastructure which is still inferior to that of the GOP. Winning a national election with a third party is just a pipe dream, and even winning any significant number of state and local offices through a third party is an extremely difficult proposition.
What is needed is a third party which is structurally independent of the Republican Party, yet still operationally connected to it - a third party which isn't really a third party. Such a political animal exists. It is the Conservative Party of New York State - CPNYS.

CPNYS was born in 1962 when Empire State conservatives became fed up with the liberalism of New York's Republican Party, controlled as it was by the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the GOP. National Review's William F. Buckley and his brother James were both Conservative Party candidates, with Bill running unsuccessfully for mayor of New York City in 1965 and James winning election to the U.S. Senate in 1970.

CPNYS endorses Republican candidates for office, but only those candidates it deems to be sufficiently conservative. The Conservative Party witholds its support for GOP candidates it believes to be too liberal, as it consistently did whenever Rudy Giuliani ran for public office. In this way, CPNYS has a considerable influence over the Republican Party in New York State. Consider this: No Republican has won statewide office in New York without Conservative Party support in the last 33 years.

Now that's a track record many conservative organizations would love to be able to boast of. And there's no shortage of such organizations which try to exert a conservative influence over the GOP. But none has been able to match the success of the Conservative Party of New York State.

Now imagine, if you will, a functional Conservative Party in each of the other 49 states with the New York party as the model for the others...
15 posted on 05/22/2008 9:02:27 PM PDT by Josh Painter (First, the GOP became a big tent. As a result, it became Democrat Lite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

#4 - More Big Brother

16 posted on 05/22/2008 9:28:03 PM PDT by greatvikingone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

Funny, Mr. McCain.

17 posted on 05/22/2008 10:13:40 PM PDT by WesternPacific (I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

I see you’re not getting a whole lot of love in this room tonight, Jay.

Well, count me in with Ronald Reagan. I also believe that it would be a strategic error of historical magnitude for conservatives to abandon their home party and splinter off into several weak, and ineffective groups.

Reagan was right. We conservatives need to band together alright; just within our home party. We first need to fight the interlopers in our own house, then take the fight to the real enemy. We’re not going to do that effectively from a collection of new, and still budding political organizations.

My soul is stirred, reading the forming statements of new groups such as FALCON ( ), but it’s my feeling that we conservatives need to exert that fervor and principled determination through, and from the natural foundations of our existing and well-established party.

I’m happy to see that a core of strong-willed conservatives not only still exists within our elected party members, but is actively doing what they can to put forth our vision and our will within the congress.

I’ve got to agree with some of the other Freepers that the platform is a little on the vague side, but I’m not complaining. At least it’s incrementalism in the right direction.

Thanks for letting us know about this.


18 posted on 05/22/2008 11:48:57 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

I used to agree with your premise Josh, I no longer can.

After 32 years of “just support us one more time and we’ll do X”, I’m done.

We get the same old promises, the same old BS election after election after election.

Now if someone like Duncan Hunter is suddenly made the President of the RNC, I might change my mind. But I don’t see that happening.

For now I’m content to wait and see how things develop. But the Republican party has pooped on this conservative voter for the last time.

I want results, and if the cowards can’t produce them. I’ll support a candidate who can. Even if that means going to a 3rd party.

19 posted on 05/23/2008 9:41:29 AM PDT by tueffelhunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tueffelhunden; Josh Painter

tueffelhunden, I still prefer Josh’s point.

To restate an obvious: To have an influence, you have to have a voice. More voices together are heard better than many single voices. (Isn’t that why all professionals unite in associations to increase their lobbying power before local, state and federal governments?). Unless some cataclysmic events happen (and G-d save me from any bloody revolutions, I don’t want to “live in interesting times”, thank you very much!), we have a working democratic process with all its pluses and minuses.

It just happened historically that there are only 2 major parties in America. SO, you need to make one of them to better suit you (and from what you are saying, me too). A cohesive strong faction within party, or a closely allied third party, “a third party which isn’t really a third party” like the Conservative Party of NY - are better mechanisms than a totally new 3rd party that is doomed to lose if it stands on its own. (It is a matter of fact, not emotions). As Josh said, you need an organization - infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.

Without such organization, all the dissatisfaction we have with the GOP nomination and general direction of the Republican party is just lots of hot air. If we all remove ourselves from the political process, who is going to win? How is our point of view is going to be better advanced? I don’t see Republican party disintegrating or magically transforming itself into a conservative party if we all just leave into nowhere.

20 posted on 05/23/2008 11:03:20 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson