Posted on 01/25/2010 8:36:33 AM PST by jessduntno
Hey Congress,
Why not go back to the ORIGINAL Contract w/ America, the one that was written back in 1787....called the CONSTITUTION?!?
Think you can handle that one?
Contracts sounds good on paper and don't work. Big problem is nobody reads them.
Things like this will work -—
How about cut the crazy out of control deficit spending
Really reform health care, lower costs and increase quality, with junk lawyer reform and allowing people to buy insurance from anybody.
and shrink government — Reagan's “government is the problem, not the solution type stuff.
and drill baby drill ...
sign board style things.
We used “repeal the AW ban”. Which BTW didn't happen and we were told by Newt to sit down be quiet, wait. Then Bush said he was thinking of renewing the ban ... then with AMNESTY, I realized Bush was one of them progressives.
ANY Conservative contract with America is better than the Liberal Contract ON America!!
“Good, strong, forward-thinking post! I would hope that our “Republican” party can now see the light, and move back to presenting strong conservative issues such as these and then follow through on them!”
Thank you...although while slamming them for their dimness, I wish I hadn’t said “even the dumbest bick in the walk” instead of brick...but I do hope there is a mechanism the GOP “management” can spring to start being aggressive on the future ... perhaps pair a Senator and Rep to get this out in front...the leadership and imagination issues are killing us...we have the wind at our backs and are turning sideways...
“IMHO a contract will defocus the issues. Contracts sounds good on paper and don’t work. Big problem is nobody reads them.”
Geez...I don’t think that those clearly explained bullet points were that complicated...even for a Dem...
“Being pro-life, pro-growth, pro-freedom, pro-secure borders, pro-fiscal sanity and pro-gun rights is not being “negative” or the party of “no.”
Of course not...but that is what the public is being pounded with...we have all seen the 2,000 page “plan” that the Dimwits put out there and they wave it around and say we have none...which of course is untrue, but a simple bulleted list in black and white eliminates that attack...there are many people who need to see something in black and white and who are unimpressed by the talk of leadership and need the written words and the flesh and blood leaders...and, we might be able to go back to the R’s in the “leadership roles” and say to them they will not be returning if these are ignored this time...sign on or GTFO...
Words and contracts mean nothing without action and the guts to stick with it. Not sure the Republicans have the guts and/or fortitude to see matters through.
Simply NOT true! The CWA reduced federal spending per GDP, passed an anti-crime package, passed welfare reform, gave a child tax credit, passed adoption and other child support laws, Social Security earning limits were raised, cut in captial gains tax and regulatory relief for small businesses.
From the Heritage Foundation:
The ten items in the Contract were all acted upon in the first 100 days of the new Congress, which is what the signatories had pledged. Nine of the ten items in the Contract passed the House: Only the constitutional amendment on term limits (which required a two-thirds vote) was defeated. Out of a total of 302 roll call votes on issues related to the Contract With America, the conservatives prevailed on 299 of them. A balanced budget amendment passed in the House by a 300-123 margin but was subsequently defeated as it fell one vote short of the two-thirds needed for passage in the U.S. Senate. The overall margin by which the items in the Contract were passed averaged about 70 percent despite the fact that the Republicans only held a 12-seat margin over the Democrats (52-48 percent, the smallest House majority margin in 40 years). Given the notorious lack of party discipline in the American Congress, the passage by a large majority of nearly all of the items in the Contract was a remarkable achievement.
"You know, 65 percent of the Contract with America ultimately got signed into law. All of it passed the House, except for term limits..." ~~~ Speaker Newt Gingrich, November.20,1996
"The House of Representatives should be able to vote on many issues that had been kept cloistered in committees and the "Contract with America" allowed those votes. Sixty-five percent of those issues were signed into law by the president. I voted for 65 percent of those issues." ~~~ Rep. Connie Morella, Republican, Maryland’s 8th District, Montgomery County
It’s the long kitchen sink approach that is off turning. Not saying that is what you are proposing, but it’s what these Contracts or unread platforms that no one ever looks at, that it turns into.
It’s really hard to tell what will sell before the election. For the time being stick with principles and values ... would be my advice. Stick with people with common first principles.
In the the 1994 election we were handed an issue in September, and it turned the election. Clinton himself said the AW ban cost him 60 seats in the House. Gingrich popped up at the last minute, the media grabbed onto it, you didn’t think the media was going to say out loud the AW gun ban screwed the Democrats did you?
Floridians had consistently been against a state lottery. Then its supporters came along and promised every penny raised by the lottery would go directly to education. They wrote in all sorts of assurances that lottery money could not be used on anything but education. Here was our chance to something ‘for the children.”
Voters fell for it hook, line and sinker. Sure enough, tons of funds began flowing into education from the lottery. And all of it went to education as promised. But after a year or two it became obvious that for every penny brought in for education, another penny or more was cut from the general funds that had always been used for education.
As a result the overall funding of education went down. Education was not enhanced at all.
Now we have an education system is always short of funds AND the money that once went to education is spent on some other state policy or program.
Turns out the availability of lottery funds not been used to enhance education, but to damage it!
The Feds have taken social security funds for years and poured them into the general fund where they were spent on all sorts of things. Money that was supposed to be set aside to pay benefits to those who had paid, at gun point, into the fund their entire working life was put to work, not earning interest in investments, but rather to make the federal deficit look smaller. Then when all that money was not enough, they began borrowing money at the going rates. So, in essence we ended up with a fund that wasn't growing but actually getting smaller. And the IOU’s being issued by the Feds for the stolen money would become more and more worthless as the interest costs to government on borrowed funds continued to rise.
To compound the problem the fund was so rich at one point that it was decided to forgo a scheduled increase in the money workers were paying into the fund.
I have no idea how it would be done, but I would like to see where SS would be today had it been run the way it was intended. The collections put in a trust fund invested in the private sector, and the increases in employee contributions not been cut instead of increased as planned.
I know there's lots wrong with both my analogy and my understanding of where SS went wrong. I invite those with more understanding of this to educate me. Please.
If it is to work they must remember the laws of Newt-onian physics. For every liberal cause their is an effect. Lost elections.
We bought into the “contract” back in ‘94 and were massively let down.
They had better come up with something more substantial than a mere “promise” this time.
Hollow promises made while their actions show cowardice or joining in with leftists will doom their chances.
Don’t give us promises, begin showing us some spine.
(Admittedly, this is a target-rich environment we are talking about here!)
Then, follow this unrepentant hammering with a most positive image of what the Right has to offer, and how it will be fixed should the Right people be swept in to power.
This should be broad-based in that candidates for House, Senate and Governor will be exploiting the same things, and pushing the same ideas. (A full frontal assault, if you will.) The details each candidate offers don't necessarily have to match, but the overall picture must be the same.
The key, however, is choosing ONE issue. That keeps it simple, and in the eyes of the electorate so people can focus on it easily, and maintain that focus.
It is doubtful RINOs would embrace much of this, unless they were threatened with excommunication by the electorate.
By the same token, it is a bad idea to give the Dems a stationary target on which to draw a bead to attack us. Therefore, a pre-publicized "Contract With America" type document would doubtless be counter-productive. One of the keys to success is to constantly keep them off balance and on the defensive.
This is what we must do, I believe, and it starts at the grassroots.
CA....
Much of what you say is correct. Not only do they spend FICA taxes on other things but they tax some social security benefits to fund general expenditures, even though the FICA taxes are fully taxed. This is another way to steal the money while claiming benefits are not cut. And both parties want that money, not just ‘liberals’ .
The last point should lead you to a conclusion. Washington cannot be holders of a trust fund. Their sole purpose is to spend money, and to promise to spend money in the future. Anyone thinking different is naive.
I did a longer rant on this in 2008:Social Security and Obama: Pension or Welfare?
good point(s)...I lived in MA for many years and I know that, for instance, a Republican Gov. was always considered a balance for the Dem everything else...I think that had a lot more to do with Scott Brown’s success than a lot of pundits are saying...I also think that if I were going to choose from such a target rich environment of Dem failures, I would not choose any...especially, if you are correct in your observations...but focus on one irrefutable all encompassing and overriding factor; balance...it is the crazy lopsided imperial Obama rule that is killing us...that way, we don’t need a leader, a spine, a stand or a platform...vote for us because we ain’t them! Isn’t that how bammy got elected?
I will *not* believe a word of it until the entire leadership has resigned, and Reaganites are at the levers of power. To believe anyone else is impossible.
“The big problem with the the Contract in ‘94 is that they had no follow through. It was a fine sounding plan, but then they did nothing and lost all the gains.”
Wrong. Congress passed many elements of the contract.
Read for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
Please. Give credit where credit is due. The 1994 GOP House majority did exactly what they said they'd do. Plus, they effectively inhibited the Clinton administration into producing surpluses for three consecutive years.
And they didn't lose the gains until 2006, twelve years later -- but only because they abandoned what they had professed in the Contract with America.
And, for that, they deserve your approbation.
They lost seats in 96, 98 and 2000. Contract with America did next to nothing, and accomplished even less. They got the seats, had some joke votes, got some bills passed that sounded good but did nothing, budgets went up on things they promised would be cut, and their advantage started dwindling with then next election.
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.