“[W]e need to be fighting our clear political opposition, the Democrats, not among ourselves. Now isn’t the time for nonsense. Now’s the time to win.”
Someone get the word to Turdblossom.
The pledge seems a little weak on securing the border and booting out the illegals. That’s my only opinion on this at this point.
The “pledge” isn’t bold at all.
In fact it is timid.
Republicans are not going to stay in office even if they win in November if they don’t shrink government in real terms, not just trimming around the edges.
This pledge is mere words until put into action and action ALWAYS speaks louder than words.
The fact that the GOP has to create a new contract, or pledge, or whatever they’re calling it this time, only shows that they’re still attached to style over substance.
Note to the GOP: you blew it. Get out of the way, and let the competent people get to the work of fixing the things you helped screw up.
I agree with Ed Morrissey when he said :
After reading through this a couple of times, I’d call it the Two Year Plan, or perhaps the Guiding Principles for a Two Year Plan.
People tend to forget that the Contract With America was a rather short-term document, too — and became even more so once the effort to get term limits got dropped.
This Pledge is far more about policy than process; in fact, it’s almost entirely a challenge to Obama and a promise to undo everything he’s done, and some of what George Bush did wrong on top of it.
That’s not to say that it couldn’t have gone farther. The plan calls for rolling back spending to a pre-bailout, pre-stimulus level, but that’s not going to be good enough to start reducing debt.
It won’t eliminate the current deficit, especially with the pledges for rolling back some of the Obama-era tax and fee hikes contained in the bill.
Spending would have to roll all the way back to FY2007 or FY2006 just to hit the break-even mark. But here again, perhaps it’s good to remember to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Rolling back to FY2008 levels would at least be going in the right direction, and may be all that the GOP can get if the Senate remains in Democratic hands and Obama wants to provoke another government shutdown.
Some of the rules and promises in the bill are rather gimmicky and obviously intended just to tweak Democrats.
Republicans propose a “must read” rule for voting on bills that would be difficult to enforce, even within their own caucus, for instance.
Voters need to hold their own Representatives accountable for ignorant vote-casting.
Demanding a Constitutional citation for every bill that hits the floor sounds like a great idea, but it would only mean a little more work to develop boilerplate language regarding the Commerce Clause to append to every bill.
The problem with Congress isn’t that they can’t make an argument for Constitutionality of their schemes, after all. They mutter platitudes about the Commerce Clause and the “good and welfare clause” by rote, except for the clueless few who are foolish enough to admit they don’t care about controls on their power anyway.
The weekly spending-cut votes seem like another gimmick, but that may have more teeth than one would presume. It’s actually a rather clever device to keep the grassroots engaged. When controversial votes take place in either chamber, bloggers and talk radio flood Congressional offices with calls, hang on the outcomes, and publish the vote lists. Having those on a weekly or otherwise regular basis isn’t a bad idea, and putting elected officials on the spot for spending reductions isn’t a bad idea either.
If the House sends a spending cut once a week to the Senate and/or the White House, they’ll either force Democrats to publicly oppose them or start signing off on some of the cuts — and either would be a pretty good development for small-government conservatives.
Don’t be too quick to dismiss this Pledge. It’s not the alpha and omega of small-government goals, but it may at least be the alpha and beta of getting the process started.