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.
“...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.”
—Agree. It’s not perfect by any means, and numerous critics on the right have pointed out valid objections. But it’s a start. And what really matters is whether they will take the necessary actions.
The way see it, the key difference going forward, between all the times in the past is the Tea Party movement. It doesn’t simply vanish because the GOP takes control- in fact, it gets stronger as a means of doing everything possible to keep the GOP from straying into elitism the way they did so many times in the past.
**And if they don’t believe us and realize how serious we really are...next time around, the entire GOP leadership should be primaried...