Challenge: Let's discuss the 10 points of The Contract from America

[Foxfyre]

Challenge: To discuss the 10 issues contained in the most recent draft of The Contract from America without criticizing ANY group. More than 130 candidates for Congress have now signed the contract and more will no doubt do so.

Is it possible for USMB members to discuss the pros and cons of the 10 points of the Contract without mentioning GOP, the Democrats, the Obama Administration, the Bush Administration, the Tea Parties, the NAACP, the religious right, the leftwing fringe, opinion of ideologies, or accordian players?

If nobody responds, I guess I'll take that as a no.

The Contract from America

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty
Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government
The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom
The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

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. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade
Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

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. (69.69%)

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. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce 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 US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

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. (56.57%)

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. (56.39%)

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. (55.51%)

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. (55.47%)

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. (53.38%)
http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/

 

[Oddball]

They say it, but they don't have the stones to do it.

 

[Foxfyre]

They say it, but they don't have the stones to do it.

Okay Dude. As a USMB candidate for Congress, would you sign the Contract? Why or why not?

 

[Oddball]

Absolutely not.

I'd give my constituents the credit for having a long term memory about how they got chumped the last time around.

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely not.

I'd give my constituents the credit for having a long term memory about how they got chumped the last time around.

So you disagree with the 10 points? You don't think you would be ethical signing a pledge to work to implement any of them?

 

[goldcatt]

Just like before....generalities on complicated issues and no substance or specifics about how they are "pledging" to accomplish it. It's talking points.

No, thank you.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

All I can see now is wind. I would support rejecting cap and trade, that is a given. And the defund of government health care. Those are a given.

What is comprehensive tax reform. We get promised that every election cycle, and it only gets worse. Define that, and i might change my mind.

One man's pork is another man's important infrastructure needs. I think limiting federal public transit subsidies to anything more than 3x the fairbox is a good start. There should also be a minimum ridership level. Transit in general in Portland does about 40%, but light rail only does around 15%.

 

[Oddball]

Absolutely not.

I'd give my constituents the credit for having a long term memory about how they got chumped the last time around.

So you disagree with the 10 points? You don't think you would be ethical signing a pledge to work to implement any of them?

Disagreeing with the points isn't the point....Action is the point.

Last time this happened, what got passed either was timid, got killed off in the Senate, or was vetoed and subsequently left to die off with no more than a shrug and a wimpy milquetoasty "we tried". Then, they just went back to being capitulators, enablers and door mats.

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely not.

I'd give my constituents the credit for having a long term memory about how they got chumped the last time around.

So you disagree with the 10 points? You don't think you would be ethical signing a pledge to work to implement any of them?

Disagreeing with the points isn't the point....Action is the point.

Last time this happened, what got passed either was timid, got killed off in the Senate, or was vetoed and subsequently left to die off with no more than a shrug and a wimpy milquetoasty "we tried". Then, they just went back to being capitulators, enablers and door mats.

Dude, in 1994, those who signed the Contract with America agreed only to bring all ten items to a vote within the first 100 days after the 1995 Congress was sworn in. They did exactly that and nine of them became law. The term limits item failed by a few votes but they did debate it honestly and openly and gave an honest effort to the process.

They didn't promise to pass everything. They did promise to give it a fair chance with open debate and a full vote. I think they did an amazing job with that.

What is on this new list that should not be dealt with and debated early in the next Congress?

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...Then they dropped and neglected the agenda items that were shot down and gave the limp loser "we tried" excuse.

Then came the great budget capitulation of '95 and the return of the GOP to being the party of "yes dear".

Were I in the GOP, I wouldn't be a party to any such "contract" until my party proved that they were serious through action.

 

[editec]

Challenge: To discuss the 10 issues contained in the most recent draft of The Contract from America without criticizing ANY group. More than 130 candidates for Congress have now signed the contract and more will no doubt do so.

Is it possible for USMB members to discuss the pros and cons of the 10 points of the Contract without deflecting the focus to the GOP, the Democrats, the Obama Administration, the Bush Administration, the Tea Parties, the NAACP, the religious right, the leftwing fringe, or accordian players?

If nobody responds, I guess I'll take that as a no.

\

We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items and advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Protect the Constitution (meaningless blather this..define "protect")

Reject Cap & Trade (possibly, I'm dubious about how it's designed. Smacks of corporate indulgencies to me)

Demand a Balanced Budget (By when?)

Enact Fundamental Tax Reform (whose plan?)

Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government (define "restore")

End Runaway Government Spending (whose Ox gets gored?)

Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care *( for whom? Veterans? Children? Imbeciles? )

Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy (if but ONLY it were so easy...but I know what you mean)

Stop the Pork (one man's pork bridge to nowhere is another very rich insiders' bridge to a lot of money)

Stop the Tax Hikes (AND balance the budget at the same time? How?)

What you WANT makes pretty good sense.

Who doesn't want an efficient government with no debts? (except for the big bankers, of course.. our national indebtedness is their bread and butter)

How do we get that?

Now, there's where the debate gets steamy.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Protect the Constitution - Yes, that is a given

Reject Cap & Trade - Yes, that is all we need anther Job Killer and way to tax and spend

Demand a Balanced Budget Yes, we cannot keep spending our way into oblivion

Enact Fundamental Tax Reform Yes and by Tax Reform I mean a way to have everyone in America share in the expenses of the Government, we need to end this carp of 47% of Americans who file taxes paying absolutely Zero

Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government Yes, even if it means starting all over with 587 new Politicians

End Runaway Government Spending Yes, we need an Amendment to enforce this

Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care Yes, the current version will be the nail in the coffin, we need a better HC plan, this time someone needs to read the dam thing before they vote on it

Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy ? Energy Policies can be fine, but we do not need to cripple the nation and tax energy to death because of some tree hugging panty waste environmentalist that thinks a treefrog, guppy or cricket is more important than Human Beings.

Stop the Pork Is that not what a balanced budget Amendment would do?

Stop the Tax Hikes Yes, when the Economy is back to 4% un-employment and the Dow is 16,000 then let's talk about raising taxes, there is no need to raise taxes if the Fat Asses in Washington would quit wasting our money


.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay I found the list I was initially looking for and edited the list in the OP so you now have a brief explanation of what they mean with each item. Maybe that will help.

 

[goldcatt]

It helps slightly...but they're still broad generalities.

Take the first item. Protect the Constitution, fine. Require each bill to state the basis for its constitutionality, I have an issue with that procedurally for several reasons but set that aside for now and I'll say fine.

Whose constitutional interpretation are you going to use? Even among originalists there are a half dozen different mainstream views off the top of my head that don't always agree, let alone the non-originalist interpretations. What weight will precedent be given, if any? Who will decide what is constitutional and what is not within Congress? How is Congress wading into Constitutional interpretation issues not blurring if not eliminating the line between the role of the legislative and the role of the judicial? Never mind the endless bickering and gridlock that would ensue, as well as the effective elimination of any alternative arguments for defending a challenged law if it is taken to court. Bad, bad idea on so many levels.

I could keep going, but there's no point really. Some of these things I could even get behind, but as with all complicated issues the devil is in the details and there are none here. It's just another round of propaganda and smoke, and we all know how well that worked out last time.

 

[Foxfyre]

How do we get that?

Now, there's where the debate gets steamy.

Well that's a good question but not one I believe the Contract addresses or even cares about. What those promoting the Contract want is to focus on and debate the ten issues openly, honestly, thoroughly toward a goal of finding the best way to accomplish each.

At least that is the way it has been explained to me.

Right now nobody in Congress with any power is even talking about this stuff, much less working on it.

Those promoting the Contract want it to be talked about, worked on, debated, with a goal of getting it done in the most efficient and effective way possible. And they want it to be the top priority of the next Congress.

Yes the devil is in the details, but that's what we send them to Congress to do. To identify all the devils and dig them out BEFORE the legislation is passed.

Who among is us smart enough all by ourselves to do that?

 

[Foxfyre]

It helps slightly...but they're still broad generalities.

Take the first item. Protect the Constitution, fine. Require each bill to state the basis for its constitutionality, I have an issue with that procedurally for several reasons but set that aside for now and I'll say fine.

Whose constitutional interpretation are you going to use? Even among originalists there are a half dozen different mainstream views off the top of my head that don't always agree, let alone the non-originalist interpretations. What weight will precedent be given, if any? Who will decide what is constitutional and what is not within Congress? How is Congress wading into Constitutional interpretation issues not blurring if not eliminating the line between the role of the legislative and the role of the judicial? Never mind the endless bickering and gridlock that would ensue, as well as the effective elimination of any alternative arguments for defending a challenged law if it is taken to court. Bad, bad idea on so many levels.

I could keep going, but there's no point really. Some of these things I could even get behind, but as with all complicated issues the devil is in the details and there are none here. It's just another round of propaganda and smoke, and we all know how well that worked out last time.

I would assume the democratic process is intended to work out agreements on the definitions and make the decisions per the process set up by the Constitution. And if those we elect to Congress are not able to read, understand, and make reasoned interpretations of the Constitution as it was intended to be, who are the clowns we're sending to Washington to represent us?

Every member of Congress raises their right hand and takes this oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

How do you support and defend the Constitution of the United States without a pretty good grounding in what is in it and what it means?

 

[Charles_Main]

It helps slightly...but they're still broad generalities.

LOL Obama won with Hope and change!

 

[Foxfyre]

It helps slightly...but they're still broad generalities.

LOL Obama won with Hope and change!

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ - ONE DEMERIT!!!!!

You know I love you Charlie, but re-read my heartfelt plea in the OP please. Focus on the 10 points and not on parties, personalities, or ideologies please. (((hugs)))))

 

[goldcatt]

The problem I have with that idea, Fox, is that they're taking the affirmative here. If they have any interest in or plans on putting these things into action they have to have at least some plan of what they're going to do and how they're going to do it for us to evaluate and decide if it's something we want to take on an "obligation" to pursue.

The lack of detail tells me either they have no clue and they're just throwing it out there to get votes, or they have no intention of actually doing anything about it and are just throwing it out there to get votes, or they have some plans but they are so unpalatable they don't want anybody to know what they are and are gormless enough to hope to sneak them into legislation without us taking much notice, or a combination of all of the above.

Whichever is the case it's nothing I'd get behind. I want to see policies, debate and ideas from leaders. I can watch FOX and MSNBC blowdried muppets if I want talking points.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah...Then they dropped and neglected the agenda items that were shot down and gave the limp loser "we tried" excuse.

Then came the great budget capitulation of '95 and the return of the GOP to being the party of "yes dear".

Were I in the GOP, I wouldn't be a party to any such "contract" until my party proved that they were serious through action.

The only one that didn't pass was term limits. And had I been in Congress I would have voted against term limits at that time too.

But let's please don't make this a partisan issue or one of personality or failings of whatever Congress or group.

I want to know whether you can or cannot support those 10 things in the Contract.

Are you saying that if whomever is in Congress can't guarantee they'll be able to pass an item, you won't support it?