I don't think you do understand though. Once we bring the 1994 contract into it, once you divert the focus to political parties or ideologies or presumed motives, discussion of the actual principles in the Contract and whether we do or do not agree with them becomes impossible to do. Once you make it a partisan or ideological thing, any discussion of what we want our government to accomplish becomes essentially moot.
This thread will dissolve into another food fight as most political threads eventually do.
We can avoid that by keeping party, personalities, and ideologies out of it. That isn't dishonest at all. It is practical.
Okay, moving along here. . . .
No, I do get it. And I appreciate it. You know that.
The problem isn't necessarily bringing people, parties and ideologies into it though. This is politics, the players and the teams often do matter when analyzing the issues. This happens to be one of those issues where it's relevant. The question is whether people can be mature and intelligent enough to debate even people and teams without stooping to sling poo.
Keep the faith.
Foxfyre said:Well, just as the U.S. Constitution is the short version of reams of writings and debates and discussion that went into every clause and phrase, so is the Contract as described in the OP the short synopsis of the reams of writings and debates and discussion that went into each one.
Let’s look at the preamble to the Contract again:
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.
So which, if any, of the ten issues in the Contract would you NOT want Congress to debate and bring to a vote in the first year of the next Congress?
The first, definitely. And for the reasons I stated, plus a few others I didn't yet.
The second I honestly haven't followed and don't know enough about to give it a yea or nay.
The third is worth debate, but I'd want to see the details. Who doesn't want a balanced budget in principle? But again, it depends how they do it - and where they put the money they do spend. I woud also want to see an exemption for limited defecit spending in times of emergency. What would have happened in WWII as just one of many examples without the ability to raise war funds through debt? I don't agree with a 2/3 majority for tax hikes, period. There are times when cutting just isn't enough and you have to increase revenue, but politically a 2/3 majority is unrealistic.
I disagree with the flat tax and would not support this item, although I wholeheartedly agree the tax system needs massive simplification and overhaul. Devil...details....
The next item brings you into the mess of ideological soup and more importantly the balance of powers issues I brought up with the first item. Who creates this "Blue Ribbon" panel? By what standards? Congress deciding whether to keep or cut programs based on the majority party's idea of constitutionality? Big separation of powers issue there, and I'm a fan of the separation of powers. In that regard, the Framers really were geniuses.
I have the same problem with the next point I had with the balanced budget amendment - there must be flexibility for times of emergency.
I can't stand the healthcare debacle that was enacted. I was pretty vocal about that at the time. But we need to scrap it and do something that works, not go back to the same old same old except with a written invitation to race to the bottom.
My stance on energy policy is complicated and evolving, but I can say with certainty the "All of the Above" part is probably necessary for now. Not having a clear goal for a planned energy future without limited energy sources such as oil, however, is only a short-term band aid that could cause more harm than good. And I'm leery of across the board relaxing of regs. I live sandwiched in between a coal plant 15 miles upwind and a nuke plant 15 miles downwind....I like to think they're both under sufficient neutral oversight to be safe.
I fully support ending pork and would support a vote on it, but considering the percentage of the budget it takes up it isn't my top priority.
And the last item is pretty knee-jerk. What cuts will be enacted to replace that revenue? How can we balance the budget and start paying off debt without revenue coming into the system? I could support it in theory, but it would have to be budget neutral.
Nutshell answers, but this is already way too long.
Last edited: