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

[goldcatt]

For the people who have said they would vote "yes" on this, have any of you stopped to seriously consider what happens when and if these measures are put into effect but your opposition is in the majority?

Your opposition is then using your framework to get busy applying its own priorities, its own ideal of constitutionality, its own version of what is appropriate as far as bureaucracy, and so on - but their hands are tied by the restrictions placed by some of these measures to add any incentives for compromise.

Even assuming your "side" would reach a majority based on the "contract", assuming they have good intentions and are able to pass these measures, history has proven over and over again there is no such thing as a permanent majority. Yet some of this agenda is about as permanent as it gets in politics.

What happens when your team is the steamrolled rather than the steamroller? Will this agenda suddenly become less appealing?

But the thing is, Goldcatt, as long as everythng politic is framed withint the perspective of whose 'side' proposes it or 'who supports or opposes it', or who in Washington most benefits from it, we never ever get down to the WHAT that we all, left, right, and center, should be focused on. Unless we can acheive consensus on WHAT the focus should be, the HOW will it be done is moot.

I'm sure there are those who will argue, but in my opinion the Contract is designed to focus Americans on that WHAT without concern about political party or partisanship.

So in answer to your question, I can say without reservation that yes, I have thought long and hard about all ten issues and can readily agree that these are the ten issues that should be the focus of the next Congress. I'm signing the Contract. Each issue should be thoroughly examined, all ramifications including unintended negative consequences and potential for abuse should be carefully considered, and all perspectives should be thoroughly debated.

And then bring it to an honest, open, and nonmanipulated vote. If an issue has achieved consensus enough to pass it. then fine. If not, then it's back to the drawing board and come up with something everybody can live with that conforms to the stated principle.

The one item I have some reservations about and would want come modifications included to some extent is the balanced budget. This is because we can't just end entitlements for people we have made dependent on them without creating unconscionable hardship on those people. So those will need to very gradually be phased out, just as they have gradually accrued, until we have developed something sustainable. But there is sure no reason not to implement policy that will lead to a balanced budget.

Also I think there has to be some way for Congress to temporarily borrow for unanticipated national emergencies, but that would have to be carefully worded to ensure that 'national emergency' was clearly defined.

With all due respect, the more I look at this and think about it the more cynical I am about it. These are not just policy proposals. Some of them are major, bedrock level procedural changes as well - and ones that will guarantee whoever is in the Congressional majority power they were never intended to have. Handpicked blue ribbon panels of elected partisans declaring the constitutionality of programs, procedures, entire agencies? Never mind the fact that the idea itself is quite possibly unconstitutional - that's huge power. And I have yet to see a partisan congressional leader who let the possibility of a good power grab sneak past.

So....assume the GOP wins this time around, and y'all get what you want. But then in 2 years the pendulum swings back. How comfortable would you feel with Dems selecting those blue ribbon panels? And interpreting the constitution their way to decide the size and shape of just about all things in the Federal government? How involved do you want any elected partisans in the process of constitutional interpretation, and how much power would you be comfortable with them having to enforce their agenda?

If this is a legitimate proposal the right really intends to enact, these are serious, fundamental questions that need to be answered before you even get to policy details. What are your principles?

Personally, I think we have much bigger problems to deal with than most of the items on this agenda. But these are just a few of the problems I have with what little is being proposed - and as has been pointed out, there isn't much here to work with. Even if I were to agree that these are the items we should be focusing on in the first year of the next Congress (with two shooting wars, unemployment still through the roof, etc etc?) I couldn't sign on to these proposals because I see them as either heavily ideological in what little is set forth as policy or disingenuous attempts to force procedural changes that will concentrate even more power in a few hands. That's a principle I can't support - no matter which "side" is holding the reins.

No, thank you.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the people who have said they would vote "yes" on this, have any of you stopped to seriously consider what happens when and if these measures are put into effect but your opposition is in the majority?

Your opposition is then using your framework to get busy applying its own priorities, its own ideal of constitutionality, its own version of what is appropriate as far as bureaucracy, and so on - but their hands are tied by the restrictions placed by some of these measures to add any incentives for compromise.

Even assuming your "side" would reach a majority based on the "contract", assuming they have good intentions and are able to pass these measures, history has proven over and over again there is no such thing as a permanent majority. Yet some of this agenda is about as permanent as it gets in politics.

What happens when your team is the steamrolled rather than the steamroller? Will this agenda suddenly become less appealing?

But the thing is, Goldcatt, as long as everythng politic is framed withint the perspective of whose 'side' proposes it or 'who supports or opposes it', or who in Washington most benefits from it, we never ever get down to the WHAT that we all, left, right, and center, should be focused on. Unless we can acheive consensus on WHAT the focus should be, the HOW will it be done is moot.

I'm sure there are those who will argue, but in my opinion the Contract is designed to focus Americans on that WHAT without concern about political party or partisanship.

So in answer to your question, I can say without reservation that yes, I have thought long and hard about all ten issues and can readily agree that these are the ten issues that should be the focus of the next Congress. I'm signing the Contract. Each issue should be thoroughly examined, all ramifications including unintended negative consequences and potential for abuse should be carefully considered, and all perspectives should be thoroughly debated.

And then bring it to an honest, open, and nonmanipulated vote. If an issue has achieved consensus enough to pass it. then fine. If not, then it's back to the drawing board and come up with something everybody can live with that conforms to the stated principle.

The one item I have some reservations about and would want come modifications included to some extent is the balanced budget. This is because we can't just end entitlements for people we have made dependent on them without creating unconscionable hardship on those people. So those will need to very gradually be phased out, just as they have gradually accrued, until we have developed something sustainable. But there is sure no reason not to implement policy that will lead to a balanced budget.

Also I think there has to be some way for Congress to temporarily borrow for unanticipated national emergencies, but that would have to be carefully worded to ensure that 'national emergency' was clearly defined.

With all due respect, the more I look at this and think about it the more cynical I am about it. These are not just policy proposals. Some of them are major, bedrock level procedural changes as well - and ones that will guarantee whoever is in the Congressional majority power they were never intended to have. Handpicked blue ribbon panels of elected partisans declaring the constitutionality of programs, procedures, entire agencies? Never mind the fact that the idea itself is quite possibly unconstitutional - that's huge power. And I have yet to see a partisan congressional leader who let the possibility of a good power grab sneak past.

So....assume the GOP wins this time around, and y'all get what you want. But then in 2 years the pendulum swings back. How comfortable would you feel with Dems selecting those blue ribbon panels? And interpreting the constitution their way to decide the size and shape of just about all things in the Federal government? How involved do you want any elected partisans in the process of constitutional interpretation, and how much power would you be comfortable with them having to enforce their agenda?

If this is a legitimate proposal the right really intends to enact, these are serious, fundamental questions that need to be answered before you even get to policy details. What are your principles?

Personally, I think we have much bigger problems to deal with than most of the items on this agenda. But these are just a few of the problems I have with what little is being proposed - and as has been pointed out, there isn't much here to work with. Even if I were to agree that these are the items we should be focusing on in the first year of the next Congress (with two shooting wars, unemployment still through the roof, etc etc?) I couldn't sign on to these proposals because I see them as either heavily ideological in what little is set forth as policy or disingenuous attempts to force procedural changes that will concentrate even more power in a few hands. That's a principle I can't support - no matter which "side" is holding the reins.

No, thank you.

Okay, let's look at that blue ribbon panel for a minute.

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%)

Since you can't seem to resist framing this within political parties or ideologies, I will first protest when you assume that 'ya'll' means I am Republican. That is an assumption that is not safe to make.

Second if it is having a blue ribbon panel doing a full audit of government agencies, I will remind you that the previous administration stated that as a goal. It was one they didn't get to, but it was a stated goal. And the current administration got elected with that as a clear promise that would be done right away. It hasn't been done of course, but it was promised.

However, if the elected leadership in the White House and in the Congress is not who should do a full audit of government agencies, then who should?

We have blue ribbon panels doing all sorts of things when we need a particular problem receiving particular focus. The 9/11 Commission was such a panel. There is a standing group auditing and decided what base closures will be recommended. I have never known there to be such a panel that was not bipartisan.

This panel, no more than any other such panel, would not have authority to cut funding for any agency or program, would have no authority to hire or fire anyone, nor have authority to close anything. What they would be charged to do is a full audit with a report to Congress that assesses an agency or program effectiveness and whether it should have its funding cut, increased, or it should be eliminated altogether.

Then Congress and the President together would make the decisions. As long as the motives were pure and the standards reasonable, I can't see what difference it would make who is in charge at the time.

Given the overwhelming cost and scope of government, don't you think it is time to do this? What possible objection could anyone have?

 

[midcan5]

Jeez, I started to reply to this earlier and now it is off the radar screen. But anyway here goes.

The Contract on America - didn't this go bust not too long ago.

Individual Liberty

Saying liberties are inherent is a meaningless statement. Inherent in what? Existence? We do not exist in a land of imaginary choices, all choices are defined by the social situation. Government is the linchpin for all liberties because without a force of guarantee chaos would ensue.

Limited Government

Another vague abstraction and usually meaningless blather. You already contradicted your first contract point in the first sentence of this item. If government's role were so limited you'd be living in Somalia. I am not a Hobbesian but surely there are lots of areas in which gov is required and the enforcement of law is a chief one. Now narrow down law and legislation and safety and then you can have your limit.

Economic Freedom

There is no such thing as a free market. There is a market and if that were such an idyllic solution we would not have had the havoc that was the 19th and 20th centuries. Why do you think there is a Sherman anti trust act or the many restraints FDR had to enforce. And why do think perchance, we almost just sank again? All economic systems are mixed today, and require regulation and penalties. People just ain't saints.

1. Protect the Constitution

From what? If there is a single item that would destroy a constitutional government it a free for all society that uses 'freedom' as an excuse for the predicament of all its citizens and not just the well heeled. Law is just fine, actually too fine as we sue over everything and corporate freedom needs to reigned in if America is to continue to be the light on the hill.


2. Reject Cap & Trade

Why? And do those things follow? They don't as producing clean, or ruining the earth and the world our grandchildren will inherit is our responsibility. Start paying all Americans 2 dollars a day and we'll compete just fine globally.

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

With our war machine that ain't possible. With our fears that ain't possible. With our low taxes that ain't possible.

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

I agree. Start taxing wealth based on how much the American system is worth to them for without it they would be poor. If they don't like that ask them to leave, and if they are a business, identify it so we can stop supporting them with our purchasing. Any companies that outsources but sells here would be taxed at an even higher rate.

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

Restore responsibility in business and in our own lives too as Washington only represents the American way on a larger scale or as someone once said high school with guns. 'Constitutionally Limited Government' sounds cute but is meaningless and covered above.

6. End Runaway Government Spending

You keep forgetting war and corporate perks. See links below.

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

Yea sure, make us more like Somalia. Ain't gonna happen, once Americans get a good thing they'll hold on to it. Think other Gov run projects.

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

Doesn't this contradict your entire 'freedom' mantra? It does. Buy where it is cheap or did you forget markets and freedom and global competitiveness. I only joke - yes, support with tax incentives those American companies who hire Americans and build here and then we'll share as we always do. Let the other eat cake or serve their own cake.

9. Stop the Pork

Pork is in the eye of the beholder, not all so called pork is a bad thing, someone has to do the hard non-profitable things in this greed driven nation.

10. Stop the Tax Hikes

No way. Raise them, the rich in part caused our recent meltdown, having so much money they speculated us to the edge of disaster. Plus the rich waste on frivolous third and fourth homes and exotic foreign cars.

http://www.simplistic blather as solution.con

links

At the top: Soaring incomes, falling tax rates
The Conservative Nanny State
Cornered | NewAmerica.net
The Rhetoric of Reaction - Albert O. Hirschman - Harvard University Press
A Roosevelt Moment for America?s Megabanks? - Project Syndicate
Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

>

 

[editec]

Good ideas, but still only words. Show me some action.

But what action do you want?

Can you support the contract if there is action on those 10 items? If you don't send your representatives to Washington with marching orders of what you expect them to do, it is highly unlikely you'll get much in the way of results.

Those aren't "marching orders"

That's mostly a wish list of what people want from government.

Congress could do exactly what its always does and CLAIM they're following the mandates, but the OTHER SIDE won't let them.

They both do that so lets not pretend otherwise.

 

[Greenbeard]

Those aren't "marching orders"

That's mostly a wish list of what people want from government.

Exactly. Suppose one looked at the plank about making "health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care." What does that mean? Do we turn to the Patients Choice Act favored by well-known free marketers like Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn?

It certainly meets the criteria, I imagine. And what's the centerpiece of it? Building state-operated health insurance exchanges at the state level with benefits standards pegged to the standards members of Congress enjoy and guaranteed issue provisions so no one is turned away based on age or medical history (this is also known as creating a marketplace in which insurers compete on price instead of risk). People under a certain percentage of the poverty line get a debit card to help them buy private insurance or pay out-of-pocket health care costs.

So we have a proposal to build a new, competitive, transparent marketplace put forth by fiscal conservatives. Does it satisfy the vague Tea Party goals? One would think, until one realizes it's structured very much like that dreaded ObamaCare. Then you have to wonder what those words actually mean if not this.