Little-Acorn
09-23-2010, 02:03 PM
Well, they did what they said they would do, and brought out something they're calling a "Pledge to America".
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/pledgetoamerica.pdf .
Seems to contain some wheat and a lot of chaff. Well, that's better than all chaff.
"Wheat" consists of promises whose fulfillment can be checked and confirmed, like "If you elect us to a majority, we will pass a bill in the House that makes the Bush tax cuts permanent". A month or a year later, we can look back and ask, "Well, did they pass that bill?", and get a definite answer of Yes or No.
"Chaff" consists of statements like "We support such-and-such an idea" or "We will fight to pass a bill that does such-and-such". That idea or bill might never get passed, but the politicians can say, "Well, we supported or fought for it." That and a quarter will buy you a big gumball at Safeway. (That means, it's worthless by itself.) Same goes for things like "We will enact a plan to create jobs." Very few plans to create jobs, wind up creating them, except (historically) enacting tax-rate cuts.
Obviously, House Republicans can't make any promises about what the Senate or President will do, only what THEY will do in the House.
Not much point going thru the chaff. That contains lots of nice ideas, and I like them, but no concrete promises.
Here's the wheat, as I see it:
* "We will help the economy by permanently stopping all tax increases, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011." (Page 8)
Excellent idea, a good first step, and solidly conservative.
* "We will allow small business owners to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their business income." (Page 8)
That's nice, but barely a first step. What government giveth, government can takest away. Why not permanently prohibit government from taxing business at all? Businesses don't make money, people in them do. If you want the authority to tax, tell people directly that you are going to tax THEM, don't hide behind "business".
* "...we will require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more." (Page 8)
I assume that means you will make a law. Good if true. What penalties can/will you impose if Congress doesn't follow this law?
* "We will repeal this job-killing small business mandate (1099 reporting of all purchases over $600)". (Page 8)
Good, a repeal of an oppressive govt mandate. Solidly conservative. But again it's barely a start. See my comment above about Small-business tax deductions.
* "...we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels..." (Page 10)
Good, conservative, but again barely a start. Those levels were still wildly excessive, thanks to generations of Democrats (and lately Republican) overspending. You would have done well to mandate a plan for further cuts after this start. It's the biggest hole in this "Pledge to America". Well, it's a start.
* "We will set strict budget caps to limit federal spending on an annual basis." (Page 10)
Fine. But how much will these caps resemble the Cap presently in place on total indebtedness? You know, the one that Congress simply votes to raise, every time they feel like borrowing more? A real cap (Followed by gradual reductions in that cap) would be far more meaningful. I suspect that this is a good idea in theory, but its execution will be next to worthless. The word "strict" is very important here. What does it REALLY mean? And what penalties will be imposed if Congress does not stay under the cap you enated last month, or last year (by simply voting to raise it)?
* "We will cancel the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)..." (Page 11)
Good, conservative... but again simply a return to a previous unacceptable situation. Like curing the Black Plague and returning to the good old days of smallpox. It is a step forward, but barely a start.
* "We will reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by ending their government takeover..." (Page 11)
Sounds good, but vague. Not sure if this one is wheat or chaff. How about, "We will eliminate F&F and turn them over to private operation, with only the necessary regulation that all financial groups much have"? There are even holes in that, but it would be better.
* "We will impose a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees..." (Page 11)
Excellent idea, again just a start. Most things that limit government are conservative. But things that REDUCE government, given how big it is now, are even more conservative. How about following it with some gradual cuts over time? BTW, what's to prevent every clerk and papershuffler you hire from now on, from simply being renamed "Security Clerk" or "Security Papershuffler"?
* "...requiring that programs end – or “sunset” – by a date certain. We will adopt this requirement at the federal level..." (Page 11)
Not bad. Look at what happened to the Assault Weapons Ban and the present Bush tax cuts. Doesn't completely cure the problem, but it's a step in the right direction. Conservative.
* "We will allow individuals to buy health care coverage outside of the state in which they live." (Page 14)
Nice, and a good, conservative step forward. And it even one of the few areas where government was acting within its Constitutional authority, specifically the Commerce Clause. So it's impossible to guarantee govt will NEVER restrict buying insurance across state lines, short of a Constitutional amendment. So Congressional egislative action, however repeal-able, is the best we can expect here.
* "We will repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care...." (Page 15)
Bravo. Nice and direct. Strongest single point of the Pledge. Unfortunately, it's not the only thing promised in this sentence. Read on...
"...and replace it with common-sense reforms focused on strengthening the doctor-patient relationship." (Page 15)
Ummm... what "reforms"? The only ones I can think of that would actually do what you claim, are a wholesale removal of the Federal government from the fields of Medicine and Insurance. I didn't notice that mentioned anywhere. Why do I get the feeling that that is NOT what you had in mind? By rights this second half of the sentence should go in the CHAFF column.
* "We will establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion, this includes enacting into law what is known as the Hyde Amendment." (Page 15)
Conservative... but not because it opposes abortion per se. Rather, because it opposes Federal spending on something no authorized by the Constitution, and so prohibited by the Commerce Clause.
* "We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified." (Page 18)
Nice idea. Unfortunately, the practical result will simply be a universal reference to the Commerce Clause or Welfare Clause for most liberal legislation, including legislation those clauses clearly do not cover. Who polices that? What penalties will be imposed for falsely citing an irrelevant section of the Constitution, to get around this requirement?
* "...we will let any lawmaker — Democrat or Republican — offer amendments to reduce spending." (Page 18)
Okay. But they'll also be able to offer amendments to INCREASE spending, won't they? Still, the openness will probably do more good than harrm, by a slight margin.
* "When asked to provide our troops with the resources they need, we will do so without delay. That means no more troop funding bills held up by unrelated policy changes, or extraneous domestic spending and pork-barrel projects." (Page 19)
Nice. But does this mean you will pass a law REQUIRING Congress to do this? You didn't exactly say that. What mechanism will be in place to cut out such unrelated sections?
* "We will prevent the government from importing terrorists onto American soil. (i.e. from Gitmo etc.)" (Page 19)
Good. Not conservative/liberal, just common sense.
NOTEABLE CHAFF:
* "Repeal the Costly Health Care Takeover of 2010... we will immediately take action to repeal this law." (Page 14)
This didn't say they would repeal it. It said they would "take action to repeal" it. That and a quarter will buy you a gumball...... But there is another section of the Pledge that says they WILL REPEAL it, later on the page.
* "We will work to ensure foreign terrorists, such as the 9/11 conspirators, are tried in military, not civilian, court. We will oppose all efforts to force our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel operating overseas to extend “Miranda Rights” to foreign terrorists."
Good ideas. But no "We will pass a law saying....", so it's just chaff. Same is true for the following:
• Fully Fund Missile Defense: There is real concern that while the threat from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles could materialize as early as 2015, the government’s missile defense policy is not projected to cover the U.S. homeland until 2020. We will work to ensure critical funding is restored to protect the U.S. homeland and our allies from missile threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.
• Require Tough Enforcement of Sanctions Against Iran: The Iranian regime is a state-sponsor of terrorism, has actively worked to harm our deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and violates the rights and will of its own people. It has declared its determination to acquire a nuclear capability, which threatens its neighbors and the security of the United States. We will work to ensure the government aggressively and effectively implements the sanctions tools Congress has provided.
20
• Establish Operational Control of the Border: We must take action to secure our borders, and that action starts with enforcing our laws. We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border and prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from interfering with Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands.
• Work with State and Local Officials to Enforce Our Immigration Laws: The problem of illegal immigration and Mexican drug cartels engaged in an increasingly violent conflict means we need all hands on deck to address this challenge. We will reaffirm the authority of state and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of all federal immigration laws.
These last are all good ideas, but without "We will enact laws requiring or prohibiting..." they are merely chaff.
So, this "Pledge to America" has a number of good ideas, and will help Republicans get elected. And hopefully, help conservatives too (not the same thing). It obviously doesn't cure ALL ills, it would have to be many thousands of pages to even TRY to do that. It was meant as a start, and it accomplishes that, barely. We could have done without all the chaff, though. That just gets in the way.
BTW, where is the part where Congressmen can sign their names to this "Pledge"? I didn't see that either.
Read it at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/pledgetoamerica.pdf .
Seems to contain some wheat and a lot of chaff. Well, that's better than all chaff.
"Wheat" consists of promises whose fulfillment can be checked and confirmed, like "If you elect us to a majority, we will pass a bill in the House that makes the Bush tax cuts permanent". A month or a year later, we can look back and ask, "Well, did they pass that bill?", and get a definite answer of Yes or No.
"Chaff" consists of statements like "We support such-and-such an idea" or "We will fight to pass a bill that does such-and-such". That idea or bill might never get passed, but the politicians can say, "Well, we supported or fought for it." That and a quarter will buy you a big gumball at Safeway. (That means, it's worthless by itself.) Same goes for things like "We will enact a plan to create jobs." Very few plans to create jobs, wind up creating them, except (historically) enacting tax-rate cuts.
Obviously, House Republicans can't make any promises about what the Senate or President will do, only what THEY will do in the House.
Not much point going thru the chaff. That contains lots of nice ideas, and I like them, but no concrete promises.
Here's the wheat, as I see it:
* "We will help the economy by permanently stopping all tax increases, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011." (Page 8)
Excellent idea, a good first step, and solidly conservative.
* "We will allow small business owners to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their business income." (Page 8)
That's nice, but barely a first step. What government giveth, government can takest away. Why not permanently prohibit government from taxing business at all? Businesses don't make money, people in them do. If you want the authority to tax, tell people directly that you are going to tax THEM, don't hide behind "business".
* "...we will require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more." (Page 8)
I assume that means you will make a law. Good if true. What penalties can/will you impose if Congress doesn't follow this law?
* "We will repeal this job-killing small business mandate (1099 reporting of all purchases over $600)". (Page 8)
Good, a repeal of an oppressive govt mandate. Solidly conservative. But again it's barely a start. See my comment above about Small-business tax deductions.
* "...we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels..." (Page 10)
Good, conservative, but again barely a start. Those levels were still wildly excessive, thanks to generations of Democrats (and lately Republican) overspending. You would have done well to mandate a plan for further cuts after this start. It's the biggest hole in this "Pledge to America". Well, it's a start.
* "We will set strict budget caps to limit federal spending on an annual basis." (Page 10)
Fine. But how much will these caps resemble the Cap presently in place on total indebtedness? You know, the one that Congress simply votes to raise, every time they feel like borrowing more? A real cap (Followed by gradual reductions in that cap) would be far more meaningful. I suspect that this is a good idea in theory, but its execution will be next to worthless. The word "strict" is very important here. What does it REALLY mean? And what penalties will be imposed if Congress does not stay under the cap you enated last month, or last year (by simply voting to raise it)?
* "We will cancel the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)..." (Page 11)
Good, conservative... but again simply a return to a previous unacceptable situation. Like curing the Black Plague and returning to the good old days of smallpox. It is a step forward, but barely a start.
* "We will reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by ending their government takeover..." (Page 11)
Sounds good, but vague. Not sure if this one is wheat or chaff. How about, "We will eliminate F&F and turn them over to private operation, with only the necessary regulation that all financial groups much have"? There are even holes in that, but it would be better.
* "We will impose a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees..." (Page 11)
Excellent idea, again just a start. Most things that limit government are conservative. But things that REDUCE government, given how big it is now, are even more conservative. How about following it with some gradual cuts over time? BTW, what's to prevent every clerk and papershuffler you hire from now on, from simply being renamed "Security Clerk" or "Security Papershuffler"?
* "...requiring that programs end – or “sunset” – by a date certain. We will adopt this requirement at the federal level..." (Page 11)
Not bad. Look at what happened to the Assault Weapons Ban and the present Bush tax cuts. Doesn't completely cure the problem, but it's a step in the right direction. Conservative.
* "We will allow individuals to buy health care coverage outside of the state in which they live." (Page 14)
Nice, and a good, conservative step forward. And it even one of the few areas where government was acting within its Constitutional authority, specifically the Commerce Clause. So it's impossible to guarantee govt will NEVER restrict buying insurance across state lines, short of a Constitutional amendment. So Congressional egislative action, however repeal-able, is the best we can expect here.
* "We will repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care...." (Page 15)
Bravo. Nice and direct. Strongest single point of the Pledge. Unfortunately, it's not the only thing promised in this sentence. Read on...
"...and replace it with common-sense reforms focused on strengthening the doctor-patient relationship." (Page 15)
Ummm... what "reforms"? The only ones I can think of that would actually do what you claim, are a wholesale removal of the Federal government from the fields of Medicine and Insurance. I didn't notice that mentioned anywhere. Why do I get the feeling that that is NOT what you had in mind? By rights this second half of the sentence should go in the CHAFF column.
* "We will establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion, this includes enacting into law what is known as the Hyde Amendment." (Page 15)
Conservative... but not because it opposes abortion per se. Rather, because it opposes Federal spending on something no authorized by the Constitution, and so prohibited by the Commerce Clause.
* "We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified." (Page 18)
Nice idea. Unfortunately, the practical result will simply be a universal reference to the Commerce Clause or Welfare Clause for most liberal legislation, including legislation those clauses clearly do not cover. Who polices that? What penalties will be imposed for falsely citing an irrelevant section of the Constitution, to get around this requirement?
* "...we will let any lawmaker — Democrat or Republican — offer amendments to reduce spending." (Page 18)
Okay. But they'll also be able to offer amendments to INCREASE spending, won't they? Still, the openness will probably do more good than harrm, by a slight margin.
* "When asked to provide our troops with the resources they need, we will do so without delay. That means no more troop funding bills held up by unrelated policy changes, or extraneous domestic spending and pork-barrel projects." (Page 19)
Nice. But does this mean you will pass a law REQUIRING Congress to do this? You didn't exactly say that. What mechanism will be in place to cut out such unrelated sections?
* "We will prevent the government from importing terrorists onto American soil. (i.e. from Gitmo etc.)" (Page 19)
Good. Not conservative/liberal, just common sense.
NOTEABLE CHAFF:
* "Repeal the Costly Health Care Takeover of 2010... we will immediately take action to repeal this law." (Page 14)
This didn't say they would repeal it. It said they would "take action to repeal" it. That and a quarter will buy you a gumball...... But there is another section of the Pledge that says they WILL REPEAL it, later on the page.
* "We will work to ensure foreign terrorists, such as the 9/11 conspirators, are tried in military, not civilian, court. We will oppose all efforts to force our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel operating overseas to extend “Miranda Rights” to foreign terrorists."
Good ideas. But no "We will pass a law saying....", so it's just chaff. Same is true for the following:
• Fully Fund Missile Defense: There is real concern that while the threat from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles could materialize as early as 2015, the government’s missile defense policy is not projected to cover the U.S. homeland until 2020. We will work to ensure critical funding is restored to protect the U.S. homeland and our allies from missile threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.
• Require Tough Enforcement of Sanctions Against Iran: The Iranian regime is a state-sponsor of terrorism, has actively worked to harm our deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and violates the rights and will of its own people. It has declared its determination to acquire a nuclear capability, which threatens its neighbors and the security of the United States. We will work to ensure the government aggressively and effectively implements the sanctions tools Congress has provided.
20
• Establish Operational Control of the Border: We must take action to secure our borders, and that action starts with enforcing our laws. We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border and prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from interfering with Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands.
• Work with State and Local Officials to Enforce Our Immigration Laws: The problem of illegal immigration and Mexican drug cartels engaged in an increasingly violent conflict means we need all hands on deck to address this challenge. We will reaffirm the authority of state and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of all federal immigration laws.
These last are all good ideas, but without "We will enact laws requiring or prohibiting..." they are merely chaff.
So, this "Pledge to America" has a number of good ideas, and will help Republicans get elected. And hopefully, help conservatives too (not the same thing). It obviously doesn't cure ALL ills, it would have to be many thousands of pages to even TRY to do that. It was meant as a start, and it accomplishes that, barely. We could have done without all the chaff, though. That just gets in the way.
BTW, where is the part where Congressmen can sign their names to this "Pledge"? I didn't see that either.