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

[goldcatt]

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.

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.

 

[code1211]

I understand what you're trying to do here, but the problem is this is an obviously ideological agenda being advanced in the same manner and spirit as the partisan GOP "contract" of the 90's. Those are facts, and it would be naive in the extreme to try to pretend otherwise.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an ideological "side" using its nominally non-partisan splinter groups to advance an agenda in its name, both sides do it and while it's disingenuous it's cetainly not illegal or immoral. But you can't blame people for seeing through it and commenting on it, the similarities make it inevitable.

Exactly. It is a ideological agenda, and to try and act like it's not would be dishonest. I wasn't around in the 90's, but I read enough about the one in the 90's to know this is the same old game. Even mostly the same players.

Newt was the leader ot the 90's Contract guys. At that time, most of the Reps involved were Old White Guys who are now even older White Guys who probably were voted out of office during the recent purge.

Who are the "Same Players" you cite? What was their involvement in this Contract?

 

[code1211]

Many times, wisdom is contained in the words of our philosophers. One of these is in our current society was Yogi Berra. Of his many Yogi-isms, one that i always liked was, "If you don't know where you're going, you're probably not going to get there."

The contract from America may be too specific, but at least it has 10 mile posts to measure progress and to center action. All ten, in my mind, are worthy points to consider. Like anything else political, the tiger pits are everywhere, but all ten points address items that are obviously in need of addressing.

If I happened to be a candidate, I would welcome debate from anyone saying that these points should not be addressed. What's not to address? Is the Tax Code really too clear today? Is the Constitution not a good thing to follow in making law? Is governemnt growing too slowly? Are individual rights a bad thing?

These are worthy points of discussion and good markers with which to guide our future legislation.

I could say the same things about phone sex.

It kind-sorta has a desired outcome, it makes one feel all warm and steamy, but in the end you know deep down that the person on the other end of the line is never going to put out in actual reality.

Arf-arf!....Neeeeeeeiiiigh!

At the end of the day, or in the middle for that matter, the time of our Representatives would be better used by spening their own money on phone sex than in spending my money on a study researching the reason why Representatives use 900 numbers.

Assuming that one hand was on the reciever, they would not have a free hand to pick my pocket.

I hate to even ask about that last bit...

 

[sparky]

And I'm going to explain this so even you can understand it friend Modbert.

It is partisan only if people make it partisan.

I refuse to accept that 10 principles or ideas cannot be discussed on their own merits by intelligent people or that they cannot be discussed without bringing opinions of ideologies, personalities, or political parties into it.

So, which of those 10 items would you NOT want to see brought to a vote in the first year of the next Congress?

well Foxfyre,
just my $.02 here, the issues you have laid out are valid, yet are met by a dysfunctional governance raft with collision and corruption

this is where the partisan blame game comes in to run interference for what is really a malignant ineptitude imposing impossible hurdles

i mean, they've been debated ad naseum, but they'll go in the front door of Congress looking like a duck, and fly out the back an albatros....

 

[editec]

It isn't that these aren't good goals, its that the getting to these goals is where the discussion really lives.

If you ask either a liberal or a conservative they tend to want the same outcomes for their nation.

It's in the HOW TO GET THOSE OUTCOMES where we disagree.

So vague generalities aren't the stuff of real thinking.

For example...let's END ALL WARS.

Easy to say, isn't it?

Now how do we do that?

Let's balance the budget.

Easy to say, how do we do it?

 

[Old Rocks]

Essentially a bunch of feel good crap, not even taken seriously by the author.

The same people that signed onto this went to war and reduced the only way to pay for the wars. The same people that signed onto this promoted the deregulation of the financial industry that led to the present economic debacle.

When either party comes out with real plans to address the deficit, then I will vote for them. Nice sounding generalities like this is just fluff for fools.

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote in an older thread on this.

Some thoughts on those planks:

Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).

I dare say most significant bills already do this. For example, the text of the beginning of (what, seeing what some Tea Partiers have to say, I assume to be) the most hated part of the most hated bill signed into law this Congressional term (i.e. the individual mandate bit of the health care bill) begins with an explicit and detailed Constitutional, legislative, and policy justification for its inclusion.

That won't stop them from arguing it's unconstitutional.

Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).

Given that 66% of Tea Party sympathizers in the recent NY Times poll of Tea Partiers either thought climate change doesn't exist or won't have any serious impact, it makes sense that they'd reject something like cap and trade.

But their characterization of it as an administrative approach is exactly backwards. I'll let the CBO explain the two approaches one could take to this problem:

The most fundamental choice facing policymakers is whether to adopt conventional regulatory approaches, such as standards for energy-using machinery and equipment, or to employ market-based approaches, such as taxes on emissions or cap-and-trade programs. Market-based approaches, most experts conclude, would generally limit emissions at a lower cost than command-and-control regulations would. Whereas conventional regulatory approaches would impose specific requirements that might not be the least costly means of reducing emissions, market-based approaches would provide more latitude for firms and households to determine the most cost-effective means of accomplishing that goal.​

Cap-and-trade is a market-based approach aimed at shaping incentives. Not passing it and allowing the EPA to regulate carbon would be the administrative approach.

Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)

One of the primary reasons this hasn't been done before is that it's a terrible idea. Contractionary fiscal policy during good economic times (e.g. the '90s) is fine but during a recession it won't work. Tax revenues fall and spending rising automatically during recessions--this is true even without any sort of stimulus spending. Take away the automatic stabilizers and you'll merely deepen the recession. There are times to seek a balanced budget and there are times when running a deficit is necessary.

As for the two-thirds bit--are there really people out there who want to take the California model for passing a budget national?

Simplify the tax system: 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.(64.9%).

I think there's fairly wide agreement that it's time for a tax simplification. Here's a decent article on the Wyden-Gregg effort to do exactly that. There's no need to take the progressivity out of the federal income tax, however. The argument that this is "fairer" just doesn't hold up when you consider the tax burdens imposed by things like payroll taxes which, being capped, fall more heavily on 5-figure earners than 6-figure-and-above earners. Part of that inequity is corrected by the fact that the marginal tax rates for dollars earned in those higher categories is higher.

Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an 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. (63.37%)

Sounds like another version of Clinton-Gore's National Performance Review (aside from the bit about assessing the constitutionality of the bureaucracy). Okay.

Limit annual growth in federal 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%).

Where is the growth in federal spending going to happen? Let's break government spending down into two categories: 1) Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, and 2) Everything else. Let's start with everything else:

Spending Other Than That for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, 1962 to 2080 (Percentage of GDP)

Not really running away there. Most of the growth comes from system-wide rising health care costs:

But what does the NYT poll reveal about Tea Party attitudes toward the entitlement programs that drive spending increases?

Overall, do you think the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs of those programs for taxpayers, or are they not worth the costs?

Worth it/Not worth it/DK
62/33/6​

That's somewhat perplexing.

Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).

Replace with what?

If we look back at the NYT poll, we see this:

Do you approve or disapprove of requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies for health insurance regardless of whether or not they have an existing medical condition or a prior illness?

Approve/Disapprove/DK
59/32/9​

The question doesn't ask which level of government should impose this requirement, although given this was one of the major tenets of the bill just signed law, it's not particularly far-fetched to read in the question the distinct possibility the feds would be doing the regulating. Regardless, then you get responses like these:

As long as the federal government provides financial help to those who cannot afford health insurance, do you think the federal government should or should not require all Americans to have health insurance?

Should/Should not/DK
12/85/3​

At which point, like most Americans, it becomes difficult to see how the mechanics of their world views are supposed to work.

I see in this thread's incarnation they add a line about "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"--i.e. standard boiler plate coupled with the across-state-lines insurance proposal.

First, I look to point out the irony of (I thought) avid Tenth Amendment-ers pushing for across-state-lines insurance sales, since legislatively that amounts to a federal override of 50 state laws, with the feds forcing states to allow insurance policies in their states that currently they choose not to.

Second, this is an idea that has the potential to be disastrous if done incorrectly (i.e. the way it's done in the Shadegg bill that was incorporated into the Republican substitute this year). If it's done with a modicum of sanity that doesn't just allow the industry to write consumer protection-shedding laws at the state level that then apply nationally, okay. The reform law passed this year (which they want to repeal, of course) take steps toward this in two ways:

Sec. 1333. Provisions relating to offering of plans in more than one State. By July 1, 2013, requires the Secretary, in consultation with NAIC, to issue regulations for interstate health care choice compacts, which can be entered into beginning in 2016. Under such compacts, qualified health plans could be offered in all participating States, but insurers would still be subject to the consumer protection laws of the purchaser’s State. Insurers would be required to be licensed in all participating States (or comply as if they were licensed), and to clearly notify consumers that a policy may not be subject to all the laws and regulations of the purchaser’s State. Requires States to enact a law to enter into compacts and Secretarial approval, but only if the Secretary determines that the compact will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable, to at least a comparable number of residents, as this title would provide; and that it will not increase the Federal deficit or weaken enforcement of State consumer protection laws.​

Sec. 1334. Multi-State Plans. As added by Section 10104, requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with health insurers to offer at least two multi-state qualified health plans (at least one non-profit) through Exchanges in each State. Requires OPM to negotiate contracts in a manner similar to the manner in which it negotiates contracts for Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), and allows OPM to prohibit multi-state plans that do not meet standards for medical loss ratios, profit margins, and premiums. Requires multi-state plans to cover essential health benefits and meet all of the requirements of a qualified health plan; States may require multi-state plans to offer additional benefits, but must pay for the additional cost. Multi-state plans must comply with 3:1 age rating, except States may require more protective age rating. Multi-state plans must comply with the minimum standards and requirements of FEHBP, unless they conflict with the PPACA. Guarantees that FEHBP will maintain a separate risk pool and remain a separate program.​

Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).

Sounds like a pro-drilling, pro-nuclear stance. The President seems to be in their corner on this one.

Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).

I can't tell if this is supposed to be symbolic or if people really think earmarks play a significant part in creating the deficit.

Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)

Surprising this is the lowest of the ten priorities. But it leads back to the question that always has to come up. If you don't like those higher (but still historically low by the standards of most of the 20th century) tax rates and you don't like deficits, then what spending are you specifically going to cut? The only specific spending cut in this entire list is earmarks, or about 1% of the budget (and not a driver of spending increases). A generic "stop spending" plank is questionable without actual suggestions as to how one goes about doing this. Which makes the wisdom of extending deficit-financed tax cuts indefinitely questionable as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).

I dare say most significant bills already do this.

I will be editing out the mild digs at various groups Greenbeard, as I'm asking that we focus on the specific ten points without making this a referendum on any political party, personality, or group. Already some are doing their damndest to divert the discussion away from the issues themselves, and I'm trying really hard to get us just to consider the issues themselves.

Maybe most significant bills already do this as you say. In that case you should have no problem whatsoever with that point of the bill. We can say yes, let's keep that up. Okay?

Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).

Cap-and-trade is a market-based approach aimed at shaping incentives. Not passing it and allowing the EPA to regulate carbon would be the administrative approach.

One of the primary reasons this hasn't been done before is that it's a terrible idea. Contractionary fiscal policy during good economic times (e.g. the '90s) is fine but during a recession it won't work. Tax revenues fall and spending rising automatically during recessions--this is true even without any sort of stimulus spending. Take away the automatic stabilizers and you'll merely deepen the recession. There are times to seek a balanced budget and there are times when running a deficit is necessary.

As for the two-thirds bit--are there really people out there who want to take the California model for passing a budget national?

I think what the proposal in the Contract is saying is a rejection of heavy handed mandates that will enrich favored groups while imposing huge taxes on everybody else. Government should not do this.

I think there's fairly wide agreement that it's time for a tax simplification.

Then perhaps this is where we can find some agreement. The Contract doesn't specify how it will be done but does specify the goal to shoot for.

Not really running away there. Most of the growth comes from system-wide rising health care costs:

Overall, do you think the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs of those programs for taxpayers, or are they not worth the costs?

Worth it/Not worth it/DK


That's somewhat perplexing.​

Again the Contract doesn't say how to do it. It says figure out how to do it. Who could have a problem with that?

Replace (healthcare plan) with what?

When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? The Contract is rejecting the plan that nobody believes will be helpful and says start over with something that will be helpful.


Okay, I gotta go for now. Will address the remainder when I return.​

 

[Greenbeard]

I will be editing out the mild digs at various groups Greenbeard, as I'm asking that we focus on the specific ten points without making this a referendum on any political party, personality, or group.

Eliminating context makes this useless. For example, if a group makes getting a handle on long-term spending the centerpiece of their agenda but polling of self-identified members of that group shows they support Medicare as-is (the source of virtually all long-term spending increases), that's very relevant. Caricatures aside, no one supports spending for spending's sake. But some pieces of spending have been identified as important, like keeping the elderly alive. And that's expensive.

Maybe most significant bills already do this as you say. In that case you should have no problem whatsoever with that point of the bill. We can say yes, let's keep that up. Okay?

I have no problem with it. My point is--and perhaps this is a mild dig--I find the suggestion to be inane as one of the centerpieces of a political movement. It changes virtually nothing and has no ramifications since, as I said, almost any bill that could face a Constitutional challenge contains a Constitutional justification for exactly that reason.

I think what the proposal in the Contract is saying is a rejection of heavy handed mandates that will enrich favored groups while imposing huge taxes on everybody else. Government should not do this.

But government should price externalities, should it not? I assume no one disagrees with that, the question then is simply whether they consider the effects of burning carbon to be an externality. As I said, they don't seem to so it makes sense if they don't want to price it. But pricing it certainly is a market mechanism.

Then perhaps this is where we can find some agreement. The Contract doesn't specify how it will be done but does specify the goal to shoot for.

Sure. But they need to support a specific proposal or their general sentiments will never make it into policy.

Again the Contract doesn't say how to do it. It says figure out how to do it. Who could have a problem with that?

This is why this movement is unsustainable. Everyone likes feel-good platitudes, but government is based on policies, not platitudes. We could save--and make--a shitload of money if we eliminated Medicare tomorrow and taxed everyone's employer-sponsored health benefits as income instead of distorting the market for health benefits (ironically removing that distortion would makes things more free market). But I don't know how that would sit with these folks. I assume they wouldn't like either one, which indicates the obvious--simply improving the budget picture isn't paramount (even to Tea Partiers), since people like much of the spending that occurs (which is why it doesn't stop) and they don't like paying taxes. Hence the predicament.

When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? The Contract is rejecting the plan that nobody believes will be helpful and says start over with something that will be helpful.

That doesn't leave much room for discussion here. Their platform in most of these areas amounts to "let's fix our problems!" Well, I agree. Let's fix our problems.

 

[editec]

I have no problem with the THEORY beind cap and trade.

My concern is the APPLICATION of it will be too tempting for it NOT TO BECOME and system of indulgences for the insiders.

And it's not just going to end with corporations paying for the pollution, either.

A ready market for buying and selling these indulgences means that a futures market for those will develop.

The potential for manipulation of these licenses to pollute is just too much for anyone with any sense to imagine that it won't become so bleedin corrupted that it will actually work against the purpose for which it was originally intended.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The ten points are a load of crap. We as a people are free and enjoy liberty beyond that of any people in any place at anytime in history. These points outlne a system which in short order would replace the land of the free with an oligarchy beyond that which we suffer from today.
There is a power elite in the U.S., a gentry of old money able to construct laws by their 'proxy servers', the members of Congress, legislators of the several state's and assemblies, local boards and special districts. These 'proxy servers' do the bidding of the wealthy and are the greatest threat to our liberty.
In January of this year, overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
Therein lies the real threat to our freedom and liberty as a people.

 

[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?

 

[Avorysuds]

The contract is too vague. After a president like Bush who outright lied and a President like Obama who lied based off "vague" promises I really don't see why we need to make the same mistake again. Also I'd like to see them say they will retire from politics after their term is up and never come back, and return all the money they made during their time serving as well as live the rest of their life in jail... This open ended "we will try" and possibly end up giving us nothing or a shit version while WE the tax payers are the only ones to take the fall is BS... If they can deliver then none of what I said should be an issue, if they can't they STFU and stop trying to buy votes with empy promises.

 

[Foxfyre]

The contract is too vague. After a president like Bush who outright lied and a President like Obama who lied based off "vague" promises I really don't see why we need to make the same mistake again. Also I'd like to see them say they will retire from politics after their term is up and never come back, and return all the money they made during their time serving as well as live the rest of their life in jail... This open ended "we will try" and possibly end up giving us nothing or a shit version while WE the tax payers are the only ones to take the fall is BS... If they can deliver then none of what I said should be an issue, if they can't they STFU and stop trying to buy votes with empy promises.

Referring you back to the OP and the request to abide by guidelines for discussion. I am not opposed to introducing separate issues that you think should be in the ten instead of the ten issues that are now in Contract, but again please focus on the issue itself and whether it is a good idea and not on whether 'it didn't work before' or 'somebody else blew it' or 'who has lied about it.'

If you think something is vague, please say why it is vague and suggest how it could be worded better to be less vague.

Thanks.

 

[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.

 

[topspin]

I'd prefer specific cuts to bullshit. 10 percent cut to each dept, 30 percent cut to military.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd prefer specific cuts to bullshit. 10 percent cut to each dept, 30 percent cut to military.

That sounds good but until you have a chance to look at each department's budget and what they do, it would probably not be wise to just arbitrarily order a 10% cut. The blue ribbon commission, however, that is one of the 10 points of the Contract would be charged to look at EVERY department budget, determine if it was performing a necessary task, determine if it was using its budget efficientyly and effectively, and, if it was not, THEN cut the budget appropriately or eliminate the department altogether.

As for the Defense Dept., I imagine an honest and competent blue ribbon commission could find 30% worth of waste, graft, incompetence, carelessness, and corruption there to cut without reducing support for our troops or veterans or weakening the military by one penny.

 

[topspin]

I'm not interested in fancy explanation why lifelong beurocrats can't cut ten percent is not harmfull considering the general populous struggles.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

 

[Foxfyre]

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.