A New Contract With America
Remember the Contract with America? That was the pact that Newt Gingrich and some of his pals put together during the campaign of 1994. Some people think it won the Republicans the House that year. Why? Chiefly because it demonstrated an awareness of fiscal reality that had been missing in Washington.
I thought about the Contract while digesting the news of Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget. That’s the president’s extra lean, no frills, cut-to-the-bone budget. It projects a deficit of $1.6 trillion dollars next year, something close to that the year after, and who knows how much in the years following.
Has the penny dropped yet? “Wealthy Face Tax Increases” warns an article in The Wall Street Journal. But it’s not just the wealthy. It’s also the middle-class, folks struggling to pay their mortgage and educate their children. In fact, just about everybody who pays income tax (all 50-odd percent of us) will see their taxes rise, and rise substantially. There have been many stories about “back door” and “stealth” taxes. Hope and small change. Get used to it: you will be poorer.
Is it all part of Obama’s plan to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”? (Don’t forget: that was his promise—his warning?—just a few days before his election in 2008.”) Even The New York Times is getting worried:
“His budget draws a picture of a nation that like many American homeowners simply cannot get above water.”
And it’s not just money. Or rather, the money isn’t only about money. It is also about some of the things money represents: national security, for example. “Deficit Balloons Into National-Security Threat,” reads a headline today. You’ll be reading that headline often in the months and years to come. Not only will you be poorer because of Barack Obama and his spendthrift allies in Congress, you and your children will be less secure. Here’s Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations: “We’ve reached a point now where there’s an intimate link between our solvency and our national security. What’s so discouraging is that our domestic politics don’t seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole world is watching.”
It is easy to be alarmed by what’s happening around us. Alarm, if it issues in appropriate action, is a good. What’s not good is a fatalistic acceptance of our national impoverishment and eclipse. Too many conservatives, I believe, have embraced a Paul-Kennedyesque spirit of declinism. They accept as a given what is only a possibility. A more valuable response is enshrined in the spirit of the “tea parties” that are sweeping the country. Can they make a difference? Ask yourself this: Can a Republican win a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states? (How do you spell “Scott Brown”?)
I like it! But a balanced budget act is always dicey for a national government, because unexpected disasters or “man-caused disasters”(attacks) call for fast action outside of what may be budgeted. Leaving an emergency clause would probably mean a permanent state of red alert; Congress would rather we had that than have to cut the pork.
Politicians will never pass legislation limiting their own power.
A “rainy day fund” might be part of the Balanced Budget Act.
I see noting directly related to ILLEGAL ALIENS and National Security. How can we force our elected officials to enforce our laws? The break down of the rule of law is as much a threat to our country as are the incompetence of our President, the stupidity of his fiscal policies and the general corruption in government.
Wrong preposition: Contract On America.
Do not agree with a lot of this for these reasons:
1. Abrogates the responsibilities of the Admin and Congress
2. No opinion
3-5. Abrogates the responsibilities of the Admin and Congress
6. Agree but part is silly (force congress to do their own tax). Is using TurboTax seeking professional help?
7. Agree
8. May be hard to define “single subject” since there can be some side issues that have to be dealt with to support the single subject.
9. Agree
10. Now how do you write a law that establishes and reinforces an interpretation of a section of the constitution?
Roger Kimball may be putting the cart before the horse. His concept is sound, but of secondary importance. We need to place a far greater emphasis on guilt tripping our relatives, friends, and neighbors into feeling obligated to keep up on the issues of the day. The typical American is something of an ignoramus. Their self-inflicted stupidity makes it easy for the Progressives to play them for suckers. These people do not have to spend ten hours or more per week. Their time is limited and they have many conflicting responsibilities. This cannot be denied—but there still is no excuse for not investing a minimum of two hours every one hundred and sixty eight hours to understanding the political challenges of our present era. Let the guilt tripping begin.
Article V of the Constitution. The ability to demand a Constitutional Convention was put in so that if Congress won’t do what the states want, states can override Congress. Only thing missing from the new contract is a line item veto.
I have a great idea for a new contract with america: a) stop spending and reduce government and taxes; and, b) stay out of people’s private lives, that includes the moralizing theocrats. End of contract.
We need people in office who ARE America, not people who want to make a contract with it.
It’ll never happen.
What about something compelling the politicians to stop hindering the development of sources of energy HERE in America ?
Until now, the politicos get the applause of the saudis because with their stupid laws don’t allow us to dig for oil, to build nuclear power plants and refineries, etc. etc.: this keeps the prices of energy high and the Arabs are all happy. What about making the American People happy ?
4 of 10 require commissions. DOA.
The Waste, Fraud and Abuse Act merely identifies problems, has no authority (unless it’s not shown here) to solve them. Aren’t there NGOs and other private concerns doing this work already anyway?
Maybe call it the FYI Act (For Your Indignation).
The deficit is a big problem but the real tax and spend issue is entitlements. Anyone who thinks that ANY US President or government will actually do something about entitlements is deluded. Every adult knows that most likely, the problems will be talked about and talked about until finally the whole entitlement pyramid comes crashing down in ruins. When that happens it will be up to ordinary people to pick up the pieces as best they can and to fend for themselves.
Plenty of other countries face the same predicament and will almost certainly do nothing except let the system crash under the sheer weight of entitlements.
The proper analogy for the US and other “rich” countries is the man with a syringe in his arm from which a rubber tube runs into his mouth. He survives by sucking his own blood. Well, he survives for a while and then the fainting fits come. He can only be kept alive by food donated by outsiders and those outsiders will eventually call the shots. That’s what is happening with the Chinese and other buyers of US debt now. Obama is just making sure he sucks most of the blood now, while it is still available.
It’s gonna take more than fancy pieces of paper to fix this situation. The scary thing is trying to imagine what kind of democratic institutions will remain after a slow motion crash.
Let’s hope the essentials of life – ski hills, tea and bacon – will still be around
Ahem,
My thoughts about Obama as well.
Ed
There is already a contract with America, it’s called the Constitution. Our governing class refuses to honor it; why would we expect them to honor a new one? This is why liberals are properly descried as “dirty liberals.” We had a meeting, we talked it over and we all agreed that we would create a government that would only do certain things. In fact, most of us withheld our consent until given surity that the government would do only the ennumerated things. Now these dirty liberals openly violate that written agreement and characterize our insistence on adherence to the agreement as an attack on or a “Contract ON America.” Dirty liberals.
http://www.contractfromamerica.com/Idea.aspx
Republicans enacted a line item veto in the ’90s, President Clinton approved it, and the Supreme Court ruled it unconstituional.
We need an amendment to get this passed.
Yes, #17 picked up on the essence here. We must return to adherence to the Constitution. THAT FIXES A LOT. We must review existing laws and bills and repeal any that do not conform to the Constitution. AND, it MUST be taught in school. Our children are taught NOTHING of any substance about their country in today’s public schools. A TRAVESTY.
Generally I agree with this, but it would be better if SS were eliminated except for those with disabilities. It should be replaced with a private IRA system and set set of investment rules. Then it could be policed by accounting firms instead of a federal government that is incapable of overseeing anything.
Medical coverage should be private also. It is amusing to me that the only ‘crisis’ in medical coverage is in the government sector. Why do we think government can run medical care, or anything else.
And what about a 14th Amendment confirmation act affirming equal protection. I’m sick of progressivism.
Well…this is not going to happen. This is all predicated on legislation.
What we need is a fundamental restructuring of the Republican party so that members of the Republican Party may not engage in deficit spending and are obligated to pull the budget back into surplus until the debt is paid off.
It that simple.
It’s a contract between party and the elected officials that bear the party’s standard and receive funding from the party for campaigning.
Just like corporation require a code of conduct for their employees, the party may require a code of conduct for it’s “employees.”
I call it the PLEDGE.
It stipulates that any Elected Republican Official, Legislative or Executive, may not engage in deficit spending in the legislature or allow the other party to engage in this without going to any and all length to prevent it’s passage.
They will be bound by this contract to fillibuster.
And Elected Republican Executive will be obligated to Veto any and all deficit spending.
ANY LEGISLATOR OR EXECUTIVE THAT VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WILL BE EXPELLED FROM THE PARTY AND NEVER REINSTATED!
They will be obligated by the contract to pay back every single cent the party ever gave them.
I’d like you all to think about this. This is something that the other side will have no say in. They literally cannot prevent this in any way, legally or otherwise.
The question is this–do you really want the Republican party to be the party of fiscal responsibility or not?
Remember this, the budget got balanced, then Gingrich got replaced by Tom Delay–what happened next?
I see these as campaign agendas for a conservative style of government.
That is, I don’t see these as legal Acts (except for term limits) but as agendas for a govt.
A key problem with these is that Obama has fouled the waters so to speak by his endless campaign promises -which he has immediately broken: i.e., transparency, no new taxes, posting bills for 5 days before he signs them, no lobbying, etc etc.
You want to know how to save money? Set the bureaucrats against each other: if any government employee finds waste, fraud or abuse, or comes up with an idea to streamline government and save money, and this idea is implemented, 10% of the money recovered or saved shall be awarded as a bonus to the person or group of persons submitting the recoupment or savings claim, with no limit to the amount of money that can be awarded in this manner. That means if someone single handedly saves a billion dollars, he or she will be paid $100 million, less applicable taxes, for this effort. If a worker in private industry found and corrected an inefficiency that saved $1 million, you can bet that he or she would be given a bonus for that effort, if not promoted for it. Best part is, I can’t figure out who would be against such a system.
The Constitution already HAS a balanced budget requirement! Congress may only borrow money to pay for war expenses.
We should challenge the budgets in the SCOTUS. This is their job, to rein in the out-of-control Congress. They rarely do it, of course.
A New Contract With America
Great minds think alike:
http://www.contractfromamerica.com
Unfortunately, GM make the same mistake:
They expect words to control deeds; Nevah.
Furtherandmore, _there_is_not_time_ ;
It will be all over in a decade, tops,
and reform needs to start _yesterday_.
The bottom-up grassroots Tea Party movement must
Putsch their platform (sic), replacing Congress-
Critters in 2010 and the President in 2012.
I like some of it, but I feel we need to limit the power of government much more than this. And with the advent of the internet, I believe that the time has come for a more direct democracy. I believe that the American people should have veto power, on every bill that congress passes, and before it reaches the president’s desk. Our intent should be limited government. Those human forms of organization that use the most minds are the most efficient (markets, democracy, juries etc…) Contrast those with tyranny, monopolies, command economies etc… And ask yourself which are more successful.
The core of the current problem with “our government” is that the system of checks and balances has failed. Our vote comes too seldom and at the risk of great dilution. The press has failed. The two party system is too much in collusion. The MSM has failed in its duty to objective reporting.
The rules of law appear to not pertain to the elected officials. Bribes, perjury, and graft, for example, are no longer criminal offenses to the ruling class. Who else can vote themselves automatic pay increases, junket vacations,increased spending limits, and fabulous perks with someone elses’ money.
Obama had it right when he self diagnosed that there was a “deficit of trust.”
The listed solutions are similiar to the Tea Party ideals. A plantiff 3rd party can pressure the old cronies as it has done out of the necessity of their corruption and extravagant spending habits.
I would go for an attorney general who is independent of the presidency. Like the FBI director his term would not synchronize with the election cycle. Somebody has to be able to be the top cop when the president fails at that duty or congress stuffs their pork pockets.
If conservatives could take over the House and Senate, something like this could be done. As a contract for America, I doubt it is even possible. There are others out there that might work better for candidates in 2010.
Let voting citizens negotiate face-to-face
with their local officials, including a promise
to carry the agreement up to the next level,
and so on; No time for Top-down, even if possible.
No, really: push the Reset/Overload button on your
economic estimator, and get a fresh new reading on
how long we have to begin reform.
10. Rob: “We need people in office who ARE America, not people who want to make a contract with it.”
Rog, you Eastern Elitist, you’re falling behind in your rhetoric. The tea-baggers are gonna run right over you.
The one part I don’t agree with is the balanced budget amendment (which would in any event just mean that taxes would have to be raised to sky high rates). In its place, how about an amendment capping spending? For example, the amendment cap Federal spending to be more than x% of last year’s GDP. Of course what constitutes spending and what constitutes GDP would have to be spelled in great detail by the amendment. Never underestimate a politician’s ability to try and get around what the Constitution says (see current debate about 1st and 2nd Amendments). A really good amendment though would be one that repeals the 16th and 17th Amendments and so return power to the states that those amendments robbed them of.
Finally, and very importantly, I would add an amendment that says any regulation any of the Administration regulatory bodies (e.g., EPA) want to impose must be presented to Congress as bill, and it must go through the legislative process just like any other bill. We must put a stop to the Administration legislating through regulation (e.g., the EPA’s actions on CO2).
And if the Repubs win both Houses in the next election, they can shut down the Federal Government to make their point. That worked really well for Newt, the boys, and their contract.
25. There’s lots of things that Congress is doing that are usurping the Constitution, but deficit spending isn’t one of them. Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, with no restrictions, save that borrowed money can’t be used in any way that tax money can’t be spent.
Re: 33 DWIGHT…
And where are those Repuglicans now??? You vote em in and they screw up the system more
Ugh. If we’re gonna try something again, shouldn’t we try something that worked the first time?
It is possible…Brown didn’t win because he is conservative, he won promising the 41st vote. Running on the notion of fixing Washington is not enough. Make the list famous, get candidates run on those promises, democrat or republican, and hold them to it. We decide. I like the list, some of the items are less important than others, but the list could very well be a campaign promise. Simon, make your list famous. Start cutting and pasting.
I would rather see a Business Contract with America that:
1. Permanently lowers the corporate tax rate and payroll tax rates.
2. Opens the door to development of offshore oil and shale oil resources, and directs the increased tax receipts to development of new nuclear plants and emerging energy technologies.
3. Reprioritizes immigration so that more high-skill and high-education workers are able to enter the United States with open-ended work visas.
Even if the Republicans can do all they say they want, so what ? Eventually they will fall back into the same rut they always do, remember it is politics from the two ancient Greek words Poli, meaning many, and Tics, meaning blood suckers. Politicians cant help themselves, they are after all, only politicians.