| | I've just finished looking at the Republican's Pledge to America. Several things come to mind:
1.) It has some good ideas and good intentions,
2.) It is written by Washington insiders who were primarly driven by poll results,
3.) After the election, it will fade and can never stand against the insider's drive for power, and the elites belief that they know better (better than the constitution, better than the free market).
The preface is well written and there is little to argue with. I suspect that the Republican structure allowed those who understand and agree with the Libertarian position write this, and that for insiders, the power brokers, it's just propoganda. It doesn't get specific so just say what they want to hear. The only flaw on that first page is a morsel tossed to the religious crowd, "We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values."
--------------
WEASLE WORDING
Here is an example of the another problem with the document: "Our plan stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government; economic freedom; lower taxes; fiscal responsibility; protecting life, American values, and the Constitution;"
That looks okay on the surface, but notice what a giant difference exists between "smaller" and "small" - a 'small' government is something that is perhaps half the current budget.
Whereas a 'smaller' government can be just exactly the same government we have now after just one federal employee retires.
In other words, "smaller?" How much smaller. More accountable? What does that mean - specifically? Lower taxes? How much lower? And what does fiscal responsibility mean if there is no pledge to pass a balance budget amendment or stop the Fed from printing or massively reform the ugly income tax code? Throwing in the phrase Amercian values is just a coded response to the religious wing-nuts to keep their dollars rolling in. And attaching the word "constitutional" won't take us anywhere without specifics.
---
That kind of thing is all through the document. You read, "By permanently stopping job-killing tax hikes..." Notice that the same as reducing taxes from current levels. And where it says, "We will further encourage small businesses to create jobs by allowing them to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income.," shows the insider arrogance. They will select this or that class and nudge and manipulate towards elitist chosen goals by "allowing" them to keep some of their money! They don't even realize the statism in their language. They think they are connecting with the supporters of Capitalism!
-----
Take a look at this paragraph: "We will launch a sustained effort to stem the relentless growth in government that has occurred over the past decade. By cutting Congress’ budget, imposing a net hiring freeze on non- security federal employees, and reviewing every current government program to eliminate wasteful and duplicative programs, we can curb Washington’s irresponsible spending habits and reduce the size of government, while still fulfilling our necessary obligations."
They frame the danger as if it were some outside force, like an invasion from outer space, as if the "growth in government" is a living, breathing thing that came for some where else. And they will "launch a sustained effort" - that doesn't really leave me feeling confident. Congresses budget is so tiny in comparison to the federal budget that to mention it in the same paragraph with growth in government indicates zero focus on the essentials. And when we are talking about a impending economic collapse of the Western world and these are the proposals, it tells me they are parroting words for political purpose rather than understanding what needs to be done.
They write, "We must put common-sense limits on the growth of government and stop the endless increases." So, that sentence it lets us know that future growth of government is okay as long as we limit it. In other words, it really isn't so big that we need to make it smaller, just don't let it grow too much. And increases are okay as long as they aren't 'endless.'
----
They mention balancing the federal budget, but only as words that describe some place that their plan will "put us on a path" towards. They decided to not be so bold as to actually suggest that it should be a constitutional requirement that government not spend more than they take in.
----
As to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... Are they going to privatize them so that their assets and liabilities will be part of private market, where they will either succeed, or those assets will be moved to stronger private hands through mergers or bankrupty proceedings? No. Here is what they say, "We will reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by ending their government takeover, shrinking their portfolios, and establishing minimum capital standards."
It isn't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that are taking over the government. What kind of nonsense is that? They are living examples of government taking over private economic functions and doing them so badly as to seriously damage the financial markets and our economy. It was done by senators and congressmen, who continue on today, and it is aided and abetted by the Fed without which it couldn't have done the damage. And so far, I haven't seen mention of the Fed.
---
WEAK PROPOSALS
They are weak in many of the reforms they suggest. Like putting up Bills on-line three days before a vote on them. That's fine, but if bills can be 2,000 plus pages of crap that were built in secret, three days isn't going to help much. If it isn't an honest to God national security issue, it should not be allowed to be secret at any point. We pay these people, we elected them, they work for us on our issues - they shouldn't be allowed to meet outside of the range of cameras and microphones. And unless it is an emergency, bills should be online for 3 months. If it is an emergency, then it should require a 2/3s majority vote to pass. And why isn't there any mention of doing away with earmarks?
They write about how Americans are outraged with the bailouts that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior. And they promise to cancel TARP, but no promise to pass a law prohibiting congress from making any future bailouts of any form.
No mention anywhere of dealing with corruption, or changes to remove the purchasing of influence by special interest. No promise to make it illegal for government workers to be in unions.
No mention of reforms or changes of any kind for the FED. No mention of the fact that an Obama czar will head a new regulatory agency that will have power over all businesses from the guise of consumer protection and dictatorial financial oversight and will be funded by and report to the FED which congress can't even audit.
---------------------
IN SUMMARY
Don't get me wrong, most of this document is good - just not nearly as good as it should be. But there are promises that we haven't seen before:
"We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified."
And I liked this, from the first page, "We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
----
It is a partisan political paper aimed at the November elections. The religious folks hope that the tidbits tossed there way can be treated as IOUs after the election, the true supporters of Capitalism hope to use it as a starting place, and the insiders hope it will keep them in power and that they can ignore the Tea Party concepts after the election. And I guess everyone hopes it helps in throwing all the bums out.
I haven't heard much from or about the Tea Party Caucus that Congresswoman Michelle Bachman formed. They are probably not being critical of the document for the sake of unifying to get rid of the liberal in the November elections. My hope would be that they would, immediately after the election hold the Republican's feet to the fire for immediate passage of these items as a start, and then began a very public dialog with the voters about how much more is needed. Immediately after the elections, they have to start creating the legislation that is bold enough to really work at restoring a sound economy and real freedom.
|
|
