-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Republicans have billed their “Pledge to America” as a governing agenda, but it is nothing of the sort. Instead of offering bold solutions to today’s most pressing challenges, Republicans chose to compile some small ideas that wouldn’t endanger their chances of regaining the majority this November.
National Review’s editors, in their endorsement of the “Pledge,” argue that its proposals are bolder than 1994’s “Contract With America.” That may be so, but the times we’re living in call for much more drastic measures than before. In 1994, the Cold War had just ended, the annual deficit was at $203 billion and trending downward, unemployment was at under 6 percent and falling, HillaryCare had just gone down in flames, and we still had decades to deal with the entitlement crisis. Today we’re engaged in two wars as well as facing the broader threat from Islamic terrorism, the deficit stands at over $1.3 trillion, the unemployment rate has been hovering near the double-digits and isn’t receding, ObamaCare is the law of the land, and the entitlement crisis is upon us — or just a few years away if you’re being more charitable.
One Republican (Rep. Paul Ryan) has at least taken a stab at proposing a comprehensive set of solutions that aim to address our nation’s problems, but his fellow GOP House members have run away from the plan like the plague, and are reinforcing their timidity by releasing today’s document.
Take the document’s economic proposals. Republicans have largely recycled ideas such as extending the Bush tax cuts, offering small business owners a tax deduction, and reducing regulation. Yet given the maginitude of the problems we face, we have to think much more ambitiously about an overhaul of our complex tax system that inhibits growth and restricts global competitiveness.
Republicans call for repealing the health care law, which I support, but their replacement proposals ignore the fact that even with ObamaCare undone, we still need to fundamentally change our health care system. Instead of proposing something that would move us away from a system where employers and government dominate the market and toward a system where individuals would have control over their own health care dollars and choose policies that suit their budget and medical needs, Republicans chose to play small ball. A few proposals — such as preventing taxpayer funding for abortions and allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines — are worthy of support, but they fall far short of a vision for real reform our health care system. And they are coupled with vague promises, such as “We will incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower premiums and reduce the number of uninsured Americans” and “We will repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care and replace it with common-sense reforms focused on strengthening the doctor patient relationship.”
But the most egregious problem with this “Pledge” is that it’s a slap in the face to the youth of America. While it proposes ideas such as rolling back discretionary spending to 2008 levels, it completely avoids any concrete proposals on the biggest threat facing America: our looming entitlement crisis. Instead, the document reads: “We will make the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today’s seniors and future generations. That means requiring a full accounting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, setting benchmarks for these programs and reviewing them regularly, and preventing the expansion of unfunded liabilities.” So in other words: “trust us.” This coming from the party that added trillions to our long-term deficits by enacting the Medicare prescription drug plan. And it’s worth noting that at another place in the document, the GOP attacks Medicare cuts within the new health care law.
I understand that some would argue that it’s unrealistic to expect a major political party to propose serious entitlement reform weeks before the election. But by the same token, Republicans shouldn’t expect conservatives to adopt this exercise in cowardice as their battle cry. Republicans like to address Tea Parties and talk in terms of the revolutionary spirit sweeping across the nation, and they even invoke the Declaration of Independence in the opening of their “Pledge to America.” But the proposals contained within the document show that all this revolutionary talk is mere rhetoric, and that in reality Republicans have learned nothing from their time in the wilderness. The House Republicans are interested in attaining and then maintaining power, and not concerned with advancing the cause of limited government at a make-or-break moment in American history.
View all comments (49) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/23/gop-pledges-to-be-timid-in-the
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 11:14AM
I totally disagree. It's important to remember that the Libertarian Party are perpetual losers, getting less than 1% of the vote. Those of us who actually fought for spending cuts in the 1980's and 90's know that spending cuts are a political loser.
Everybody wants spending cuts in the abstract. However once the cuts are detailed and the Democrats "put a face on it" by showing the people who will be hurt by the cuts, people turn against them.
There are many, many conservative retired people who vote DEMOCRATIC solely because they are afraid that Republicans will cut their social security. Each and every election the Democrats beat that drum, and they are doing it already. Republicans are committing political suicide by talking about social security changes when they don't even have a serious plan on how to do it. The simple reality is all entitlement reform has to be bipartisan, as were President Reagan's social security changes.
Also remember that the Democrats didn't have a Contract With America, yet they have proposed dozens of substantial bills. They won the presidency plus 60% of both houses of congress without a Contract.
This column seems to make the classic Republican mistake of thinking that politics doesn't matter, but only ideas & governing does. As President Reagan knew, we can't have one without the other. There is a continuous campaign; each day either we win or the Democrats do.
Cato| 9.23.10 @ 6:59PM
This column seems to make the classic Republican mistake of thinking that politics doesn't matter, but only ideas & governing does. As President Reagan knew, we can't have one without the other.
Remind me what the deficit/debt was when Reagn took office and when he left office? I imagine you made the same argument then. GOP Hack! Is that you Sean Hannity???
Booger| 9.23.10 @ 11:25AM
Okay Philip, let me lay down a challenge then. Why don't you write up a pledge/contract/whatever the way you think it ought to be and show it here. If the current pledge really is bolder than 1994's contract, then way to go Rs. Personally, I think the contract from 1994 was great, and probably superior to this pledge. Why? Because it listed actual items that would be voted on by the congress. The real issue here is to make sure we don't go from '94 to '96 again in the '10 to '12 cycle. That means no Bob Dole for president.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.23.10 @ 11:26AM
Philip,
I agree that you guys...and us need to keep the pressure on.
BUT!
That article was nearly libelous.
Of course the Republicans want to "attaining and maintaining power", dumkofph!
That means overall they must do what the majority in their districts wnt done.
Hell, none of them is perfect, and they will stumble about.
Heck, so do we that do things in the private sector.
A new Party label ain't going to change the art of politics, Okay?
Cris Worth| 9.23.10 @ 11:35AM
Give the Tea Party credit in trying to weed out these weak closet liberal Republicans but there are too many remaining including Boehner, Ryan, Cantor, McConnell and Romney who is the GOP front runner for president. Nary a conservative amongst them...here we go again.
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 11:38AM
It's important that we don't make the same mistake that the Democrats did in 2008. Back then the voters elected Obama and this heavily Democratic Congress in backlash for a crappy economy. The Democrats made the fatal mistake of thinking that meant the people wanted to turn this country into a European socialist state.
No, what the people want the most is to fix the economy, especially to create jobs. If we Republicans assume we have a mandate to budget cut the country into some libertarian stone age, then we've made the same mistake.
We need to choke up on the bat and go for singles instead of home runs. As long as we are moving the ball to the right, we are ok. The problem with Republicans of the 2000's decade was they were moving to the left.
Cato| 9.23.10 @ 7:02PM
"Fix the economy" are you making the argument the GOP controlled State can "fix the economy"? By what means will Komissar Boehner employ to pull off such wondrous central planning?
This is the problem: the GOP endorses the State just as much or more as the libtards!!
dms| 9.24.10 @ 2:58AM
Cato, re: libtard...sounds like you listen to Mike Church. I think his star is rising.
Cato| 9.23.10 @ 7:02PM
"Fix the economy" are you making the argument the GOP controlled State can "fix the economy"? By what means will Komissar Boehner employ to pull off such wondrous central planning?
This is the problem: the GOP endorses the State just as much or more as the libtards!!
Booger| 9.23.10 @ 11:41AM
Booger's contract w/America.
1. A vote to repeal Obamacare in both houses every session.
2. If the vote in 1 fails, zero out funding for Obamacare in the all federal budgets. This will explicitly include zero funding for the IRS to hire enforcement agents.
3. Freeze all non-defense spending at 2008 levels.
4. Top to bottom audits of the resumes of federal bureaucrats in all departments. Resume padding has become endemic, many highly paid federal employees are entrenched in their careers as a result of resume fraud. Any federal employee found to have a fraudulent resume is immediately fired. Any federal employee contesting this firing should be criminally prosecuted for mail fraud: submitting false information to obtain government employment through the postal service. This audit will be conducted by the F.B.I.
5) A hiring freeze for non-defense departments until item 4 is completed.
6) All savings from items one through five will be used in a three-pronged approach: a) one-third to new tax cuts b) one-third to defense re-capitalization c) one-third to deficit reduction.
6) Institution of a flat federal income tax of 10%, retaining mortgage, child and charitable contribution deductions; exempting the first $20,000 of income; and eliminating the marriage penalty.
7) Reduction of the capital gains tax to a flat 10%.
8) Introduction of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
9) Authorization of the sale of f-22s and rebuilt/refurbished b-1 strategic bombers to Israel, along with a prohibition of selling ANY stealth aircraft technology to ANY other Middle Eastern nation.
10) Open up full drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, and zero out the budget of any federal agency that attempts to interfere. Authorize two new nuclear power plants per year and zero out the federal budget of any federal agency that attempts to interfere.
Warrior | 9.23.10 @ 11:51AM
Thank you Mr. Klein. The Pledge is equivalent to an Obama campaign promise. Get us elected and we'll do whatever we want no matter how unecessary or damaging to the country it is. The Pledge is just another plan to keep government large and spend only a little less than those in control now but we'll do it better because we are republicans. Not one mention of undoing all the damage they did before Pelosi, like prescription drug coverage, SCHIP, no moron left behind, etc. with little hope they will try and undo all the damage since 2006. Just get us elected because we'll delay the arrival of bankruptcy by a few years. I love how they will bring spending back to 2008 levels, let's not talk about a balanced budget. Unbelievable.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.23.10 @ 11:54AM
Booger,
You got my vote.
Booger| 9.23.10 @ 12:25PM
Any contributions toward Booger's election should instead be directed to Ms. O'Donnell in DE, who will make better use of them. By the way Ken, when is your book coming out?
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.23.10 @ 2:37PM
Booger,
You will have noted that my posts here have been been very short here since the beginning of August.
I'm writing twelve to sixteen hours per day. I am deseperately trying to get it done before the elections.
I will announce it soonest I can. (smile)
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 11:59AM
I think this Pledge will bring total unity to the Republican Party for November's election. The things which were broken in the party two years ago have been repaired: we have real primaries now, in which RINOs are defeated; we have a real, conservative platform; Republican politicians united to defeat extremist legislation like DREAM amnesty and Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Now that the party is working as a team in those areas, we can settle our differences in the primaries, and then vote straight-party Republican in November. We can now feel comfortable voting for each and every Republican, voting to defeat each and every Democrat, because all Republicans are better than Democrats and we can defeat the RINOs in the primaries at the next cycle.
I feel like I am a member of the Republican Party for the first time in years. Reagan conservatism has been reborn.
Warrior | 9.23.10 @ 12:09PM
When you have a second, can we all have a hit of whatever you are smoking.
Cato| 9.23.10 @ 7:05PM
You are Sean Hannity!! Can we start callings all the Hannity Republicans CINOs, Conservatives in name only?
Big move talking the State back to 2008 spending levels...remind us what the deficit was in 2008? Oh yes, and of course we exempt the military industrial complex and its victims, the veterans. Oh, we have to exempt the elderly, they vote ya know!!
GOP/Democrats different sides of the same coin!!
kenny bunkport| 9.23.10 @ 12:08PM
reagan supported amnesty in 1986..and raised taxes a number of times...
Patriot| 9.23.10 @ 9:26PM
...And was a much better president than the Bush men. They can't hold a candle to the great man.
Tim*| 9.23.10 @ 1:06PM
Apparently, The GOP, can't get Real about Social Security & Medicare Spending Cuts going into these Midterm Elections .
American Patriots should deal with The Elephant In The Middle Of The Room.
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 1:56PM
Two years ago American Spectator and nearly the entire Republican party supported "Maverick" John McCain as their nominee with hardly a peep of dissent. This is spite of the fact that McCain had been helping the Democrats sabotage the Republican party for a decade, and McCain's team was talking about purging conservatives from the party to complete the RINO takeover that had been progressing for over a decade. Back then we were told that issues didn't matter, but we should just "hold our noses" and vote for the party's candidate.
But today, just two years later, a conservative platform is instantly ripped to shreds for not being pure enough. Nothing but pure libertarianism is good enough, and we are told that unlike back in 2008, politicians must throw caution totally to the win by spelling out their wildest dreams, the most extreme positions a few weeks before the election. (This is the first Contract With America in 16 years.)
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.23.10 @ 2:39PM
Seigfried,
Well said, sir.
Warrior | 9.23.10 @ 3:55PM
Wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment. McCain did not appeal to any real conservative. It was his inability to motivate the Republican base that cost him dearly. Many conservatives stayed home instead of voting for another liberal with an R next to his name. It was McCain's lack of distinction between W and a democrat that led us to where we are today. People were and are looking for a true conservative. The Pledge is no more a Conservative platform than it is a Libertarian one. As Reagan once said, "Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them."
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 4:16PM
Which columnists opposed McCain in the general election? How many of those columnists who say that the Pledge isn't perfect (Michelle Malkin), supported left-wing McCain two years ago?
Which Republican politicans and which Republican groups refused to support McCain in the general election?
I kept waiting for a group of conservative politicians to say "I simply cannot support McCain". It didn't happen.
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 4:20PM
There was no debate about McCain in the conservative press. All we got was P.O.W. stories. Nothing about the dozens of times he helped Ted Kennedy and the Democrats pass legislation.
But now, with a real conservative platform, there is nothing but perfectionist criticism.
Warrior | 9.23.10 @ 4:51PM
I wonder if you just like to throw bullshit against the wall hoping something will stick. The hell with columnists, we were talking about voters. If you haven't guessed it yet, conservatives are tired of pundits, magazines, newspapers and RINO's. The press has lost ALL of its credibility with conservatives. We all knew that McCain was Teddy's puppet and Hillary's buddy, we did not need the media to point it out. McCain lacked the support of the people that have to pull the lever, bottom line. You can spin the Pledge any way you want, if it's just rhetoric it's worthless. The Tea Party is growing in popularity because people do not want to he bumper sticker slogans and sound bites anymore. If the Pledge is only meant to get a new bunch of moderates elected who will not face the tough issues at hand, then at its best, it is just toilet paper.
befitz| 9.23.10 @ 5:27PM
and, Warrior, as a longterm conservative, wholeheartedly AGREE with your assessment..
Cato| 9.23.10 @ 7:08PM
Siegfried (SEan Hannity) says: Nothing but pure libertarianism is good enough, and we are told that unlike back in 2008, politicians must throw caution totally to the win by spelling out their wildest dreams, the most extreme positions a few weeks before the election.
We thought the GOP wanted Constitutional government? Original Intent? All that talk about The Founders?
The one thing that will be fun to see is if the GOP puts down the Constitutional Authority for each bill...cant wait to see the appropriations bill for the Departments of Education, Energy, Veterans Affairs....
guthriej| 9.24.10 @ 7:23PM
McCain was picked, like Bob Dole, because he was the senior man running. It's as if, in both cases, the US had a parliamentary system and these two gents were party leaders.
daboss| 9.23.10 @ 2:49PM
Here is my pledge – simple, and can create some good debates:
1) Cut/eliminate all unconstitutional Fed programs
a. Allowing the people and the states to do as they wish in regards to all cut programs
2) Vote NO against ANY bill that limits the freedom of the citizens of the states
‘nuff said?
JACK| 9.23.10 @ 3:03PM
Everybody wants to be reelected but nobody wants to stand up and make bold statements as how to correct our many problems. Nobody wants to tackle Medicare and Social Security because unlike medicaid most feel, as I do, this is an earned benefit. I have paid in over 40 years and had no choice but to pay in. The program is funded, the only problem is that the government spent the money and now wants to back out of its obligation. When you borrow out of a trust fund then you are obligated to pay it back just like anybody else that borrows. So, the surest way to lose your seat in the Congress is to tell baby boomers we are going to change the program, or not pay you your "earned benefit", or means test the program. To change the retirement system you need to back out about 15 to 20 years to those that are now working and pay them back what they have paid in. I know this is a difficult situation for the government but again they did the wrong thing by taking the money and now must come up with the money they took from the system.
Siegfried X| 9.23.10 @ 3:31PM
I agree. And also, Social Security isn't broken. President Reagan ALREADY reformed it. He did it in 1986 and SS is in surplus and expected to remain there for decades more.
So why would we BEGIN shrinking government with the most politically sensitive program, and the one which is in the best condition?
President Bush tried reforming social security at the height of his 9/11 popularity, and didn't get close to getting it done.
JP| 9.23.10 @ 4:19PM
Siegfried,
This might come as a surprise to you, but Social Security is now in the Red. Back in 2005, most Republicans and all Dems promised that this was not suppose to happen until 2037. They're predictions are off by almost 3 decades.
Reagan really didn't "reform" Social Security per se; but what he did do was increase the mandatory payroll tax 4-fold. That increased occured during a period where the Baby Boomers (the largest demographic group) were at the height of thier income earning years. This also coincided with the passing of the "Greatest Generation" (starting in the 1990s, about 4,000 a week were dieing). All of this lead to surpluses in the Social Security system. Those years (1987-2007) saw hundreds of billions of surpluse dollars being collected - and Congress spent that money as quick as it collected it.
With a TFR (Total Fertility Rate) of 1-5 to 1.7 per female (the average TFR for the last 20 years), there is now a dearth of income earners, and a surpluse of retirees. There is now less than 3 workers for every retiree. This will fall to 2 workers and less during the upcoming decade. The CBO has calculated that through 2080 the combined Social Security/Medicare shortfall will be over $100 trillion -that's over twice the net worth of this nation. Like it or not, Social Security has to be totally "reformed" from top to bottom. It is now running in the Red, and it will go deeper in the red this decade.
Cato| 9.23.10 @ 7:09PM
Siegfried Hannity is clearly a man of party, not principle.
Gigi0102 | 9.24.10 @ 5:07AM
Actually, the way Social Security has been "fixed" is that the congress now can raid the Soc. Sec. trust fund and leave an I.O.U. to be redeemed some time later on.... By the agency's own calculations, the Soc. Sec. trust fund will run out of I.O.U.s in 2015. Then we're screwed.
I'd love to do away with social security all together. It was only EVER a ponzi scheme, but I'm nearing retirement age myself, and unfortunately have been compelled to support this plan with 15% of my income all my working life. With that 15% in some private investment, I'd have no worries, but as it is, the money's just gone.
Many people my age -- or older, who may live mostly on Soc. Sec. payments -- are kinda stuck. And over the last couple years, I've had to cash in my IRAs to keep a roof over my head. So now what? It would be nice to just do away with Soc. Sec. all together, but many people can't afford that. I would support means-testing, though. That would help. And personally, I don't plan on ever being able to retire.
Paul Ryan's plan is one option. I'd be happy to entertain others, but at least it begins to convert Soc. Sec. from "pay-as-you-go" to privately-held pension funds for next-generations.
mikeddd| 9.23.10 @ 3:52PM
Where is the Democrats Pledge? Other than the Communist Manifesto?
MoSov| 9.24.10 @ 7:50AM
mikeddd, I spit my coffee on my keyboard when I read this. Great!
mikeddd| 9.23.10 @ 3:54PM
Democrats Pledge, MORE OF SAME ! BAILOUTS AND BLUNDERS !
rigdum_funidos| 9.23.10 @ 4:07PM
the "Pledge to America" is for one thing only: to have something to show when they say we have no ideas. it will get us past the election successfully. when we see how we did, we can see how bold we can be and with luck have the votes to actually do something instead of just talking.
SoCon| 9.23.10 @ 4:37PM
I think it's ironic that a major "squish" like Philip Klein is attacking Republican leaders for their timidity.
Pot call kettle, Klein.
ME| 9.23.10 @ 5:17PM
"So in other words: 'trust us.'"
Exactly, only they aren't talking to the die hard conservative Republican. They're talking to the independents and others who are disgusted with the liberal free for all called the Obama Administration. They know that conservatives are energized and ready to kick out Democrats, but they've got to get the "moderates" and "independents" on board.
For the most part, the Democrats saved their triumphalism until after the election. It'd be nice if conservatives would realize that to get conservative solutions in place you have to do more than get people mad at incompetent and ideologically driven leadership on the other side. You have to convince them of the rightness of your polices. However imperfect, this pledge is a realistic one. (Politically realistic, not "realistic" in the sense of a dodge.)
Some of the critics of the pledge are no doubt right that it doesn't go far enough, but those comments should be graced with the observation that it shouldn't, because those goals are a bridge too far right now.
People who seriously think that the GOP can drag the country to the right by force of sheer will haven't really been paying attention to the Democrats the last two years. They made that mistake and that's exactly what has opened the door to the one of the most politically startleling turnarounds in American history.
Or what Santayana said...
Gigi0102 | 9.24.10 @ 4:52AM
Totally agree with you. It'd be nice to go in with a hatchet and cut everything but maybe parts of defense... maybe. Ain't gonna happen.
I read the Pledge and have also read Paul Ryan's proposal to "fix" Social Security and Medicare. Worth noting, he says he tried to introduce this under Bush II and was ignored then, too.
In order to do much of anything, the Republicans have to gain a better position in congress. In addition, if they come in with some massive and detailed code for "change," how would they differ from "The Comrade" and his pals?
This is the USA. Like it or not, we all have rights. Have to allow for the opposition. Tough, but that's a fact.
I think the Pledge is a good start. My big worry is about how sincere it is
PersonFromPorlock| 9.23.10 @ 5:20PM
OK, my turn with a 'Pledge':
Pass a law that, effective ten years after its date of passage, nullifies all federal laws (except constitutional amendments) passed, all Court decisions handed down and all regulations promulgated, between Jan. 1, 1930 and the law's date of passage.
Then the federal government can spend a productive ten years writing new laws (etc.) to replace the old ones before they expire, working under the scrutiny of a public armed with hindsight.
Wilkes| 9.23.10 @ 8:26PM
This article and the "pledge" leave me cold. Not cold as in disinterested, but chilled to the bone terrified. If the GOP wins the house, which looks likely, and goes back to Politics as usual, which is the pledge seem to foretell, the country is in for real crisis. This is the last chance for politics. The crisis is here. The government has lost legitimacy. The GOP gives no indication it has the vision to restore it. Up next: bug out bags, capital flight, currency crisis and civil unrest.
SoCon| 9.23.10 @ 9:29PM
We can't depend on politicians to save the country--we are going to have to do it. Fasten your seat-belts, folks.
MoSov | 9.24.10 @ 7:44AM
These guys in Congress are going to have a REAL, REAL hard time honoring these two pledges:
"We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by it's 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." page one, para.13.
&
"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, 2nd bullet, last sentence.
We'll get a chance to watch them squirm when we remind them of these as they try to behave outside of Article I, Section 8. Using the "Commerce Clause" WILL NOT work with conservatives.
jgo| 9.24.10 @ 2:33PM
Those of us who actually fought for spending cuts in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and since know that spending cuts are ever more vital.
As to repairing the Socialist Insecurity Abomination, the best proposal I've seen is the Liberty Amendment, first introduced, I believe, in the early 1950s, though a watered-down has been proposed, again, in the 111th congress.
wholesale beads | 4.15.11 @ 2:09AM
China Wholesale Beads is your best choice for beading.