House Republicans Set to Unveil "The Pledge to America"

[Riot]

Same old, same old ...

House Republicans Set to Unveil "The Pledge to America"

September 22, 2010 3:28 PM
JON KARL ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:

They don’t want you to call it the Contract with America. Tomorrow morning, House Republicans will unveil “The Pledge to America,” outlining a “governing agenda” for Republicans as they try to regain control of the House.

A top House Republican told me “The Pledge” is “an important milestone showing our people we have learned our lesson and we are ready to govern.” In other words, it is a pledge not to go back to the big spending and high deficits of the last Republican Congress.

Unlike the Contract with America, which was unveiled by Newt Gingrich in 1994 on the steps of the Capitol, the Pledge will be unveiled in at a hardware store in Sterling, Virginia by junior GOP House members.

John Boehner and the other Republican leaders will be there, but they will let the backbenchers do most of the talking. It’s nod to the fact that Republicans establishment is no more popular these days than the Democrats.

The Pledge is also an effort to respond to the allegation that the GOP is the “party of no.”

“It’s important to show what Republicans are for,” explained another House Republican involved in creating The Pledge.

According to multiple sources, The Pledge includes the following proposals:

- Permanently extend the Bush tax cuts (all of them), or, as Republicans put it, a promise not to raise taxes on January 1, 2011 (the day the Bush tax cuts expire).

- Repeal and replace health care reform

- End the stimulus program

- A cap on discretionary spending

- Phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

- Permanently end the TARP program

- Keep Guantanamo open

- New sanctions on Iran and more money for missile defense

- Require every bill to be available online for three days before it is voted on.

- Require every bill to be certified as constitutional before it is voted on.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Same old, same old ...

You mean they are as consistent as Democrats giving away somebody else's money?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You mean they are as consistent as Democrats giving away somebody else's money?

I'm disappointed it doesn't have anything to address job creation, for example.

I'm disappointed they want to maintain a 700 billion dollar deficit (the permanent extension of all Bush tax cuts).

I lived through Newt's "Contract with America". It was ugly the first time around.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm disappointed it doesn't have anything to address job creation, for example.

I'm disappointed they want to maintain a 700 billion dollar deficit (the permanent extension of all Bush tax cuts).

I lived through Newt's "Contract with America". It was ugly the first time around.

Companies, not government, create jobs.

If an extension of tax cuts results in a deficit, then the spending is too high. Period.

What was so ugly about the Contract with America? It was only a promise of what issues to bring up for a vote in the first 100 days of the 1994 session of Congress.

[miraja2]

I haven't read the whole thing yet, just the list posted here.

For anyone who has read it, who exactly do they want to "certify" the constitutionality of each bill before it is voted on? Do they specify? Am I wrong or is the Supreme Court the only body that can legally decide that? Do they expect the Supreme Court to weigh in on every bill? If not, if it is somebody else, then I don't really see how they can really certify anything regarding constitutionality. Also, as amendments are added to each bill during the debate process, would it need to get re-certified?
That whole suggestion seems rather odd and impractical at first glance.

[Riot]

Companies, not government, create jobs.

You don't know that companies benefit from government incentives? Why do you think so many USA companies do not produce their products in the USA?

If an extension of tax cuts results in a deficit, then the spending is too high. Period.

That's the backwards way to look at it. What it really means is that our income was cut (tax cuts were given, so less income flowing to the government), without a resultant cut in our expenditures.

If your income goes to 3/4 what it is now, what do you have to do? Cut your spending, of course. But was excessive spending the cause of your no longer having enough income to pay your bills? No. It was your income cut that caused your financial deficit.

BTW, those tax cuts, when originally enacted, DID cause a huge deficit. Were you angry then? Were you calling for spending cuts then?

What was so ugly about the Contract with America? It was only a promise of what issues to bring up for a vote in the first 100 days of the 1994 session of Congress

That it was a resounding failure, a lie to the people.

Let me ask you a direct question, Joey: if the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250K/year are allowed to expire on schedule, our trillions of dollars of national deficit will be cut by 1/3 very quickly. With no changes to anything else in the budget. Are you for that, or against that? Yes or no?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by miraja2

That whole suggestion seems rather odd and impractical at first glance.

Exactly.

[Gaelic Storm]

I am not sure what is wrong with the Health Care Reform other then it should be called Health Care Insurance Reform. It seems that an individual’s insurance coverage will be better and that insurers can't really charge more for the better coverage. So basically the big insurance companies (I work for one of the largest) will make hundreds of millions instead of billions. One thing I have noticed is that most companies who's Health plan's my company administers are willing to pay extra to have their claims and customer service handled in this country and we are outsourcing less and less every day and hiring here.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Gaelic Storm

I am not sure what is wrong with the Health Care Reform other then it should be called Health Care Insurance Reform. It seems that an individual’s insurance coverage will be better and that insurers can't really charge more for the better coverage. So basically the big insurance companies (I work for one of the largest) will make hundreds of millions instead of billions. One thing I have noticed is that most companies who's Health plan's my company administers are willing to pay extra to have their claims and customer service handled in this country and we are outsourcing less and less every day and hiring here.

how is coverage going to be better when you arent allowed to choose plans that have good coverage?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I haven't read the whole thing yet, just the list posted here.

For anyone who has read it, who exactly do they want to "certify" the constitutionality of each bill before it is voted on? Do they specify? Am I wrong or is the Supreme Court the only body that can legally decide that? Do they expect the Supreme Court to weigh in on every bill? If not, if it is somebody else, then I don't really see how they can really certify anything regarding constitutionality. Also, as amendments are added to each bill during the debate process, would it need to get re-certified?
That whole suggestion seems rather odd and impractical at first glance.

You seem to be confusing a PR strategy with an actual, working plan.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

wow I was under the assumption that obamas job creation was well on its way to his stated goals..

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Econ...spx?Symbol=USD

if im reading this correctly..2008 is when he took over..hmm

how many billion did he spend on hope and pocket change..

4 more years.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

wow I was under the assumption that obamas job creation was well on its way to his stated goals..

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Econ...spx?Symbol=USD

if im reading this correctly..2008 is when he took over..hmm

how many billion did he spend on hope and pocket change..

4 more years.

Yeah, I don't understand why he won't wave the super-special Magic Employment Wand that they keep under the desk in the oval office. Why won't he just wave the wand and make a bunch of jobs appear? What an idiot!

Anybody that knows anything about economics understands that the executive branch has complete control over how many jobs there are in the United States. Man, if only Bill Clinton or Dwight Eisenhower had taken over in 2009 instead of Obama, I bet the unemployment rate would be less than 3% by now!! Yippeee!!

The executive branch had nothing to do with all of the free trade agree...


er nvmd.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yeah, I don't understand why he won't wave the super-special Magic Employment Wand that they keep under the desk in the oval office. Why won't he just wave the wand and make a bunch of jobs appear? What an idiot!

Anybody that knows anything about economics understands that the executive branch has complete control over how many jobs there are in the United States. Man, if only Bill Clinton or Dwight Eisenhower had taken over in 2009 instead of Obama, I bet the unemployment rate would be less than 3% by now!! Yippeee!!

I cant believe my eyes. Your talking bad about Obama. If Clinton or Eisenhower was President I have no doubt unemployment would be alot lower. Im also sure this country would be in better shape economically.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Companies, not government, create jobs.

If an extension of tax cuts results in a deficit, then the spending is too high. Period.

What was so ugly about the Contract with America? It was only a promise of what issues to bring up for a vote in the first 100 days of the 1994 session of Congress.

thats funny, the tax cuts have been in effect for how many years? wheres all the jobs?? during these tax cuts we have lost how many million jobs? yeah, the companies are using those tax cuts and creating all these jobs...lol...lol. can i have a thousand of those pledges please...i'm running out of toilet paper.(wait a minute this paper already has sh!t on it) Both sides need to get a clue! cut the taxes to zero we should have tons of jobs then....lol....lol. of course all the hand outs would end and the wars would have to end too....maybe thats the answer ....lol....lol. hey nascar, by the way your guy did great things for the economy....lol....lol, the worst crash since 1929! wheres the democrats pledge? my nose is running from laughing so hard...i need a kleenex....lol

The Declaration of Douchenozzles

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I cant believe my eyes. Your talking bad about Obama. If Clinton or Eisenhower was President I have no doubt unemployment would be alot lower. Im also sure this country would be in better shape economically.

Umm...your post here is way off the mark. I wasn't "talking bad about Obama" in this post. I was being sarcastic, although I have frequently criticized the administration on other topics.

If you honestly believe that a different president taking over in 2009 would have had a significant effect on employment, you are even more clueless than I thought. Whether Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, Newt Gingrich, PG85, or J. M. Keynes had taken over in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be about the same.
Unemployment would probably be a tiny bit higher if an anti-stimulus president had taken office (although the budget defecit would obviously be smaller) but the statistical difference would almost certainly be marginal.
Executive decisions can have some effect on the national economy's long-term trajectory, but the idea that any single person can have a dramatic effect on the unemployment number in the span of a couple years is completely incorrect.

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

thats funny, the tax cuts have been in effect for how many years? wheres all the jobs?? during these tax cuts we have lost how many million jobs? yeah, the companies are using those tax cuts and creating all these jobs...lol...lol. can i have a thousand of those pledges please...i'm running out of toilet paper.(wait a minute this paper already has sh!t on it) Both sides need to get a clue! cut the taxes to zero we should have tons of jobs then....lol....lol. of course all the hand outs would end and the wars would have to end too....maybe thats the answer ....lol....lol. hey nascar, by the way your guy did great things for the economy....lol....lol, the worst crash since 1929! wheres the democrats pledge? my nose is running from laughing so hard...i need a kleenex....lol

THIS ONES SO GOOD I COULD POST IT 6 TIMES .....LOL

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

You don't know that companies benefit from government incentives? Why do you think so many USA companies do not produce their products in the USA?



That's the backwards way to look at it. What it really means is that our income was cut (tax cuts were given, so less income flowing to the government), without a resultant cut in our expenditures.

If your income goes to 3/4 what it is now, what do you have to do? Cut your spending, of course. But was excessive spending the cause of your no longer having enough income to pay your bills? No. It was your income cut that caused your financial deficit.

BTW, those tax cuts, when originally enacted, DID cause a huge deficit. Were you angry then? Were you calling for spending cuts then?



That it was a resounding failure, a lie to the people.

Let me ask you a direct question, Joey: if the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250K/year are allowed to expire on schedule, our trillions of dollars of national deficit will be cut by 1/3 very quickly. With no changes to anything else in the budget. Are you for that, or against that? Yes or no?

The spending being too high is not the backwards way to look at it. It's the only way. What do you do (or would you do) when your own personal budget is in the red? You can't hit up your employer for more money at will, so you cut spending until you do earn more. You optimize what you spend, eliminating frivolous things and less efficient returns on your money.

What you said in your direct question to me is false. You are assuming that people will work just as hard even though they are taxed more, receiving less profit. That is false. THAT is also the reason that employers move jobs outside the country in the first place. Spending needs to be CUT, like it or not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The spending being too high is not the backwards way to look at it. It's the only way. What do you do (or would you do) when your own personal budget is in the red? You can't hit up your employer for more money at will, so you cut spending until you do earn more. You optimize what you spend, eliminating frivolous things and less efficient returns on your money.

What you said in your direct question to me is false. You are assuming that people will work just as hard even though they are taxed more, receiving less profit. That is false. THAT is also the reason that employers move jobs outside the country in the first place. Spending needs to be CUT, like it or not.

The country had a certain amount of income (taxes)
Our representatives decreased that income (cut taxes - twice)
At the same time, our representatives did NOT cut spending. In fact, they not only kept spending at the previous level, they increased it.
Now we are getting deeper in the hole every day.

Those tax cuts are expiring. If the majority (population-wise, people affected) of those tax cuts are extended, and a very small percentage of those tax cuts are allowed to expire, our trillion-dollar deficit will become very small, very quickly.

Yes or no, Joey? Are you in favor of that, or not? Here is something to help you decide:



And if you don't want to do the above, please list what spending you would like to cut out of our budget, (the spending that should have been cut intially, when those tax cuts were enacted during the past decade), that will result in the same huge 1/3 deficit cut, just as quickly?

What you said in your direct question to me is false. You are assuming that people will work just as hard even though they are taxed more, receiving less profit. That is false. THAT is also the reason that employers move jobs outside the country in the first place. Spending needs to be CUT, like it or not.

No, it is not false. It has nothing at all to do with people working or any assumptions. It is simple math - increasing our income back to the levels it was, before the temporary tax cuts. Nothing else changing, with spending at the current level.

And yes, prudent budgeting ("spending cuts") is a good thing, too.