Build Your Own 2010 GOP Contract With America!

[RTFirefly]

Inspired by a couple of comments in the "Will the Repubs take the House? Senate? thread, specifically Boozahol Squid, P.I.'s interpretation of a comment by lel, essentially saying that a new Gingrich needs to step up and create a 2010 version of the Contract With America.

My comment there was that it's a pretty steep challenge "to create a GOP agenda that (a) GOP Congresscritters and Congressional candidates are willing to run on in a general election, (b) won't get the GOP base hopping mad, and (c) will draw a modicum of support from centrists/independents."

But it seemed to deserve a thread of its own, so here we are.

The ground rules are simple: what matters isn't whether you think it's a good or bad agenda, but whether you can argue that it does or doesn't meet the three criteria above.

So, sports fans, come up with your 2010 GOP Contracts With America, and be prepared to defend them on that basis. Fun for the whole family!

[Sage Rat]

Dunno. The main problem with coming up with such a thing is that clearly the answer would be to pound on Obama's failure to turn around the economy and/or the issue of the growing national debt. But, to do that they'd have to offer actual proposals for how to correct things, and then they'd be stuck with that. The proposals that the Tea Partiers want -- specifically, a balanced budget amendment -- are fairly stupid. The proposals that the Libertarians want -- a gold standard, or simply letting falling things fall -- are also pretty stupid. Obama is more-or-less doing what economic experts suggest and the politicos know that if they get into power, they'll be obligated to go with what the experts suggest. But if they write out as their Contact with America that they'll do the same thing as Obama, they can't decry everything Obama is doing.

[lel]

A detailed Contract With America 2 would have to be a major group effort built upon a coalition, but I would wholeheartedly agree with Sage Rat that to have any chance of success that the proposal would have to based primarily upon economic recovery and would have to pound on Obama's current failure to turn the economy around. Right now would be their best bet to make such a contract that would either be silent on social issues or would simply call them an issue of states' rights, thus achieving the same effect as having no opinion on such issues.

The issue is that they would have to have a proposal to fix the economy that a) works and b) differs significantly from Obama's current policy. I'm not sure I am daring enough to boldly assert that cutting taxes, reducing spending, decreasing national debt, and returning to a gold standard is a certain answer to our economic woes, and as a voter I'm not sure I'd buy that any more than the current solutions.

I need to reread what was part of the original CWA.

[Frank]

I need to reread what was part of the original CWA.
Here you go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America)

[Steve MB]

A detailed Contract With America 2 would have to be a major group effort built upon a coalition, but I would wholeheartedly agree with Sage Rat that to have any chance of success that the proposal would have to based primarily upon economic recovery and would have to pound on Obama's current failure to turn the economy around. Right now would be their best bet to make such a contract that would either be silent on social issues or would simply call them an issue of states' rights, thus achieving the same effect as having no opinion on such issues.

Here, the GOP runs into the potential conflict between a portion of its old base (which won't tolerate retreat on the social-right issues) and the Tea Party crowd (much of which is actually hostile to the party on those issues, having correctly realized that the GOP uses them the way a magician uses a hot scantily-clad assistant).

[BrainGlutton]

I would suggest making an immigration crackdown the centerpiece, with emphasis on enforcement against any employer who hires undocumented labor.

Except that, while that would highly motivate the GOP's populist-nativist-paleoconservative-white-working-class base, it would also run up against the interests of its corporate base, which provides a lot of the money for the conservative movement, and which wants cheap immigrant labor.

[Mr. Excellent]

A chicken in every pot, but absolutely no pot in the chicken.

(What?)

[Sage Rat]

I would suggest making an immigration crackdown the centerpiece, with emphasis on enforcement against any employer who hires undocumented labor.

Except that, while that would highly motivate the GOP's populist-nativist-paleoconservative-white-working-class base, it would also run up against the interests of its corporate base, which provides a lot of the money for the conservative movement, and which wants cheap immigrant labor.

There is only a very small percentage of companies which have any interest in illegal immigration, and frankly if the immigration was stopped, they'd just move their farms and factories over the border where everything would be even cheaper. So really there isn't a strong motive to keep things as they are for anyone.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Well, it'd be interesting to start looking at the original plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_america) from 1994.

Some of the aspects of that contract are, quite obviously, fairly outdated in the modern political world. Crime isn't a very big focus of national politics, like it was back in the 90's. Same thing with fears of the UN taking over our military. Wait, I'm doing this wrong. Let me go through each provision (as outlined by wiki, anyways).

The Fiscal Responsibility Act - Obviously something that the Republican Party, in theory, would love to make the issue of an election. It's the sort of promise that galvanizes Libertarian-leaning voters, Tea Partiers, and a large part of the Republican base. It's the failure of Bush to continue the practical application of this that lead to a lot of conservative voters (myself included) to withdraw from voting for them (I voted for Chuck Jay in 2008, many of my like-minded friends didn't vote at all.)

The Taking Back Our Streets Act - As I said above, not really as big an issue as it was 15 years ago

The Personal Responsibility Act - Probably not as popular an item these days with so many voters or family members of voters on unemployment benefits, and the lack of the idealized spectre of welfare mothers leaching off the federal government. The fact that most of it already passed also makes it moot. Replacing it with some sort of act limiting benefits to non-citizens (illegals in particular) would do a lot to galvanize the Republican base, and probably be looked upon favorably by a lot larger a segment of the population than what I imagine most members of this board might imagine.

The American Dream Restoration Act - Already done

National Security Restoration Act - Already done. Al though there's a certain segement of the base that would love to see a total pull-out of the US from the UN, I don't think that it'd be helpful with society at large or swing voters to put that as a major issue

Common Sense Legal Reform Act - Tort reform is something that ought to be continued, and is probably necessary in the face of an already passed healthcare bill. I don't know how sexy this is: it's certainly something that could pull in a lot of voters from a wide spectrum of the population, if they understood and cared about it. It'd require a lot of investment to make that happen.

The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act - Perhaps the key element to be revived in a Contract With America 2.0 The GOP needs to put together a realistic and appealing set of guidelines for retoring the economy that's different from the Bush/Obama 'toss sackfuls of cash at corporations' method.

Citizen Legistlature Act - A radical reshaping of our political landscape, which would get my vote for a pol, no matter what else the guy supported. I'd love to see it attempted again.

There are a few other things which possibly or probably would at least be considered by an attempt to restructure the alliance of old school Republicans, fiscally conservative democrats and libertarians that swept into office in '94. They, in large part, revolve around the social policies connected with the Religious Right: the Defense of Marriage Act, anti-abortion measures, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and a continued criminalization of marijuana. I tend to think that the various anti-gay portions aren't really worth it in terms of votes. An anti-abortion plank seems to still be both popular and gaining in popularity, rather than the reverse. I'd love a switch to a marijuana-legalization plank, not because I use the stuff (I don't), but because it'd be a peace offering to the libertarians who got jilted by Bush 2 in exchange for the religious wingnuts. I think the GOP would have a better shot at winning in the long term by actively courting them and relying on a muted level of support from the evangelicals rather than the reverse.

[Caffeine.addict]

I would suggest making an immigration crackdown the centerpiece, with emphasis on enforcement against any employer who hires undocumented labor.


This would be a smart tactic to bring out their voters and galvanize their supporters. I don't know how practical this would be to implement, and frankly, I have to wonder about the unintended consequences of such an act, but I agree that in the short term, this would be a vote getter.

[Little Nemo]

There is a Contract From America (http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/). Here's its proposals:

1. All laws have to identify a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
2. No "cap & trade" environmental regulation.
3. Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
4. Single-rate income tax.
5. Taskforce to identify government programs that should be eliminated.
6. Statutory upper limit on government spending.
7. No public health care.
8. Loosen regulations on drilling and nuclear power.
9. Supermajority needed for earmark budget items (pork).
10. Repeal recent tax increases.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

There is a Contract From America (http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/). Here's its proposals:

1. All laws have to identify a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
2. No "cap & trade" environmental regulation.
3. Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
4. Single-rate income tax.
5. Taskforce to identify government programs that should be eliminated.
6. Statutory upper limit on government spending.
7. No public health care.
8. Loosen regulations on drilling and nuclear power.
9. Supermajority needed for earmark budget items (pork).
10. Repeal recent tax increases.

With the exception of #8, I just sprang wood.

[Sage Rat]

With the exception of #8, I just sprang wood.

Several of them are essentially just repeats of each other, so to summarize I'd say there's only the following real provisions:

1) Everything must be Constitutional.

This is already the case.

2) Laws must state which section of the Constitution will allow them to do what they do.

The Constitution gives the government free reign to do anything it wants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause) so long as it doesn't go against one of our Constitutional rights.

3) Keep the budget balanced.

Probably not a good idea:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/rubin-robert_balanced-budget-amendment.html
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=2950
http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/unbalanced-amendment
http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/1997/0205governance_schick.aspx
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n252tv6550435791/

4) No raised taxes.

How do you expect to do that and keep a balanced budget?

5) No earmarks.

Trading things is how politics is done. There's more to politics than voting on stuff, there's also the business of interacting with other countries and businesses and whatnot where some amount of tact and tradeoffs is necessary. Keeping your politicians unable to get experience in this, or having them entirely divorced from the practical aspects of the ramifications of choices isn't necessarily a good thing. If a local business fails, that puts thousands of people out of work. For a politician with no ties to his region, that doesn't matter, because he's only asked to analyze stuff coldly. For one who has some ties to local business, it does matter. For a politician whose never had to trade hogs, once he gets onto the international front and has to deal with doing so with France or Iraq or wherever, he's coming into it with no prior experience and is liable to screw the US out of lots of deals that would be good for us.

It might be a rather bizarre and ad-hoc solution to these problems, but ultimately earmarks aren't about to destroy the country anytime soon, do serve some purpose, and no better alternative to achieve the same purpose has been suggested. It's also likely that no matter how you try to stop them, they'll persist anyways.

[BrainGlutton]

There is only a very small percentage of companies which have any interest in illegal immigration, and frankly if the immigration was stopped, they'd just move their farms and factories over the border where everything would be even cheaper. So really there isn't a strong motive to keep things as they are for anyone.

The Bush Administration's immigration-reform proposal included a guest-worker program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Borders,_Economic_Opportunity_and_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#Guest_worker_program) -- and that definitely was one of the factors that killed it politically. I can't imagine why it would have included such a thing, if some powerful business interests had not wanted it very urgently.

[Sage Rat]

The Bush Administration's immigration-reform proposal included a guest-worker program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Borders,_Economic_Opportunity_and_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007#Guest_worker_program) -- and that definitely was one of the factors that killed it politically. I can't imagine why it would have included such a thing, if some powerful business interests had not wanted it very urgently.
In your view of the world, if powerful business interests wanted such a thing, then why was the bill dead on the water politically?

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

2) Laws must state which section of the Constitution will allow them to do what they do.

The Constitution gives the government free reign to do anything it wants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause) so long as it doesn't go against one of our Constitutional rights.

I'll see your N&P clause and raise you the 10th Amendment.

4) No raised taxes.

How do you expect to do that and keep a balanced budget?
Reducing income and requiring a balanced budget would mean the same thing for the government as it would for any other entity: reduced spending. See below.

5) No earmarks.

Trading things is how politics is done.

My issue with earmarks is how they are passed. Any spending bill designed for some certain worthwhile project that's constitutionally mandated doesn't get passed unless it includes a provision for X million dollars dedicated to building a Plow and Lantern museum in St. Crapsville, MN, matching funds dedicated to a youth basketball program in Harlem, and funding a pelican observatory on Lake Pontechartain. It's those tradeoffs which end up massively bloating governmental spending because politicians can't stomach the idea of spending any federal dollars without an immediate return on their vote's investment.

[Sage Rat]

I'll see your N&P clause and raise you the 10th Amendment.
Which says that the powers of the Federal government are limited to those in the Constitution. The Constitution grants all power (so long as it is necessary and proper and doesn't impinge on any rights) to the government, and hence it gives those powers to the Federal government. The 10th Amendment doesn't appreciatively change anything.

Reducing income and requiring a balanced budget would mean the same thing for the government as it would for any other entity: reduced spending. See below.
Why should the people tell their politicians to turn laws down if they know the politicians can't raise taxes? They can tell their representatives to keep passing legislation after legislation racking up the bill, and keep treating it like it's someone else's problem down the run.

My issue with earmarks is how they are passed.
Then that's an issue of how they are passed, not in getting rid of them.

[BrainGlutton]

In your view of the world, if powerful business interests wanted such a thing, then why was the bill dead on the water politically?

Because they are powerful enough to strongly influence the Administration (or, at least, the Bush Administration), but not powerful enough to overwhelm all other forces in the political arena, including the GOP's anti-immigration base.

[jtgain]

The 10th Amendment doesn't appreciatively change anything.


It seems pretty silly that the founders would have wanted to include it then. Or perhaps they didn't subscribe to your "The federal government can do anything it wants" belief?

[BrainGlutton]

It seems pretty silly that the founders would have wanted to include it then.

Yes, it does. Sometimes they were pretty silly.

[BobLibDem]

1. All laws have to identify a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
Silly posturing. If a law isn't constitutional, challenge it.

2. No "cap & trade" environmental regulation.
I'm not sure if cap & trade is the best legislation, but too often "no cap & trade" is the motto of global warming deniers.

3. Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
Moronic. Look at the mess California is in. There is more to governing than saying no to tax increases.

4. Single-rate income tax.
Benefits the rich. Why do so many middle classers carry their water?

5. Taskforce to identify government programs that should be eliminated.
Got one. It's called the House and Senate.

6. Statutory upper limit on government spending.
Got one. It's called the budget.

7. No public health care.
You lost this one, get over it.

8. Loosen regulations on drilling and nuclear power.
Yep, that's what we need, fewer regulations on drilling. One oil spill must not be enough.

9. Supermajority needed for earmark budget items (pork).
Pork is hard to define and it's insignificant in the overall budget. This is like swatting mosquitos as you're being attacked by hyenas.

10. Repeal recent tax increases.
Moronic. Why do you think the budget is so far in the red? Hint: Bush Tax Cuts.

This is a Contract on America.

[BrainGlutton]

My comment there was that it's a pretty steep challenge "to create a GOP agenda that (a) GOP Congresscritters and Congressional candidates are willing to run on in a general election, (b) won't get the GOP base hopping mad, and (c) will draw a modicum of support from centrists/independents."

<snip>

The ground rules are simple: what matters isn't whether you think it's a good or bad agenda, but whether you can argue that it does or doesn't meet the three criteria above.

1. All laws have to identify a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
Silly posturing. If a law isn't constitutional, challenge it.

2. No "cap & trade" environmental regulation.
I'm not sure if cap & trade is the best legislation, but too often "no cap & trade" is the motto of global warming deniers.

3. Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
Moronic. Look at the mess California is in. There is more to governing than saying no to tax increases.

4. Single-rate income tax.
Benefits the rich. Why do so many middle classers carry their water?

5. Taskforce to identify government programs that should be eliminated.
Got one. It's called the House and Senate.

6. Statutory upper limit on government spending.
Got one. It's called the budget.

7. No public health care.
You lost this one, get over it.

8. Loosen regulations on drilling and nuclear power.
Yep, that's what we need, fewer regulations on drilling. One oil spill must not be enough.

9. Supermajority needed for earmark budget items (pork).
Pork is hard to define and it's insignificant in the overall budget. This is like swatting mosquitos as you're being attacked by hyenas.

10. Repeal recent tax increases.
Moronic. Why do you think the budget is so far in the red? Hint: Bush Tax Cuts.

This is a Contract on America.

All quite true. But, how do those 10 ideas fail to meet RTFirefly's three criteria?

[BobLibDem]

Point noted.


In the contract, I don't think all GOPers would want to run on all those points.

It would not get the GOP base hopping mad

I don't see it as getting much support from indies and Dems. I think a lot of rational people are starting to realize that taxes cannot be continually and perpetually cut, and that requiring supermajorities leads to political paralysis. What the contract seems to be doing is building filibusters into the system and choking it. I just can't see any Dems or moderate indies getting behind it.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Hey, tell you what. We can argue politics all over the place. I'd actually be interested in people, particularly folks like BobLibDem, outlining a response to RT's OP. You know, knowing the foibles and frailties of the US public, the necessity of keeping the base they already have, what would liberals think would be a winning (not necessarily good, or nice or keeping with any sorts or morals or ethics) strategy for the Pubs to win over a majority of the voters?

[Little Nemo]

I agree that some of the economic ideas being proposed are bad. Talking about lowering taxes and reducing the deficit are signs of somebody that's avoiding economic reality. And claims about pork and waste are smokescreens - as an actual percentage of the budget they're minute. The only way you're going to see real cuts in government spending it doing things like ending overseas military operations or abolishing social security. If this is what the authors of the Contract From America are proposing they should say so openly - this is a pretty major change in American policies and the voters should know what they're asking for.

But overall it could be worse. It's pretty much a capitalist libertarian agenda rather than a family values/America first agenda. No proposals for outlawing the Spanish language or gay marriages or flag burning.

[BobLibDem]

If I had to write one, it would go like this:

1- We will propose an alternative to the Obama health care plan that will provide more coverage to more people for less money.

2- We will abide by the findings of a bi-partisan committee for ways to balance the budget in the next four years.

3- We will seal the Mexican border and work with Democrats to enact sensible immigration reform.

4- We will use the military sensibly to protect legitimate American interests only.

5- We will restore NASA to the forefront of manned space exploration.

[Sage Rat]

It seems pretty silly that the founders would have wanted to include it then. Or perhaps they didn't subscribe to your "The federal government can do anything it wants" belief?

As the Wikipedia article on it states, the 10th Amendment is simply a truism. It restates the obvious to make sure that the obvious is understood:

'The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."'

[Chronos]

But overall it could be worse. It's pretty much a capitalist libertarian agenda rather than a family values/America first agenda.Except for that second point, which mandates socialism in the energy industry.

[BrainGlutton]

If I had to write one, it would go like this:

1- We will propose an alternative to the Obama health care plan that will provide more coverage to more people for less money.

2- We will abide by the findings of a bi-partisan committee for ways to balance the budget in the next four years.

3- We will seal the Mexican border and work with Democrats to enact sensible immigration reform.

4- We will use the military sensibly to protect legitimate American interests only.

5- We will restore NASA to the forefront of manned space exploration.

But what about the jobless rate? That's going to be Issue #1 this November. What can the Pubs offer, consistent with their politics, that offers some plausible (at least, plausible to their base) chance of reducing it?

[Chronos]

They'd probably claim that keeping out immigrants will fix the job problem. It wouldn't, of course, but they could probably convince enough voters of it anyway.

[Little Nemo]

Except for that second point, which mandates socialism in the energy industry.Abolishing cap and trade environmental regulations? I'm not seeing the connection you're going for.

[Ludovic]

Abolishing cap and trade environmental regulations? I'm not seeing the connection you're going for.Lack of anti-pollution regulation socializes the costs of environmental damage.

[jtgain]

As the Wikipedia article on it states, the 10th Amendment is simply a truism. It restates the obvious to make sure that the obvious is understood:

'The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."'

Even so, the constitution as originally ratified saw the federal government as having few and enumerated powers and the states having the vast remainder.

To have a position that reverses this, is at odds with the founders' intentions.

[Sage Rat]

Even so, the constitution as originally ratified saw the federal government as having few and enumerated powers and the states having the vast remainder.

To have a position that reverses this, is at odds with the founders' intentions.
True, but what they intended and what they wrote are separate things. I think when it comes down to it, though you might intend to lock the government down on what it should or shouldn't do, there's no real agreeable answer beyond a few finite, obvious things. I mean, technically speaking the Federal government shouldn't have a thing to do with blocking up the oil spill (unless you include the N&P clause), and yet everyone seems to think that it obviously should be in their provenance to step in and do it just because the central government is the ultimate power for the people to project what they want done. When it came time for the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to actually choose to block the Federal government from having free reign, they factually didn't. They said, well, you never know what's going to happen and if it seems like the central government really needs to do something, then cutting that off is harmful. They might have been able to envision the scope of involvement that the Federal government has in general life today because of that, but all of the choices that led to this point were based entirely on the full right of our legally elected Representatives to pinpoint things that seemed necessary and that were in their purview or best accomplished under their purview and made it so based simply on the Necessary and Proper clause.

[Little Nemo]

Lack of anti-pollution regulation socializes the costs of environmental damage.That's an unusual interpretation of socialism.

[BrainGlutton]

Lack of anti-pollution regulation socializes the costs of environmental damage.

Socializing the costs of industry is perfectly capitalistic.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

1. Reduce taxes on corporations and businesses and shift their burden to incomes of the wealthy.
2. Support moderate regulation of the financial industry
3. Ignore the health care bill and see what happens
4. Limit pork barrel spending to a bare minimum
5. With the exception of national emergency no new major spending projects
6. Toughen up security on the border but provide a work program for illegals already here.
7. Decriminalize use of marijuana and use it for revenue purposes
8. Remain strong on Iran and North Korea but do not provoke war
9. Continue withdrawal from Iraq (possible due to the policies of Bush) and maintain the fight in Afghanistan with a focus on building up infrastructure
10. Similarly be wary of Russia and China, do not advocate total elimination of nuclear stockpile
11. Maintain a strong prolife plank
12. Advocate a broad-based energy plan (NO CAP AND TRADE) including increasing offshore drilling and nuclear power. Emphasize that the current spill was an isolated incident

[Sage Rat]

How milquetoast of you.

And I'll eat my hat the day (anytime within the next 5 years) that a pro-Marijuana stance becomes a feature of the Republican Party.

[BobLibDem]

1. Reduce taxes on corporations and businesses and shift their burden to incomes of the wealthy.
2. Support moderate regulation of the financial industry
3. Ignore the health care bill and see what happens
4. Limit pork barrel spending to a bare minimum
5. With the exception of national emergency no new major spending projects
6. Toughen up security on the border but provide a work program for illegals already here.
7. Decriminalize use of marijuana and use it for revenue purposes
8. Remain strong on Iran and North Korea but do not provoke war
9. Continue withdrawal from Iraq (possible due to the policies of Bush) and maintain the fight in Afghanistan with a focus on building up infrastructure
10. Similarly be wary of Russia and China, do not advocate total elimination of nuclear stockpile
11. Maintain a strong prolife plank
12. Advocate a broad-based energy plan (NO CAP AND TRADE) including increasing offshore drilling and nuclear power. Emphasize that the current spill was an isolated incident

1 Are you kidding? The base will not support increased taxes on ANYBODY.
2 The business base doesn't want anyone regulated
3 Ignoring a bill that has been the bread and butter of striking fear in the masses doesn't seem to be a good strategic move
7 Hardy har har. Like the teabaggers are going to get behind that one.
9 you mean necessary due to the policies of Bush. I don't think anyone in the GOP gives a damn about building infrastructure in Afghanistan.
12 Why would ANYONE put increased offshore drilling in their platform?

[Knorf]

Emphasize that the current spill was an isolated incident

This "isolated incident" is merely the worst environmental disaster this country has ever faced, by far, and is going to harm the economies of every single gulf coast state.

Yeah, I think trying to downplay it is a really bad idea.

This country needs to move away from oil as a means of providing energy/transportation. Period.

[BrainGlutton]

This country needs to move away from oil as a means of providing energy/transportation. Period.

Somehow I don't see that making it onto the Pubs' platform . . . nor the Dems', either.

[Knorf]

Somehow I don't see that making it onto the Pubs' platform . . . nor the Dems', either.

You'll get some lip-service form the Dems; that's about it.

[ShibbOleth]

This "isolated incident" is merely the worst environmental disaster this country has ever faced, by far, and is going to harm the economies of every single gulf coast state.



It's could end up the worst environmental disaster the world has faced, depending on how one defines environmental disaster. I'm guessing our fair haired boy doesn't live anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico, eat seafood, or vacation at the beach in the Eastern half of the United States.

[Chronos]

9 you mean necessary due to the policies of Bush. I don't think anyone in the GOP gives a damn about building infrastructure in Afghanistan.No, Curtis is right. It wouldn't be possible to withdraw from Iraq if we had never gone there in the first place.

[silenus]

If I had to write one, it would go like this:

1- We will propose an alternative to the Obama health care plan that will provide more coverage to more people for less money.

2- We will abide by the findings of a bi-partisan committee for ways to balance the budget in the next four years.

3- We will seal the Mexican border and work with Democrats to enact sensible immigration reform.

4- We will use the military sensibly to protect legitimate American interests only.

5- We will restore NASA to the forefront of manned space exploration.

Fuck #5. Let NASA go hang. Those bastards are the reason we don't have a working space station right now. In the interests of all Americans, space exploitation should be in the hands of private enterprise.

[Chronos]

In the interests of all Americans, space exploitation should be in the hands of private enterprise. Nothing's stopping them.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

1 Are you kidding? The base will not support increased taxes on ANYBODY.

Its not increasing on anyone, its shuffling the taxes.

2 The business base doesn't want anyone regulated

Most businessmen are not laissez-faire all the way. At worst they are Reaganomic type minimal regulationists.

7 Hardy har har. Like the teabaggers are going to get behind that one.

If a respected Republican proposed it, it might work.

9 you mean necessary due to the policies of Bush. I don't think anyone in the GOP gives a damn about building infrastructure in Afghanistan.

They do care about winning in Afghanistan which will be acheived through building infrastructure.



Somehow I don't see that making it onto the Pubs' platform . . . nor the Dems', either.

How about nuclear power. As to the Gulf disaster much of the oil we get cause oil spills in places like Nigeria-you're just shifting the disaster somewhere else.

[BobLibDem]

Fuck #5. Let NASA go hang. Those bastards are the reason we don't have a working space station right now. In the interests of all Americans, space exploitation should be in the hands of private enterprise.

The ISS isn't working? News to me. I'm quite skeptical of the ability of private enterprise to handle manned spaceflight. I'll believe it when I see it (yes, I know about SpaceShipOne. I was more impressed with Mercury).

[Little Nemo]

As Chronos pointed out, there's nothing preventing private companies from having a space program. But the reality is that all significant developments in space travel have been government operations. So the evidence is that turning over space exploration to the private sector would mean the end of space exploration.

[qazwart]

The Republican Contract with America

1). We promise to help support the Family and push to make sure that marriage is between one man and one woman.

2). Except in certain parts of Utah which are heavily Republican. In that case, it's between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman...

3). We will stand firmly against the Homosexual agenda, and will refuse to have any more homosexual affairs.

4). Unless that guy is helping us with our luggage, or we're making a quick bathroom stop.

5). We will support the free enterprise system and believe that the government shouldn't be giving out our hard earned tax dollars to anyone. People should stand on their own two feet.

6). Unless you're a farmer of a heavily Republican state which in this case we'll make sure that the government gives you plenty of dough.

7). And use price supports instead of depending upon the free market to set prices on crops.

8). Oh yes, if you run a really big business, we'll make sure you get special tax breaks too. Just keep those contributions coming.

9). We respect anyone who is willing to roll up their sleeves and put in a full day's work.

10). Unless your name is Juan and you snuck in here illegally. Then you should stay out.

11). Unless you know anything about gardening. My last gardener was deported. (Stupid government interference in the affairs of private citizens.)

12). We believe in the little guy. The guy who makes a simple middle class salary of $350,000 per year and lives in a seven bedroom house in the suburbs. The small businessman who runs the business with 400+ employees. The banker who gave me that job on the corporate board of directors and a half million dollar salary. The business owner who lets me use his private jet for free. The multimillionaire who lets me stay in his summer home in the Bahamas when I needed some private time with my family, well my secretary, but my family was on my mind the whole time.

13). We believe... Look this isn't working. Is it?

Let's just move to Plan B: Look a terrorist! The Democrats are socialists! They're going to take away your guns! The apocalypse is coming and the President is the anti-Christ! Vote for me, or the world will end! ARRGGHHH! Don't think! Be scared!

[Knorf]

Nice, qazwart!

:D

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

The Republican Contract with America

1). We promise to help support the Family and push to make sure that marriage is between one man and one woman.

2). Except in certain parts of Utah which are heavily Republican. In that case, it's between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman...

3). We will stand firmly against the Homosexual agenda, and will refuse to have any more homosexual affairs.

4). Unless that guy is helping us with our luggage, or we're making a quick bathroom stop.

5). We will support the free enterprise system and believe that the government shouldn't be giving out our hard earned tax dollars to anyone. People should stand on their own two feet.

6). Unless you're a farmer of a heavily Republican state which in this case we'll make sure that the government gives you plenty of dough.

7). And use price supports instead of depending upon the free market to set prices on crops.

8). Oh yes, if you run a really big business, we'll make sure you get special tax breaks too. Just keep those contributions coming.

9). We respect anyone who is willing to roll up their sleeves and put in a full day's work.

10). Unless your name is Juan and you snuck in here illegally. Then you should stay out.

11). Unless you know anything about gardening. My last gardener was deported. (Stupid government interference in the affairs of private citizens.)

12). We believe in the little guy. The guy who makes a simple middle class salary of $350,000 per year and lives in a seven bedroom house in the suburbs. The small businessman who runs the business with 400+ employees. The banker who gave me that job on the corporate board of directors and a half million dollar salary. The business owner who lets me use his private jet for free. The multimillionaire who lets me stay in his summer home in the Bahamas when I needed some private time with my family, well my secretary, but my family was on my mind the whole time.

13). We believe... Look this isn't working. Is it?

Let's just move to Plan B: Look a terrorist! The Democrats are socialists! They're going to take away your guns! The apocalypse is coming and the President is the anti-Christ! Vote for me, or the world will end! ARRGGHHH! Don't think! Be scared!

Reported for trolling.

[Steve MB]

Reported for trolling.

Most site admins take a very dim view of frivolous complaints.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Most site admins take a very dim view of frivolous complaints.

It pretty much is considering 1) its a LONG post rather than one-liner and 2) this was largely supposed to be a serious thread.

[Little Nemo]

It pretty much is considering 1) its a LONG post rather than one-liner and 2) this was largely supposed to be a serious thread.It may be satirical but it's not trolling.

[BobLibDem]

Definitely not trolling. Rather amusing, actually. Methinks he struck a nerve.

[septimus]

The Republican Contract with America

1). We promise to help support the Family and push to make sure that marriage is between one man and one woman.

2). Except in certain parts of Utah which are heavily Republican. In that case, it's between a man and a woman, and a woman, and a woman, and a woman...

3). We will stand firmly against the Homosexual agenda, and will refuse to have any more homosexual affairs.

4). Unless that guy is helping us with our luggage, or we're making a quick bathroom stop.

5). We will support the free enterprise system and believe that the government shouldn't be giving out our hard earned tax dollars to anyone. People should stand on their own two feet.

6). Unless you're a farmer of a heavily Republican state which in this case we'll make sure that the government gives you plenty of dough.

7). And use price supports instead of depending upon the free market to set prices on crops.

8). Oh yes, if you run a really big business, we'll make sure you get special tax breaks too. Just keep those contributions coming.

9). We respect anyone who is willing to roll up their sleeves and put in a full day's work.

10). Unless your name is Juan and you snuck in here illegally. Then you should stay out.

11). Unless you know anything about gardening. My last gardener was deported. (Stupid government interference in the affairs of private citizens.)

12). We believe in the little guy. The guy who makes a simple middle class salary of $350,000 per year and lives in a seven bedroom house in the suburbs. The small businessman who runs the business with 400+ employees. The banker who gave me that job on the corporate board of directors and a half million dollar salary. The business owner who lets me use his private jet for free. The multimillionaire who lets me stay in his summer home in the Bahamas when I needed some private time with my family, well my secretary, but my family was on my mind the whole time.

13). We believe... Look this isn't working. Is it?

Let's just move to Plan B: Look a terrorist! The Democrats are socialists! They're going to take away your guns! The apocalypse is coming and the President is the anti-Christ! Vote for me, or the world will end! ARRGGHHH! Don't think! Be scared!

Great post! You did neglect the GOP solution to unemployment: more tax breaks for corporations that move jobs overseas.

OP's probably getting annoyed with suggestions that seem non-serious, but it's the idea of a "rational" Republican platform that is just plain silly. GOP doesn't want black or Hispanic voters, obviously, but it really doesn't care for rational thinkers either. Mark Twain hit the nail on the head about GOP strategy:
Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain't that a big enough majority in any town?

[Marley23]

Reported for trolling.
It's not trolling. And Curtis LeMay, if you report a post, just report it and let the mods handle it. Do not announce "reported for trolling;" at best it comes off as tattling and at worst it's a deliberate provocation.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Great post! You did neglect the GOP solution to unemployment: more tax breaks for corporations that move jobs overseas.

OP's probably getting annoyed with suggestions that seem non-serious, but it's the idea of a "rational" Republican platform that is just plain silly. GOP doesn't want black or Hispanic voters, obviously, but it really doesn't care for rational thinkers either. Mark Twain hit the nail on the head about GOP strategy:

That's nonsense and you know it.

[septimus]

GOP doesn't ... doesn't care for rational thinkers either. Mark Twain hit the nail on the head about GOP strategy:
Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain't that a big enough majority in any town?That's nonsense and you know it.

I've no problem with intelligent "conservative" thinking, however rare it may be. I disapprove of the way the present Republican Party practices national politics.

What principles would I like to see Republicans endorse? How about, for starters:

1. I declare that Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.
2. I denounce any and every public figure who pretends to believe that Barack Obama might not have been born in the U.S.A.
3. I am saddened that lying clowns like Beck and Limbaugh have much success influencing gullible voters.
4. I agree that a President describing himself as a "Unifier" should not choose federal judges using the criterion that getting more than 51 Senators in support implies the nominee was too moderate.
5. I thank the Obama Administration for recognizing the severity of the present credit and employment crisis and pursuing fiscal stimulus.

There's more, but let's start with these.

Can you unequivocally endorse these statements, Curtis? If so, I'll give attention to your political views. If not, I'll just treat you as part of the problem.

[cckerberos]

What principles would I like to see Republicans endorse?
No one asked.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

What principles would I like to see Republicans endorse? How about, for starters:

1. I declare that Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.
2. I denounce any and every public figure who pretends to believe that Barack Obama might not have been born in the U.S.A.
3. I am saddened that lying clowns like Beck and Limbaugh have much success influencing gullible voters.
4. I agree that a President describing himself as a "Unifier" should not choose federal judges using the criterion that getting more than 51 Senators in support implies the nominee was too moderate.
5. I thank the Obama Administration for recognizing the severity of the present credit and employment crisis and pursuing fiscal stimulus.

There's more, but let's start with these.

Can you unequivocally endorse these statements, Curtis? If so, I'll give attention to your political views. If not, I'll just treat you as part of the problem.
I know I'm not CLM, but as a conservative member of the board, can I say that I'll give you 1-4, but not 5? 1-4 seem to be statements of fair play. 5 is a support of a specific policy, and a rather controversial one, at that.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

If I had to write one, it would go like this:

1- We will propose an alternative to the Obama health care plan that will provide more coverage to more people for less money.

2- We will abide by the findings of a bi-partisan committee for ways to balance the budget in the next four years.

3- We will seal the Mexican border and work with Democrats to enact sensible immigration reform.

4- We will use the military sensibly to protect legitimate American interests only.

5- We will restore NASA to the forefront of manned space exploration.

1. That goes against the fundament of conservative ideology. Expanded government, even if better government, isn't something any of the many components of potential Republican voters will go for. Outdemocratting the Democrats is a losing strategy. Plus it goes against one of the basic aspects of production: better, cheaper and faster, you can pick two. Cheaper and more widespread leads to slower and worse coverage.

2. I love it

3. Working with the other guys isn't a politically savvy move as a message for either party. If you're trying to sell your voter base on working with the other guys, why should people vote for you?

4. Love it

5. Huh? Where'd that come from? It's not a popular demand, nor is it the sort of attention grabbing issue that could vault the Pubs over the top.

[septimus]

I know I'm not CLM, but as a conservative member of the board, can I say that I'll give you 1-4, but not 5? 1-4 seem to be statements of fair play. 5 is a support of a specific policy, and a rather controversial one, at that.

Fair enough. It's mean-spiritedness and lies that turn so many of us off to the right-wing, not legitimate policy differences.

By the way, have you actually denounced birthers and mischievous commentators like Beck?

[jtgain]

The contract should denounce Bush as a terrible president and apologize for the increased spending that took place under his administration. It should admit that the Iraq war was an intelligence failure of the highest order and that the GOP will make sure (however they do that) that it won't happen again.

It should demand a Congressional Declaration of War before we commit troops overseas in a non-emergency situation. A Balanced Budget after a few years, and then sticking with it except in times of great emergency. No businesses can be "too big to fail" (however we want to control that).

Don't say "states rights" but use another term that doesn't imply racism. Local Control of seat belt use, drunk driving BAC, open container laws, drinking ages, marijuana laws, abortion (see how I snuck that one in there), and end of life care.

Make a statement that "interstate commerce" only applies to things that are commerce and cross state lines.

And if their dicks are really swinging in the wind that morning, talk about how the New Deal programs and their successors suck ass. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Promote freedom from government control of healthcare and institute market reforms to bring the prices down. Tort Reform. Break up the Doctors' monopoly. Reform the drug laws. Give consumers power in healthcare.

Take that SS tax and invest it in a private IRA that is personally owned and can be passed onto your kids should you die early.

My main point is that the GOP has to do more than simply be a more conservative version of Obama. There is no groundswell of support for continuing the same thing. In 1994, it worked because people believed in less government, but Newt and the boys just couldn't get it done. People I know still believe in that, and it can be made to work with the right marketing.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Fair enough. It's mean-spiritedness and lies that turn so many of us off to the right-wing, not legitimate policy differences.

By the way, have you actually denounced birthers and mischievous commentators like Beck?

Denounced? I mean, not officially. Do I have to salute the flag, and hold one hand on the bible, and cross my right testicle over my left? I think I burned a copy of The Fountainhead in college: does that count?

[septimus]

Denounced? I mean, not officially. Do I have to salute the flag, and hold one hand on the bible, and cross my right testicle over my left?

I know you think you're being funny, but standing on the sidelines silently smirking while assholes like Beck and the Birthers pollute the political debate? Thinking "They're assholes, but they're my assholes!"? Would that make you part of the solution, or just part of the problem?

[gonzomax]

There is a Contract From America (http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/). Here's its proposals:

1. All laws have to identify a clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to legislate in that area.
2. No "cap & trade" environmental regulation.
3. Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
4. Single-rate income tax.
5. Taskforce to identify government programs that should be eliminated.
6. Statutory upper limit on government spending.
7. No public health care.
8. Loosen regulations on drilling and nuclear power.
9. Supermajority needed for earmark budget items (pork).
10. Repeal recent tax increases.

Love good luck making that work. Cut taxes and balance the budget. Gee .it seems so logical doesn't it ? It is not.
The debt is equal to the Bush tax cuts and the cost of waging wars at the same time. What did you think would happen when he did that, a budget surplus?

[Little Nemo]

Love good luck making that work. Cut taxes and balance the budget. Gee .it seems so logical doesn't it ? It is not.
The debt is equal to the Bush tax cuts and the cost of waging wars at the same time. What did you think would happen when he did that, a budget surplus?I assume you're aware I only posted this platform. I didn't write it and I don't endorse it. In fact, I pointed out the same thing about its economic contradictions you did.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

I'm not seeing the economic contradictions, particularly consdiering that a focus on limiting government spending is also part of the proposal.

[gonzomax]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071606245.html?hpid=topnews

The repub platform is to not have one. They have been against everything Obama has done. Their aim is to run against Obama and not tell anybody what their plans are. That is a good plan. They do not want to reveal who they work for anymore than they already have.

[Captain Midnight]

O.K.------------------------

1.) The United States gets the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Like tomorrow. The same with Korea.

2.) Take half of the troops and deploy them on the Mexican border. Send the other half home. If they went to Iraq or Afghanny and they are poor, send them to University.

3.) Build a secure border wall on the Mexican/American border. A wall where it would be nearly impossible to enter the country by foot.

4.) Any invasion or intrusion of another nation needs to be met by a Declaration of War. No more invading nations like Iraq without clear purpose. Be in the right before declaring it.

5.) Stop foreign aid to other nations unless that aid is for a national emergency.

6.) USA has the UN on their soil. Let's use the bastards. I have no problem with the UN. I 89% believe in what I was taught in school that the UN was created to talk over problems and differences instead of immediately picking up arms. One could say there has been a lot of killing before the UN, but think about how many wars were stopped because of them.

7.) The sanctions against Cuba are lifted. Go to Cuba. Tomorrow. Spend some money. The sight of regular Americans wearing ugly shorts on the beach demanding cheeseburgers and cheap weed will transform the nation much more than the CIA could even imagine. I would even support a small range tax credit for major western and Japanese companies to sell the Cubans applainces and conveniences at cost ot less.

8.) Talk to Iran. Maybe not diplomatic relations, but they can be communicated with. The idea is to try to steer the nation from a hostile nation to one that is nuetral, whose problems with us can be solved or discussed. However, this might conflict with 9....)

9.) Human rights is very important in our relations with other nations, especially the rights of women, minorities, and the execution of children.


Domestic Agenda

1.) Stopping abortion. It's murder. Pure and simple. It's not a fetus, its a developing human life. Any "doctor" preforming abortions would be subject to murder charges and a federal death penalty.

2.) Gun control. Get the handguns off the street. Only allow people who are military or police, or who honorably retired from either service. Long barrel guns like rifles would be available to hunters after a background check, a class and licensing.

3.) Legalize marijuana. The money saved by law enforcement from arresting marijuana smokers and dealers can go after the "bad shit" of cocaine, heroin and crystal meth.

4.) Pay down the deficit. The deficit is $11 trillion dollars and rising. There needs to be a Marshall Plan like effort to get this deficit under control.

5.) One small measure would enforce a balanced budget. It would be illegal to go into deficit for any reason except in a national emergency when war is declared with another nation.

6.) Curtail and eventually abandon the IRS. I hate the IRS. They are the gestapo of the country and curtails Americans from making money.

7.) Privatize the Post Office, NASA and many other organizations that offer a service that can be better serviced by private enterprise.

8.) Get rid of the Department of Education. Allow local school districts the flexibility to do what they want. Saying that, give the parents the right to send their child to any school they choose. And make it easy to kick out a malcontent student after the age of 16.

9.) Welfare means work. There is work to do.

10.) Give good high school students the chance for a free ride college education, inreturn for four years in either teaching, government service, or law enforcement.

11.) Gay marriage. No problem. Domestic contract. Write it up, sign it, have it signed by a lawyer and stamped by a notary. The end. What to desolve it? Reverse the process and get a lawyer if needed. Gays would have the same right as the sick, twisted people who enjoy the sexual organs of the opposite gender.

12.) Tax the churches on income made outside of Sunday services and charities. Many megachurches run seminars and crap and make lots of money that is exempted from taxation.

13.) Slowly, but surely do away with Social Security. Pay off everyone who has paid into the system, then make the system voluntary. Unfortunately, the Federal government would have to have work cards and work permission because of all the foreign invaders.

14.) Most welfare handouts will cease, except veterans who were hurt, the disabled who cannot work (mentally disabled, mentally ill, quads etc.). No more mamas with no daddies with five kids who run to the welfare office. Sorry, government is broke. Can't ask people who have actually worked, recieved an education, have kids and jobs to shell out more taxes.

15.) Fuck and shit will be allowed on TV after 9 PM on public TV.

16.) Speaking of public Universities, a probe on why in the hell it is so freaking expensive. I cannot speak for private schools, but public Unis should be relatively inexpensive. Books, a classroom, a teacher, maybe a computer

17.) I do not believe in Universal Health Care. At least not now with the USA carrying such a huge debt load. However, one can see how Fed. govt., medicare, lawsuits and insurance has made medicine so freaking expensive. The answer is not UHC, it is regulating better these forces that make right of care out of reach for a majority of citizens.

18.) Do away with the electoral college. Some doofus named Al won in 2000.

[Digital Stimulus]

For those who haven't heard of it, you might want to check out the DNC's "The Republican Tea Party Contract on America (http://my.democrats.org/page/content/tpgop)". 10 items:

1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)
2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether
3. End Medicare as it presently exists
4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil
5. Repeal Wall Street Reform
6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes
7. Abolish the Department of Education
8. Abolish the Department of Energy
9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency
10. Repeal the 17th Amendment
Honestly, while spun negatively, it's not that far off. There are a (small) number of SDMB posters who advocate some combination of these positions.

[Chronos]

All quotes from Captain Midnight:
3.) Build a secure border wall on the Mexican/American border. A wall where it would be nearly impossible to enter the country by foot.There's no wall that can do that. The only role a wall has in a border defense is to make it easier for the guys in the machine-gun nests to gun down the folks trying to cross. Do we really want to go there?
1.) Stopping abortion. It's murder. Pure and simple. It's not a fetus, its a developing human life. Any "doctor" preforming abortions would be subject to murder charges and a federal death penalty.
I see the sentiment, and logically, an opposition to abortion is something that the Republicans should be focusing on (the nation's very divided on it, and both sides are large enough that one party's going to inevitably take each side), but you need to work a little more incrementally, there. Trying to jump straight from the status quo to "death penalty for abortionists" is just political suicide, and will end up getting you nowhere at all.

6.) Curtail and eventually abandon the IRS. I hate the IRS. They are the gestapo of the country and curtails Americans from making money.
It's inherent in the nature of government that you need to collect at least some taxes, and there has to be some bureaucracy involved with collecting them. Reform the IRS, sure (and be prepared to list specifically what you want to reform), but you can't abolish them.

7.) Privatize the Post Office, NASA and many other organizations that offer a service that can be better serviced by private enterprise.There's no private enterprise that's demonstrated an ability to do all of what the post office does, nor one that's demonstrated an ability to do almost any of what NASA does. UPS and FedEx can only stay afloat by using the USPO for packages that would be unprofitable for them, and all satellite launches, even those done by private companies, use government hardware that they've bought.

Some others of your suggestions would require a Constitutional amendment, which is unlikely, but OK, it's fine to aim high. And several others are a major break from the current Republican position, which I don't have a problem with, but it might be more politically feasible to just not talk about those issues at all for now, and save an actual reversal for later.

[SmartAlecCat]

There is a Contract From America (http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/). Here's its proposals:

3. Balanced budget and supermajority needed for tax increases.
10. Repeal recent tax increases.

Love good luck making that work. Cut taxes and balance the budget. Gee .it seems so logical doesn't it ? It is not.

And tell us how you will accomplish that... I believe there are really only two choices at this point:
1. Cut defense
2. Cut medicare

For me to really believe the GOP positions (described by 3 and 10 above), they have to tell me specifically which/how they plan to cut either defense or medicare. Nothing else in the budget has a prayer of affecting a balanced budget..

[DanBlather]

Here is what I'd like to see:

Get rid of govt-paid medical insurance for elected federal officials until it is available to all Americans.

Eliminate any pension programs for the above other than those like IRAs that are available to all Americans.

Only pay Congress for the days it is in session , documented meetings with constituents, and three weeks of vacation.

Refuse to accept any campaign contributions over $100 per contributor.

Abolish anonymous holds and eliminate the filibuster.

[BrainGlutton]

7.) Privatize the Post Office . . .

We Await Silent Tristero's Empire . . .

[Squink]

1: Republicans see balanced budget amendment as potent campaign weapon (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/113229-gop-sees-balanced-budget-amendment-as-potent-campaign-weapon)Senate Republicans are planning a new push for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution when lawmakers return to Washington after the August recess.

GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) will lead the charge in the fall, when Democrats plan to debate raising taxes on families that earn more than $250,000 a year.
2: Bush Pushes Back Memoirs So GOP Isn't Hurt In Midterms, Friends Say (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/bush-pushes-back-memoirs-past-midterms_n_671187.html?ir=Politics)George W. Bush pushed back publication of his memoirs, "Decision Points," out of fear that a public reminder of his presidential legacy would hurt Republicans heading into November's midterm elections, Bush's friends tell the Financial Times.

The FT reports that Bush refused to allow publication in September, which would have been a better time to unveil his book from a sales perspective. Instead, it's slated to hit stores on Nov. 9, one week after Election Day Hide Bush, and make up some fiscal responsibility snake oil. It's all they need.