"Pledge to America"

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017335-503544.html


So, the Republicans have a new "Contract with America."  They call it the "Pledge to America."

The good (IMO):

- Will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority
- Give members at least 3 days to read bills before a vote
- Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit

Big +1's for citing authority and for doing ANYTHING to stymy Congress from steamrolling anything through in a haphazard manner with no civic comment or accountability for Congress to read bills.  Stopping bureaucrats from having fun at their own discretion is always good, too.

The bad (IMO):

- Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.
- Repeal and Replace health care

This reeks of double-talk.  Selective repeal with regards to small business, and talk of "replace."  Repeal.  Repeal.  Repeal.  That's all.  Repeal.

The ugly (IMO):
- Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income
- Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)
- Establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending going forward
- Cancel all future TARP payments and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The small business schtick is pure pandering.  The two budget items sound good at first, but I don't believe they will get implemented.  And if they do, they'll still be too large.  We need the WILL to CUT spending, not a LAW to CAP spending.  There's a difference, and they don't get it.  And canceling TARP payments, as much as I loathe the program, strikes me as a breach of contract and a further incontinuity of the marketplace.  Consider it a failure and never authorize it again, but if a payment is scheduled then it should be honored, since changing that schedule has downstream effects that people aren't thinking about yet.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The bad (IMO):

- Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.
- Repeal and Replace health care

Why is any of this bad?

The ugly (IMO):
- Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income
- Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)
- Establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending going forward
- Cancel all future TARP payments and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Why is any of this ugly?

 

[AZRedhawk44]

Reading comprehension challenged?

I explained my stances in the first post.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yeah, I didn't see any good reasons in your first post that explained how any of this is bad/ugly.

Rereading it, I still don't.

[AZRedhawk44]

Yeah, I didn't see any good reasons your first post that explained how any of this is bad/ugly.

Rereading it, I still don't.

It's like Obama's "jobs" campaign during the 2008 election.  Remember him always saying he would "create or save" a certain number of jobs?  How do you "save" a job, and how do you count it?

The "Repeal and Replace" syntax regarding Health Care is very similar.  I am very suspicious of it.  Especially with selective targeting of small business with regards to health care going into effect.  Why don't big companies deserve to be exempt from Statist bull dung?  Why don't big companies deserve to write off 20% of their income as a tax deduction?

Repeal.  Don't Replace.  Just Repeal.

[RevDisk]

Wake me up when they cut taxes, repeal unconstitutional regulations, etc.

[MicroBalrog]

Wake me up when they cut taxes, repeal unconstitutional regulations, etc.

This.

2008 spending levels were huge.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Wake me up when they cut taxes, repeal unconstitutional regulations, etc.

Time to wake up.  

Read the platform, it's in there.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Two parts in particular strike me as devilishly clever.  The whole thing is worth the price of admission for these two parts alone.

First:

Rein In the Red Tape Factory in Washington, DC:
Excessive federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation...  To provide stability, we will require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more.  This is the threshold at which the government deems a regulation "economically significant."  If a regulation is so "significant" and costly that it may harm job creation, Congress should vote on it first.

Aside from the obvious benefits of killing most new regulation, this provision alone has the power to kill Obamacare.  Recall that much of the implementation of Obamacare is left up to HHS.  This provision, if law, would allow a senate filibuster to block anything that has a tangible economic impact, including every bit of Obamacare.

Second:

Root Out Government Waste and Duplication:
Once created, federal programs almost never go away, even if the problem they were created to address is no longer relevant.  More than 20 states have addressed this problem by requiring that programs end - or "sunset" - by a date certain.  We will adopt this requirement at the federal level to force Congress to determine if a program is worthy of continued taxpayer support.

Again, besides the obvious benefits, this is the key to eliminating most of the useless government programs out there.  Force Congress to act periodically to reauthorize every program, else they die.  This will succeed at killing programs where legislation to explicitly destroy them has consistently failed.  A Senate filibuster could kill most of the federal bureaucracy.

[taurusowner]

Time to wake up.  

Read the platform, it's in there.

Claiming they're gonna do it to get elected, and having done it are vastly different.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Claiming they're gonna do it to get elected, and having done it are vastly different.

Last time House Repubs did a contract thingie like this was back in '94.  They made good on every item.  I'm not seeing any reason to expect this time will be different.

[dm1333]

- Repeal and Replace health care

Why is this bad?  I want to see them repeal the current law and do something to address the fact that health care costs are spiralling out of control.

[Monkeyleg]

If they just make good on item #1, the rest should follow naturally.

[dm1333]

If they just make good on item #1, the rest should follow naturally.

I don't buy that.  Personal experience with two close family members having the same medical issues a few years apart has led me to believe that medical care costs are indeed spiraling out of control.  I don't want to mention personal details here but I have already decided that if I am in the same position/condition I'll either suffer a tragic ND at the range or have a hunting accident.  For the record I believed that long before the present administration was in place.

[AZRedhawk44]

Why is this bad?  I want to see them repeal the current law and do something to address the fact that health care costs are spiralling out of control.

You want them to meddle in the free market.

Living forever isn't cheap.

Knowledge, technology and facilities to cut a human body open and replace organs, or introduce controlled poisons to attempt to kill infections, is expensive.

The liability insurance on top of that is also expensive.

Since people want to retain the power to sue in the event of misfortune, medicine will remain expensive.

Accept that poor health is not an excuse to ride the free health care gravy train.

Why should the healthy subsidize your maladies?

[MicroBalrog]

What about the role of pre-existing regulations in health care?

[sanglant]

dm1333, not to pick on you. and sorry if this post falls apart. you might be better off looking for the older posts(not mine) to read.


now then, do you know anyone that works in the billing side of health care?  the problem is,(and i have posted it here before, and seen other people post it here before) in the beginning there were hospitals. but not just any hospitals, there were the Lutheran hospitals, and the Baptist hospitals, and the Catholic hospitals, and the well you get the point. the hospitals ran on a basis of charging the people that could pay, and treating the poor free or close to it. then there was the medicarethat was the start of the fall, the government went in and said, "we are going to pay you a percentage of what you charger your other patients". not long after that private insurance companies were demanding the same treatment, then the government started paying a lower percentage. the doctors found themselves with a choice, keep increasing prices as the government, and insurance companies continued demanding to pay less(as a percentage) or close there practices. yes the doctors helped us get here, but i think that was mainly caused ignorance. at this point the government is charging hospitals fines for under charging. continuing to demand lower charges, and at the same time preventing them from cutting costs. if you spend some time looking at the system from the inside it's hard to tell if the people are that stupid, or actively trying to destroy the private health care system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egcIKZoNGd8

the really depressing thing is, there are going to be very few new drugs and treatments. right now the US is the only place where the drug makers can charge enough to make back there investment. when it's gone, who is going to throw that much money around with no chance of making a profit?

[KD5NRH]

You want them to meddle in the free market.

Living forever isn't cheap.

In a truly free market, it might be.

[makattak]

You want them to meddle in the free market.

Living forever isn't cheap.

Knowledge, technology and facilities to cut a human body open and replace organs, or introduce controlled poisons to attempt to kill infections, is expensive.

The liability insurance on top of that is also expensive.

Since people want to retain the power to sue in the event of misfortune, medicine will remain expensive.

Accept that poor health is not an excuse to ride the free health care gravy train.

Why should the healthy subsidize your maladies?

I don't want them meddling in the free market.

I want them to STOP meddling in the free market. Status quo ante Obamacare wasn't the free market.

It was already skewed by government meddling. The solution isn't more government meddling (Obamacare) or returning to the status quo, but LESS government meddling.

Stop tying medical insurance to employment through skewed incentives, for example.

[MechAg94]

I think the reason they are not targeting repeal of Obama care is they don't think they will get enough votes to override a VETO.  So the next alternative is to work on changing it or repealing bits and pieces to reduce the impact.

[Jamisjockey]

I think the reason they are not targeting repeal of Obama care is they don't think they will get enough votes to override a VETO.  So the next alternative is to work on changing it or repealing bits and pieces to reduce the impact.

Why not both?  Make a stand.  Pragatisim is great and all, but standing up and first attempting to repeal every bit of Obamacare is the statement that might keep the dems from regaining power in a few years.  When the veto comes down, then begin knocking the teeth out of whatever they can. 

[lee n. field]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017335-503544.html


So, the Republicans have a new "Contract with America."  They call it the "Pledge to America."

The good (IMO):

...
The bad (IMO):

...

They'll get in power, and never, ever get around to what they promised. 

It's the Stupid Party way. 

[MicroBalrog]

Why not both?  Make a stand.  y can. 

A stand? What is this... stand you speak of, foreigner?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

A stand? What is this... stand you speak of, foreigner?

massada was a stand...  the results are usually similar

[MechAg94]

They'll get in power, and never, ever get around to what they promised. 

It's the Stupid Party way. 

In 1994 they delivered on every promise.  I recall an article when Bush was elected gov of Texas saying he delivered on every promise.  It can be done if you aren't stupid about promises and aren't actively lying. 

It is entirely possible that all the people running for office agreed on what to put in this document and a few of them didn't want to put it in there.