Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

House Republicans unveil campaign 'Pledge to America'

US Republicans have vowed to cut taxes and government spending and repeal President Obama's healthcare law if they win power in the mid-term polls.

The "Pledge to America" manifesto, which was rolled out by Republicans at a Virginia hardware store, emphasises job creation and limits on spending.

It attacks the Democratic-controlled government as "out-of-touch".

Polls indicate Republicans may win control of the House of Representatives in November's congressional elections.

The 21-page manifesto was formally released by senior House Republicans just outside Washington against a backdrop of sheets of plywood and large wooden planks.

"The land of opportunity has become the land of shrinking prosperity. Our government has failed us," California Representative Kevin McCarthy said at the event.

He added: "We will take back our country. We will restore for a better future. This is our pledge to you."

Republican officials say the document, which details plans to slash taxes and cut down on government regulation, will guide them if they win a majority of seats in the mid-term elections.

'Arrogant government'
In addition to familiar Republican themes - tax and spending cuts and trimming of government regulation - the document incorporates the anti-government rhetoric of the Tea Party movement.

"An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many," the manifesto states.

It describes Barack Obama's healthcare reform law, a key promise of his presidential campaign and the Democrats' signature policy achievement of the last two years, as "job killing" and a "takeover".

With US unemployment lingering above 9%, the minority Republican party has made Mr Obama and the Democrats' stewardship of the economy the key issue in the election campaign.

The manifesto reflects these concerns with a focus on job growth.

"We will end the attack on free enterprise by repealing job-killing policies and taking steps to assure current businesses and future entrepreneurs that the government will not stifle their ability to compete in the global marketplace," the document says.

Among other proposals, the Republican manifesto would make it more difficult for the government to increase regulation of business and would freeze most government hiring.

But it steers clear of setting out specifics on many important issues, such as putting the government on a "path to a balanced budget" or stopping "out-of-control spending".

Democrats, meanwhile, dismissed the manifesto as a rehashing of discredited ideas from the era of President George W Bush.

"Republicans have been clear: their agenda for the future is to take the country backwards to the same exact Bush policies that nearly drove our economy off a cliff," Ryan Rudominer, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement.

The Republicans have described the document as the result of an internet and social networking project they released earlier this year to give voters a say on what Congress should do.

The party says the American Speaking Out project garnered a million votes and comments on the proposals and prompted 160,000 ideas.

Tax cuts during a time of government budget crisis after the failed tax cut policies in the first eight years of the decade? Check!
Promises to deregulate after endemic deregulation caused the largest global recession in history and just two years after clamoring to blame the banks for the economic failure? Check!
Ridiculous tea party rhetoric with zero substance and significant useless hyperbole? Check!
A promise to return to a healthcare system that will bankrupt the country within 15 years because it was "Obamas takeover"? Check!
Calling the previous government which came into power by a considerable voting majority a self appointed group of elites? Check!

Republicans must really hate that message of change that democrats started using! Guess they want to retcon the last two years and blame bushes legacy on the democrats through the magic of populist revisionist history. Thankfully they didn't change where it counts and managed to offer a total of absolutely no actionable policy propositions in their "manifesto of action". The republican tradition of sound and fury signifying nothing continues.

God I love a good manifesto, don't you?

He added: "We will take back our country. We will restore for a better future. This is our pledge to you."

This bit of rhetoric gets me - take back from whom? I, the tax paying, job holding, home owning, Obama voting American, appear to be the enemy of the Tea Party. Its not going to be easy to attract votes by insulting the voters.

So basically it's a ctrl+c ctrl+v of the Contract with America except composed entirely of talking points and statistics instead of you know mentioning actual legislation or specific reforms.

It's amazing how it's somehow longer but says less.

(Yes, I read most of it and skimmed the rest.)

Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/37958976/GOP-Pledge-to-America

As a person who registered specifically to vote for Obama, I have actually been tempted to vote for a Tea Party candidate.

I told this to Jin and he easily convinced me of all the reasons why that'd be a bad idea. But still- I want some balance. I'm frustrated with the spiraling spending and having only one party in power.

This is why the tea party is appealing to some independents and moderates. When they only talk about fiscal responsibility, and leave behind all the social / moral policies that many indies disagree with, they can attract more voters.

I'm saying this and I actually agree with the policies the Obama administration has passed (such as the TARP, or even the health care bill). But I want more accountability for the spending which is seemingly going up with no check in sight.

That's the nerve republicans are touching on, and it's a raw one...

Too little, too late.

I find it interesting that a previous poster views this contract as Tea Party. It could not be farther from the truth.

You want Tea Party perspective? This latest bit of propaganda from the GOP is the old gaurd's last gasp trying to retain power. They see the steam roller coming and are trying to appease the public with promises and mea culpas.

Dems, GOP, all are crooked bastards. Death to the Incumbents. Term limits NOW.

More blather from Republicans, with still no sign of any actual policy. I can't believe these idiots are poised to take back the House. Americans are so damn stupid. It makes my teeth hurt.

The Green Git wrote:Too little, too late.

I find it interesting that a previous poster views this contract as Tea Party. It could not be farther from the truth.

You want Tea Party perspective? This latest bit of propaganda from the GOP is the old gaurd's last gasp trying to retain power. They see the steam roller coming and are trying to appease the public with promises and mea culpas.

Dems, GOP, all are crooked bastards. Death to the Incumbents. Term limits NOW.

A steam roller with no one driving and a few wheels missing thats almost out of gas and is slowly drifting off the road and over a cliff that lies above a minefield sitting on top of half an inch of ice on top of a frozen lake.

If the tea party survives the next two election cycles I'll be surprised, nothing destroys a populist counter-movement that bases the entirety of it's conflicting and worthless "platforms" on saying no to whomever is in power like coming into power and failing miserably themselves. Once the tea party actually has to grapple with having a coherent platform it will fall apart.

The republican tradition of sound and fury signifying nothing continues.

At least their consistent Sort of... maybe... Oh well. Guess I'll just write in Mickey Mouse next election. Or Bugs Bunny.

The Green Git wrote:Dems, GOP, all are crooked bastards. Death to the Incumbents. Term limits NOW.

Term limits only increase the power of the lobbyist in Washington. They will actually make the problems worse, not better.

We don't need less experienced representatives who will be more reliant on unelected staffers and lobbyists to understand the system, we need a more actively involved electorate that actually pays attention to who is doing what in congress. Incumbency is not the problem, incompetence is.

Meh, government institutional memory is for communists.

Tax cuts could work if spending was trimmed accordingly.

Of course that wouldn't happen. But if people were allowed to believe Obama's "Hope and Change" bullhonkery I suppose I'll keep my fingers crossed that the Republicans will live up to the hype this time.

I'd really love a third party. I'll just be happy to have the power spread out a little in the halls of Congress.

Monster Rain wrote:Tax cuts could work if spending was trimmed accordingly.

If my nana had bollocks she'd be my grandad.

So you'd vote for a party would put people out of work? Isn't that why people are angry with Obama, because he's a 'job-killer'.

That's another weird thing - how is someone who 'overspends' (creating jobs) also a 'job-killer'?

Albatross wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Tax cuts could work if spending was trimmed accordingly.

If my nana had bollocks she'd be my grandad.

So you'd vote for a party would put people out of work? Isn't that why people are angry with Obama, because he's a 'job-killer'.

That's another weird thing - how is someone who 'overspends' (creating jobs) also a 'job-killer'?

I don't quite get how the Republicans would be putting people out of work. Also, the Republicans tend to overspend like a melon-fether just as badly as the Dems do. Like I said, I'd love a good third party candidate.

As a side note, that bit about one's nana strikes me as hysterical.

You know what get's me the most is the spending issue. "We're spending money way too fast!" All thw while nobody cared a good Chaos goddamn about spending during the Wars of the Bush years. Where are the Uber tax cuts we should have them by now after the bush years. Oh right they just didn't trickle down. You know why I dislike the Tea party, It makes no sense. We need the government to stay out of the economy, but we need them to create jobs. We need less taxes but don't cut our benefits. We need to create jobs by firing government workers, who have families and work as hard as any of us. We need to keep out mexicans, so another group can come and take the low paying jobs. Chaos gods forbid we jail the people hiring them and shipping jobs over seas. People who lose thier houses and jobs need help, but they are lazy, and stupid. America is a Christian country, until we want to elect someone who isn't a christian, abd is actually an ex devil worshiper. I love my country, but my side didn't win so I want to leave the union. Hey people of Iraq we are here to bring you freedom, even though your religion is a cult and you are all godless monsters bent on destroying us.

Let's see them fix the economy, with no plan or goals other than. "If your race or Religion start with M GET OUT.

But according to them the world was supposed to end if Obama got elected, or if anything thing he ever tried to pass went through. The tea party IMHO means "Blame everyone else for our mess.

sexiest_hero wrote:Let's see them fix the economy, with no plan or goals other than. "If your race or Religion start with M GET OUT.

I have some bad news, Methodists.

sexiest_hero wrote:All thw while nobody cared a good Chaos goddamn about spending during the Wars of the Bush years.

I don't think that's true at all.

You should check out what Ron Paul has to say on the subject.

I have some bad news, Methodists.

You too, Martians.

Monster Rain wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:Let's see them fix the economy, with no plan or goals other than. "If your race or Religion start with M GET OUT.

I have some bad news, Methodists.

One of my coworker's sister who is a baptist republican said that methodists are not christians and need to convert to the true faith of baptist. So... yeah... it still stands

Monster Rain wrote:Tax cuts could work if spending was trimmed accordingly.

The problem is where do you cut? Because when you actually look at the budgets, and look into why that money is spent, it turns out that a lot of the spending actually make a lot of sense. And is vital to our economy.

Here's two examples:

1) Welfare, other than social security and medicare, accounts for a very small slice of the budget. If you cut it entirely you would save very little actual money. But you would send a lot of people into dire poverty, which would result in more crime. So much more so that several studies have found that every dollar spent on welfare saves ten dollars in law enforcement costs. Which means that if we cut 80 billion in welfare payments, we end up shifting 800 billion dollars in law enforcement costs onto the states, which means for the average American the cost of government just skyrocketed.

2) A smaller example from the stimulus bill: In the stimulus there was 36 million set aside to build a facility for a Center on Wine Grape Research or something like that. It seemed pretty stupid. Why are we funding this expensive facility to do all this research on wine grapes? Let the wine industry do their own research, right? Well, here's why: The American wine industry does 4-5 billion in business each year, but is divided up into hundreds of tiny wineries, none of which (except maybe Gallo Wines, the largest of them) can afford to do this research. And if one of them did it, then it would be proprietary research and only help that company. This research helps all American wineries remain competitive against France and other major wine producers, and helps keep the wine industry diverse.

That diversity is important, and we don't want to see a lot of consolidation. Know why? Because on top of the billions in business wineries do just selling wine, they also are the reason that a thriving wine tourism industry exists, which brings in almost as much money as selling the wine itself. Thousands of bed and breakfasts, restaurants, etc. all relying on the existence of a diverse wine industry.

So we could save $36 million, but the economic costs would be far greater than what we're spending.

That's why I sneer at Republicans who constantly say they'll cut spending but never say where they'll cut it from. Because I've looked at the numbers, and there just isn't the trillions of dollars in waste that would have to exist to make their plans feasible.

Republicans: Tools
Democrats: Tools
Tea Party: Masturbatory.

The former United States of America has been a corporate state ever since the civil war, and were indebted to the crowns of Britain and France since the end of the "revolution".

What a fething joke.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Tax cuts could work if spending was trimmed accordingly.

The problem is where do you cut? Because when you actually look at the budgets, and look into why that money is spent, it turns out that a lot of the spending actually make a lot of sense. And is vital to our economy.

You could cut money out of the military budget or foreign affairs, isn't money spent on making the people live better lives more important than affairs happening outside of America?

Cheesecat wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Tax cuts could work if spending was trimmed accordingly.

The problem is where do you cut? Because when you actually look at the budgets, and look into why that money is spent, it turns out that a lot of the spending actually make a lot of sense. And is vital to our economy.

You could cut money out of the military budget or foreign affairs, isn't money spent on making the people live better lives more important than affairs happening outside of America?

Wow. I really couldn't have said that better.

+1, as it were. We spend way too much money fiddling about in other countries.

We should also stop spending any money on social programs. I don't want inner-city kids getting free lunches on my dime!

Things that happen outside our little patch of land do affect us. If we had spent just a little bit of time and money in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdraw we'd probably have two more buildings in New York. As it was we supported them until the Soviets left and let the extremists fill the void. Traveling isn't complicated anymore and when someone can come here (or wherever you are), what happens over there can and does effect us over here. Our Foreign Aid budget isn't exactly huge anyway. It is our best interest to help out where we can if we have the means. Pretending there isn't a world outside our borders doesn't do anyone any good.

Ahtman wrote:Things that happen outside our little patch of land do affect us. If we had spent just a little bit of time and money in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdraw we'd probably have two more buildings in New York. As it was we supported them until the Soviets left and let the extremists fill the void. Traveling isn't complicated anymore and when someone can come here (or wherever you are), what happens over there can and does effect us over here. Our Foreign Aid budget isn't exactly huge anyway. It is our best interest to help out where we can if we have the means. Pretending there isn't a world outside our borders doesn't do anyone any good.

I'm not saying we shouldn't spend any money on it foreign relations, that would be crazy.

Surely you would agree that we could save a few bucks on our military budget, right? That's all I'm getting at.

The Green Git wrote:Too little, too late.

I find it interesting that a previous poster views this contract as Tea Party. It could not be farther from the truth.

You want Tea Party perspective? This latest bit of propaganda from the GOP is the old gaurd's last gasp trying to retain power. They see the steam roller coming and are trying to appease the public with promises and mea culpas.

Umm, the Tea Party was a FreedomWorks effort to re-brand the Republicans in the wake of the disastrous 2008 election, when it was seen that the brand had become poisonous.

It is amazing that this has worked, and that people genuinely believe the Tea Party's calls for low taxes and smaller government are different to the Republican party's calls for low taxes and smaller government. That people think a new party is rising because Tea Party candidates are winning Republican primaries is even more ridiculous.

I guess it just goes to show the old advertising slogan - people will believe some truly stupid gak if they want to believe it.

Because when you actually look at the budgets, and look into why that money is spent, it turns out that a lot of the spending actually make a lot of sense. And is vital to our economy.

It's actually even simpler and less dramatic than that.

When the US government spends money on goods and services from American business it's giving people work. It doesn't matter if the person is doing absolutely nothing of any use for the government's money, they're still being employed, and if they weren't, the government would probably be paying for them anyway.

So, on some level, no money that's spent here in the US is truly "wasted."

That said, you want to get as much value for your buck as possible. You'd prefer that the guy you're paying for, say, social work, is reducing the cost to government of dealing with delinquent minors.

So, basically it comes down to return on investment. Cutting any program is going to hurt people. But if it's a program that's doing very little for the cost it incurs, it makes sense to cut it.

The return on investment is not NEARLY as good as I think you imagine it is.

I work directly with the Federal government. The level of waste I see is ASTOUNDING. The other day I asked a few people how much they imagine the government overpays for things. The concensus answer was "about 50%." So, if the government wants a $100 toilet, they end up spending $150 to get it. Bad, but not TOO bad.

That's not the sorts of numbers I actually see, though. I've seen projects budgeted at 100x what the actual cost should be. I've seen projects with that sort of budget fail to produce anything. It's millions and millions of dollars that are spent for absolutely nothing of value.

It's also very easy to see how the bureaucracy factors directly into that scenario. It's not just that the government fails and wastes money. It's that it's utterly transparent WHY it's doing it, and all of the reasons are tightly tied to the fact that it IS government. Everything is hidebound with red tape and rules. Nothing can be done without signoff from a dozen people. Often the people that need to sign off are too high up to really care about the work being done by the people that need the signoff.

If you're not a conservative, I urge you, work for the Federal government for a couple years. You might change your tune.

I'm not really sure what is to be done about it. There are just a lot of people in government positions that can't really do their jobs, and that are NEVER going to get fired, due to the steep requirements to get somebody out the door. The end result is a lot of middle managers who don't know how to manage, who don't know anything about the tasks they're supposed to manage, and no real pressure to change the situation. You can't just go up to a bunch of people and yell "DO BETTER!" It won't work. But the waste is there, and it's preposterous.

So, basically what I'm saying is that there is MASSIVE waste in government. It's patently false to suggest there isn't.

But it's also patently false for politcians to claim they're going to cut waste. They don't have the sort of surgical precision required to do it, and they're looking at a culture that is already totally opposed to cutting waste.

sebster wrote:
It is amazing that this has worked, and that people genuinely believe the Tea Party's calls for low taxes and smaller government are different to the Republican party's calls for low taxes and smaller government. That people think a new party is rising because Tea Party candidates are winning Republican primaries is even more ridiculous.

You really need to reread my sig. Either one applies really.

Phryxis wrote:

Because when you actually look at the budgets, and look into why that money is spent, it turns out that a lot of the spending actually make a lot of sense. And is vital to our economy.

If you're not a conservative, I urge you, work for the Federal government for a couple years. You might change your tune.

Giant snip, and I may be off the mark with what you were trying to say, but in your experience is there any evidence that a conservative government would have significantly less waste?

I know that the Australian Liberals(our conservative party) were in power for a number of years (Around 12 I think?) and built up a huge surplus, but they also didnt significantly upgrade any infrastructure across the country, and have stated that had they been in power during the GFC they would not have done any economic stimulus (at least not in the same manner as the Labour party did) John Howard (Former Prime Minister) even went so far as to say that he wasnt convinced the GFC was global, and thought it was probably just something that happened in other regions...

That people think a new party is rising because Tea Party candidates are winning Republican primaries is even more ridiculous.

Meh...

On one hand, I don't think the Tea Party has any real staying power. So if you're saying that it's ridiculous to suggest that a new party is going to be part of the political landscape long term, then I agree.

If you're saying that the Tea Party is just a trick by the Republicans, and is really the same exact people, and they're all working together, then you're wrong. The Tea Party is not answering to the Republicans at all, they're actually pretty scary for them, since the Republicans think the Tea Party people are yokels who don't understand the game, and will only lose seats that Republicans could have had.

Honestly this is one of the reasons why I find G-bizzy's whole "Republicans are fascists" thing to be ridiculous. The Tea Party is to the right of the Republican party in virtually every way, and it's got a lot of popular support. If the Republicans are so far right, then how come there's a large popular movement to the right of them, and they're scared of it, and trying to make it go away?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

but in your experience is there any evidence that a conservative government would have significantly less waste?

Well, a Republican government? No, probably not.

A truly conservative government? I.e. one that is minimized in size and scope? Yes.

It's been my experience that the larger an organization gets, the more wasteful it becomes. Large corporations are certainly wasteful, and the Federal government is, essentially, the largest corporation in the world.

Beyond that, I think there is also just inherantly more waste in government.

Minimizing the size of it, and entrusting those functions to thoughtfully regulated private companies will be more efficient, IMO.

Phryxis wrote:It's also very easy to see how the bureaucracy factors directly into that scenario. It's not just that the government fails and wastes money. It's that it's utterly transparent WHY it's doing it, and all of the reasons are tightly tied to the fact that it IS government. Everything is hidebound with red tape and rules. Nothing can be done without signoff from a dozen people. Often the people that need to sign off are too high up to really care about the work being done by the people that need the signoff.

If you're not a conservative, I urge you, work for the Federal government for a couple years. You might change your tune.

Yeah, I'm not going to comment on US government in that level of detail because I just don't know, but I can tell you that not every government is anywhere near that level of waste. As a guy who's worked a lot in budgeting in Australian government, I can tell you the waste here is nowhere near that level. There is a general mark up on contracts to the public sector, but it's more like 10 to 20% - much of which is saved through reduced overheads as government management pay scales are much lower than private sector equivalents.

Now, I'm not saying that government doesn't have a natural level of waste that's higher than the private sector, it does, but I am saying that level of waste in a well run government is not significantly higher.

The thing to remember is that plenty of parties around the world have won office chanting the 'less government' line, and few if any have actually reduced total government, typically you see even greater deficit blow outs - look at both Reagan and GW Bush. Thing is, if you think government works on a level where you can simply say 'less government' then you likely have no understanding of how government works.

Where government spending is out of control you don't need less government, you need better government. You actually need to employ more people and empower them to review expenditures. You need to put in place a long term reform of government culture - the kind of plan that really does require bi-partisanship.

Phryxis wrote:On one hand, I don't think the Tea Party has any real staying power. So if you're saying that it's ridiculous to suggest that a new party is going to be part of the political landscape long term, then I agree.

Yeah, their biggest chance of doing anything is to influence the greater GOP.

If you're saying that the Tea Party is just a trick by the Republicans, and is really the same exact people, and they're all working together, then you're wrong.

No seriously, it's true. You can look up the FreedomWorks memos on the issue, they created the Tea Party as an effort to rebrand the Republicans into something the public will accept. Look at their core points - they're one and the same with the policies of the Republicans. Look at the elections they've won - they've been Republican primaries.

The Tea Party is not answering to the Republicans at all, they're actually pretty scary for them, since the Republicans think the Tea Party people are yokels who don't understand the game, and will only lose seats that Republicans could have had.

It's true the Tea Party has grown miles beyond its original scope, and is now a significant power bloc within the Republicans in its own right. But we aren't looking at any kind of new ideas, we're looking at a major GOP faction that's become more vocal and more intense.

Honestly this is one of the reasons why I find G-bizzy's whole "Republicans are fascists" thing to be ridiculous. The Tea Party is to the right of the Republican party in virtually every way, and it's got a lot of popular support. If the Republicans are so far right, then how come there's a large popular movement to the right of them, and they're scared of it, and trying to make it go away?

Thing is, people basically go with the logic that if a party is right wing and extreme then it's fascist. This is nonsense because fascism actually means something, and it's a very different thing to other kinds of right wing thought. For instance, fascism is all about state authority and power, it craves the state to have power simply for the sake of it, whereas US conservative thought is actively hostile to the idea of state power. They're very different things, but if people have bought into a left/right axis view and declared themselves on the left, then apparently everything they oppose is all the same kind of rightwing.

This is pretty closely related to the people who keep claiming fascism is somehow a left wing idea. I keep explaining that government power for it's own sake is very diffrent to government power for the sake of providing for the poor. But if people have bought into a left /right axis view and declared themselves on the right, then apparently everything they oppose is all the same kind of leftwing.

del'Vhar wrote:I know that the Australian Liberals(our conservative party) were in power for a number of years (Around 12 I think?) and built up a huge surplus, but they also didnt significantly upgrade any infrastructure across the country, and have stated that had they been in power during the GFC they would not have done any economic stimulus (at least not in the same manner as the Labour party did) John Howard (Former Prime Minister) even went so far as to say that he wasnt convinced the GFC was global, and thought it was probably just something that happened in other regions...

On infrastructure - that's actually a state issue, and even then infrastructure allocations were considerably increased over the course of the Liberal government. NSW is complaining about the federal Liberal government now, but that's something they always do to explain their own mismanagement.

On the GFC and the stimulus - Yeah, Abbott spent a fair amount of time talking about no stimulus, but he's a lying turd. When the stimulus was being passed then opposition leader Turnbull was talking about a much reduced stimulus bill, but he was talking about a total around 70% of the Labor bill. Which is still a lot of money, and miles away from Abbott's fibs.