A New Contract with America to Limit Government

[narses]

A Contract to Limit Government

1 - Limit Members of Congress to Social Security and Medicare for their retirement benefits

2 - Limit Members of Congress to Medicare for health care benefits while serving

3 - Limit Members of Congress to three terms in each House, cumulative

4 - Limit total Federal taxes per individual to no more than 15% of gross income

5 - Limit Federal rules on education to funding only.

6 - Make the Federal education funding portable at the choice of the parent/guardian.

7 - Limit access to our border to legal immigrants and citizens only.

8 - Limit contributions to Federal Political campaigns to Natural Citizens only.

9 - Limit Federal Spending to a balanced budget outside of wartime.

10 - Limit Lawyers negative impact on society with meaningful tort and legal reform.

[TN4Liberty]

1 - Limit Members of Congress to Social Security and Medicare for their retirement benefits

Populist and meaningless, accomplishing nothing

2 - Limit Members of Congress to Medicare for health care benefits while serving

Ditto

3 - Limit Members of Congress to three terms in each House, cumulative

Works for me

4 - Limit total Federal taxes per individual to no more than 15% of gross income

Arbitrary, but might worl except they would play with the definition of “gross income”

5 - Limit Federal rules on education to funding only.

Why fund it? Feds tweak education under the guise of civil rights. Not sure how this would address that.

6 - Make the Federal education funding portable at the choice of the parent/guardian.

Don’t fund it federally

7 - Limit access to our border to legal immigrants and citizens only.

As in enforce current laws?

8 - Limit contributions to Federal Political campaigns to Natural Citizens only.

As in enforce current laws?

9 - Limit Federal Spending to a balanced budget outside of wartime.

Populist, and leading to lots of new definitions, but a worthy objective

10 - Limit Lawyers negative impact on society with meaningful tort and legal reform.

One man’s meaningful suit is another man’s frivolous lawsuit.

Just my thoughts... It’s good to get a dialog started though.

[SQUID]

1) Ban foreign lobby groups from Congress. That's what the Executive branch is for.
2) Construct new ethics laws that prevent self above country people from going into government, like Dianne Feinstein.
3) Ban from public office of any kind people like Feinstein who have personally benefited from being on committees that appropriate funding and contracts to their husbands, wives, sons, sisters and the like.
4) Enact laws that force Congress to actually attend a number of votes and meetings.
5) Increase the working days of Congress.
6) Stop voting on idiotic things like congratulating the Indianapolis Colts for their Super Bowl win.
7) BAN taking money of any kind from multinational corporation.
8) Break apart the media ownership of stations, magazines etc etc. by one entity. Rupert that means you.
I have many more. How's that for adding some real reform that millions of people would go for in a heart beat?

[Reagan Man]

I don’t support term limits.

IMO, the best term limits are held every election day.

[goodnesswins]

I used to agree with you about term limits....but, have come to believe that anyone who goes to Congress becomes a toadie within 6-9 years.....and the Press supports them....SOOOO....TERM LIMITS. They can find another place to “serve.”

[SQUID]

Well, the president has only 2 terms. I don’t see why others can’t have that also. I don’t see how being entrenched is a good thing for the country as a whole.

Change of the guards is a good thing.

[Reagan Man]

I’m not one who supports amending the Constitution to limit the peoples right to vote for who they so choose. I don’t support the current limit on electing the POTUS either.

On #5, I still don’t get what you mean. I guess #6 refers to school choice. Okay. Whatever. There is a case to be made for political incrementalism. Its worked for the Demlibs the last 40 years. You’d think conservatives would be experts at advancing slow political change.

[Reagan Man]

The Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution believed in “citizen legislators”. Not career politicians. The 22nd amendment altered the Constitution and placed limitations on anyone running for POTUS.

I don’t agree. People should be free to choose who they want to represent them in government.

[airborne]

Finally! Something the Repubs and Dems can unite on!

They’ll unite against this big time!!!

[FrankR]

I'm in with it, but, if the first "Contract with America" fell apart, what makes anyone think that this one would hold up either? I mean with a democrat supermajority in place, none of those things would even make to the floor to be voted on.

If we serve up this "Contract with America II" so soon after getting our asses whipped, we'll be the laughing stock.

We tried that already, it worked ok for a while, but it didn't last.

What we've got here are two sideshow attractions; the DEMOCRAT SHOW , and the REPUBLICAN SHOW.

The DEMOCRAT SHOW has a smooth-talking barker, yelling for your attention from a styrofoam stage set based on the second coming in the beam of 1,000 spotlights and 1000 microphones, all bearing placards of secret alliances like "ABC", "NBC", "CBS" and "CNN".

He's out front razzling and dazzling a hynotized crowd by promising magic to the sway of popular rock artists. He's offering a never-ending supply of snake oil to cure all your ills.

He's redistributing candy (hijacked from the conservative show's candy basket) and promising total retribution for all of your real and imagined oppressors, past and present.

Satisfaction or your someone else's money back.

MEANWHILE...

The CONSERVATIVE SHOW has a tired, little old, white-haired guy, telling us how many times he's been to the DEMOCRAT SHOW and helped them with their production.

He never quite gets the crowd's attention over the din of the DEMOCRAT barker. As he tiptoes to see over the podium, we only hear an occasional, meek, "Friends...", followed by some muttering about "working together to make the democrats like us"...blah, blah, blah. All this to only one small, 25-watt, spotlight hung from a "cable" and one microphone with the code name "FOX" on it.

But, he's really not promising anything that he hasn't already had 22-years to give us. There's no free candy (it was all redistributed to the DEMOCRAT SHOW).

There's no eternal payback for the wrongs life has dealt you.

He's only telling you about your present and future problems...like we didn't already know about them. He's thinks if we all work really hard - (and learn Spanish) - and sacrifice, we can eventually overcome all of our problems and the audience at the DEMOCRAT SHOW will run over to our tent and beg to come in.

Meanwhile, over at the THE DEMOCRAT SHOW, the shuckin' and jivin' continues at a rabid pace, and the folks are worked up to a frenzy. A group called OAKNUTS are secretly letting folks in without the price of admission...they're even issueing tickets to the recently deceased and long-time felons.

---

Now, if you were one of the younger generation, which show would you want to attend?

We've got to offer voters - young and old - something other than tired old men who have prostituted themselves to the other side of the aisle for a pat on the back by the media.

We need someone who doesn't carry around a jar of K-Y jelly in-ready to appease the left's magic moments.

It's not about what the Republicans want to "give us", it's about what we want from the Republicans...and it's not free candy, snake oil, or RINOs.

We want to see some courage; we want to know we're not being thrown to the curb just to curry favor with the Washington crowd.

Everyone in America saw the crowds and the people go crazy when Sarah Palin esposed those principles at the convention...there must be something to it that attracts conservative voters

Also, everyone above ground can see how scared the left is of Sarah BECAUSE she esposed these principles. They wouldn't be on a crusade to destroy her if these values were harmless to them.

(are you getting any of this Juan McLame?).

Finally, I don't think we'll ever have another honest election in America with this "early voting", rampant "absentee voting", and the likes of ACORN. I think that massive voter fraud is well withing the 4% range, and that was perpetrated in 2008..it's the elephant in the room no one is talking about.

All that has got to be exposed, and fixed, while we still have a conservative court to take it to. Taking on these issues would SHOW conservatives that the Republicans are DOING something in our interest beside lip service and another "Contract with America".

The "contract" is a proposal, a plan, and no plan is worth anything until it's executed.

[mysterio]

Agree on overturning Wickard v Filburn.

[Pan_Yan]

Your thoughts overlapped some of my own.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2126693/posts

[AndyJackson]

1 - Limit Members of Congress to Social Security and Medicare for their retirement benefits
2 - Limit Members of Congress to Medicare for health care benefits while serving

This is shear idiocy. You get what you pay for. The current salary and benefits of our congresscritters is not that great, and we are getting what we deserve. Want better people in office? You have to pay higher salaries.

That is how the free market works.

[ecomcon]

Overturn Wickard v Filburn

Overturn Wicked

[AndyJackson]

any vote for raising their salaries would have to be voted on by We the People

Do you have any idea what fraction of federal spending is represented by congressional and staff salaries? It is miniscule.

Instead of worrying about what they get paid, why don't you focus on whether we are paying enough to get the kind of people we want. I would suggest that we certainly are not get the quality of folks we want as congresscritters.

[Gone_Postal]

any vote for raising their salaries would have to be voted on by We the People

Do you have any idea what fraction of federal spending is represented by congressional and staff salaries? It is miniscule. Instead of worrying about what they get paid, why don't you focus on whether we are paying enough to get the kind of people we want. I would suggest that we certainly are not get the quality of folks we want as congresscritters.

I would agree that we are not get the quality of folks we want as congresscritters...but do you think throwing money at the problem is the answer. nope I don't it doesn't help eduction, welfare, medicare, or any other federal and social program..they complain the CEOs get paid to much..do they walk what they preach NO... sorry but these sorry asses don't need to get more of my money in a way of salaries. they hang around Washington for 20yrs and live of the dole of tax paying people....

[Mr. Blonde]

Here is the problem with that. We only have two real options on election day, the democrat or the republican. And how often are incumbent republicans or democrats defeated in the primary? Not often here in Oklahoma. And the chances of me ever voting for a democrat over a republican I don’t like are very slim.

If there were more options in elections would be good, which is why I’m in favor of going to instant run off elections as well.

[Jim Robinson]

My thoughts?

1 - 3) I’d like to privatize social security and medicare. Period. It’s unconstitutional government intrusion. And I believe elected officials should receive low salaries and no pension or medical or employment benefits whatsoever. They should be citizens serving limited periods of public service, then go back to private life. No perks equals automatic and natural term limits.

4) I’d like to repeal the 16th amendment, abolish the income tax and the IRS and get back to constitutionally limited government. Taxing the people fuels the beast.

5, 6) Education is a state and local issue. It’s not an enumerated or delegated power and the congress should have no business intruding. Return it to the states and the people per the 9th and 10th amendments.

7) Concur.

8) Makes sense, but don’t know if it’s constitutional. Prefer the first amendment is fully restored, ie, remove all unconstitutional limits on political free speech, including associating and freely supporting or opposing candidates and issues. Financial support is free speech. The Congress shall make NO law abridging the right of the people, etc., etc.

9) Eliminate the income tax and limit the congress to the enumerated and delegated powers and much of this is solved. Wars have to be financed through emergency taxes and borrowing.

10) Fine, but obviously, any limits on private enterprise mandated by congress are going to be troublesome. Again, return to limited government per the constitution and much of this problem goes away.

Overall, government is not the solution, it IS the problem. More government only makes it worse. The government should be strictly limited to the enumerated and delegated powers.

[Gone_Postal]

BTW what are you running for office or something

[Gone_Postal]

and I would like to add polling places need to be a gas stations....

[AndyJackson]

what are you running for

Nothing. What are you running for?