Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A new contract?
TownHall.com ^ | Tuesday, September 9, 2003 | by Thomas Sowell

Posted on 09/08/2003 10:22:58 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last
To: Tennessean4Bush
It worked beautifully, IMHO. And, the House lawmakers did precisely what they said they would in the contract, which was to bring them to a vote. They did that in every single item and they passed 7 of the 8..

You must be thinking of some “different” Contract with America. None of the following was passed:

1. require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress

2. select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

3. cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third

4. require committee meetings to be open to the public;

5. require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

6. guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting

7. A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

8. An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending

9 Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare

10 tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

11 repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief

12 No U.S. troops under U.N. command

13 repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.

14 "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

15 A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators

21 posted on 09/17/2003 7:13:18 PM PDT by thtr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thtr
Scorecard

Again, all were brought to a floor vote in the House. Only House republicans supported it as a group. The promise was to bring them to a vote and try to pass them. They did just that in 7 of 8 items.

The fact that the Senate frustrated progress in a couple of items and that a liberal democrat President vetoed 4 or so provisions that were passed would present a valid "beef" if the Senate and the President had both signed onto the Contract, which of course, they did not.

Cheer up, man. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

22 posted on 09/17/2003 7:25:15 PM PDT by Tennessean4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
we don't have to label it anything but another "Contract with America". Just put in the contract all the flashpoint issues which portend to drive a wedge between the DemonRATs core constituencies (minorities) and one of its core funding sources (teacher unions). These policies do not benefit just minorities
Agreed.

23 posted on 09/17/2003 10:33:36 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush; thtr
The fact that the Senate frustrated progress in a couple of items and that a liberal democrat President vetoed 4 or so provisions that were passed would present a valid "beef" if the Senate and the President had both signed onto the Contract, which of course, they did not.
Absolutely. As to the Senate, Republican senators could only commit to a "Contract" if they had 60 seats of senators who had signed onto the contract. Look at the mess the Republicans are in now, in the Senate--what would it be like if the Republican senators had said, "Don't vote for me again if we get the majority and don't do 'x'?"

OTOH, the Contract existed only as a device to nationalize the election; with Bush running for re-election a "contract" which didn't include the president would be strange--and with the president, the contract is seemingly less of an issue but still could help focus the debate.


24 posted on 09/17/2003 10:40:37 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson