The Politico calls this an “election agenda,” but, as reported by The Hill, this is more of a governing effort. Regardless, if they put it in writing, they better be willing to actually stick to it
House Republicans are planning to roll out their election agenda over the next two weeks as they seek to take back the House majority, prepping a list of roughly 20 initiatives — including a few that seem driven by the tea party movement.
One of the GOP proposals would require bills to have a specific citation of constitutional authority, on the heels of criticism that Democrats breached their constitutional limits in Congress with big-ticket bills like health care reform. If a member questioned whether the House had constitutional authority to pass a bill, that challenge would receive debate and a vote.
Great idea, though we can expect Democrats to challenge every piece of legislation for the hell of it.
The second major initiative would encourage — though not require — members of Congress to read bills before they vote. According to a senior House GOP source, Republicans plan to push for a new rule that would require the House to publish the text of a bill online at least three days before the House votes on it, also giving the public an opportunity to review legislation.
Supposedly, there is already the rule about publishing on-line, yet, most of the major legislation was not published in time, and certainly not the legislation that was voted on. Reading legislation? Why would people want to do that? I mean, heck, you don’t read contracts when you sign them, right?
Other bills and initiatives that are likely to be launched alongside the agenda include tax policy proposals, health reform proposals and jobs-related measures, though GOP aides involved declined to release any specifics ahead of the unveiling.
When this will be released is up for debate. It could be soon, but, will probably be released, as several sources point out, once the legislative session is over. Switching to The Hill article
Social conservatives, who held more power in the GOP 16 years ago than they do today, are pressing Republican leaders to highlight family values.
In a statement Thursday, president of the Susan B. Anthony List Marjorie Dannenfelser said, “This blueprint must include pro-life priorities spelled out in a broader family values plank. It would be an electorally costly mistake for the GOP to write off one leg of the three-legged stool of Ronald Reagan conservatism.â€
I have to disagree. For the most part, social positions have no place in government, at least at the federal level. Despite what leftist political wonks (and right side elitists) think, the TEA Party has not been about social issues. It is about governance, reducing the size of government, limited taxation, wise use of the People’s money. Most TEA Party leaders have worked hard to keep the social issues out of the mix. Government, especially the federal government, should stay OUT of our private lives. Avoiding social positions in the new Contract would not be writing off those values, it would simply be an acknowledgment that social issues should best be left to the States, municipalities, and private groups.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU. Re-Change 2010!
This is not awesome. Their policies do nothing to address the problem of too much government. Things like ‘read the bill’ and ‘cite consitutional authority’ have no meaning. Neither the Democrats or the GOP establishment view the Constitution as a limit on their powers. They’ll simply invoke the Commerce Clause for everything they want to do.
Republicans, proving they are just like Democrats since 2000.
I completely agree with this concern for social postions or legislated morality. I see no difference between the communistic Demes and Republicans that push enforced morality or anything else that means the government is getting in your business. I was kicked out of Redstate for simply saying that with conservatives Democrats and independents endorsing the Republican party in order to obtain smaller government, that we should not make abortion an issue in assessing candidates. That really got them steamed.
I don’t understand why we just can’t leave others alone. Look at the results of our interference. I have had to take care of a number of people that are not exactly model citizens. I have seen first hand the results of our campaigns related to moral issues. Take prostitution, we outlaw this and the initiative is even pushed on a Federal level. The result is not an elimination or even reduction in the act. Instead, it assures maximum exposure of these poor women to multiple diseases, particularly AIDS and Hep C. Many are essentially slaves of their pimps and routinely beat. If this were made legal the result would be a chance for improved health and eliminate the pimp. I suspect that it would help the average family as well.
Then we have drugs. Why do we have to go to a doctor to get pain meds or anything else that you desire? It does not make sense to me and I have been prescribing for 40 years. Many doctors share this view. Let people take what they desire. If they get hooked or die, it is not your problem. As it is they are getting bad drugs that again promote AIDS and Hep C. The money funds terrorist and gangs. Imagine the amount of money we would save if we eliminated the DEA and all the other agencies fighting the “war on drugs”. Allow people to just go the the pharmacy and get what they want.