Pieraldi's posterous

WASHINGTON – Republicans have already violated some of the vows they made in taking stewardship of the House.

Their pledge to cut $100 billion from the budget in one year won't be kept.

And for a coming vote seeking to repeal the health care overhaul, the first major initiative of the new Congress, lawmakers won't be allowed to propose changes to the legislation despite Republican promises to end such heavy-handed tactics from the days of Democratic control.

Is business as usual really back so fast? That's not clear one day after Democrat Nancy Pelosi yielded the gavel to the new Republican House leader, John Boehner. The GOP came to power in the House with an agenda that, if carried through, would in fact change how the government spends, taxes and does its legislative business.

But those with long memories may have the feeling they've seen this movie before.

After the GOP won control of Congress in the 1994 elections, the House churned out a series of votes aimed at fulfilling promises made in the party's "Contract With America." Most hit a dead end in the Senate. The GOP's new governing document, "A Pledge to America," covers many of the same themes and faces many of the same problems.

The effort to repeal the health care law, for one, is expected to pass in the House and fail in the Senate, going nowhere.

A look at some of the Republican promises in the campaign that delivered them control of the House, and their prospects now:

CUT SPENDING: "We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone," the GOP pledge stated.

It turns out $100 billion is way out of reach.

By the time the current stopgap spending bill expires March 4, five months of the budget year — which began Oct. 1 — will have passed. Republicans acknowledge it's unrealistic to force even deeper cuts for the rest of the budget year to make up for money that's already been spent at the current, higher levels.

What is more, Republicans juiced up the $100 billion promise in the first place by using as their starting point President Barack Obama's $1.128 trillion budget request, a theoretical figure that was never approved by Congress.

Republicans are bristling at accusations that they're backtracking from the $100 billion promise even as they concede they can't pull it off. Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Republicans will set spending limits "for the remainder" of the budget year at levels in effect before the 2009 stimulus.

___

REFORM CONGRESS: "We will let any lawmaker — Democrat or Republican — offer amendments to reduce spending," the pledge said. "House Democrats have relied heavily on what are known as `martial law' procedures during the current Congress, particularly provisions that allow them to bring any bill to the floor with little or no notice and deny Republican members of Congress or even factions of their own party their right to debate and offer amendments or substitutes for consideration or vote."

Despite the promise of more open debate and the opportunity to offer floor amendments, GOP leaders will bring legislation to repeal Obama's signature health care overhaul bill to the floor next week and deny Democrats any chance to try to preserve popular provisions.

Republicans say that repealing the health care measure is a core campaign promise that deserves an up or down vote.

But it denies minority Democrats the chance to force individual votes on certain provisions of the new law, such as the ban on insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing illness or the measure allowing children to stay on their parents' health plan until they turn 26.

Blocking votes on such popular provisions would protect newly elected Republicans, especially in swing districts, from politically difficult decisions. It also would guarantee a united GOP front against the bill.

Democrats also say that repealing the health care law would add to the deficit, contrary to the GOP's promise to curb runaway deficits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's most recent estimate says that the Democratic health measure would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the coming decade, savings that would disappear if the law is repealed. Republicans counter that that figure is unrealistic.

Politics is a 2 step process:

1. Say what ever it takes to get in
2. Do what ever it takes to stay in

While that seems like a bad thing, the fact is, we demand it. We hold our representatives hostage to a very self centered agenda. Tell me what I want to hear and I won't sacrifice for another concern. This leads us to pandering. Cut spending, unless of course it's to you. No one can expect more from government than that which we can govern ourselves. As yourself this. 1) Do you think we should have a Federal Government? 2) Do you think you can control a Federal Government by controlling spending? 3) Do you think any person let alone city state will make the self sacrifice needed absent a Federal system to help others in a Federated system?

To that point - if we did not have a Federal Government to manage the affairs of state abroad and across our domestic landscape, do you think we could function as a unified country. Here are two examples.

1) Katrina and New Orleans. If there was no Federal Government, do you think that each of the respective states would have had an emergency meeting to redistribute funds quickly from say Nevada to New Orleans? And if that were so, all 5 States would quickly and in a timely manner step up providing local National Guard units to help?  Or do you think it would be a "Loan" or tied to some conditions? Bottom line, do you think a federated system would have responded better or worse than a federal system?

2) Wars. If we decide that we are to remove a federal funding system for wars, and return it to the states as a contribution, as it was in the founding of our country. What result would that have on our place in world power? More to the point; What if Texas decided it did not like the way things are in Iraq today, and the state pulls it's national guard troops out unilaterally? How would that look or even work?

The reason I bring these issues up here is simple.  Focus on a critical and sometimes over looked cost of our self centered and often short sighted political dialog. Want to control spending? Want to stop Federal Government intruding on civil liberties. Take a very long pause and think of how your personal politics levels agains the greatest country in the world.   See if you can step outside your insular community for a bit and travel this great land. I suspect you might see why some small town values are not all the different from that big city community. I really hope this country of ours is not as weak as it's smallest community. If we don't appreciate why our political system is just a reflection of who we are as a whole we are doomed to fail as a political system.