Ryan has me thinking with that last post...

... and no, I'm not thinking about $2 hookers.

In mid-1993, the GOP "promised" to bring ten bills to the House floor for honest and open "consideration, debate, and vote". These ten proposed bills became known as the Contract with America, and many believe that it was this Contract that vaulted the GOP into majority status in both Houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years.

Less than half of the promised ten bills passed into law, either through Presidential veto or a failure to pass Senate approval... but the bills were presented from the House of Representatives for debate and vote, as promised by the GOP. So, the Contract was delivered and fulfilled as promised, I guess.

Some of Ryan's "Contract" is the same as the '94 version... the "Fiscal Responsibility Act" proposed amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget unless a 2/3 majority in BOTH Houses sanctioned the spending. This never got off the Senate floor. The bill also included the only "line-item veto" ever enjoyed by a President, but that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998. I was a huge fan of the Balanced Budget Act of '97, but that was repealed by George Bush within the first 6 months of his Administration. This Act proposed a required balanced budget (through reconciliation of revenue-spending) by 2002, but achieved it by Sept of 1999... reducing government spending each year it was in effect. I am convinced that this is single greatest coup the Dems have counted on the GOP in the last 50 years... fighting the passage of this bill tooth-and-nail, but because Clinton didn't veto it, they can now "claim" the title of Fiscally Responsible Government that Al Gore used so much in the 2000 campaign. Gotta give credit where it's due... tip your hat, tip your hat.

That aside, some of Ryan's other "Contract" points also reflect the '94 version:

Tax reduction. New per-child tax credits (while cutting massive amounts out of welfare spending on single-parent households), repeal of the marriage penalty tax, and large middle-income tax relief and reduction meant the average American paid $875 less in taxes each year. Couple that with the fact that the deficit was GONE by 1999 and the proof of the "Laffer curve" is suddenly seen in the pudding.

(NOTE: The man credited with the original idea of the Laffer curve, Arthur Laffer, refused to take credit for it. He said the idea originated in the writings of one John Maynard Keynes... a name that is anathema to Ryan. Further proof that Keynesian economics is NOT synonymous with institutionalized government "tax-and-spend" policy, but that is another thread... please)

Health Care Reform. Massive restructuring of the Medicare and Medicaid programs contained in the original Contract were never fully implemented to the satisfaction of the GOP members, but enough confusion was created to necessitate the later reforms of the Bush Administrations that drew so much criticisms from the GOP, specifically his signing of the prescription drug coverage legislation after 2006. This is a good example of "too little, too late" I think, on the part of the GOP. I really am in favor of a more "Ryan-esque" approach where private insurance is de-regulated and competition is increased exponentially.

Ryan's post didn't make me think that a new "Contract" is the way to go... there are too many negatives associated with the term, Newt Gingrich large among them... but the idea is sound. Spelling out in clear and certain terms EXACTLY what the goals and agenda of a new Congress will be, and where the GOP plans on going, coupled with their actually following that plan, and we could really SEE a change in the dynamic in Washington DC. This is what the Dems seem completely incapable of doing... so the conservative candidates in '10 and '12 MUST do it instead. No sugar coating, no flip-flopping, just straight clear explanations of what is going to be expected from each candidate... and WHY. The public may not care so much about the HOW (electing Obama is proof of that), but the WHY can be a huge plus in our favor.

I think many people see a "reasonable" argument for conservative values as one that is devoid of emotion or compassion, but it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, it SHOULDN'T be that way. We just have to find a conservative candidate that can present the "reason" in a "compassionate" manner.