More on the Pledge...

The more I think about this Pledge, the less I like it... and the more I understand why Paul Ryan has had less-than-a-lot to do with its promotion.

It never touches or addresses the fact that SSI is a failing program, and doesn't provide the security in retirement that it intended to provide for the last 75 years, and never mentions Ryan's proposal to allow younger tax payers to allocate more of their deductions to private retirement funds while providing a reduced retirement benefit from SSI. He outlined this in his "Roadmap" plan, and nothing about it is mentioned in the Pledge.

There is a paragraph in the Pledge about requiring new bills to show their "Constitutionality"... but nothing about returning to the proven success of "Pay-as-you-Go", in which the proposed bill must show how it is going to be paid for. This is nothing more, in my opinion, than a token nod to the Tea Party movement and those calling for closer adherence to the Constitution. It does next to nothing to end the process of ever-growing Big Government.

A promise in the Pledge to "work with" State and local officials to curtail illegal immigration... but nothing about ending the problem, or completing the "fence" that the GOP had so fought for for nearly a decade, or denying illegals benefits and entitlements that have already been granted them across the country (health benefits, driver's licenses, housing allowances, etc). Now, if this sort of sentiment equates to giving States such as Arizona or Texas a "free hand" in dealing with the problem as they see fit, I think I could get behind it... but that is NOT what is implied in the Pledge, is it? It also does nothing to end States like California's overt effort to draw illegals to its doors and cities by declaring huge areas "sanctuary" zones where no prosecution can occur.

Even as simple a promise as ending earmarks is utterly lacking in the Pledge. What is it that they hope to achieve here? Is this how they intend to "water down" traditional GOP positions to make them more appealing to moderate and independent voters? When I said that the GOP had to "appeal" to moderates and independents, I didn't mean they had to dilute the platform, only that they needed to make the platform clear and totally understandable to the general public. If a particular portion of the platform was "outside" of the general public opinion poll, it should be spelled out in clearer, better defined terms... not softened or dropped entirely.

The more I look at this Pledge, the more I'm convinced that it is simply a response to perceived public opinion by the GOP. They want to touch concerns within the Tea Party movement while still seeming "compassionate" to liberal and progressive issues. They want to seem like they are addressing "conservative" concerns in a way that won't upset or frighten independent voters.

This defines the very term "counter productive", I feel. Present the GOP platform in a manner that is clear, concise and unambiguous to anyone reading it, and count on America's voters to best determine what direction they want to move in. Show them, in no uncertain terms, exactly what the benefits are to a conservative approach and what the costs are associated with a liberal, progressive approach... and the results will speak for themselves.

Want an example? Let's look at abortion...

The GOP position on abortion has been as fluid lately as anything you could hope to point to. We have seen it go from a call of no abortions... ever, to a ban on Federal funding of procedures or research. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. The Pledge promises to make the Federal ban on abortion funding permanent (rather than the annual renewal that it requires now), but no longer calls for a "repeal" of Roe v Wade that we had only a few years ago. I still support the permanent ban on funding... but that ban should exist because the Fed has no authority to fund private, voluntary procedures at all... not because I am opposed to abortions, morally and ethically. I don't think the Fed should be funding breast implants, or face lifts, or dental veneers either... they are unnecessary and totally voluntary in nature, not life-threatening if left undone.

Want to avoid the "hot-topic" issue of abortion within the Pledge, or anywhere in the GOP agenda? Explain and detail the lack of Federal authority to fund or interfere in these sorts of procedures, and leave the legality of abortion to be decided by individual States.

No... I'm becoming more and more dissappointed with the whole "pledge" the more I look into it.