Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
The Need for a Congressional Agenda
Guest Column | By Paul M. Weyrich | May 28, 2008
When Edward J.
(Ed) Feulner, Jr., long-time President of the Heritage Foundation, and I
organized what now is known as the Republican Study Committee (RSC) 35 years
ago, the Republican Leadership in the House was either liberal (John Anderson)
or non-confrontational (Robert Michel). Aggressive conservatives were shut out
of the Leadership. We then were confronted by the Democratic Study Group (DSG)
which at that time was seeking to have a place in the Democratic Leadership.
These were the days of John McCormack (D-MA) and Carl Albert (D-OK), who went
along to get along. Today, of course the DSG types dominate the House Democratic
Leadership. There is no moderate-to-conservative Democrat in the Leadership.
Likewise RSC types dominate the Republican Leadership. There are clear
differences between the parties in the
House.
One of the
things Ed Feulner and I urged conservatives in the House to do was to adduce an
agenda of their own. Indeed, along the years they did so. Whether we are talking
about Jack Kemp’s tax cuts or Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, the Republicans did have an
agenda separate from the official leadership.
After
Republicans became the majority party for the first time in 40 years,
conservatives left it up to the official leadership to come up with an agenda.
At first that worked fine but by the time 2006 rolled around there was no real
agenda except to retain the majority. House Republicans were
adrift.
Not so anymore.
The Republican Study Committee, under the able leadership of Representative Jeb
Hensarling (R-TX), has proposed an eight-point agenda for which they hope for
votes on before the present 110th Congress adjourns. The problem, of course, is
they are no longer in the majority so the Democrats set the agenda and it is
unlikely they will permit votes on most of these
issues.
The one which
probably resonates most around the nation is a moratorium on earmarks. The
public is really sold on the idea that earmarks represent pork-barrel spending.
In that connection RCS has proposed limiting Federal taxing and spending to what
middle class families can afford.
Not surprising,
RSC is proposing a simple tax code which Americans can understand. I take that
proposal less seriously since every party in every election in my memory has
promised the same thing and yet the tax code becomes more
complex.
The RSC agenda
includes a family-focused patient-centered health care system. That yet might be
doable since our health care system has not been given over completely to the
socialists.
The agenda also
calls for energy independence through increased exploration. Congress has been
beating up on oil companies because of the high cost of gasoline. Some energy
companies bravely have pointed out that it is Congress which has prevented
exploration. We have more than enough oil. We simply have not been permitted to
drill for it.
Hensarling, in
announcing the agenda, called for the development of a legal framework which
allows the United
States to prevent terrorist
attacks.
Social-issue
conservatives are attracted to the provision which calls for a moral approach
for parents to protect and educate their children. This includes parental
notification for minors who want an abortion and parental control over the
family’s personal educational decisions.
Finally, RSC
calls for a welfare safety net which fosters marriage and work. Work
requirements would be extended to food stamps and housing and encouraging
parents to marry so that their children can be reared in two-parent homes. This
agenda probably has somewhere between 70 to 80% support in the country. But
school prayer always had that kind of percentage and there has only been one
vote in the past 45 years.
One can hope
now that the official GOP Leadership in the House will adopt and push this
agenda. These issues are far better than anything we have heard out of Congress
for several years.
Paul Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
© This column is the property of the Free Congress Foundation and may not be reproduced without their permission. For comments and inquiries, contact Phyllis E. Hughes at . Visit our website at http://www.FreeCongress.org.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
2 Comments | Post a Comment
I have a problem with the
‘called for the development of a legal framework which allows the United States to prevent terrorist attacks.’
That could mean a lot of things - just what legal framework is that?
Is it to put the brakes on our legal immigration policies? Does it mean that he thinks we should better screen applicants for visas and perhaps make them register at least once a year, as they once did? Does he mean when they overstay their legal time, they are sent home, whether they have married, had a dozen kids, adopted 20, helped little old ladies across the street, etc.?
Is it to screen applicants for citizenship more closely, and maybe slow legal immigration for a while until we get a handle on it?
Is it to control our borders and clean out everyone here who shouldn’t be here?
Does it mean screening workers in sensitive areas more closely?
We have a lot of laws already on the books that would help if they just enforced them.
Why don’t they try that?
You know when the government allows, condones, and protects illegal behavior, such as coming here illegally, working, driving, getting welfare, etc., they are creating or encouraging an illegal, although not ‘in the shadows’, community in this country. That makes a great hiding place for terrorists to operate - either to get here, stay here, work here.
Just me, but I don’t think he means any of those things. I think he means more phone tapping, more control over the internet, more restrictions on US citizens.
The politicians, all of them, seem to have a agenda. The same one they have been working for, in a truly bipartisan manner, for quite some time. The dismantling of this country, blurring of its sovereignty, and the dissolution of the middle income group. When it’s time to place a vote, they all seem to be in favor of it. They must be. It has been rolling along for over 50 years.
Just my observations——
May 29 at 11:35 am | #1 | Link
Love it