A Modest Proposal for YouTubing Republicans James A. Davids J.D. Duke University School of Law President-Elect, Christian Legal Society Assistant Dean, Robertson School of Government, Regent University November 29 , 2007

Most of the media focus on last night’s CNN/YouTube Republican debate has been on the Rudy vs. Mitt immigration debate. Yet, I wonder if Republicans are really interested in knowing whether New York City is truly a sanctuary city or whether Mitt should ask every person with a funny accent mowing his lawn whether he has a green card. Most of the media has ignored an area which I think is of greater concern to more Republicans, and that is wasteful government spending. Perhaps the media ignored this issue because of its lack of entertainment value; there was, quite frankly, on this issue no debate at the Debate.

When Sarah from Scottdale, Pa. asked about controlling government spending, John McCain said that he has a record of fighting wasteful spending and would use an old veto pen given him by Ronald Reagan to veto “every piece of pork-barrel spending that came across my desk.’’ Mitt Romney said that Senator McCain was “absolutely right,” and that entitlements must be reformed and discretionary spending capped. Mayor Giuliani, to his credit, was more specific, and proposed across the board spending cuts, including a commitment not to rehire half the civilian work force retiring during the next ten years, and eliminating the 3% of programs which the Office of Management and Budget each year finds failing in their task.

The OMB “hit list” remained popular when Emily from Los Angeles asked the candidates to name the top three programs they would decrease if they became president. Fred Thompson (perhaps playing to his Second Amendment enthusiasts) noted that “it’s a target-rich environment,” and added that he would take out every one of the 100 programs on the OMB hit list. Ron Paul, in an apparent desire to respond to Emily’s question precisely, limited his response to three targets, but they were three big targets: the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security. Governor Huckabee, perhaps because he has no Washington experience, could think of only his top target for elimination, the Internal Revenue Service.

The question is, of course, whether a Republican voter interested in fiscal responsibility can believe any of these candidates. Several of the candidates served in Congress during the recent years of the Republican Trifecta, which were marked not by flat or declining spending, but by burgeoning spending. During these years, the person whose Oval Office these candidates seek to occupy neglected to ask Senator McCain for his veto pen which Ronald Reagan so effectively used. President Bush inked up his veto pen only recently, which is about six years too late for many Republicans.

Governor Huckabee has signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s No New Tax Pledge, while Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson have refused to do so. Faithfully fulfilling this pledge, however, does not cap spending or reduce the federal deficit. In fact, fulfilling this pledge can only lead to a bigger deficit unless spending is controlled and/or revenues are increased because of improved economic conditions.

A better pledge than the No New Tax Pledge would be the No Increased Spending Pledge or, if this is deemed too painful, the No Increased Spending Above Cost of Living Pledge. Capping spending would, of course, lead to no increase in the deficits and public debt if tax revenues are flat, and would actually reduce the deficits and public debt if revenues increased.

Such restraint would, of course, result in condemnation by congressional Democrats who would claim that Pledge Signers are trying to starve the poor, kill the elderly, and allow sick children to die. Similarly, Congressional Republicans would charge that Pledge Signers were soft on the war and not caring of our nation’s security and citizens. The Pledge Signers could with dignity and truth claim that they love the poor, elderly, and children, and are very concerned about safety issues, but that their love for the disadvantaged and security is only surpassed by the legacy they wish to secure for the nation’s future generation, who must bear the spending profligacy of the past 50 years. The Pledge Signers could with dignity and truth state that the American taxpayers have given and will give sufficient resources to care for the disadvantaged and to secure our nation, and that further resources to these ends can be given with no increase in total spending if Congress cuts back or eliminates lower priority items (such as one or more of the 100 agencies on the OMB hit list).

The American taxpayers have been more than “generous” with the national government (generosity here is a relative term, since generosity normally connotes a volunteer spirit of giving, rather than giving upon pain of fines and imprisonment). Republican voters will no longer be impressed with No New Tax Pledges. President Bush (after seeing what happened to his father when people watched his lips and then his action) has faithfully followed his pledge of no new taxes, and spending, deficits, and the public debt have increased nonetheless. To win again the confidence of Republican voters, candidates should sign the No Increased Spending Pledge.