We, the citizens of the United States of America, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items and advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.
1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes
The Contract From America sets forth a similar case for limited government, arguing: “When our government ventures beyond [those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people] and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.”
On April 15th, hundreds of local Tea Party and limited government groups around the country will join together to announce the launch of the “Contract from America,” a grassroots legislative blueprint for 2010 and beyond. Originally proposed by Ryan Hecker, a Houston Tea Party activist and National Coordinator for the initiative’s chief organizing group Tea Party Patriots, this project is intended to present a different kind of agenda for our federal lawmakers: unlike the Contract with America introduced in the 1990s, everyday citizens proposed and voted on every plank of the Contract from America.
The current tax system is a perverse combination of class warfare and special interest gimmicks. With more than 70,000 pages of law and regulation, it is an anchor weighing down the American economy. High tax rates, corrupt loopholes, and pervasive double taxation of saving and investment are a recipe for reducing American competitiveness. To make America more prosperous, the internal revenue code should be replaced by a flat tax or a sales tax, both of which are based on the notion that laws should apply equally to all people. Moreover, people are rewarded for creating jobs and wealth with real tax reform, rather than rewarded for having more lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants. Real tax reform also means a low tax rate to make America a vibrant competitor in the global economy.
But it is also important to identify what is not real tax reform. Under no circumstances should politicians be allowed to adopt a new tax – such as a European-style value-added tax – without first completely repealing all income taxes. Politicians should not be allowed to pull a bait-and-switch that will finance a much bigger burden of government. Politicians have been swapping loopholes for campaign cash since the income tax was created in 1913. It’s time to end the scam.
~ Dan Mitchell, Ph.D. Cato Institute
Affordable energy is literally fundamental to prosperity. High energy prices always contribute to economic slowdown. The whole point of cap-and-trade and other such schemes is to raise energy prices to discourage the use of fossil fuels. They therefore will have a significant negative effect on the economy. The European Union’s weak cap-and-trade scheme has cost European consumers over $130 billion since 2005, but has not yet contributed to any reduction in emissions. Analysis of various cap-and-trade schemes suggest that they will do little to avoid rising temperatures without China and other nations following suit, which they have consistently refused to agree to.
Cap and trade also has a significant regional effect, imposing new costs on states that produce and use energy intensively (for example, in manufacturing), while rewarding states that use less energy intensively (for example, by being service industry-based). This will essentially translate into a wealth transfer from interior states to coastal states.
Congressional efforts to introduce cap-and-trade schemes should therefore be opposed. Heavy-handed regulation by the EPA would also have the same, or worse, effect. Congress has the power to stop EPA imposing such harmful regulations and should do so.
~ Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Energy is the stuff of life. With it, we can accomplish practically anything; we grow food, make necessities, provide warmth and shelter and comfort, education and entertainment. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates U.S. supplies at 117 billion barrels of oil and 651 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, on shore and off. This is enough oil to replace entirely our OPEC imports for more than 50 years, and enough natural gas to supply all U.S. needs for more than 30 years. That’s not counting our even more vast supplies of coal, counting in the centuries. We must no longer deny ourselves access to our most productive and affordable energy types.
The BLM found that 60 percent of the onshore federal lands with potentially significant domestic amounts of natural gas and crude are politically inaccessible. We as a nation are sitting on vast deposits of oil and natural gas that we could be using to reduce our imports. Increasingly, our coal reserves are subject to similar political constraints, even as we pour billions into clean coal technologies.
~ Tom Tanton, Pacific Research Institute
Since 2001, federal spending has grown 51 percent faster than inflation, and now stands at $29,813 per household. President Obama’s budget could push real federal spending above $37,000 per household by the end of this decade. Taxpayers clearly cannot afford to fund this level of spending.
Families and businesses are tightening their belts and capping their spending. Yet Congress is not subject to any statutory spending caps. Entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare grow 7 percent annually on autopilot with no Congressional oversight. Discretionary spending is budgeted annually (at growth rates recently averaging 8 percent), yet Congress bypasses even those minor restraints by declaring any additional spending “emergencies.”
The only way to force lawmakers to set priorities and make trade-offs is to enact a law capping the growth of the federal government to the inflation rate plus population growth (approximately 3.5 percent annually). No more blank checks, no programs on autopilot, all programs competing against each other for tax dollars. Any additional spending should require a 2/3 supermajority vote (which should be reachable during a real emergency). Such a spending cap – starting from the pre-recession 2008 spending levels – could likely balance the budget by 2020 without tax increases. It’s a vital step towards protecting the family budget from the federal budget.
~ Brian Riedl, Heritage Foundation
One of the defining moments in the formation of the Tea Party movement was the opposition to government-run health care. The antithesis to government-run health care is a competitive, free market system that puts patients first. Over 84% of Americans already have health insurance, and 75% of those are satisfied with the care they receive. Enacting real health reform that keeps costs in check not only satisfies the majority, it also makes health care more affordable for those who don’t have coverage. Competition thrives when the barriers to entry are low, uncertainty is eliminated, innovation flourishes and customers are free to choose from a range of options. Together, these factors put downward pressure on costs.
Congress could easily and cheaply enact health reform laws that allow insurers to compete across state lines. In so doing, burdensome regulations that differ from state to state would be streamlined so that all insurers could compete on a level playing field. New competition rewards the most innovative companies, and customers would have a wider range of coverage options. The end result is patients will have more freedom, more choices, and a competitive system with built-in incentives to control costs and stay competitive.
~ Rick Scott, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights
For too long, Congress has been passing bills with little or no constitutional authority. Legislative counsel have twisted provisions like the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause beyond all recognition, not tying congressional authority to any particular power enumerated in Article I. Going forward, Congress should only be allowed to exercise powers that directly and plainly flow from a specific constitutional grant of authority.
~ Ilya Shaprio, Cato Institute
The most important part of the early stage of the process was to identify the issues that truly resonated with Americans and the need for fundamental tax reform was identified as one such issue. With regard to the specific proposals of FairTax and the flat tax (not to mention other viable proposals), we concluded that to choose one over the other at this early stage will only serve to divide rather than unite us on a critical issue impacting every single American.
