Republicans are now fertilizing their own Astroturf with a mixture of the remains of the last pledge and some fresh manure for flavor.  The problem is that it would only make things worse, for reasons that are pretty obvious.

Here’s the pitch:

———————–

THE PLEDGE

I pledge to urge my Senators and Member of the House of Representatives to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:

1. Cut – Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
2. Cap – Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
3. Balance – Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing

——————–

There are a few problems with this:

CUT: we already had a pledge, and the Republicans blew through it.  The Tea Party returned the Republicans to power wanting one thing above all others, and then the Republicans put people like 16-term “Prince of Pork” Hal Rogers back into positions of responsibility, if that is not stretching the word too far.  This current pledge is worthless until the first pledge is made good, and it won’t be — the time for that is past.  The Republicans have not learned the lesson that the Tea Party knows all too well, that when an opportunity is squandered, it is gone forever.  There are no second chances on budgets and appropriations, and there will be no second chance on a pledge.  Still waiting for the first one.  Remember that the pledged spending cut was actually an increase by the time the dust settled.

CAP: This is the current fight, which at least Cantor and Kyl have walked away from.  But they’ll be back.  Even Cantor folded on the Cut deal, and while I find recent signs of spine admirable, I have certainly not seen enough to restore my confidence in him and those who would have me support this pledge.  A cap on spending would simply become one more tool to be twisted and abused.  “Oh, we would limit spending to 19% of GDP. Oh, we would require a 2/3 vote to increase taxes.  Oh, we would return spending to 2008 levels, cutting by AT LEAST $100 Billion”.  Oh, wait, that last one was from the previous pledge, which was also bulletproof.  “Well, when we pro-rate it for the time already passed, then consider only the discretionary fraction, then debate millions when we promised billions out of the required trillions, and then get rolled by a combination of Hal Rogers Spend-publicans and Harry Reid Spend-ocrats…”

BALANCE:  I do not trust the Republicans with a Constitutional Amendment.  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  The whole problem is that neither Republican nor Democrat takes the Constitution seriously.  The opportunities for mischief are too great, and at any rate, the Republicans have demonstrated ZERO proficiency in standing up to democrats.  And believe me, if you thought the Democrats have been pressing hard recently, wait until you see the ferocity of Democrats with a Constitutional Amendment on the floor!  It would guarantee a civil war.  That’s right, I said it!™, and I mean it.  This is madness, and to be resisted as strongly as war itself.

NO

So the answer is NO.  No signature, no pledge, no promises, no amendment, no confidence, no more bullshit.  Just try not to do too much damage until we can replace you with conservatives.  You’ll thank us from the comfort of your retirement.

————————

Mark Levin likes this “Cut, Cap, Balance” pledge because he feels that its stated goals are important–I agree with that sentiment.  Hugh Hewitt dislikes this pledge, because he has no confidence that its goals will be carried out.  Amen.

I even like Jim DeMint, who I believe is the author of this pledge.  He is not a RINO.   I hate to say this, but the failure of the GOP to deliver what it PROMISED us, and then their petty mumbling and dissembling about what the meaning of “cut” was, have left me with no confidence in them.

I’m not signing any damned pledge.