Commentary - James A. Davids: A modest proposal for YouTubing Republicans

Most of the media ignored an area of greater concern to Republicans: wasteful government spending. When Sarah from Scottdale, Pa., asked about controlling

government spending, John McCain said he would use an old pen given to him by Ronald Reagan to veto “every piece of pork-barrel spending that came across my desk.” Romney said that Sen. McCain was “absolutely right,” and that entitlements must be reformed and discretionary spending capped.

To his credit, Giuliani proposed across-the-board spending cuts, including a commitment not to rehire half the civilian work force retiring during the next 10 years and eliminating the 3 percent of federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget each year finds are failing at their tasks.

The OMB “hit list” remained a topic 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 Second Amendment enthusiasts) noted that “it’s a target-rich environment,” adding that he would take out every one of the 100 programs on the OMB list.

Ron Paul 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. Perhaps because he has no Washington experience, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee could think of only his top target for elimination: the Internal Revenue Service.

The big question is, of course, whether a Republican voter interested in fiscal responsibility can believe any of these candidates. Several of them served in Congress during the recent Republican trifecta, which was marked by burgeoning government spending, not fiscal restraint. President Bush inked up his veto pen to correct this situation only recently — and about six years too late for many Republicans.

Huckabee has signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s No New Tax Pledge, while Giuliani, McCain and Thompson refuse 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 an even bigger deficit unless spending is controlled and/or revenues increase because of improved economic conditions.

A better pledge would be the No Increased Spending Pledge or, if this is deemed too painful, the No Increased Spending Above the Cost of Living Pledge. If tax revenues are flat, capping spending would not increase the deficit or public debt -- and would actually reduce them if revenues increased.

Such spending restraint would lead to condemnation by congressional Democrats, who would claim that pledge signers are trying to starve the poor and allow sick children and the elderly to die. Similarly, congressional Republicans would charge that pledge signers were soft on the war and didn’t care about our nation’s security.

But the pledge signers could truthfully say that their love for the disadvantaged and national security is only surpassed by the legacy they wish to secure for the nation’s future generations, who will bear the brunt of the spending profligacy of the past 50 years.

They could dignify their stance by explaining that American taxpayers have been more than generous and have already given the government sufficient resources to meet these ends. If Congress wants to spend more, it should cut back or eliminate lower-priority items.

Republican voters will no longer be impressed with No New Tax pledges. President Bush has faithfully followed his pledge of no new taxes, yet spending deficits — and the public debt — have nonetheless increased during his administration.

To win back the confidence of Republican voters, GOP candidates should sign the No Increased Spending Pledge instead.

James A. Davids is assistant dean of Regent University’s Robertson School of Government.