Yes, I’m writing this a little late in the game. I really wanted to digest the responses to the Pledge to America before issuing a commentary. That being said, I think it’s a fantastic document but I also believe it comes up short. Here is what is included in the pledge:

• Extending the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 for all taxpayers, including those for those earning over $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples)
• A tax deduction for small businesses on up to 20 percent of their business income.
• A hold on all unspent funds authorized as part of 2009′s stimulus bill or the 2008 TARP legislation.
• A spending freeze for most domestic programs, exempting some programs for seniors, such as Social Security, and others that affect veterans and the military.
• A hiring freeze on all federal agencies except those necessary to national security.
• A repeal of the 2010 health-care reform bill.
• Reform of medical liability and health insurance practices.
• A permanent ban on any federal funding for abortions.
• A requirement that Congress post all bills online three days before a vote.
• A requirement that lawmakers cite the specific constitutional authority that enables the legislation.
• A ban on trials on U.S. soil for detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay.

There are three topics that notably lack mention in this document:

• Cutting Entitlements
• Illegal Immigration
• Moral Issues
• Gun Rights

Cutting entitlements is not mentioned for the obvious reason that this would be severely unpopular. No one wants to hear that Social Security is a tax that feeds into ponzi scheme. No one wants to hear that Medicare is insolvent.  While Paul Krugman can complain that this document calls for cutting taxes but not for reducing spending, he knows that this is ultimately an imperfect political framework. Besides, why isn’t he just saying the obvious – that these plans would work if they were matched with comparable spending cuts?

Illegal immigration is another hot button issue. I think it’s something that needs to be addressed and will be addressed in one way or another by the GOP Congress.  Obviously the GOP doesn’t want to touch on anything that may energize on the Democrat base; this really isn’t a shocker. However, deportations are up under the Obama Administration – not a whole lot more you can ask for besides backing off on the Arizona SB 1070, the National Guard on the border, and a massive fence, right?

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was critical of the Pledge because it lacked a focus on moral issues.  When I first read it I was impressed with the provision about a permanent ban on the funding of abortions.  The preamble had this to say:

We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.

Right on.

Still, there was no specific mention of preserving the sanctity of marriage or upholding the Defense of Marriage Act.  While this should hardly be construed as an abandonment of socially conservative values, it does demonstrate that fiscal conservatives have taken a greater role in the GOP leadership. Again, this represents nothing more than political expedience on the part of the GOP and an attempt to avoid handing a rallying cry to the Lady Gagas of the world who hate the traditional notion of family.

The last piece of concern I have is a lack of mention of gun owner’s rights, at the very least a repudiation of Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 and Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009, but also (and preferably) a repudiation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Frankly, I’m surprised there hasn’t been a further outcry regarding this issue; I really don’t see any political drawback to affirming an American’s right to bear arms and pledging to inhibit attempts to restrict this right.

This pledge has a lot of good things in it that many conservatives should be glad to see on the table. However, it is clear that it is a political document that really needs to have more expounding on once the GOP takes over. Strategically, it is a very valuable document: it brushes off the claim that Republicans are purely obstructionist and does not energize the Democrat base. The pledge should be viewed as a net positive for GOP hopefuls going into the November election.