´óÏó´«Ã½

US Republican leaders have unveiled a new policy document - The Pledge to America - ahead of mid-term elections. It is receiving mixed reviews online. Pundits on the left abhor it, while those on the right tend to think it is a good first step, but wish it had gone further.

Washington Post scribe and policy wonk Ezra Klein applauded the idea of political parties proffering such policy documents, but gave the substance of the GOP pledge :

"When you get past the adjectives and soaring language, the talk of inalienable rights and constitutional guarantees, you're left with a set of hard promises that will increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, take healthcare insurance away from tens of millions of people, create a level of policy uncertainty businesses have never previously known, and suck demand out of an economy that's already got too little of it... This proposal avoids the hard choices of governance. It says what it thinks will be popular and then proposes what it thinks will be popular - even when the two conflict. That's an idea that may help you win elections, but not one that'll help you govern a country."

Over at Think Progress, left-leaning blogger and author Matt Yglesias the spending priorities expressed in the document.

"Perhaps the most telling thing about where the modern conservative movement is now, however, is their pledge on spending which says that "with common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." Of course once you except Social Security, Medicare, and defense from cuts you're talking about not touching the government's three largest programs... it's a plan that says we'll cut spending on children, the poor, and the next generation's infrastructure in order to ensure that taxes can be cut on the rich while protecting our own base constituencies - old people, defense contractors, veterans - from the scythe."

The editors of conservative magazine National Review offered the document a :

"The pledge commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda that, if implemented, would make the federal government significantly smaller, Congress more accountable, and America more prosperous... the pledge is explicitly a beginning to the lengthy task of providing conservative governance, and a very good one."

Meanwhile, conservative pundit Kevin Glass who have criticised the pledge:

"Many complain that this will give the GOP something concrete for the Democrats to run against. And conservative blogger Erick Erickson has derided the Pledge as 'milquetoast rhetorical flourishes.' To an extent this is true. The GOP leadership's number one task between now and November 2nd is "don't blow it." As such, they can't afford to take the kinds of risks that many in the grassroots want them to."

Jonathan Chait of the left-leaning New Republic magazine argued that the promises of the pledge are not realistic:

"The big money 'saving' measure is a cap on non-defense discretionary spending. This is a hoary tool for pretending you plan to make serious cuts when you do not. 'Domestic discretionary spending' is a popular category to target because it is a collection of programs, not an individual program, like Social Security. But when the programs to be cut are given names, like "food safety inspectors" or 'the Coast Guard,' then the will to cut those programs inevitably (and, usually, correctly) disappears."