A New Contract With America

The Washington Post's Chris Cilizza reports that House Republicans are set to return to the glory days of 1994 by creating a new "Contract with America"--or at least something like it. But, he notes, "There are also no illusions that whatever is produced ... will have the level of depth and specificity that was contained in the 1994 Contract."

That may be a smart move. After all, as I reported back in 1995, Republicans swept into control tethered to a Contract that committed them to various proposals to cut the size of government that proved very difficult to pull off:

No proposal was too ambitious for the heady Hundred Days of the first Republican Congress in 40 years: eliminating, privatizing and consolidating whole agencies and Cabinet departments, slashing federal employment and, of course, trimming federal pay increases and scaling back retirement benefits. But when talk shifted to action, the Republican revolution ran into some serious roadblocks. The House overwhelmingly passed a balanced-budget constitutional amendment in February, but the Senate narrowly voted it down. The House voted to freeze the implementation of new federal regulations, but the Senate unanimously rejected the idea. And House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., was barely able to round up enough votes for what he called the Contract's "crowning jewel," a $ 190 billion tax-cut package.

A group of moderate Republicans argued that changes in the federal retirement system included in the bill amounted to a $ 4,000 "tax hike" on the average federal employee over five years. Others simply questioned the wisdom of trying to cut taxes and reduce the federal budget deficit at the same time. Gingrich had to spend a tense week twisting arms before the measure finally passed on April 5.

"This is not a monolithic Roman legion marching inexorably toward victory," the Speaker conceded as the Hundred Days came to a close.