By Wall Street Journal

House Republicans released their "Pledge to America" campaign agenda yesterday, and it was quickly attacked by Democrats as dangerously radical and by the blogging right as dangerously cautious. The reality is that it's somewhere in between, a consensus document typical of Congress that is very strong in promising to shut down the Obama agenda but less clear as a road map to governing.

To put it in context, the document is more ambitious and candid than the "Six for '06" proposals that the Nancy Pelosi Democrats offered when they regained control of the House four years ago. It is less specific in offering new ideas than was the GOP's 1994 Contract with America, which included welfare reform and a capital gains tax cut, both of which eventually became law

Then again, Republicans understand that above all this year voters want to stop the Obama-Pelosi agenda. Stop it cold. Stop the spending, the tax increases and the huge expansion of the regulatory state.

The GOP pledges to do all of those, and this alone would have a salutary economic impact. At the very least, a Republican majority in the House or Senate would mean a healthy gridlock that stops the Pelosi liberals from doing more harm. This would remove several looming threats to business investment and hiring, and thus reduce the uncertainty that has led to the current capital strike and high unemployment rate.

The document also shows that Republicans have been chastened (somewhat) on federal spending from their previous Tom DeLay-led majority days. They promise to "roll back spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels," which they claim would save at least $100 billion in the first year.

This is real money and directly challenges the claim by former White House budget official Peter Orszag that spending can never again fall below 25% of GDP. Republicans want to reduce spending over time to its postwar norm of closer to 21% or less, and their proposals are a good down payment. They say they'd impose "strict," if still undefined, annual spending caps, and block any extension of TARP.

Less encouraging is the GOP failure to promise restraint on earmarks, a plank that we hear was removed at the last minute. Yes, earmarks make up a relatively small amount of the current spending boom. But they have become an important symbol of Congressional self-indulgence, and it's no accident that such champion earmarkers as GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Bob Bennett (Utah) were among this year's losers.

Americans won't accept reforms in Medicare and Social Security if they see that Republicans are padding their own pork accounts at the same time. If Californian Jerry Lewis and his Appropriators dictate spending levels and earmarking in a GOP House, we'll know Republican days in the majority will be short.

The document is also weaker than we'd like to see on economic growth, especially tax cuts. The one specific proposal is a tax deduction equal to 20% of income for small businesses, with "small" left undefined. This is less ambitious even than President Obama's recent proposal to allow immediate expensing for all businesses in one year.

The danger here is that the GOP will cede the pro-growth high ground to President Obama. With their preoccupation with budget deficits and debt, Republicans are at risk of returning to their pre-Reagan roots as the austerity party. Spending restraint is crucial to balancing future budgets, but as important is a return to faster rates of growth that will produce more federal revenue. The GOP needs a stronger pro-growth agenda if it wants to return as the governing party.

On health care, too, the pledge document is a mixed bag. The GOP promises to "repeal and replace" most of ObamaCare, which given public opposition is not a daring political leap. The "replace" part is light on details, however, and in some respects shows the same intellectual confusion that has kept Republicans on the health-care defense for years. The House GOP even promises to preserve the ObamaCare mandate that insurers not drop coverage for pre-existing conditions, which increases the cost of insurance and concedes the regulatory argument to the left. At least the pledge document promises to deregulate the insurance market in other ways.

Oh, and they promise to give the Members at least 72 hours to read a final bill before they vote—a major improvement over the ram-it-through methods of both the DeLay and Pelosi eras. This is the kind of transparency that tea partiers and centrist independents will both like.

***
All in the all, the GOP "pledge" moves the national debate in the right direction—away from government-directed policy frenzy toward a restoration of private growth and political restraint. The focus on economic and fiscal issues fits the country's mood and is critical to attracting independents. Republicans would be "nuts," to adapt Pennsylvania Democrat Ed Rendell, if they became sidetracked this year by social issues.

As for the purer-than-thou bloggers and talk-show hosts, their cries for a Moses on Capitol Hill to lead them to the promised land are touching, if foolish. The modern Congress needs to be led, and Mr. Obama's deference to the Pelosi liberals has been one of his main blunders. One lesson of the Newt Gingrich era is you can't govern from Congress as long as a Democrat is in the White House. Truly bold conservative leadership is going to have to come from the GOP Presidential candidates in 2012.

Democrats desperately want to make the GOP agenda the issue this year, because their own policies are so unpopular. Republicans are right to make this election a referendum on runaway government and wretched liberal excess. Whatever its weaknesses, the GOP pledge makes that choice so clear that no voter will be able to miss it.