Deonte, I think you could get this to fly with the people, and I would have the pledge include calling your congress-person. One caveat is, though, that to only stop spending more and keep the current level of spending the same, we will bankrupt ourselves in a few years. We need to reduce entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and SS) and help only those who truly need it for a limited time period. I would also say, limit benefits to help those who are citizens. We can say that this will NEVER happen in Congress, but in the long run, it will, because we will be forced to do it. We don't have an EU to bail us out like Greece does.

The problem at this point is not just the "47%" but the "98%." Most people simply don't think that much about politics and all incumbents use this to their advantage. They spend a ton of money polling statements to find out what sells and what statements make their opponents look extreme. Grassroots groups have a tendency to develop positions based on their membership demands - but since their membership does not reflect a full cross-section of society, their positions often do not sell well to outside groups. We need to be just as wise as the incumbents in developing our position statements. We don't necessarily have to spend money, but we do need to at least give thoughts about how we can reach the masses while both the Dems and the Repubs are trying to make us the fall guy.

Based on my Congressional campaign (2012, VA-11), I do not think "no new taxes" or "no new spending" are effective mottos. What does sell is "fiscal responsibility". But we need something to back that statement up. What does it really mean?

What I found on the campaign trail is that most people will concede that fiscal responsibility has to start by having a financial plan. This plan should be the starting point of the budget process.
1. Define your financial goal. I proposed eliminating the debt in 40 years; but it could just as easily be balancing the budget within 5 years, or even balancing the budget within 40 years as Paul Ryan wants. I think the last is immoral and constitutes generational theft, but it is still better than not having a goal which is currently where 90+% of Congress is. By forcing them to define the goal, they at least have to defend stealing all of this money from our future.

2. Define red lines. One of the arguments that is gaining traction right now is that debt does not matter. If that is the case, then why don't we just spend ten trillion this year? It is a stupid premise. Force the Congress to define exactly what percentage of GDP it will not exceed in debt. Any serious study of history reveals that 120% of GDP is the tipping point for economies - but let's have the debate to put Congressmen on record.

3. Define annual targets. You can't reach your goals unless you set targets and hold firm to them. They allow the public to grade your performance. This is a strong argument for a shorter term goal (e.g., balanced budget in 5 years) as it is more likely to force more meaningful annual targets. Also when you couple this with red lines, it will start showing the seriousness of our problem.

4. Raise (or lower) the debt ceiling based on this year's target.

5. Determine revenue estimates from the CBO for the next year, changing tax law as needed to achieve goal - but in no case should we assume revenues in excess of historical data. The supposedly non-partisan CBO has been producing revenue estimates in excess of 20% for future years. Our country has never had a tax policy that has averaged revenues above 19.5% - to think that we will achieve more than 20% is unlikely.

6. Assign spending using zero-based budgeting. In other words, zero out all departments (including entitlements) and allow Congress decide where money goes. Yes, I know this is the real contentious part - but it is not that hard if you really want to solve the problem. As an extreme approach, you can:
a. Take all of the money available for the current year
b. Set aside the money needed to pay interest on the debt
c. Create poker chips to represent the remainder of the available money
d. Distribute the chips to our politicians (using whatever formula)
e. Have each Congressman put his poker chips into a hat representing the programs that s/he wants funded until his chips are gone (you could even have a hat for reducing the deficit)

I recognize that this is far from an ideal process, but it would allow us to reach our (i.e., our nation's) fiscal goal (whatever that may be) because it creates a process that forces everything else to revolve around that one problem.

Most importantly, on the campaign trail I found that this was a message that most people bought into. I had longer and shorter versions of this process that I could describe based on the audience (most don't want all of the details, but you have to have them at the ready to be taken seriously by those who matter). But real-world citizens (regardless of how they vote) are concerned about the debt we are leaving our children; this is a strategy to get them on our side.

In short, the National Tea Party Federation did a great job in defining their motto of "Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, Free Markets." These are ideas that have wide support among the American public. But when fiscal responsibility gets translated as "no new taxes" we lose the support of the masses. Instead, we should merely be demanding a budget and a long-term plan to repay our children. That is a message that sells.

BTW: I got 40% of the primary vote even though I was outspent 2-1 and had no previous political or community exposure and I was running against a decorated Green Beret Colonel veteran with experience on the Hill in a district that was heavy military.

"Limit benefits to help those who are citizens", would be a good place to start. Imagine in Texas alone what that would save us. 100 MILLION for emergency room care for Illegals, 1.2 BILLION in education costs for illegals, the millions and billions for social services for illegals, and these are just yearly figures, yet we allow our border to remain WIDE OPEN, with the welcome mat of "come on in" and while you are here criminally make sure you stick that knife in our back and screw the Legal American Taxpayer. When it becomes clear to people that this greatest recession since the depression of the 1930's is NOT over at all but destined to go into yet another place, as it did in the 1970's, whatever patience remains is likely to be exhausted. In 2013 all politicians will come to the realization that our society will engage in mutually destructive behavior. The likes of which we have never seen. Where the MAKERS will have finally had enough with the TAKERS and the politicians, and the judicial "interpting the constitution" parasites. It is just the facts, and won't be good for us as a country. But if it stops the current ineptitude in DC, and in the states, if can in the end be good for us all.