Jim’s Stab at “9 with 90”: A Future Contract With America?
Well, I know it’s been quiet around here lately, but tonight I’m making up for it with volume…
A little while back, I wrote, “before a political movement - any movement, not just conservatives - can use technology to promote its message, it needs to agree on what that message is. If one had to propose a new Contract With America, could conservatives formulate a list of ten legislative proposals that would get 90 for 9? (Meaning, 90 percent of conservatives agreed with 9 of them?)”
Cam and I talked a bit about this off line. I loved Cam’s idea of framing the list as “A Contract With Our Children” –evoking the “Contract With America” while turning around Hillary’s ever-present “it’s for the CHILDREN!” mantra for the right.
But after weeks of wrangling with what ten issues and proposals could get 90 percent of conservatives (and a big chunk of the public) to back nine of them, I’ve finally made up my list. Here’s a list of ten – first the principle or idea behind the idea, and then the policy proposal that grows out of it.
ONE. THE PRINCIPLE ON PROTECTING ALL OF US: We can’t guarantee that there won’t be another 9/11-style attack, but we can make it a hell of a lot harder for our enemies to pull off another one. After that day, we looked back and gasped at all the ways we were oblivious to the gathering threat, everything from unlockable cockpit doors to decayed intelligence agencies to wrongheaded “walls” between the CIA and FBI to an unwillingness to raid bin Laden’s convoys over civilian casualties to not checking who’s entering this country – seemingly a thousand and one mistakes, bad decisions, and policy blunders.
No government agency can watch over every street corner, every crowded public place, every cog and joint in our national infrastructure, every inch of our borders and coastlines. (Nor would we want it to.) But an armed and alert citizenry can.
Quoting Tom Ridge in the days after the attacks:
“I think we’re somewhat obsessed about getting x number of federal air marshals,” the former Pennsylvania governor said. “I think every single able-bodied man or woman, from this point forward, looks at themselves as a potential air marshal. .. Ridge mentioned the gallant passengers of United Flight 93… “That is the kind of personal resolve that’s magnified across 280-plus million Americans, that says to bin Laden and al Qaeda and all successor organizations and individuals, ‘You may threaten us, you may attack us, you may harm us, you may injure us, you may kill us, but you won’t prevail. You will not win, because every American will rise to that challenge.’”
ONE: THE POLICY: Federal, state, and local governments – as well as private organizations - will provide CPR, first aid, and firearms training for any American who seeks it, forming a civilian corps of “Minutemen” ready to respond to crises in their area at a moment’s notice. In addition, concealed carry permits would be encouraged in every jurisdiction possible. No one would ever be required to carry a gun or know these skills, but potential terrorists will never be able to find a population of Americans defenseless and unable to rise and confront a threat at a moment’s notice.
TWO: THE PRINCIPLE ON SPENDING: We know that the greatest temptation for any politician is to raise taxes. Anyone can think of a million great ways to spend taxpayer money, and there will never be a shortage of good uses and good causes.
We don’t want you to look at your paycheck and despair, or see April 16 as the day the government put its wants ahead of your needs. That’s why we’re pledging to always keep taxes as low as they can be, as long as they can be. A lawmaker should never take a dime from taxpayers until he’s certain he’s weeded out waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse as much as possible.
TWO: THE POLICY: We’re going to cut spending, and our proposal comes from that noted arch-right-wing ideologue… Bill Clinton.
In 1993, in his first State of the Union, Bill Clinton proposed: “Tonight I call for an across-the-board freeze in Federal Government salaries for one year. And thereafter, during this 4-year period, I recommend that salaries rise at one point lower than the cost of living allowance normally involved in Federal pay increases.”
When we propose an across-the-board freeze on non-military federal employee salaries, our opponents call the proposed cuts draconian and heartless, we’ll ask them to take them up with the guy who came up with them.
Similarly, during his confirmation hearings, Budget Director Leon Panetta promised $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes – to a Democratic Congress! We’ll introduce that as a budgetary rule in Congress; let the Democrats vote against it.
Our goal will be to keep federal spending to 18.5 percent of GDP, as it was when Clinton left office in 2001.
THREE: THE PRINCIPLE ON TAXES: Our friends on the other side of the aisle complain that our tax system rewards “wealth, not work” – primarily lamenting that the tax rate for investment dividends is lower than the tax rate on income. For some reason, we suspect they’ll prefer hiking taxes on investment instead of lowering it on income.
But in order to reward hard work, we will enact legislation to decree…
THREE: THE POLICY: All overtime pay is tax-free. You work forty hours a week, the government ought to take what it needs from that. After that, your pay is entirely yours and your family’s. What better way to reward hard work?
THREE AND A HALF: THE PRINCIPLE ON HEALTH CARE: Quick, how much does it cost to get a checkup? How about cast for a broken leg?
We know that prices for a good come down as a good becomes more plentiful; as supply outpaces demand, prices drop. In health care, very few Americans know what it costs to have any procedure done, from a check up to major surgery. Medicare has set the fees, and just about every insurance company and managed care contract has keyed off of Medicare.
We also know that our doctors feel like they’re under attack from patients, with every patient who walks through the door a potential lawsuit. This spurs caution, endless tests to ensure no rare longshot ailment has been missed, etc.
THE POLICY: To bring down the cost of health care, we need to increase the supply. The centerpiece of our plan would be a nationwide sustained effort to expand the number of health care providers in every field. With more doctors competing for patients (and a loosening of Medicare’s pricing structure), prices will come down and health care will become more affordable. A revealing anecdote from the National Center for Policy Analysis:
In 1999, only a few years after LASIK was approved, the price was about $2,100 per eye, according to the ophthalmic market research firm MarketScope. Within a short time, competition drove the price down to a slightly more than $1,600. The cost per eye of the standard LASIK is now about 20 percent lower than six years earlier.
Finally, we suggest a simple change to malpractice lawsuits: Loser pays the legal fees for both sides.
FOUR: THE PRINCIPLE ON THE ENVIRONMENT: Many of us on the right hunt. We fish. We swim. We camp. We boat. We don’t need some complicated theory on a changing climate to justify our urge to protect the lands, seas, vistas that enrich our lives, and to pass them on tour children. We think we’d all be better off if we spent a little less time arguing whether the temperature will change two degrees or three a century from now and a little more time picking up litter from our nearest park. We’re willing to pursue efforts to reduce carbon output, but we understand that this is one of several competing priorities.
FOUR: THE POLICY: I quote Jim Manzi, in the June 5 issue of National Review:
Using U.S. or European technology to increase the energy conversion efficiency of coal-fired Chinese power plants is a decidedly non-sexy measure; but it’s probably the single most important action we can take to reduce carbon emissions over the next century…
Our proposal: We upgrade Chinese power plants in exchange for their concessions on trade laws.
Another idea from Manzi:
We can reduce the climate impact of carbon that is emitted, often using such simple techiniques as planting more trees or using more reflective paint… We also need to place a strong emphasis on large prizes for accomplishing measurable and audacious goals. The British entrepreneur Richard Branson has offered a $25 million prize to anyone who demonstrates a device that removes carbon from the atmosphere; what if the U.S. government upped the ante to $1 billion and pledged to make any resulting technology freely available to the world? That would hold the potential for solving any global warming problem that might develop, for a one time cost of less than 0.01 percent of U.S. GDP.
FIVE: THE PRINCIPLE ON ENERGY: Since the industrial revolution, our economy and our lives have required energy in the form of gasoline, electricity, natural gas and other forms. We thought our political leaders would ensure a steady supply of energy to meet the needs of our growing economy.
“It is obvious that the federal government was not prepared. We were caught napping. We got complacent.”
- U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, Feb. 16, 2000
Well, that will teach us to trust the federal government. When President Bush tried to address the issue, we found an opposition party that was anti-everything: anti-nuclear power, anti-drilling in ANWR, anti-offshore drilling, anti-coal-to-liquids fuel, even anti-wind power because they interfere with Ted Kennedy’s view off Cape Cod. The only proposal that seems to get them excited is – surprise! – a tax on carbon.
FIVE: THE POLICY: Remembering the law of supply and demand as we did with health care, we will encourage the development of multiple, overlapping sources of energy. We’re pro-everything – wind farms, no matter how much Teddy Kennedy whines about their effect on his view, or animal rights activists complain they may kill a bird. Drilling in ANWR. We want new nuclear plants. We want to help Mexico upgrade and update the equipment its state-run oil producers use to increase efficiency and expand their supply to export north. We want customers to have several competing energy suppliers for their home electricity, and consumers’ ability to choose their energy source to drive down prices through competition. We will give appropriate federal “seed funding” for research to develop alternative fuels; hopefully someday drivers will have their choice of gas from corn husks, switchgrass, oil shale, or used vegetable oil, all at the same highway exit.
SIX: THE PRINCIPLE ON IMMIGRATION: Border agents are good, but our southern border requires at least a fence and perhaps a wall. Those walls and fences will have doors and gates, and we will continue to welcome those who wish to help our country prosper. But to protect ourselves, we must first know who’s coming in, and prevent anyone from coming in without our approval.
SIX: THE POLICY: All of the above policy aims will be enacted, and when the borders are secure, we will consider a path to citizenship for those who have come here and behaved as “good citizens”, after they have paid appropriate fines, paid back taxes or our best calculation/estimate and demonstrated capacity to speak, read, and understand English. Drug dealers and gang members will be on the first flight out of here. Each proposal above will be introduced as a separate piece of legislation; none of this Rube Goldbergian 400 page five provision monoliths. What passes, passes. What works is continued; what doesn’t is refined. If we find that six months after securing the border that oranges cost three dollars each, we establish a guest worker program quickly.
SEVEN: THE PRINCIPLE ON EDUCATION: Some parents are thrilled with their schools. Great. But for many others, America’s public schools range from mediocre to an outright failure, most notably in preparing students for what happens after that last day of school. Where do they go then? What are they prepared to offer society?
SEVEN: THE POLICY ON EDUCATION: Adopted from Newt:
We therefore need to foster and encourage teacher specialists who have mastered a subject matter, such as engineers and mathematicians. They should be allowed to teach after taking only one course on the fundamentals of teaching. They should be allowed to teach part-time so that more professionals can have the opportunity to share their knowledge and experience in the classroom. Moreover, every state should pass a law establishing an absolute preference for part-time specialists with real knowledge over full-time teachers who do not know the subject.
When you’re in high school, post-high school life seems an eternity away. Teachers, particularly those with eye-opening life experience outside the classroom, need to reinforce that after senior year, real life begins for these students, and they will need to be prepared for college or work.
Another interesting idea from Newt:
Graduates willing to stay in math and science fields should pay zero interest on their student loans until their incomes reach four times the national average income. This would encourage students to stay in these needed fields and continue to pursue knowledge.
EIGHT: THE PRINCIPLE ON OUR CULTURE: There are times when being an American makes you proud: watching immigrants take the oath of citizenship, watching children sing the national anthem at baseball games, or seeing families of all races, creeds and colors gathering to celebrate the Fourth of July.
Then there are times when you look around and feel like a stranger within your own culture. When law professors and cartoonists suggest Catholic Supreme Court justices are ipso facto violations of the separation of church and state. When Madonna laments that American culture is too materialistic, blithely ignoring that someone identified as the “MATERIAL GIRL” may have had something to do with it getting that way. When sexual violence is reenacted in a Super Bowl halftime show, and those who object are considered prudes. When our nightly news seems to offer a cavalcade of misbehaving starlets largely avoiding consequences of their misdeeds, or when star athletes seem to believe that achievement on the field gives them the right to break the law off it.
We will always recognize Americans’ right to free expression. But we’re willing to make little efforts to create a common culture that enriches us and inspires pride instead of shame, or head-shaking laments that “we’re going to hell in a handbasket.” Even the libertarians among us would probably agree that there’s a tide of cultural rot determined to celebrate the worst in our culture and to smear, slander, and spit upon those who choose to live according to traditional values. Vacuous nihilism, exploitative materialism and worship of celebrities is no bedrock upon which to build the next generation of American culture.
EIGHT: THE POLICY ON OUR CULTURE: Libertarians who fear the right may wish censorship may rest easy, because have something a thousand times more powerful than censorship: Ridicule.
In the process of mocking traditional values, organized religion, patriotism, and the quiet, unglamorous, difficult daily work of ordinary folk, the manufacturers of our pop culture have sought to set themselves up as new authorities and role models. They think of themselves as the new ministers, new Popes, new teachers and arbiters of right and wrong. They tell us who to vote for and how to think. Their belief in their inherent authority knows no bounds: Sheryl Crow wants to tell us how to manage toilet paper use.
Would anyone consider Madonna a role model on much of anything in life, other than how to hype albums? Would we eagerly trade places to experience life as Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, or Britney Spears have? Does anyone recognize Kanye West as an informed authority on anything, much less the president’s dedication to racial equality? Would any of us rely on Michael Moore to fix a flat tire, much less the nation’s health care system?
The right has significant communications capabilities that it did not a generation ago, over a variety of forms – the web, talk radio, Fox News, and even somewhat conservative television programming, i.e., “24.”. Today, we can be the deflators of pompous egos and irreverent doubters of these new authorities. Hollywood, Madison Avenue, arrogant celebrities of every stripe… we can go to the American people and ask, “Why do these people think they know better than us?” In the vein of libertarian skeptics like Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Dennis Miller, and Colin Quinn, we will be the ones declaring that the emperors of our trash culture have no clothes.
NINE: THE PRINCIPLE ON INFRASTRUCTURE: (Here’s where I get geeky.) One of the most underrated changes in American life in the past century was Republican President Eisenhower’s creation of the Interstate Highway System, guaranteeing a fast, efficient way to move goods and people around the county. American ingenuity even managed to defy logic and geography by creating an interstate highway in Hawaii.
When the system was authorized in 1956, the U.S. population was 168 million. Today it is more than 300 million, and America’s economy demands more options for its citizens to get around. Somewhere along the line, America’s transportation system slipped behind that of Europe.
In Europe, trains now go 200 miles per hour, and a trip from London to Brussels takes less than two hours; a trip from London to Paris barely over that. The French have successfully tested trains that can travel more than 350 miles an hour.
With air travel a hassle, fuel prices rising, and congestion increasing on the highways, it’s time to give Americans another option for their non-cross-country trips.
NINE: THE POLICY: It’s time to get the five major high-speed rail corridors off the drawing board. Acela is the first step, and in fact a floor. We ought to be planning to upgrade it until it equals that French engineering marvel. Blogger Ace of Spades suggests Amtrak, or whatever entity manages the passenger rail system in the future, partner with air carriers so you can get roundtrip discounts for taking the train one way on your journey, but a plane back.
Beyond that, the technology that will allow a train to move hundreds of passengers at 200 to 350 miles an hour will provide breakthroughs in moving goods at comparable speeds – revolutionizing the freight market.
TEN: THE PRINCIPLE OF THREAT RECOGNITION: Not all of us fly, but all of us have heard the ludicrous tales of grandmothers getting frisked in random searches.
The policy of the TSA is explicitly to not profile, but most Americans believe it is done anyway, and even more, Americans support it - by a wide margin.
Acting as if a terrorist is as likely to be a Floridian grandmother as a young Muslim male is insulting and forces us to pretend to ignore everything we know and have experienced regarding terrorism.
TEN: THE POLICY: We change our national policy to explicitly authorize TSA to use common sense and abandon random searches, and instead adopt the Israelis’ techniques of threat recognition, passport and behavior profiling. As Dennis Miller put it, “Searching every tenth person makes a lot of sense… if you’re at war with every tenth person.”
There’s my list of ten. What do you think?
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 9:58 am
[…] If you read one blog post today (well, besides this one), read Jim Geraghty’s new post at On Tap. It’s that good. And be sure to leave a comment… I have a feeling it should prompt some good discussion. […]
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 1:50 pm
Regarding culture, and the power of positive ridicule–you should get an NRO dialog going with Rob Long, who is out here (L.A.) advocating just that. Hollywood’s ability to mock can be used for good! Who knew?
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 2:34 pm
I’ve gotta nitpick just a little…you have 11 listed. The Principle on Health Care didn’t get a number.
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 2:52 pm
1- I absolutely LOVE #1! I always felt the citizens of the US should be the first line of defense.
2- Nice in keeping the defecit in line with spending; however there needs to be an opt-out in times of war
3- the loophole in that is that employers will move positions into salaried positions and avoid paying employees overtime.
4- Malpractice: follow the state of Texas….we have passed into law malpractice suit caps and have made malpractice insurnace affordable for doctors. Right now, the state office is backlogged by doctors seeking work here. Also, expand the malpractice suits to lawsuits in general, loser pays winner’s attorney fees (ie-judge sues dry cleaner over pants)
5- drop the subsidies; encourage development in mexico; main point should be to power as many cities possible with nuclear power
…. will post later on last 5
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 3:08 pm
6- sounds good, but what about the people that are here and don’t seek to become citizens (thus avoid paying the back taxes, fines, etc)? that was one of the problems with the defeated immigration deal
7- mandate history be taught as well; encourage school tests to resemble the ACT college test. have a variable interest rate that is linked to GPA upon graduation for those not interested in Math or Science (the masses who seek majors in outdoor recreation in response won’t get jobs, so win/win).
8- nice; also make Good Charlotte’s “Lifestyles of the Rich & the Famous” or “Celebrity” by Brad Paisley depending on preference.
one glorious snippet from Paisley: “I’ll get to cry to Barbara Walters when things don’t go my way”
9- I threw up in the chunnel once; its fine but Ill stick to planes
10- Add Dennis Miller for new cabinet position of the “Department of Common Sense:
11- This could go under Taxes but privatization of social security by choice IS A MUST for me.
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 3:19 pm
“we will be the ones declaring that the emperors of our trash culture have no clothes.”
I’m confused by the Culture point. In the other points, “we” seems to be conservatives in Congress or as president. Something to campaign on in 2010.
I don’t want criticism of “trash culture” by government official in their official capacity, with some exceptions like child pornography of course. Few exceptions, very few.
If you are suggesting that candidates run on a promise to ridicule trash culture in a private capacity using their positions to get a “bully pulpit”, I just don’t think that works for me as a campaign pledge.
Better to just do the ridiculing and not say “I promise to ridicule.” And I think such ridiculing should come from private sources anyway. Congress and the president should save their time for stuff only they can do.
This one is not a winner for me.
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 3:29 pm
“It’s time to get the five major high-speed rail corridors off the drawing board. Acela is the first step, and in fact a floor.”
I think this one is a bad idea too. Air travel is a hassle, but rail is a money loser and the government should not be providing a competitor to the private sector for transportation services. It wouldn’t solve congestion in urban areas.
You want to improve infrastructure? Build more roads. Build more airports. Build redundancy to keep road, rail, internet, port facilities - invest in resilience.
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 4:39 pm
A bit of constructive criticisms:
Health Care - the LASIK analogy (Increased Supply causes prices to drop) doesn’t completely hold up because most people paid for LASIK out-of-pocket rather than letting insurance pay. The real approach to cutting health care costs is to make consumer of health care services also the payer of health care services. HSA solutions (high deductible insurance to cover catastrophic issues coupled with paying out-of-pocket for routine and minor issues) are the way to go. “Loser pays” for malpractice litigation is also a great step.
Environment - (said as a cautious believer in man made global warming) I hate to say it because of the almost certain level of mischief that will result, but carbon emission reduction almost has to be done through international agreements. Involving ALL nations. I don’t want to see any money changing hands between nations through any kind of cap trading schemes, but helping out other nations, as in your China scenario, would net the US some rewards. Nations that violate their limits need to be penalized in the form of international trade sanctions.
Taxes - No taxes on overtime? Where do I sign up? A lot of salaried people will go hourly, still work the same 45-50 hour week, and still get the same paycheck from their employer. They’ll just see their taxes reduced.
What about Social Security?
I love the railroad idea, although I doubt that you’d get 90% buy-in from conservatives unless they have traveled Japan’s bullet trains. Japan and Europe have the infrastructure for short- and mid-range rail connections that funnel passengers to the long-range trains; we would need to get there eventually. But we should start somewhere.
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 9:00 pm
They all make sense, particularly the about immigration.
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 9:30 pm
The Policy for Immigration is very very weak. No Path to Citizenship for any illegals now, later, EVER! No Guest Worker Programs now, later, or EVER! Good citizens do not violate border policy, commit social security fraud, and commit document fraud — in other words there is no such thing as an illegal that is a good citizen. You make no mention of enforcing employer sanctions which is far more important than a wall. Your plan sounds like Jorge Bush’s in steps.
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 9:34 pm
The Contract With America 2.0…
Jim Geraghty has some thoughts on what it should contain, with a goal towards “90 for 9″: that ideally, 90 percent of conservatives should agree with nine of the ten. (Via Jim’s primary blog.)……
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 10:31 pm
companies wouldnt move salaried positions (typically those in lower level management and on up into hourly) because there is no incentive for them, it would increase incentive for businesses to NOT shift to hourly. keep in mind that MOST overtime has to be approved by the employer ahead of time regardless (keep control of costs). so other than the employee, there is no real benefit other than the employer not paying additional SS and Medicare taxes (7% or so). it sounds nice, but im saying it does not accomplish much. France is thinking about enacting the same legislation but they are also trying to get out of 35 hour work weeks.
July 11th, 2007 at July 11, 2007 - 10:48 pm
Hal (#7): You say mass transit’s a money loser: so are airports and interstates.
Airlines didn’t build the airports. They don’t pay the tower workers. There’s not even a tax on aviation fuel. And what would the auto industry be like without the interstate system?
These are all subsidized.
The question is, will local governments be willing to allow light rail in their areas, and to zone housing along those routes to increase the density of the residential areas that would be willing to use the systems?
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 12:15 am
OK, these are pretty good ideas, but I don’t think this matches the simplicity and strengths of the original ‘Contract with America’.
I first saw it in that noted conservative publication, TV Guide. You remember, back then TVG was about 4″ x 6″ or so. The same size as a mass market paperback book. The Contract was printed on one of the thicker card stock advertisement pages, and most of it was on one side. It was simple, and the overwhelming theme was clear (well, clear to me anyway): Vote for us and we’ll bring some honesty and openness to Washington. Just the idea that they might “require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress” won me over.
I think I could see your ideas getting 9 for 90, but I don’t know if enough of them will enthuse voters who are disgusted with the increasingly tin-eared political establishment. I know the idea of the original Contract was “60% issues”, avoiding hot button ones like abortion, and I think these also fit. But the Contract was ten specific pieces of legislation. How exactly are you going to legislate ridicule? (Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see it!)
The Contract with America said to me “There are people here who aren’t just about getting and keeping power, but want to implement common sense ideas that American’s generally support.” The sense of “this is a different way, something new” was a big part of the success of the Contract with America, and I don’t know that it can be replicated again. You certainly get points for trying though. Breaking it down:
1. Excellent. Good ideas and a solid rationale.
2. So-so. Controlling spending would be excellent, but this technique of using Bill Clinton so the Democrats can’t attack it seems … I don’t know … petty is the word that comes to mind.
3. A real winner. This one’s perfect.
3.5 On the other hand, this one needs work. Increase supply. OK, how? And can you keep the quality high at the same time? Plus, wasn’t the loser pays idea in the original Contract? (Yes, #9.)
4. OK, but needs some more development.
5. Pretty good, but not great. Is there really anything new in this one?
6. Very good. Focuses on what was wrong with the whole immigration debacle in the Senate and sticks with simple, common sense ideas.
7. OK, but surely there’s more here that could be suggested. More support for the reforms that are working like “Reading First” - perhaps an across the board plan to get back to the fundamentals.
8. Again, how?
9. Geeky it might be, but provided it could be kept from turning into yet another big government program it’s good. Very good.
10. Good, but not big enough. Plus, it’s kind of similar to number 1 in that they both are for improving security. Different (yet compatible) methods, similar goals.
Just my 20 cents, take it for what it’s worth.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 12:18 am
Overall, I agree with most of your points and think they make a lot of sense. I have a few comments below to add to the discussion. I wish you had mentioned something about limiting the influence of lobbyists. Without that, none of these proposals will have a chance of getting off the ground. I’ve worked with lobbyists and attended several closed and open door meetings with legislators in which the lobbyists basically led the legislators around by the nose. Scary stuff if you’ve ever been close to it- even if the lobbyists are working for you.
3. Taxes. Without discussing what employers would do in response to this proposal, working 40 hours (or more) a week is no guarantee that hard work was performed. It only indicates a person was at their job for a given time period, and is no indication of the actual output achieved. I agree the current system rewards wealth, or rather the accumualtion of it, over labor. I think some of the best tax schemes are those like the Flat Tax proposed by Dick Armey back in the 90’s, or the more recent “Fair Tax,” or VAT taxes. I also find it interesting that we have become so accustomed to income taxes that we never seriously question them, instead only proposing to modify them. What would the Founding Fathers think of our current tax scheme?
3.5. Health care. To increase supply you’d be fighting the AMA (and other medical societies). They control the number of suppliers of healthcare, i.e. doctors, and have been limiting that number since the early part of the last century for the purpose of driving up fees.
5. Energy- drilling in ANWR is a short term fix, but I do agree with your other points.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 3:13 am
[…] The proposed “Contract” is the result of an effort to come up with ten policy proposal that he calls “9 for 90″, i.e., 90% of conservatives would support at least 9 of them. Each point consists of two parts- a general principle, followed by a specific policy proposal. I’ve copied it all here below, but visit the site and see whether it isn’t something you’d like to bookmark . […]
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 3:14 am
Regarding high speed trains:
As a) a pilot and b) someone currently residing in Japan (and an experienced traveler on the nation’s air and rail systems) I’ll say this- nice in theory, astoundingly inconvenient in practice. It takes ~3 hours to get from where I live to Tokyo on the Shinkansen, and about 40 minutes by plane, with the plane ticket being about 30 bucks more expensive. Now, that being said, the rail system in Japan is quite convenient (with high pop-density cities very close to each other), but applying such a policy outside the Boston-DC corridor just would not be terribly efficient.
Frankly, if you want better transportation in the US, I’d go about it by revamping air travel.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 3:19 am
I think the list might make the basis for a party platform, but it’s too broad for a contract with America renewal. I would offer:
1. All earmarks are public and must be published before they are voted.
2. No income tax increase in any manner until the tax code is reduced to 50% of its current length.
3. No agency may both increase its number of employees and budget in the same year except for clearly stated reasons of national security.
4. Repeal McCain-Feingold.
5. Require all States and other governments to cooperate fully with ICE or forfeit ALL federal funds.
6. As a test, first apply the fairness doctrine to subsidized broadcasting, ie PBS and NPR. If it works there then it can be applied to all broadcast media, including the networks.
7. Sell Amtrak
8. Enforce employer sanctions under current immigration law.
9. Eliminate political correctness at TSA
10. Freeze Congressional pay until the budget is balanced.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 3:51 am
The Conservative Soul: How Jim Geraghty Wants To Get It Back…
Step One: Work those killer power glutes to milk… Wait, no, wrong guy. Over at Geraghty et al.’s On Tap blog, they’re trying to get a handle on what should be conservatism’s principles for the near future. Our leaders supercilious……
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 5:33 am
RE Healthcare:
The first step is to inject capitalism. Remove the legal restrictions that prevent doctors (dentists, nurse practioners, etc) from advertising their prices. Then, mandate that they advertise their prices. Have the government agencies (NIH, FDA) put together health guides written like buyers guides for medical services.
As long as nobody knows how much the procedures cost, no one can shop around for the best deal for medicine. Right now, only HMOs and Insurance companies have that power. Give it back to the citizens. It’s only part of the solution, but it is simple, easy, cheap, and the right thing to do.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 6:21 am
Jim … here’s what you don’t understand:
It’s not about message … it’s about Show Me The Money.
Conservatives have proven they can win with a message. That message was essentially lower taxes, smaller government, strong defense, family values, conservative judges who would bring back the nation of laws not men.
Conservatives have also proven that they can’t maintain power when your actions deviate substantially from your message.
We have the highest tax rates in 20 years… the largest federal government budget ever, tens of millions in illegal immigrants who the cops are prevented from arresting. We are now a nation of “sanctuary cities”, “nation building” and “amnesty.”
Republican Senators are climbing all over each other to build Bridges to Nowhere (Stevens, et. al.), enriching their friends and themselves to the tune of millions of dollars. That is … when they’re not taking outright bribes from defense contractors (Cunningham, et. al.) or spending time getting blown by Congressional pages (Foley, et. al) or Washington hookers (Vitter, et. al) when they should be concerning themselves with war.
Message only takes you so far, Jim. The message isn’t the problem.
It’s the action that’s the problem.
I’m not voting for any more Republicans for a while. I’m surely not giving my money to Republicans, until the Party demonstrates that it can rid itself of the pedeaophiles, porkers, RINOs and criminals and you start enforcing the laws you took an oath to defend.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 7:33 am
A+ I cannot add to or take away from any of this. It is exactly what is needed in this country. Now who among you is going to demand of your leaders to enact this and get it rolling ASAP. And if your leaders won’t do it, replace them with folks who will.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 7:47 am
[…] On Tap | “9 and 90″: A Future Contract with America? […]
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 7:51 am
Get this to Fred Thompson… excellent!
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 8:34 am
Great post & list, although I’d add protection of the unborn.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 8:54 am
I agree with sittingout a few posts above. We have a message, we just need fresh blood in Washington.
This complicated list of priorities stirs no passion in me. It reminds me of the Democrats always forming committees to decide their core values.
I vote Republican because of gun rights, respect for life, less government interference, defense of our nation and culture. Mass transportation policies and upgrading Chinese coal plants are horrible planks to build an energetic national party on.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 8:58 am
[…] Here is a great post that outlines a new contract with America. You can see the original document here. I’m for it. […]
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 9:04 am
Sorry but I’m not on board with your “carbon footprint” reduction. There is no “man made” global warming. There is no rise in sea levels. An easier way to get rid of money for nothing is to burn it in your fireplace.
You’ve been taken in by the earth worshiping Algores of the world. They are not practicing science. They are practicing theology based on fraudulent computer models. Actual scientific observation shows the earth has been cycling through heating and cooling periods since the begining. Don’t encourage anyone to spend a nickel to “prevent global warming”. Its nonsense.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 9:35 am
Demand cop…
We can spend the entire gross national product on doctors and never have enough of them if people don’t know what it costs to see them….
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 10:06 am
Protection - What about searching all the containers that come through our ports? What about enacting the recommendations of the 911 commission and not ignoring them?
Energy - dependence on foreign oil? That is the first priority
Education - Where is the increase in teacher salary? How does “pass another law” do anything but create another layer and more government, something conservatives are against?
Culture - How is not hypocritical to say that it’s bad for people to look down on people who live by traditional values and then for you to look down on people who don’t live by traditional values - all in the same sentence?!? And just because someone is a celebrity, that means they also can’t have an opinion about culture, society, politics and the like? This is America, multi-tasking is a virtue.
I love the train idea. For those who against it, I just wonder how many of them have been to Europe. Even better, how many of them have actually left this country…
Overall, a good idea but short on actual policy…you get a B-/C+
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 10:11 am
Your Ron Paul jab is completely strange and ironic comming from a so-called conservative.
Paul has the MOST CONSERVATIVE voting record in recent Congressional history.
Wouldn’t a ‘conservative’ actually want to obey that dusty old document called the US Constitution?
Ofcourse, a Bush-conservative, i.e., big government/neocon type conservative (read trotsyite) is just as anoyed by the original Constitution as Hillary is. That’s why the Bushies HATE Ron Paul so much, because Paul exposes them for what they are without even trying.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 10:24 am
Bill:
“Airlines didn’t build the airports. They don’t pay the tower workers. There’s not even a tax on aviation fuel. And what would the auto industry be like without the interstate system?”
Federal highways are paid for by taxes on fuel. Users pay for the infrastructure. Passenger trains lose money. Airports are, I believe, paid for by travelers, but I’ll spot you train stations in exchange. Trains lose money.
And, yes, I’ve been on trains in Europe.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 10:29 am
On profiling and the TSA: Get security people from El Al to come over and show the TSA how it’s done. They have an amazing track record of success. The secret? Stop looking for weapons, and start looking for terrorists. People who aren’t terrorists, even if they have weapons, are not a problem–much less your granny.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 10:30 am
If free enterprise is good for the medical field, why isn’t it good enough for education? Your education proposals sound like more top-down government tinkering. Why not break the government school monopoly with school choice, i.e. vouchers? Also, your “culture” post is meaningless. Do conservatives have values or not? If so, how about some real approaches to value issues?
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 10:41 am
Hmmmm.
Lessseee now.
1. “protecting all of us”: While in principle the idea of local militias sounds good I can’t help but think that I’d want something like that as far away from me as possible.
Good theory, probably a nightmare in implementation.
2. “on spending”: Ok so we’re going to implement Clinton’s economic policies?
Oh yeah that’s get a lot of happy thoughts.
3. “on taxes”: So hourly workers get their overtime pay tax free? Well it sucks to me then because I’m salaried and I don’t get overtime.
3.5. “on healthcare”: ok I can go with the reform to malpractice lawsuits.
4. “on the environment”: WTF!!!??? American taxpayers PAY TO REBUILD CHINESE COAL POWERPLANTS??
NO F**KING WAY. How the hell does this square with #2?
5. “on energy”: WTF???
“We want to help Mexico upgrade and update the equipment its state-run oil producers use to increase efficiency and expand their supply to export north.”
Another frigging Jack-The-American-Taxpayer?
6. “on immigration”: This is little more than “comprehensive immigration reform” dressed up in banal language.
No thanks.
7. “on education”: Wrong, wrong, wrong.
What we need are vouchers not some goofy Gingrich part-time teacher plan.
8. “on culture”: blah, blah, blah. Nothing exciting, nothing new, nothing in the way of being actually done.
9. “on infrastructure”: Trains? I used to take trains every single day. They are an unmitigated mess. Hardly ever on time, always dirty and always badly run.
His answer is trains? Hey Jim! If people really wanted to ride trains they’d bloody well ride trains and Amtrak wouldn’t need billions a year in subsidies.
10. “of threat recognition”: now he’s gone goofy. While frisking a white grandmother may sound idiotic there are a lot of white muslim extremists out there.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 10:50 am
I don’t think you went nearly far enough on taxes. For one, we can’t possibly sustain our Social Security and Medicare programs with the payroll tax. If we continue to tax our businesses at a high rate and impose high tax compliance costs, they will continue to relocate overseas. The Fair Tax Plan addresses both of these issues. I spoke to you about Fair Tax Apr. 2 in Hilton Head. Go on www.fairtax.org and learn the details.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 11:02 am
Protecting us all
“Federal, state, and local governments – as well as private organizations - will provide CPR, first aid, and firearms training for any American who seeks it”
Hanging this on the hook of “providing for the common defense” might make it OK. I’d suggest this be done by private organizations with grants, rather than by civil servants. I seem to recall first aid being part of health class in school. CPR is not much help, sadly. But training on using an AED should be part of first aid training.
I strongly support the wider use of concealed carry permits. These are state and local, though. And they will not protect against another 9/11 (unless you allow them on planes) or vehicle bombs, suicide vests, etc. Good idea - don’t oversell.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 11:05 am
Doctors
“The centerpiece of our plan would be a nationwide sustained effort to expand the number of health care providers in every field.”
How? Loans? Grants? Lower licensing standards? Perhaps the market should determine this. If the bottleneck is the number of medical education or residence slots, perhaps there is a role. Government has its fingers all over that already.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 11:10 am
Environment
“We upgrade Chinese power plants in exchange for their concessions on trade laws.”
Dirty power plants mostly cause problems for the Chinese themselves, or possible neighbors down wind. That is, except for carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases. Assume for the moment that NOTHING has been proven about global warming. The industrialized world is still engaged in a big experiment in atmospheric chemistry by emitting a lot of CO2 into the air. Maybe cutting back CO2 is smart when it can be done without too much economic pain. That might not be for a while. I don’t know.
Should we help the Chinese power plants? Maybe - it might be good PR. Even better if we slip secret kill switches into the plants so we can shut them off in case of war (sssshhhhh).
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 11:18 am
Energy
“we will encourage the development of multiple, overlapping sources of energy. We want customers to have several competing energy suppliers for their home electricity, and consumers’ ability to choose their energy source to drive down prices through competition. We will give appropriate federal “seed funding” for research to develop alternative fuels.”
Electricity markets are state regulated and the FERC is not under direct presidential control, but I think at least saying you want generator choice is good. It’s consistent with deregulation, though there may be wrinkles I don’t know understand.
There is already research money for alternative fuels. I think there is a NATIONAL SECURITY case to be made that a lot more funding for energy research is due. At the same time that a lot more drilling for oil in the USA and its coast is done. The government pioneered a lot of technology for defense in the 20th Century: jets, radar, computers, etc. In the 21st, petrodollars are funding just about everyone who is a problem for us (other than the Chinese). Research to provide an economically viable alternative to crude oil might pay off big in national security. Just a nutty take on it.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 11:23 am
Immigration/border control
“All of the above [border security and enforcement] policy aims will be enacted, and when the borders are secure, we will consider a path to citizenship for those who have come here and behaved…”
No amnesty. Anyone who came here illegally has to leave and get into the line behind everyone waiting for legal immigration. Lots of hard cases: folks with citizen kids, for example. We might have to say “Kid, you can stay with your citizen relatives or guardians, or you can come back when you are grown up, but your parents have to leave now.” Harsh, I know. If you want a political “win” some sort of amnesty might do. But if you want “principles,” you cannot reward law breaking.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 11:37 am
Education
“We therefore need to foster and encourage teacher specialists who have mastered a subject matter.”
This is really a state law thing, but I like the idea of “adjunct” teachers or at least an easier path to teaching for folks with subject matter expertise. In my state, CA, the program is something like a year: subject matter qualification test, some education courses and student teaching. Could it be streamlined: yes. But I think Newt’s “one course” is wrong - I want some supervised student teaching.
“Graduates willing to stay in math and science fields should pay zero interest on their student loans until their incomes reach four times the national average income.”
In many cases, this would mean they would never paid interest. Probably most.
Someone mentioned vouchers. This one is tricky - vouchers only work if they are for “1 child” rather than “X dollars.” Otherwise, they will have the same effect as student loans at the college level: raising tuition. If the voucher is for the kid, not the money, then the school cannot charge tuition on top. Again, vouchers are for state and local governments to work out.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 11:40 am
Profiling
“We change our national policy to explicitly authorize TSA to use common sense and abandon random searches, and instead adopt the Israelis’ techniques of threat recognition, passport and behavior profiling.”
Amen. How about we do that now?
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 12:10 pm
I liked it all except the name. “A Contract With Our Children” — makes me want to fwow up. Come to think of it, I don’t like the contract part OR the children part.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 1:26 pm
I really like # 9 (being an infrastructure geek myself). My own thought on this is that we need to use high speed rail to replace or reduce the number of short haul jets (which typically do flights of up to 800 miles or thereabouts). All those flights into O’Hare from one hundred and one regional airports could be replaced by a well-designed (and that is a challenge) passenger rail system (which needs to be totally separate from the rail freight system). By reducing the number of short haul flights with rail journeys (and the traveler should be able to book a single ticket for both rail and air segments of travel) the congestion at major airport hubs will be reduced, and delays will be similarly reduced. Right now, airports like O’Hare are so overused that a gust of wind and three drops of rain causes delays that inevitably cascade through the whole air travel system.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 2:51 pm
I like the first principle, especially the encouragement of concealed carry permits, but I do not want the government “providing” CPR, first aid, or firearms training. Private organizations already provide all of those services. What I would like to see is more of an emphasis in private and government schools on the importance of learning skills like CPR and first aid and, at minimum, how to safely handle, neutralize, and unload a gun.
I would tell everyone reading this and leaders in the conservative movement (i.e. bloggers, columnists and talk show hosts) to persuade their loved ones and audiences to sign up for a gun safety course (you can inquire at your local shooting range), to get certified in CPR, and to obtain through books or instruction some basic self-defense/crime prevention knowledge. We can do this on our own; we don’t need government bureaucracies and wasted tax dollars involved.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 7:25 pm
“PROTECTING US ALL”
1) Who do we need this new protection from? Islamic Terrorists…..Where do Islamic terrorists come from? Muslim communities.
2) The ONLY way to protect us, once and for all, from Islamic terrorists is to close the door on ALL Muslim immigrants.
Until ALL Muslim immigration to the West stops, the West will continue to turn into Muslim shitholes (see: France, England)
Eventually it won’t matter HOW many guns good people in the US have, the Muslims will eventually outnumber us (hello demographic Jihad!!!) and will protect their own kind, terrorist or not, to the end….out of fear of being killed or tortured by the terrorists themselves or out of fear of burning in the hellfire for eternity, which Allah damns them to if they dare not support Jihad and jihadists.
STOP ALL MUSLIM IMMIGRATION NOW!! It’s the first step in winning this war….and if it’s not done, then NOTHING else matters….they WILL win.
I think instead we conservatives should agree that we have a right to tell some people that they’re just too damn dangerous and sketchy to let them into our country….it’s our right and duty to do so…as a sovereign nation. And we can deny people access to our country along whatever lines we wish.
July 12th, 2007 at July 12, 2007 - 10:27 pm
[…] Jim Geraghty has provoked quite a bit of discussion today at On Tap about a future Contract With America. He lays out 10 principles ranging from security and spending to education and energy. His hope is that these “proposals could get 90 percent of conservatives (and a big chunk of the public) to back nine of them.” Could you support them? Posted at 11:26 PM in Conservatism Save to Del.icio.us Share on Facebook […]
July 13th, 2007 at July 13, 2007 - 1:09 pm
I bloody well love it — I’m Canadian and I want to present this idea to the Conservative party here.
July 13th, 2007 at July 13, 2007 - 3:12 pm
[…] But after weeks of wrangling with what ten issues and proposals could get 90 percent of conservatives (and a big chunk of the public) to back nine of them, I’ve finally made up my list. Here’s a list of ten – first the principle or idea behind the idea, and then the policy proposal that grows out of it. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. RSS 2.0 […]
July 13th, 2007 at July 13, 2007 - 4:46 pm
Really truly astoundingly stupid.
I’ll post later why.
July 13th, 2007 at July 13, 2007 - 5:21 pm
My critique and counter-proposal.
July 13th, 2007 at July 13, 2007 - 6:35 pm
Here we go…
#1. Why. People already get this through the NRA and local hunt clubs. You make it seem like no one can have access to training. Like its some big conspiracy to keep training out of the hand of ordinary people. This is classic pandering to the NRA and their extreme right wing hardcore members. And really to create a militia arent you just duplicating what the State Reserves are for. Unless you are talking paranoid shit again this point within a point is useless.
2. Cut spending pledges. Laughable commitment from the right after the current administration gets booted from office. Soooo are you republicans or are you libertarians. Libertarians are for chaos which is what would happen when reducing police, fire, military, social services spending. Oh how about healthcare for our elderly… that’s not going to happen with that voting block. Clinton was better on budget cuts. Bush’ cuts are a farce.
3. You are just creating loopholes for swindlers. If this was enacted everyone would make minimum wage and overtime pay would be 100X normal. Pay your taxes. Simple enough. If everyone paid their fair share, including big corporations, the government would actually have to much money and then they would have to cut taxes. Pay what you owe or as Jesus said… give Cesear what is due Cesaer.
3.5 Get more doctors?!?! WTF! How about nationalizing our healthcare system so that it operates similar to Social Security with a 3% overhead cost vs. our current system with an overhead cost of about 60%. How about declaring non-profits that pay CEOs $30 million a year a profit oriented business. We are the last of the first world countries that doesnt offer universal care to its people. Dont like to wait, which is minor, get a supplemental plan. And guess who’s behind this movement to nationalize the system… FORD, GENERAL MOTORS and every major corporation out there (not including insurance companies).
4. Shitting in your own backyard while complaining to your neighbor that his backyard smells is hopeless. The U.S. creates the most emissions. Let us be the ones to start the green revolution. Let us for once be the technology leaders. Let the world fall behind our lead. Get China some clean technology… ROFLMAO.
5. How about long-term fixes. Anwar is not a long-term fix. Neither is anything oil related. And frankly shale-oil pollutes like a mother. Besides anything out of the Republicans mouths about energy conservation after Cheney declared his notes off limits is laughable. American’s know you wont follow up on any of this.
6. What do you get when you build a 10′ tall wall between us and mexico? An 11′ ladder. The simplist thing here is fine the crap out of businesses the hire illegal aliens. Enforce existing laws. Throw the employers in jail if need be. Ask that little town that got raided by the INS how they’re doing right now. I think a couple of employers are still in jail.
7. I’m going to ignore anything Newt “screwing his secretary while pursuing Monica’s blue dress” Gingrich. How about helping parents with failing kids. How about combat pay for teachers in tough neighborhoods. How about catching failing kids early and doing something about it then.
8. This was a ramble. Not exactly sure what you are talking about. You want a Norman Rockwell living room in every house but this country isnt made up of Norman Rockwell homes. Get used to the fact that not everyone is like you. It is what it is.
9. Soooo you think a high speed train across the country will make things better…. ha ha. I cant even respond to this one. Why not ask for an elevator to the moon while you are at it.
10. Threat recognition is great as long as you dont have someone like Bush claiming that Iraq with WMDs is a threat. Common sense yes. Finding people with common sense is hard to do. Seriously did you hear Homelands threat level this week was based on “gut instinct.” HA HA HA HA… Dont tell anyone I laughed they might take it as a threat.
July 15th, 2007 at July 15, 2007 - 3:11 pm
Why “loser pays” only for malpractice torts?
July 15th, 2007 at July 15, 2007 - 5:51 pm
This list is well thought out, and makes a lot of sense to me. The culture one, was a little confusing but all in all great job!
July 18th, 2007 at July 18, 2007 - 12:43 am
A libertarian’s take on the contract.
July 24th, 2007 at July 24, 2007 - 11:03 am
[…] Jim’s note: If you haven’t already, you may want to read the original 9 with 90 proposal and Marshall’s response and analysis. […]
August 16th, 2007 at August 16, 2007 - 11:10 am
[…] So 2010 and 2012 will look great for the GOP if Democrats win the White House next year. But in the meantime, how do you fix this? You either rack up more successes, or you spotlight the other guy’s failures. In the former category, if I’m a Republican congressional leader, I’m looking over lists of ideas like the “9 With 90” and Ruffini’s list and measuring support among the Blue Dog Democrats. Then I get those Democrats to get those bills through the committee, and file discharge petition after discharge petition (if you have 218 signatures, the Speaker has to bring a vote to the floor) and I make the Democrats vote against a popular idea time and time again. We’ve got to spotlight our governors, demonstrate successful reforms in the states, these little laboratories of democracy. You rebuild the Republican and Conservative brands by demonstrating successful ideas and policies independent of President Bush, who will, by very early next year, no longer be the face of the party. […]
October 30th, 2007 at October 30, 2007 - 10:58 am
[…] Remember 9 with 90? (Nine popular policy ideas that would unite 90 percent of conservatives?) […]