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. 

Wow. Fifty-six comments, as of this writing, by far the biggest feedback we’ve gotten on this sporadically-updated site. (I know, I know, Daily Kos gets fifty-six comments just by clearing his throat before wishing death to American contractors in Iraq.) Here’s a bit of further thoughts, reacting to people’s reactions.

By the way, it’s entirely possible that nothing will come of this list, but at least one close advisor to a Republican presidential candidate wrote me to say he liked the list. Then again, this guy may have been flattering me to try to get better coverage on the Campaign Spot…

1. A Prepared Citizenry of “Minutemen”: Some folks contend that CPR, first aid, and firearms safety courses are best done in the private sector. I’ll largely concur, but perhaps there is a governmental role in making sure that anyone who wants to participate in these courses can find one – even if it’s a national database or web site helping people find where these classes are available. If Yahoo can tell me the closest pizzeria, it’s technologically possible to do the same for teachers of these skills.

I’d also say that the government does have a role in encouraging this sort of training and preparation on the part of ordinary citizens. If the President says to the American people, “one of your duties in this war on terror is to be prepared to respond in a crisis,” I think the vast majority of the American people will say, “Finally, a way to help out! Where do I sign on?” Of course there are ways to take these courses and classes now, but the government can help figure out if there are places where demand for this instruction is outpacing the supply of teachers and if necessary, seed grant money. I’d like to make these classes and courses free, or at least minimal cost, to those who take it.

Even if you’re not comfortable with the idea of firing a gun to defend yourself and others, as one of our commenters noted, it would not hurt to take a safety course to how to safely handle, neutralize, and unload a gun.

2. SPENDING: I’m finding it interesting that there haven’t been a lot of better spending-cut proposals, other than across-the-board cuts - which the media always portrays as cutting the Widows and Orphans Fund and removing the fireman from the ventilator – and/or a spending freeze. I’m on board with both of those, but I kind of like using Clinton’s own words against the Democrats who would object to cutting spending. A few folks wanted to go after pork, and I’m on board with that idea, but pork still amounts to a drop in the budgetary bucket.

3. TAXES: I realize conservatives could probably come up with ten good proposals just to reform the tax system. But I wanted the tax proposal in CWA2.0 to be simple and powerful, something that the Average Joe could understand how it affects them instantly. Often, when a candidate offers a tax cut plan, they say, “There are five brackets, and I’m going to cut this rate from this bracket from this much to that much, and in the second bracket, I’m going to cut from this much to that much” and by the time they’re finished with a long list of numbers and percentages people’s eyes glaze over.

I’m open to suggestions, but I like “no taxes on overtime” because it a) can’t be accused of favoring the rich and b) says, “if you’re trying to get ahead and live the American dream, here’s our way of ensuring your hard work is rewarded. If you’re putting in extra time on the job, we want that money to go to you and your family, because you’ve earned it.” As things stand, if working the overtime puts you into the higher bracket, you may end up making less because you’re now taxed at a higher rate. This is the sort of thing where Reagan as an actor, figured out he made less money if he performed in three movies in a year rather than two.

Think about it, if you’re making $12 an hour, (national average in private sector in 2006 was $18.56) you’re only getting a portion of that for the first 40 hours (Probably about $10.20 per hour, after just federal taxes, if you’re single and making less than $31,850). If you’re making time-and-a-half AND this proposal goes through, suddenly you’re making a full $18 an hour, almost double your previous hourly take-home pay. Our friends on the other side of the aisle say “America deserves a raise” and then raise the minimum wage, helping about 1 or 2 percent of U.S. workers. This would help out a lot more people, and in a much bigger way.

I know people love the Flat Tax and the Fair Tax. I like ‘em too, but they represent a huge overhaul in the way the country pays its bills, and I see that fight as a political bloodbath. Great long-term goal, but I think this proposal is a better short-term one. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.

3.5: Health care – One reader worried about keeping up quality as we increase the number of health care providers, a fair point. I noticed on this one, as well as some of the other traditional Democratic issues, there was a bit less reaction. I have to admit, I worry a bit if conservatives think a successful candidate can ignore traditional “mommy party” issues. Our friends on the left offered the usual “nationalize health care” recommendations. See, if the debate consists of them urging government-run health care, and conservatives offering nothing beyond, ‘it won’t work,’ the public will eventually tire of naysaying and give them a shot. Conservatives have to offer their own solutions; expanding the number of providers and offering price competition strikes me as the best option.

I think Marshall has a better grasp of the details than I do – but I think we agree on the general gist: we want to allow the public to shop around for doctors to get what they see as the best deal.

4. Environment: There are some folks who are convinced that global warming is propaganda by Al Gore. I’m skeptical of they hype and the concerts, but I don’t want the GOP to concede the entire issue of environmentalism.

Some people misread the remark as giving away help to China on their coal plants, when I wanted it to be offered in exchange for concessions on their trade policy. A person who’s familiar with this issue told me no way, no how would China ever take our offer to help them upgrade their plants; the bottom line is China doesn’t care that much about the environment or the coal plants’ impact on the health of its people. (Or antifreeze in toothpaste, or poisonous dog food, or God knows what else…) Well, if they refuse the offer, fine. Once we make this offer, we can tell the world can get off its high horse about how horrible a polluter America is, as we just made a good faith-effort to fix the number one polluter on the planet (China just passed us, look it up).

Hal notes, “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).” Hal, quiet! Nobody was supposed to know about that part of the plan!

5. Energy: A couple people said ANWR was not a long term solution, and I’d say few of the ideas listed are silver bullets; it’s when you do all of them together that you drastically increase supply, leading to lower prices.

6. Immigration: I should have remembered, prosecute those who employ illegal aliens by going after the ones who submit the most false Social Security numbers to the IRS (worst offenders first). I suspect that once the job opportunities dry up, a significant number of illegal immigrants will self-deport.

I strongly, strongly disagree with Marshall that there isn’t a consensus in the party on this. Americans want a secure border and for employers to stop hiring illegal immigrants. Even if neither goal can be achieved 100 percent, even improving border security by 50 percent and employer law enforcement by 50 percent would have a dramatic impact.

7. Education. There were few real objections to the ideas from Newt; some folks said they would have preferred some form of school choice. I hear ya. I’m frustrated by the slow progress on this issue. Conservatives (and some reformist liberals) push for this, and then the teacher’s unions inevitably put up ads that feature some lovable schoolmarm talking about “politicians hurting our schools” before a group of Dickensian moppets. And the public turns against the reform. I guess I see putting in new part-time teachers as a way of undermining the leviathan school bureaucracy and the teachers’ unions adamantly opposed to any reform other than more money in their pockets.

8. Culture: Again, the President has a bully pulpit and can offer some well-timed jabs at Hollywood. Actually, maybe here is where I would put my “equal time is first instituted at NPR and PBS.”

9. Infrastructure: A commenter recommended, “build more roads, build more airports.” Well, that starts to get into eminent domain and Kelo vs. New London land seizure issues, and particularly when it comes to airports, it’s hard to find good vast swaths of land with room for runways and terminals near city centers. (Another nice thing about trains, they usually drop you off in the middle of the city, as opposed to airports on the outskirts.)

I’d urge people to look at the map of proposed high-speed rail hubs. Note that it wouldn’t be a cross-country system, it would connect clusters of our biggest cities – Sacramento to San Diego; Eugene Oregon through Portland and Seattle to Vancouver; San Antonio through Tulsa, New Orleans to Raleigh through Atlanta and a separate spur coming down to Jacksonville (and eventually, connections to Tampa and Miami through Orlando): several spokes coming out of Chicago (Minneapolis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit) and connecting Acela to Maine and across the border to Montreal. Trains will never replace cross-country air travel, but they may provide a cost-effective alternative to short-hop flights.

And for those who want air travel expanded, the upgraded rail system would hopefully loosen the pressure and overcrowding at airports…

10. Recognizing threats: They say lead and finish with your two strongest proposals. I didn’t hear too many objections to this one…

Remember that the old contract was signed by every candidate running for the House and Senate in 1994, from deeply conservative parts of the heartland to more liberal parts of the country on the coasts. The aim with this new one would be to get ten proposals that even candidates running in Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, etc. could run. Maybe this list accomplished that, maybe it didn’t (the “adopt Israeli airport security techniques might pose a problem for any GOP candidate seeking to represent Dearborn, Michigan, perhaps), but I’d urge those who want to tweak or write their own list that we need proposals that appeal to a broad swath of voters, not just addressing your favorite issue…

What missed the cut: Just because something didn’t make the list doesn’t mean I or other righties wouldn’t want to see it. It just struck me as not necessarily something I would feature on a list of ten priorities. Think of them as something for the second hundred days.

Limiting influence of lobbyists? I could get behind that. I’ll note, however, that it’s in a similar vein as tax simplification. Every candidate likes it until they get in office.

Freezing Congressional pay ought to be a quick, easy, cheap form of scoring points for every GOP challenger.

Repeal McCain-Feingold? I’m on board with that, but remember, I want the list to be proactive, not reactive.

Social Security reform, I’m turning into a cynic, I guess. I think Americans want the system saved, but they don’t want higher taxes, lower benefits, a higher retirement age, or private accounts… or any other solution that would actually address the problem.

Marshall reminded me of tort reform, which probably should have made the list. I’m kind of baffled at how this is consistently a popular idea, and yet major reforms never seemed to get anywhere, even when Republicans controlled Congress…

Marshall also mentioned judges. I’m completely on board with that, but that’s a matter of personnel, not policy. It’s not like a Congressman can run for office promising to vote for X judge. Actually, in the case of somebody like Miguel Estrada, maybe he can…