ConservativeHome's Big Ideas blog

Keeping their "Pledge": GOP introduces new plan to promote job creation and economic growth

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

House Republicans unveiled their growth focused agenda today, with a new plan that seeks to empower job creators by removing red tape, lowering taxes and and boosting trade to get the economy back on track, "so that Americans can do what they do best: create, innovate and lead."

Modeled on the the GOP's Pledge to America, in rolling out their vision House Republicans aim to address substantial economic challenges while fostering innovation, investment, and job growth without raising taxes.

With unemployment holding strong at over 400,000 for the seventh week in a row, here's a look at the key areas adressed in the GOP's agenda, and their ideas on growth focused solutions:

Empower small business owners and reduce regulatory burdens: In order to ease the regulatory burden on the economy and to promote job creation, [House Republicans} will approve legislation that requires a congressional review and approval of any proposed federal government regulation that will have a significant impact on the economy

Fix the tax code to help job creators: [House Republicans] will set the top tax rates at no more than 25% for job creating businesses.  This would level the playing field with our competitors and would help to generate investments and create American jobs allowing the U.S. to be more competitive in the global marketplace and attract business.

Increase competitiveness for American manufacturers: [House Republicans] will pass three pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. This will be a shot in the arm for businesses small and large and will create jobs.  [House Republicans] will build on those successes by looking for other ways to expand market access for U.S. made products while vigorously enforcing our rights to protect American jobs from unfair practices by other countries. 

Encourage entrepreneurship and growth: [House Republicans] will modernize and improve the patent system to discourage frivolous lawsuits, expedite reviews, and provide better protection for job creating entrepreneurs...The House Judiciary Committee is reviewing our visa system to determine the needs of American employers and the reforms necessary to ensure that American businesses maintain their leading edge in innovation and technology development...There are two major programs that must be reauthorized next year by Congress to improve the FDA approval process: the prescription drug user fee program and the medical device user fee program....These two reauthorizations present an opportunity to bring transparency and consistency to the FDA approval process, and with that, more efficiency, growth, and American jobs.

Maximize domestic energy production to ensure an energy policy for the twenty-first century: House Republicans are taking immediate action through our American Energy Initiative by passing bipartisan legislation to expand energy exploration and production.  This will help create American jobs, grow our economy, and enhance our security

Pay down America’s unsustainable debt burden and start living within our means: [House Republicans] will work to control the federal deficit to assure investors and entrepreneurs that our nation’s elected leaders are finally getting serious about paying off the debt over time and will bring back confidence by supporting long-term economic growth.

The Republican Plan for America's Job Creators is available to view here.

Our human capital problem: College costs too much and the returns are too small

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

This Barbara Hollingsworth post at the Examiner today hit on one of today's most important themes that we really don't spend too much time discussing: our higher ed cost-benefit problem. People are talking a lot about the college bubble these days, but the conversation is restriced to a small group, actually. Most people aren't too aware of the issues involved.

The bottom line is this: we spend a ton of money as families on college these days, but the long-term economic benefits to the student in question are dubious at best.

Hollingsworth concludes her post thus:

Conservative Ohio University economist Richard Vedder summed up the problem with higher education:

College is too expensive and inefficient;

Students don’t work very hard – and learn even less;

There’s no adequate system to evaluate what they have learned;

Only a minority of college students graduate on time;

There’s a major disconnect between most university curriculums and the needs of the labor market; and

Federal and state student aid policies merely expand the disaster.

George Soros's money manager: Obama's "plan" on the deficit is a mirage because, unlike Paul Ryan's plan, the money won't be there

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

The WSJ's weekend interview with Stanley Druckenmiller, the legend behind Duquesne Capital and one-time  fund manager for George Soros, is worth reading in its entirety.

This passage stands out in particular. In it Druckenmiller wonders why top administration officials are more worried about default than controlling the spending that is making the debt pile up in the first place.

Mr. Druckenmiller is puzzled that so many financial commentators see the possible failure to raise the debt ceiling as more serious than the possibility that the government will accumulate too much debt. "I'm just flabbergasted that we're getting all this commentary about catastrophic consequences, including from the chairman of the Federal Reserve, about this situation but none of these guys bothered to write letters or whatever about the real situation which is we're piling up trillions of dollars of debt."

He's particularly puzzled that Mr. Geithner and others keep arguing that spending shouldn't be cut, and yet the White House has ruled out reform of future entitlement liabilities—the one spending category Mr. Druckenmiller says you can cut without any near-term impact on the economy.

At the end of article, Druckenmiller says: "We don't have a choice between Paul Ryan's plan and the current plan, because the current plan is a mirage. . . . That money is not going to be there."

You can read the piece in its entirety here.

Not all progress is progress: Calvin Coolidge reminds us who we are

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Mona Charen does us a nice service in her NRO piece today by quoting Calvin Coolidge at length. We don't often hear much about Cool Cal these days, so this was a refreshing read. On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Coolidge said this in a speech:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great chapter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

We can, of course, make progress toward the ideals of equality and a government limited by consent of the governed. But his main point stands. Anytime we think we're making "progress," we need to ask whether we are actually moving not forward, but backward. Or downward.

Four points for Petraeus: Paul Miller's take on what's needed to fix the CIA

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As General David Petraeus prepares to take the reins at the Central Intelligence Agency, in a post via ForeignPolicy.com's Shadow Government blog, Paul Miller this week outlined four key tasks for the new Director's attention.

Having worked for the CIA for seven years himself, here's a quick look at Miller's views on what requires immediate adjustment:

1. Get the analysts out of the shadows:

The Directorate of Intelligence (DI) has the capability of being a leading foreign affairs think tank in the world. Instead, it has largely limited itself to being a massive, overpriced, secretive magazine staff for a readership of one, pouring most of its resources in to the President's Daily Brief (PDB)...Analysts can and should be open and regular participants in the world of academia, think tanks, and conferences, encouraged to publish and speak on their areas of expertise.

2. Get the National Clandestine Service (NCS, or, to any self-respecting intelligence professional, the DO) to report gray information:

The operations officers of the clandestine service are an invaluable tool of national security by collecting human intelligence. In non-spy lingo, that means they persuade foreigners to sell secrets. However, they focus exclusively on secrets. The service vets its reports to ensure that it is only reporting information that is sufficiently "clandestine"...There is also gray information, stuff that is important, not strictly a secret, but also very hard to get... In war zones and failed states, NCS officers are often the only people well-placed to observe and report this kind of information. They should be encouraged to do so, but that would require a profound cultural and institutional shift in what the NCS understands its mission to be.

3. Draw down the counterterrorism surge:

A huge proportion of the intelligence community's assets were rightly diverted to tracking terrorists after 2001. But terrorism is unlikely to be the U.S.'s principle foreign policy challenge in coming decades. The principle challenges probably will include, at one pole, China and Russia, and, at the other pole, widespread state failure and anarchy in much of the world. Islamism, of the political, radical, extremist, or violent variety (pick your modifier), may also be a long-term challenge...Our heavy focus on counterterrorism is too narrow.

4. Tackle clientitis:

Analysts and operatives can, on occasion, go native. They start to see the world through the perspective of the foreign country (Pakistan, to take a completely random example) on which they spend their careers. This destroys their objectivity and undermines their usefulness to U.S. policymakers...We need to encourage depth without sacrificing perspective. Petraeus should form a cross-directorate task force to study the problem, develop ways to identify and track clientitis, and find ways to prevent or cure it.

Miller's full post is available to view here.

Bryan Caplan: Having more kids is not just good for America, it's good for the parents themselves

Ryan Streeter

Nick Schulz of The American and AEI interviews Bryan Caplan, who's new book, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think, looks to be as interesting as his previous, The Myth of the Rational Voter.

Caplan argues that when you put 40 years of research together, you find that the long-run effect of parents is smaller than parents typically think (e.g., genes matter a lot). So parents should worry less about parenting and look to the long-term benefits. Having more kids is good both for society and for parents themselves. Population and prosperity go hand-in-hand.

Ron Haskins: Flat wages, a disturbing trend toward less work among poor men, and continued unwed childbearing show that our welfare reform efforts are nowhere near finished

A former White House and congressional advisor on welfare issues, Ron Haskins co-directs the Brookings Center on Children and Families. An expert on preschool, foster care, and poverty, he was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.

Anyone involved in the welfare reform negotiations on the Hill in the mid-1990s knows Ron Haskins. And anyone who has followed the debate since then about poverty and opportunity knows him as well. His reputation for being principled, data-driven, and fair-minded are well known.

As part of the Clapham Group-ConservativeHome series on conservatism, poverty, and opportunity, Ryan Streeter put 3 questions to Ron:

1. When you look out over the next 20 or 30 years, which socioeconomic trends worry you the most?
2. What do you think of the welfare provisions the Republicans included in their 2012 budget?
3. What can policymakers do to accelerate an increase in the earning power of low- and lower-middle income people in America?

As usual, Ron’s words are instructive for those who want to understand the nature of poverty in America today and what we should do about it.

RS: You've long studied the sources of poverty in America. When you look out over the next 20 or 30 years, which socioeconomic trends worry you the most?

Haskins: Wages are definitely a problem. At the 10^th percentile, wages have not increased in 3 decades. They’ve gone down, and they’ve gone up, but in 2008 they were basically at 1979 levels. In the middle of the income distribution, you get some increase and at the top the increases are very substantial.  The problem is that we’re always going to have people at the 10th percentile, so rising wages at the bottom of the distribution are important if you care about the poor.

Family composition, though, is another huge issue, which just about everyone has realized by now. Stated succinctly, the poverty rate in female-headed families is about five or six time the rate in married-couple families. Given that a relentlessly growing share of children live in female-headed families, the nation’s poverty rate has a powerful force pushing it upwards. For example, 70% of black children are born to single parents. Hispanic nonmarital birth rates are close to 50%. The rate is also going up among whites. Divorce rates have been pretty steady since 1980s, so the biggest problem is nonmarital births. The rise of female-headed families is probably the single most important factor driving poverty in America.

We have good evidence on how to reduce non-marital births among teens, but much less  among those in their 20s and older. The overall effect is that the birth rate among never-married women is still going up, though not as much as in past. But it’s still a major part of the nation’s poverty problem.

Middle class people with college degrees divorce at much lower rates than those with less education and rarely have nonmarital births. The old-fashioned way is still the best path: get married, stay married.

The differences in nonmarital birth rates and divorce rates by mothers’ education has self-reinforcing effects. Middle class families are already ahead of the game because they’re middle class; then they pass their values, high educational achievement, and family stability to their kids. Meanwhile, poorer families go in the other direction. Harvard’s Kathy Edin has done important work on the impacts of frequent changes in household composition as part of Princeton’s Fragile Families project. By age 5, children of never-married mothers will often have a sibling fathered by someone other than their own father living in their household and many additional mothers will have had live-in boyfriends. The result is you have this huge complexity of who’s related to whom, what a family is, who can discipline the child, and so on. This household complexity and turmoil takes a toll on the children.

Another troubling factor influencing the poverty rate is non-work. I’m really concerned about this trend in America: a long, slow decline in what’s called the employment-to-population ratio for adult males and especially young adult and minority males. The employment-to-population ratio is the percentage of the working-age population that is actually employed. The ratio has dropped slowly for males for the past 3 decades, well before the recessions of 2001 and 2007-09.

By contrast,work rates for single mothers in general and especially never-married mothers have increased substantially. The rate for never-married mothers, for example, increased 40% between 1995 and 1999, in large part because of welfare reform. Primarily as a result of these exploding work rates, the poverty rate of single mothers and their children dropped precipitously after 1994, reaching its lowest rate since we started record-keeping. Then, it went up after 2000, but even in 2009, after two recessions in ten years, the employment-to-population ratio was still 13% higher among women than in had been before welfare reform and their poverty rate was still much lower than before welfare reform.  Work rates among single mothers is a positive story in the era of welfare reform, but work rates among males are not, and they’re abysmal among young black males. This situation among males is bad andgetting worse.

If you look at the population as a whole, work rates in the United States were always higher than those in Europe in terms of the employment-population ratio, but that has now changed. And it’s driven by a long-term secular trend, especially among males, and more especially among black men.

When you roll stagnant wages at the bottom of the distribution, big declines in married-couple families, and falling work rates among males together, the outlook for significantly reducing poverty is really tough.

Rick Santorum's 10 point foreign policy plan for "resetting America's course"

Natalie Gonnella

In response to the death of Osama bin Laden, in a post via NRO's The Corner today, former Pennsylvania Senator and possible 2012 contender Rick Santorum outlined his ten key aims for "restor[ing] American greatness."

Adapted from a recent speech given at the National Press Club challenging President Obama's predilection for "leading from behind," here's a quick look at Santorum's key ideas for "resetting America's course":

1. We need to begin by seeing the world the way it truly is. We need to see evil for what it is, and confront it; and we need to see decency for what it is and nurture it.

2. We need to understand we are in a war, a hot war as well as a war of ideas. Failing to define our foes lest we be politically incorrect does not dissuade them from seeking our destruction. 

3. We need a reinvigorated human-intelligence apparatus in the Middle East so we can better understand who and where are enemies are and then identify opportunities to counteract them and support allies and would-be allies.

4. We need to change our information operations abroad to promote our core values of freedom, equality, and democracy — just as we did with the Soviet Empire in the 1980s.

5. We must cease our verbal, moral, and diplomatic equivalence as between good and evil. Syria does not deserve an ambassador; its protesters deserve support; Israeli housing starts should not be put on the same moral plane as Hamas terror attacks; and China should be challenged on religious liberty rather than be given a veto on the human-rights activists we wish support.

6. Having supported popular sovereignty abroad, we have erred in failing to sufficiently support the conditions of liberty and the institutions necessary for a successful democracy. 

7. We need to keep and expand our commitment to humanitarian aid, especially in Africa. China and Islam are competing for the hearts and minds of much of Africa, and we cannot turn our back from the investment and commitments we have made. 

8. We must stand by Israel, especially at a time when it appears increasingly to be standing alone. The recent dislocation of the old order in the Middle East will usher in a new one , and anti-Israeli elements are working overtime to take advantage of the opportunity.

9. The tradition of speaking up and out about prisoners of conscience and dissidents in prison, never mind American hostages, from the Middle East to Asia, needs to be restored. When President Reagan instituted the policy of reminding the world and America that there were others in jails because of their beliefs it not only reminded us of our blessings, it gave dissidents a sense of hope, and the knowledge that someone cared about them, that a great country was on their side.

10. We need to have a national effort to restore the teaching of American history in our nation’s schools. It is our children’s worst subject — they simply do not know their own story and thus when they are told ours is a history of aggression and immorality, they have no counter-narrative to refute it. 

Santorum's full post is available to view here.