ConservativeHome's The Republican

Whatever happened to upward mobility as a goal for policy makers and politicians?

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Yesterday on CNN’s State of the Union, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said the following about the current GOP presidential field:

I don't think they're yet talking about the things…that have a lot of zeros attached to them, the ones that are threatening to kill not just an economy but the entire idea of America, the idea of upward mobility from the bottom and tomorrow is better than today…I'll tell you what's bothering me a little bit [is] the president is clearly in very desperate political shape. And it seems more clear every day. And I worry a little bit, ironically, that the Republican field or our nominee might look at that and say, I'll just play it safe, I'll get elected as the default option, you know, he made it worse, I'm not him, vote for me. (emphasis added)

Daniels is known as a serious reformer, and his public pronouncements about the new “red menace,” America’s debt, have been widely covered, lauded, and discussed. His sobriety and proven record of reform convinced many he would be the most capable of fixing the nation’s fiscal mess – if he were to run for President in 2012 (and, as we all know, he's not) and win.

But along with his message about America's fiscal condition, Daniels has also consistently preached the gospel of upward mobility – something one rarely hears Republicans talk about, and something about Daniels that has gotten little coverage.

Back in a February speech to CPAC that was broadly praised, Daniels said:

We must display a heart for every American, and a special passion for those still on the first rung of life’s ladder. Upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise, and the stagnation of the middle class is in fact becoming a problem, on any fair reading of the facts. Our main task is not to see that people of great wealth add to it, but that those without much money have a greater chance to earn some. (emphasis added)

And just last week on The Daily Show, he told John Stewart “the heart of our challenge is to restore and strengthen upward mobility in this country and the possibilities for a stable and hopeful middle class.” (emphasis added) He made this point a couple of times in the interview.

Daniels’ new book is effectively a meditation on how to reverse the generation-long trend toward ordinary workers in the private sector being forced to pay for more and more government that doesn’t offer them much in return. A central thread in the book is that our fiscal crisis and the government that has created it does the most violence to the middle class and the vulnerable, and a range of ideas in the book – from growth-oriented tax simplification and reforming the safety net through a negative income tax – are aimed at spurring growth that benefits the middle class, not just the wealthy.

The only other Republican who repeatedly points to upward mobility as the goal of our economic policy is Paul Ryan.

For instance, Ryan told Bloomberg over the weekend:

The president is using rhetoric that divides people, that preys on people’s sense of anxiety, fear, envy. What we’re trying to do is appeal to people’s sense of hope, aspiration. We want an equal- opportunity society. We want a society of upward mobility, and that is what we’re striving for. (emphasis added)

In his statement on the Congressional Budget Office’s August warning about the deficit, he said that the House Republicans’ efforts were aimed at ensuring “upward mobility and greater opportunity for all Americans.” (emphasis added)

Ryan is clearly comfortable with upward mobility as an object of public policy. He freely uses the expression or its variants while giving speeches or meeting with constituents.

Daniels has noted this about Ryan, too. Last month, on CSPAN’s Washington Journal, he praised Ryan as someone who would “do whatever it takes to restore upward mobility in this country, to restore the conditions for a stable, broad middle class.”

This kind of language is sorely missing in the rhetoric we’re hearing from the 2012 GOP presidential candidates, and one doesn’t hear much of it from Republicans in Congress, either.

Does that really matter? Some might say it’s all a matter of language and doesn’t make any material difference in policy and politics.

It does matter.

First, the idea of upward mobility is a different priority than abstract notions such as fairness or incomplete goals such as lower government spending. Rather, it trains our focus on median income and the demographics of middle America. The middle class in America faces a massive collective tax burden in the future, primarily because of entitlements, and they will be the most affected – negatively or positively – by the direction our economy takes over the next decade. One more decade like what we have just experienced, and the idea that the middle class is the incubator out of which dreams for a better life grow will be an antique.

Second, talking about upward mobility is also good politics - or better politics than what we presently see. Restoring hope for the middle, rather than pitting the top against the bottom as Obama is determined to do, offers the best alternative for explaining a vision for the future to voters. Right now, Republicans are all too comfortable defending wealthy Americans against Obama’s attacks. They need to put forward a different counterpunch that appeals to more Americans and is consistent with conservative fiscal and economic policy. Talking about what we need to do to foster more upward mobility is a better approach than pointing out ad nauseum that the rich already pay a lot in taxes, which - however true - does not resonate positively with voters.

2012 Republican presidential hopefuls may trip over tax reform because of an outdated understanding of what constitutes a tax increase

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

In a comment a week ago Sunday that got surprisingly little attention, Mitch Daniels said on Meet the Press:

[It] seems to me that someone who would be our next president should take one pledge, and one only, and that's the one that involves the Bible and the west front of the Capitol Building.  And at this point, my view is that we should address our economic issues, and for that matter our debt issues, without at least raising tax rates.

He was responding to a question from Savannah Guthrie about the last Republican presidential debate in which all candidates said they would reject a deal that had $10 in spending cuts for every dollar in tax revenue.

He went on to note that, first, we should raise more revenue with tax reform that lowers rates and eliminates loopholes, and second, we should be wary of Washington’s poor record of committing to spending cuts they never ultimately make. And he concluded by saying we “ought not rule out anything” in pursuit of tackling our fiscal crisis.

After the last debate, Kevin Williamson wrote at National Review:

If Congress wanted to get rid of tax exemptions and exclusions amounting to $100 billion in new taxes in exchange for $1 trillion in cuts, and Republicans turned the deal down, I would personally drive down to Washington and pelt them with rotten vegetables, and possibly with rocks. $100 billion in new taxes plus $1 trillion in cuts balances the budget in 2012.

Commenting on Williamson’s response, Ross Douthat wrote: "I’m not sure if enough conservatives understand that this is going to be the problem facing the eventual Republican nominee in 2012." He points out that Obama and his team will do whatever they can to portray the Republican nominee as more willing to slash spending that to close one loophole for the rich.

Daniels’ remarks are consistent with these sentiments. He was clearly taking a not-so-veiled swipe at Republicans’ adherence to the Taxpayer Protection Pledge above all other policy orthodoxy when he said the next President should only take the pledge required by the Constitution. The taxpayer protection pledge defines not just tax rate increases as a tax increase, but also any removal of an exemption from the tax code that is not offset by a tax cut elsewhere. Under this definition, removing tax breaks clearly designed to benefit an interest group (ethanol providers being a good example) without cutting their taxes some other way is a tax increase.

If Republicans cannot redefine this part of the pledge, pushing tax reform is going to be extremely difficult. There have been more than 14,000 amendments to the U.S. tax code since the pledge was created over 20 years ago, and it will likely be impossible to guarantee that every single special interest loophole will be perfectly offset by the reduction in tax rates. Some group will cry foul, and all pledge signers will be stuck.

This is important to note now, since:

• With Obama rolling out a jobs plan that will surely involve more stimulus and no tax reform aimed at spurring growth and investment, Republicans will surely push tax reform as an alternative to whatever Obama does.

• With the super committee ramping up its work this fall, tax reform will receive more attention again, even if the committee does nothing with it.

• Republican presidential candidates will, as a result of these events, have to say where they stand on tax reform.

A candidate who understands that the GOP is now the Party of Change will echo what Daniels said. Boldness on entitlement reform and this aspect of tax reform is a pretty good litmus test for determining who is a true reformer and who isn't.

The Republican candidate in 2012 who is unafraid to talk about upward mobility - and not just jobs and growth - will have the broadest appeal

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Last week on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, Mitch Daniels was asked about Paul Ryan. Instead of praising Ryan’s work on entitlements and the deficit, for which Ryan is well-known, Daniels took a different angle and said Ryan would “do whatever it takes to restore upward mobility in this country, to restore the conditions for a stable, broad middle class.”

Of all of the people either running for President or among those who were once seriously considering a bid, Daniels is the only one who talks like this. Had he run for President, he would have been the upward mobility candidate.

While the leading candidates talk about “jobs” and “growth,” Daniels is talking about mobility and the middle class.

It’s not enough to create more jobs if they’re dead-end jobs. It’s not enough to have growth that only benefits the upper 20 percent of American households. Jobs and growth matter in so far as they are part of an opportunity society in which it’s still worth it for everyone, regardless of life’s station, to pursue a dream, aim high, take risks, and have a reasonable expectation that hard work will propel you to a life that is better than your parents enjoyed. The gauge for how we’re doing isn’t the upper middle class, but the middle class itself.

Daniels has been refreshingly consistent on this theme. Yesterday on Meet the Press, once again in the context of fielding a question about Ryan, Daniels said that Ryan’s “pro-growth, pro-jobs message is the one hope for low-income people in this country, it’s the one way we restore a stable and hopeful middle class.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Back in February, Daniels gave a much-lauded speech at CPAC in which he said:

We must display a heart for every American, and a special passion for those still on the first rung of life’s ladder. Upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise, and the stagnation of the middle class is in fact becoming a problem, on any fair reading of the facts. Our main task is not to see that people of great wealth add to it, but that those without much money have a greater chance to earn some. (emphasis added)

For some reason other conservatives have a hard time laying out economic objectives this way. They rightly resist falling into the rhetoric of class warfare while wrongly neglecting to take seriously the very real difference in America between the opportunities enjoyed by the affluent and those available to everyone else.

Since Daniels isn’t running, the mantle of the upward mobility candidate is available for the taking by one of the others. It’s an important mantle to take up. Upward mobility is what people care about. Who hears a mother on the sideline of a soccer field talking about GDP growth? She’s much more likely to be talking about the things she and her husband are doing to help their children get a shot to move up in the world.

The upward mobility candidate would be the one who says:

1. Cutting spending and reforming entitlements are necessary but not enough;
2. Job growth and GDP growth are necessary but not enough;
3. Accelerating the rise of median income in America (without doing so through redistribution) is the key indicator of how prosperous America really is.

Listening to all of the other candidates, one is left to believe that they all think the first two points – reducing spending and growing GDP – are sufficient in themselves.

If Ryan gets into the race, he may well become the upward mobility candidate. This Jack Kemp protege freely uses the expression for starters. Watch him at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in June, and at this town hall meeting in Wisconsin in April.

Oddly, and for whatever reason, the GOP field largely ignores upward mobility. Doing so isn’t even good politics. Independents are much more likely to support a Republican who lays out an appealing program of upward mobility in America than one who focuses mostly on cuts. And Tea Partiers will gladly follow the candidate who is able to demonstrate how limiting the government goes hand-in-hand with a vision for increasing upward mobility in America.

It’s not enough to try to be the most-middle-class-looking candidate (Tim Pawlenty tried that). The GOP candidate who hopes to be the frontrunner should lay out why his or her leadership will create opportunities for all Americans to move upward regardless of whether they start in the lower, middle, or upper class. So far, no candidate has.

Mitch Daniels: Support the Boehner plan, don't commit "financial suicide"

Mitch Daniels, whose "red menace" speech earlier this year convinced many he would be the 2012 GOP presidential contender to beat, has just issued this statement urging the Indiana delegation to support the Boehner plan:

“I hope the Indiana Congressional Delegation will support Speaker Boehner’s proposal. The terrifying, nation-threatening debt levels caused by past and present overspending and future overpromising will not be solved by any one action or in any one year. But the Boehner plan begins in the right place, with real spending restraint and would show Americans and world markets that we do not intend to commit financial suicide.  I hope Congress passes it and then begins work immediately on step two of our long march back to national solvency and economic prosperity.”

Mitch Daniels talks Medicare reform: "Americans are absolutely up to the job of making changes necessary once they understand the facts"

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

In addition to discussing his 2012 decision, in an interview today on ABC's This Week, Mitch Daniels weighed in on Washington's heated debate over entitlement reform.

Offering his own views on the underlying issues facing programs like Medicare and Social Security, here's a look at what the Indiana governor had to say:

I think it is the central dilemma. I think it ought, therefore, to be the centerpiece of the next election, and we ought to test the proposition -- and I have faith that the answer will be yes -- that Americans are absolutely up to the job of making changes necessary once they understand the facts.

Adding that:

There's a way to [reform entitlements] that protects the most vulnerable seniors more. I mean, another, I think, important and positive point to be made is that our current system is brutally unfair. It is tilted toward higher-income people in many, many ways. There's no reason on Earth that we should be sending Warren Buffett a pension check or paying for Bill Gates' health care or mine, for that matter. And in the 2.0 system of Medicare and Social Security, for the next generation, not this one, we ought to heavily devote the resources to those who need them most.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels decides against a 2012 presidential run

Natalie Gonnella

In an early morning email, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels officially announced to supporters that he won't be seeking the Republican nomination in 2012.

According to Politico, in the midnight message sent out by Indiana GOP chief Eric Holcombe, Daniels explained that although he was able to overcome a number of "competing considerations," in the end his decision came down to the interests and well-being of his family:

The counsel and encouragement I received from important citizens like you caused me to think very deeply about becoming a national candidate. In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry

Adding that:

If you feel that this was a non-courageous or unpatriotic decision, I understand and will not attempt to persuade you otherwise. I only hope that you will accept my sincerity in the judgment I reached.

Run, Mitch, Run: With Haley Barbour out, will Mitch jump in?

Ryan Streeter

I can't be the only one having this thought right now. Since Haley Barbour just announced he will not seek the presidency in 2012, does that make a Mitch Daniels bid more likely? As many observers have noted, Barbour and Mitch Daniels are good friends, which would have made their joint entry into the field awkward, if not unlikely.

Barbour's announcement comes a day after Dan Balz's Post piece on Daniels.

Since many insiders expected Barbour to run, let's hope the inverse is also true: that Daniels, whose bid has seemed less likely lately, will surprise insiders and announce a bid.

As Balz points out, Daniels would be happy to have someone else claim the banner of fiscal fortitude so that he doesn't have to run. He, unlike the others, doesn't need to be President. But I suppose the upside of the downside of having a bunch of candidates who don't seem all that passionate about reducing the deficit is that Mitch may be forced - out of a deep sense of public obligation - to run.

Half of Americans cannot name anyone among the GOP's burgeoning 2012 field

Natalie Gonnella

In the latest survey investigating voters' perceptions of the 2012 presidential race, Pew Research Center finds that 53% of Americans and 38% of Republicans are unable to name a possible GOP contender when asked who among the 2012 field they had been "hearing most about."

When it comes to those who were able to identify a GOP contender, unsurprisingly (especially considering the barrage of media attention surrounding his most recent comments), Donald Trump tops the visibility list, with nearly two-fifths of Republicans naming the business mogul as the most noticeable contender among the possible 2012 field.  Mitt Romney places a distance second with only 12% visibility among GOP voters.

Pew's recent analysis also reveals that:

Overall, just 20% of the public say they followed possible candidates for the 2012 presidential elections very closely last week and just 4% named it as their most closely followed story. The disaster in Japan was once again the most closely followed story (at 26%), according to Pew Research’s News Interest Index. 

The full results of Pew's latest poll can be viewed here.

Poll: Among the potential 2012 field, former Governor Mike Huckabee continues to generate the most favorable reaction from GOP voters

Natalie Gonnella

As speculation continues over possible 2012 candidates, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee continues to lead the field when it comes to Positive Intensity Scores.

In Gallup's latest poll investigating the favorability ratings of potential presidential contenders, Mike Huckabee was six points ahead of his closest competion when it came to positive reactions from voters. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann tied for second with 20 points, and former restaurant chain executive Hermain Cain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich rounded out the top five both with a score of 19.

Gallup's latest survey also reveals that:

• Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels' and Romney's Positive Intensity Scores each rose by five points from two weeks ago -- Daniels' from 10 to 15, and Romney's from 15 to 20. This week's update puts Romney in a tie for second place behind Huckabee for the first time.
• Despite the flurry of publicity that surrounded Pawlenty's announcement last week, his recognition among Republicans has essentially not changed, at 40% today, compared with 39% in January.
• The two largest changes over time in Republicans' familiarity with the list of potential candidates are Daniels' increase from 26% recognition in January to 33% today, and Rick Santorum's from 40% in January to 46% today.

With another Gallup survey this week week noting that Americans are less likely to view President Obama as a strong leader, and as a number of candidates take steps towards declaring their candidacy, Gallup's Positive Intensity Poll will definitely be one to watch.

Poll: While he may be the first to take key steps towards a presidential bid, in comparison to other potential contenders former Governor Tim Pawlenty remains relatively unknown among Republican voters

Natalie Gonnella

Although Tim Pawlenty appears to be the "first out of the gate" among the possible GOP contenders, Gallup reveals that the former Governor still has a long way to go when it comes to recognition among the American electorate.

In the latest survey investigating potential 2012 candidates, Gallup examines name recognition among GOP voters. While Pawlenty may be the first to announce the formation of an exploratory committee, the former state leader only garners an ID score of 41%, ranking ninth amid possible Republican nominees, which, according to Gallup and past election patterns, could be a serious obstacle in his 2012 pursuit:

The last eight Republicans who won their party's presidential nomination -- John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater -- were well-known and well-established politicians. 

Additionally, Barack Obama, who stands as an example of an individual who came from relative obscurity to national prominence, had a name recognition score of over 75% by March 2007, the year before he gained the Democratic nomination.

Pawlenty and Barbour thus face a serious challenge as they begin their quests to gain their party's nomination. Well under half of their party's rank-and-file members across the country at this point, less than a year before the first primaries and caucuses take place, know who they are. Both Pawlenty and Barbour, as well as other Republicans who are expected to formally announce their candidacies over the next few months, will be crisscrossing the country for the remainder of the year in an effort to make themselves known -- and liked -- by potential GOP primary voters. 

While Pawlenty ranks in the bottom tier on name recognition, when it comes to his Positive Intensity Score ("the net of strongly favorable views minus strongly unfavorable views") the Minnesotan does poll significantly better, locked in a tie for fourth place with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

The full results of Gallup's latest poll can be viewed here.