ConservativeHome's The Republican

Conservatives and libertarians don't get anywhere by criticizing innovative governors for trying to make a bad program (Medicaid) better

Ryan Streeter

Tevi Troy has a smart rebuttal to Michael Cannon's two-part series criticizing Mitch Daniels' Healthy Indiana Plan, which was an attempt to bring choice and some level of competitiveness into Medicaid in Indiana.

Troy writes:

I think it is a given that all of the participants in this debate (except Ezra Klein, who gleefully recommended reading Cannon’s piece “in full”) would have designed Medicaid differently, and would like to see smart conservative changes in the system. But Daniels is the only one who is a governor and has to make it work in his state, which is why he came up with the Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP), which has been a success for Indiana. Ideas for Medicaid reform such as “deregulat[ing] health care and health insurance, eliminating any federal entitlement to Medicaid or SCHIP benefits, freez[ing] each state’s Medicaid and SCHIP funding at 2009 levels, giv[ing] states total flexibility to use Medicaid and SCHIP funds to achieve a few broad goals, [and] eventually phas[ing] out all federal funding of Medicaid and SCHIP,” which Cannon has advocated, were just not available choices on Daniels’s menu.

This is a really important point. Conservatives and libertarians need to be unified on what they're fighting against in health care as we look to 2012. Criticizing a governor for trying to innovate within the imperfect boundaries of a dysfunctional program, which was created in the nation's capital long ago, is pointless.

It's pointless because it gets us nowhere. What does Cannon say about other governors who are simply running Medicaid in their states without trying to make it better? Are they better, purer? What we should be doing is arguing for a repeal of ObamaCare and introducing new health care measures that would truly open up the health care marketplace to market forces and lower costs.

Troy concludes this way:

I suspect that Ronald Reagan would want Cannon to attempt to help GOP governors trying to implement conservative health-care reforms, rather than criticizing them for failing an imaginary purity test.

Mitch Daniels is the most interesting 2012 potential, which is what makes his nonchalance about running tantalizing

Ryan Streeter

Neil King’s fine weekend feature in the Wall Street Journal on Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels ends this way:

Mr. Daniels is convinced that as president, he would know how to fix the country's debt and swelling entitlements. He's less sure he has the stomach for pursuing the job. "A friend of mine said to me, 'Mitch, you have a fatal flaw as a candidate.' And I said, 'I have a lot of them. Which one did you have in mind?' And he said, 'You can live without it.'"

And this about sums up where we are in the 2012 GOP presidential field: the most interesting potential candidate is perfectly comfortable with the idea of not running. A few observations:

• Daniels really only cares about the big problems facing us and wants them fixed, whether he does the fixing or someone else. He doesn’t seem at all enamored with the idea of being President, and he very believably says he’ll step aside if someone else would only step up and take on the big issues (and he may step aside anyway, even if no one shows up to fight the big fight). We should take him at face value on this.

• If he runs, it would likely be a solemn sense of duty that drives him to do it - and that's probably about it. His nonchalance about running was on display this morning on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. It's impossible to draw any other conclusion listening to Daniels than he is thinking about running as a public obligation, not because he really sees much upside personally in doing it. This just makes him all the more interesting and appealing.

• No other 2012 contender exhibits this same trait, which makes Daniels all the more appealing.

Only Chris Christie is as interesting as Daniels in this regard, and he’s certainly made it clear he’s not running – threatening suicide and all to prove his point (again, the guy is interesting).

Daniels is the most interesting 2012 potential because of the debates he starts by what he says and does. He has won the praise of the likes of George Will, David Brooks, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and other prominent voices for racing headlong onto the high-voltage third rails of American politics (King’s WSJ feature quotes him saying it’s time “to grab every third rail there is, all the things that people say, 'Well, you just can't do that politically'"). There is a lot of enthusiasm building in and out of Washington about what a Daniels candidacy would mean for America.

But Daniels has also taken heat for his “truce” comments from the likes of Rush Limbaugh as well as other 2012 potentials (e.g., Huckabee, Santorum) who see it as a useful tool with which to differentiate themselves. Mark Levin ripped Daniels for being fiscally soft during the union situation (it’s pretty clear Levin didn’t have the facts straight). The Grover Norquist crowd is uneasy about Daniels because he proposed a one-year tax on the wealthy in Indiana in his first year as a way to fill a fiscal gap and because, at a think tank event, he hypothesized about the merits of a VAT.

No other candidate sparks the same kinds of internal debate within the GOP. Everyone pretty much thinks RomneyCare was a bust, except for Romney and a few supporters. Whether or not Huckabee was soft on tax policy as a Governor is debatable, but he hasn’t said much to spark any debate on the point. Palin just creates buzz through her personality but hasn’t created controversy on matters of principle and policy. And so on.

One might argue that an “interesting” candidate like Daniels would confuse primary voters and create distractions by things he says. I think the opposite. America’s ready for a straight-talking, well-reasoned candidate who doesn’t really care if people like what he says. These characteristics have become virtues. And they'll probably serve him better in the primary than some skeptics think.

It's no mistake that Daniels and Christie have high approval ratings in their states. Their honesty with voters has paid political dividends. 

And perhaps it's no mistake, then, that these guys just don't seem to find the prospect of the White House as enticing as everyone else seems to. In the movie Gladiator, when Maximus says that, with all his heart, he cannot accept an offer to be Rome's protector, Marcus Aurelius says "that is why it must be you." The same can be said of Daniels. His desire not to run is precisely why he should.

New poll investigating 2012 favorites reveals, once again, there is no clear favorite

Natalie Gonnella

Today Gallup released the results from its lastest poll examining 2012 preferences among Republican voters, and like previous surveys there was little change among the current field of possible contenders.

Former governors Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin are still locked in a "statistical tie" for the lead, and all three continue to be the only potential candidates to maintain double-digit support.  Gallup also noted that:

Most of the other candidates are now within one or two percentage points of their September and November estimates. Two exceptions are Romney, whose current 16% is a bit lower (though still within the margin of error) than his 19% readings last year, and Newt Gingrich, whose current 9% of the vote is down from 13% in November but the same as September.

While it is still early, considering the recent speeches at CPAC and other significant events since Gallup's November survey, the lack of change across the board provides an interesting reflection on current voter loyalty.

The full results of Gallup's recent survey can be viewed here.

Mitch Daniels is just as conservative as ever, and critics of his right-to-work statements misunderstand how Indiana is different than Wisconsin

Ryan Streeter

First the “truce” and now squishiness on right-to-work legislation. A number of conservatives are in a tizzy over Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ statements that he is less-than-enthused about a current right-to-work bill in Indiana.

For instance, Mark Levin said on his show last night that Daniels wants to “park the human resource issues,” doubly offensive after his “truce comments” parked the social issues (never mind that one of Daniels’ key achievements is bringing Indiana public employee numbers to their 1978 levels, but that’s a different story worth telling some other time). Daniels has been criticized in his local paper for being “too kind” in how he is addressing this issue, and Politico has noted that all of this could affect any presidential ambitions he may harbor.

The current kerfluffle over Daniels’ remarks are based on a combination of things, but facts don’t seem to be one of them. Let’s look at what’s really going on in Indiana:

• Mitch Daniels ended collective bargaining for public employees by executive order back when he took office in 2005. Yes, in Indiana, you can do that. For now. Daniels has a bill before the legislature that would codify what he did in the order. Governor Walker is facing a different situation in Wisconsin. I'm sure if he could end bargaining by an order, he would have signed it already.

• Teachers were not covered by the executive order, and Daniels currently has a bill before the legislature that would curtail their collective bargaining rights. This is part of a comprehensive education reform program that includes vouchers, charter school expansion, and more. Daniels made clear in his State of the State address that this was a top priority this year.

• The current right-to-work bill that is the subject of the media coverage applies to private sector companies. The bill makes it a misdemeanor to require employees to join the union, pay dues, and so forth. Again, it doesn’t affect public employees, who have not been able to collectively bargain in Indiana for the past five years.

 A couple of things worth noting in light of these facts:

• Indiana’s fiscal situation is much different than Wisconsin’s. Indiana became one of nine AAA rated states under Daniels, an achievement that, despite whatever Mark Levin was thinking on his show last night, was the result of the soundest fiscal management any state in the union has seen in the past few years. Walker is trying to get elevated public employee costs under control as part of his overall job of balancing his budget. Daniels doesn’t have the same problem. So if he appears more relaxed about the entire issue, it's probably because he does not face the crisis that Walker faces. This doesn't mean he doesn't care about the current right-to-work bill. He has already says he supports it in principle. But it is not a critical part of achieving fiscal sanity, as it is in Wisconsin.

• Daniels is making his decisions on this issue as a Governor, not as someone scheming about how he can satisfy those wondering about his 2012 aspirations.  Daniels has a reputation for speaking his mind and doing what he needs to do for the state that has elected him Governor. His statements on the right-to-work bill should be interpreted in this context, not in the context of someone trying to “position himself” for 2012. In this case, pushing this bill enflames the passions of others in his state whose support he’s trying to get to fulfill his education reform pledge. He's been clear that he supports what the bill is trying to do, but education reform is simply more urgent than limiting the collective bargaining rights of private sector unions. Governing requires these kinds of decisions, not purity of principle.

Three ways the Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie speeches have altered the landscape in Washington for GOP lawmakers

Ryan Streeter

When we look back in a few years at the debate over entitlement reform, we will likely regard the past 10 days as a game-changing moment. Why? Because within a 5-day stretch during this period, Indiana and New Jersey governors Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie gave nationally-covered speeches in which they challenged lawmakers to get real and to be bold about the need to reform Medicare and Social Security.

The speeches, taken together, should be remembered as the moment when political courage became the name of the game on entitlement reform.

In between the speeches, President Obama released his budget, which failed to include any provisions on entitlements. Coverage of the governors' speeches has colored the public debate about how Republicans should deal with the President's budget and their own budget that they will release in April.

Michael Barone addressed the significance of the Daniels/Christie speeches in his column yesterday. I would like to pick up on this theme and suggest that there are three specific considerations that the Daniels/Christie speeches have altered for congressional Republicans.

Responsibility. Before Daniels/Christie, there was still plenty of room for lawmakers to hide under the cover of various arguments against entitlement reform, and to do so fairly respectably. After Daniels/Christie, standing still on entitlements is a dereliction of duty. The two governors made such highly publicized, well-received calls for elected leaders in Washington to deal with entitlements as an issue of responsibility and leadership, that not doing so will be treated by observers in and outside the media as irresponsibility.

Politics. Before Daniels/Christie, there were plenty of political reasons for avoiding entitlement reform before 2012. After Daniels/Christie, the political barriers are lower – even if they are still challenging. The big assist on this front came from the President, who gambled in his budget that by avoiding entitlements, he would make Republicans go first and hopefully imperil their 2012 chances as a result. Daniels and Christie both essentially delivered the message that good policy results in good politics, and that Americans are ready to be dealt with as adults.  Judging by how directly David Gregory grilled Sen. Durbin on Meet the Press over the White House’s politicization of entitlements in the budget, it’s clear that the political landscape is changing. Daniels and Christie don’t get all the credit for this, but their speeches came at just the right time and have had an effect.

Popularity. Before Daniels/Christie, the belief that it was too risky to mess with programs that enjoy popular support was fairly widespread. After Daniels/Christie, that belief has less justification. Both governors have made budget-cutting and fiscal austerity central to their agendas without hurting their popularity. In fact one could argue that their agendas have boosted their popularity.  As Barone points out in his column, Obama carried Indiana in 2008 while Daniels was re-elected by a 58-40 margin. Christie, in his characteristically blunt style, bragged about his popularity ratings in his speech as a way to chide those who think tough decisions necessarily result in unpopularity.  One can still argue that Medicare and Social Security are simply different and carry with them greater political risk. But that argument has less merit than it did 10 days ago.

The last month has been marked by internecine squabbles among Republicans on spending cuts and entitlements, followed by a truly awful Obama budget that forced Republican leaders to commit to entitlement reform in their own budget. The Daniels and Christie speeches came at just the right time. They have changed the landscape. How much is difficult to assess at this point, but their effect has been real. If Republicans don't take up the mantle of political courage that Daniels and Christie have admonished, it may be foisted upon them by the media and an impatient public.

The most important line from Mitch Daniels' speech was the one that didn't get much coverage: Republicans need to address upward mobility and middle class stagnation

Ryan Streeter

Mitch Daniels’ February 11 speech at CPAC in Washington has received more attention than any political speech given in the past few weeks (with Chris Christie’s AEI speech close behind). 

George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Mike Gerson all devoted columns to the Indiana Governor's speech this past week. The attention has also sparked critiques by those who have doubts, such as John McCormack and Jennifer Rubin, who voice concerns on his now-infamous “truce” idea among other issues. Jay Cost, for his part, takes an original historical, and positive, view of the truce.

In general, praise of Daniels has centered on the clarion call he has sounded about America’s coming fiscal catastrophe – and the originality with which he has called his fellow countrymen together to repel it. His own record of fiscal prudence gives him loads of credibility.

The most important line in his speech, however, has only received a few mentions without much discussion. It was when 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.

Now, he didn’t use the speech to advance any specific policies in this regard, but the statement itself was signficant for a number of reasons.

1. He set himself apart from other Republicans. Let’s face it, “upward mobility” and “middle class stagnation” are expressions you don’t hear from aspiring GOP presidential candidates. Only Tim Pawlenty has sounded comfortable on these themes. Daniels was making clear that all our efforts to repair our fiscally damaged nation are for the sake of those who have the most to gain in America. Our efforts are not in the service of our ideology or principles for their own sakes, but for real people with real aspirations. Overcoming very real barriers that millions of middle Americans face is a job facing the next President whether he or she recognizes it now. Daniels recognizes it.
2. He was speaking to the “leave us alone” CPAC crowd. The overriding theme of CPAC had been on reversing the encroachment of the state, cutting spending, and the like. And rightly so. These are also themes that Daniels heartily agrees with.  But they are insufficient as a governing philosophy. Just as he used his speech to clarify that ideological purity should not lead us to a point at which we stand on the wreckage of an economy yelling "I told you so," he used the speech to clarify that all of our efforts are for the sake of opportunity, hope, the future - especially for those less fortunate. This was not at all a common theme at a conference that has become a haven for ideological purists, especially of the "leave us alone" variety. Daniels' challenge was to embrace a conservatism that thinks beyond shrinking the state as its only noble goal.
3. Daniels is hitting on a very real problem that Republicans ignore at their peril. Joel Kotkin made this point here at ConservativeHome when he said: “The issue of class is one Americans do not like to face. But it is increasingly evident that this, more than race, will determine the political future.” Republicans steer clear of this theme because of a perennial dislike of “class warfare,” but it’s not class warfare that’s the issue. It’s that a large segment of Americans have for more than a decade now not not enjoying the kinds of upward mobility gains (increases in income and quality of life) that are associated with America itself.  Republicans have not thought this through very well, and they ignore middle America at their peril. Daniels seems to understand this.
4. He speaks from experience. One aspect of the Daniels administration that hasn’t gotten much attention as his other reforms is the central mission that all of his staffers and state officials can recite: raising the disposable income of Hoosiers. Now, Indiana still has a long way to go on this front, but the point is that all of the cost-cutting, tough fiscal management, and other virtues for which he has been praised have – from the beginning – been centered on this theme. Reducing the burden of the state is important because of how it frees up the private sector for greater productivity and returns tax dollars into the pockets of the citizenry.

Conservatives have ideas that can help us confront middle class stagnation and revive the sense of opportunity for those on “the first rung of life’s ladder.” But, first, they need to get comfortable talking about this again.

Daniels reminds Republicans that they are not the party of the rich, not just the “leave us alone” crowd, and not even limited government supporters for the sake of merely adhering to the ideal itself. Our founders believed in limited government as essential for liberty, and liberty was essential for happiness. And happiness depends in large measure on believing our efforts will find reward, that hard work can make tomorrow better than today, and that our children can inherit a better life than we had.

Six reasons why a Mitch Daniels-Chris Christie ticket works in 2012

Ryan Streeter

Chris Christie won rounds of praise for his speech at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday. Quintessential Christie, he talked tough on unions and the left, spoke frankly about entitlement reform, and threatened once again to “commit suicide” to prove how serious he is about not running for President in 2012.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has also been the subject of wide praise since his speech last Friday at CPAC. George Will (who introduced Daniels at the event and has lauded him in the past) highlights in his column today the originality and clarity in Daniels’ ideas and language.

Both of these speeches have gotten significant national coverage that has reflected well on both men.

So now seems the time to say out loud what some portion of observers have to be thinking: why not a Daniels-Christie ticket in 2012?

Christie has been about as direct as he can be about not seeking the nomination himself. He’s not exactly a dissembler, so we should take him at his word. But this doesn’t mean he couldn’t join the ticket as the VP candidate. He'd get to continue governing for awhile and would only have to join the campagin a couple months before the election.

Daniels has yet to declare his intentions and has said we should all know at some point in the spring.

So let’s reflect on this for a minute:

The anti-Obama/Biden ticket. Daniels and Christie are about as anti-Obama/Biden as they come - in every way. They are governors who have shown they connect well with voters, while the President and Vice President are deliberative senatorial types. Their combined appearance – Daniels at 5’7” and Christie in all his rotundity – would be a dream for late-night comedy, but if there’s a time to test the hypothesis that voters really only want the telegenic candidate, it is now. The Daniels/Christie unconventionality on this front could  end up as an asset. More substantively, they are 180 degree opposites of Obama/Biden on fiscal discipline. Some will try to remind voters that Daniels was at the OMB helm when “Bush-the-spender” was in the White House, but those critiques have already fallen short in light of his record as Governor.

Independent appeal. Even if the economy ticks up before 2012, the public – and especially independents – will be looking for disciplined cost-cutters they can trust. In poll after poll, independents tend to side with Republicans on fiscal discipline issues. This will still be on people’s minds in 2012. Both Daniels and Christie speak devoid of ideological jargon, choosing instead (imagine!) to use their own phrases and turns of art. This will also matter when reaching out to the middle.

Reform versus interests. Both Daniels and Christie have earned reputations as tough reformers, unafraid of unionized interests and utterly intolerant of the excuses that state-protected entities put forward to defend themselves. Daniels does this in a way that’s less strident, to use George Will’s term, than Christie, but his record (and there’s more to observe than Christie’s) is as tough as they come. Obama and Biden are not reformers. That’s become clear to most level-headed voters. And America wants reform.

Middle American appeal. Daniels and Christie could win the states between the coasts as well as any potential GOP combo out there. Obama may be from Chicago, but that’s not the Midwest like Indianapolis is. And New Jersey may be the northeast, but it’s not coated with the coastal elitism that’s more at home in Delaware (remember how Biden spent all that time in 2008 talking about how he was from Scranton despite the fact that he had represented Delaware since 1973?). Miles of Harley rides, hundreds of diner lunches, and many overnights in people’s homes have made Daniels a “man of the people” in his own state, and once his name recognition rises nationally, that same appeal will likely hold throughout middle America (though I can't see him continuing the practice of staying in people's homes....but who knows?). He and Christie would be as “regular guy” as you can get in the GOP field, with the exception of Tim Pawlenty.

Solid debaters. I don’t have just the official debates in mind, though both men would both perform very well in them. I’m thinking more of the ongoing public debate during the campaign: what you say in town hall meetings, what you say when the cameras are trailing you, how you stay out ahead of your opponent in the 24/7 news cycle. Daniels has proven himself very adept at providing on-the-spot rebuttals to charges that get thrown his way or when he meets an upset constituent. People who think Obama would out-class Daniels in the public arena haven’t watched enough Daniels.  And I’d put my money on Christie over the gaff-prone Biden any day.

Beyond Reagan. Neither Daniels nor Christie seems especially eager to prove he’s the most like Reagan. Daniels worked for the 40^th president and has nothing but the highest regard and affection for him. But he, like Christie, knows that voters want to look beyond past greatness to future possibility. They are very Reaganesque in their views on many if not most things, but they are fundamentally problem-solvers, applying lofty ideals to the gritty pavement of today’s problems.

The downsides to a Daniels/Christie ticket would be two-fold, in my view. First, social conservatives would be wary. Daniels’ truce comments have made them uptight, and it will be the presidential candidate who matters most on this front. Christie, for his part, has been bolder on these issues than he gets credit for (being the first pro-life governor in NJ since Roe v. Wade says something, and he's been quite public about his pro-life views), but his leadership is really in other areas. So the social cons would feel like they have an uphill climb (I personally think they are both fully capable of keeping any promise they would make to social conservative groups, but those discussions would need to TLC to work out right).

Second, the flipside of their originality simply means they will say things that at times “make news” and get in the way of campaign objectives. Daniels’ truce comments are a case in point, and Christie’s “suicide” comments yesterday, for example, will surely provoke charges of insensitivity.

But the upsides far outweigh the downsides in my view.

So who’s on board with Daniels/Christie in 2012? Who thinks it a bad combo and why?

Mitch Daniels: ObamaCare makes governors "conductors in a train wreck"

Ryan Streeter 

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels opinion piece on ObamaCare’s effect on states in today’s Wall Street Journal is likely to get passed around and discussed a lot over the next few days. It’s another example of why so many think he’s one of the best governors – if not the best – in America.

It’s principled and original. And it brings to the public debate some elements about ObamaCare that many readers haven’t probably thought much about.

Many have heard about the individual mandate and the increase in Medicaid costs states will have to bear. But there are two additional realities that Daniels bring to light that haven’t been discussed as much:

ObamaCare will subsidize middle class health care faster and to a larger degree than we expect because of what’s going on in the states.

It will lead to a de facto government takeover of health care faster than most people realize, and as millions of Americans are added to the Medicaid rolls and millions more employees (including, watch for this, workers of bankrupt state governments) are dumped into the new exchanges.

ObamaCare decentralizes its takeover of health care to states in a way that adds costs but which isn’t fully funded – which is a set-up for failure.

The “law expects to conscript the states as its agents in its takeover of health care. It assumes that we will set up and operate its new insurance ‘exchanges’ for it, using our current welfare apparatuses to do the numbingly complex work of figuring out who is eligible for its subsidies…”

These two realities portend grave fiscal burdens to already-strapped states. 

Daniels has written a letter, which 20 other states have also signed, to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting:

• The ability to choose which insurers operate in a state
• The power to waive mandates and the prohibition on health savings accounts
• New ways to prevent millions of people being forced into Medicaid, which will cripple states further
• Reimbursement for the full costs of implementation

Here’s to hoping repeal happens before all the requirements kick in. But, as Daniels writes, governors have to make plans as if the law will be in place.

He closes by noting “If there's to be a train wreck, we governors would rather be spectators than conductors.”

I'm pessimistic that Sebelius will do anything other than keep the governors behind the engine's controls. But if the governors make enough noise, the administration might relent. They won't want the already-unpopular provisions to gain more company in the public's mind. 

And with Indiana less complicated as Mike Pence passes on the White House, the "Draft Mitch Daniels" effort steps up - starting with Yale students

These college students have already done one video trying to draft Mitch Daniels to run for President. Here's another one. Short, and worth the watch.

Republicans are the modernizers: evidence from three education reform governors

(L-R: Rick Scott of Florida, Mitch Daniels of IN, and Chris Christie of New Jersey)

Ryan Streeter

Republicans are the modernizing party. They should talk more about that.

These days, so-called “progressives” defend a status quo that runs against the grain of life most of us have grown accustomed to: lots of choices about what we consume, and lots of control over the information-gathering process needed to make those choices.  We don’t like government-appointed elites – or any elites for that matter – telling us which choices to make or what to do. The best conservative ideas today are based on these new realities.

Nowhere is this more evident than in states with enterprising approaches to education reform.  Here are three important ideas percolating out there in the “laboratories of democracy” that contain lessons for GOP lawmakers - in education and beyond.

Rick Scott (Florida) - Turn funding formulas upside down: give families rather than schools money to decide where and how their children are educated.  Rather than giving education reform as an issue to Jeb Bush, arguably the best education reform governor in America, and finding something else to focus on, Scott is proposing to take the reforms further in a radical way. This new governor wants to create “education savings accounts” that would allow parents to use a large portion of the funds that would be spent on their child in the public schools system to purchase education elsewhere. If he takes this a step further in a way that Rick Hess has envisioned and Reihan Salam promoted, it could be one of the most important domestic reforms of the new decade.

Mitch Daniels (Indiana) - Move beyond “choice” to “choices.” Daniels wants to combine three key elements to give parents with the power of competition to improve the quality of their children’s education: (1) give students who finish school in 11 years the dollar value of their 12^th year for higher education, (2) take advantage of the state’s new allowance for parents to send their children across district lines; and (3) rapidly expand charters and fund them on the same schedule and with the same standards as other schools.  The idea here is open up attractive options by scrambling the public sector’s usual way of working. The Daniels model creates options by changing multiple incentive frameworks to work for the benefit of families.

Chris Christie (New Jersey) –  Challenge the institutionalized love affair with teacher discretion.  Christie wants to make ending teacher tenure a “national conversation.” And he wants to achieve it in his state.  Empowering teachers to do what they do with very little concern about the effects of what they do is looking more criminal every day.  While other governors are also advocating an end to tenure, as Natalie pointed out yesterday, Christie’s sincerity in standing up to the unions in an effort to achieve it cannot be questioned. While ending tenure will be an uphill climb for him, Christie’s effort is important because it continues his highly public challenge to the idea that public employees get to play by rules – and enjoy levels of compensation – that many of the rest of us don’t. And it does it in a way that is especially poignant for parents.

There are two main principles inherent in these reforms are relevant beyond education. They are:

• Expanding options for consumers is a public good that contains costs and improves outcomes.
• Institutionalizing a right to public employment with little consequence is usually the same thing as institutionalizing a right to underperform.

Governors Scott, Daniels and Christie have based what they’re doing on a fundamental grasp of these principles. The world has changed under the feet of the unions and protectors of the bureaucratic establishment. These three governors, along with others, are exploiting this reality to propose new policies and expand political constituencies.

As lawmakers gather in Washington this week to start the 112^th in earnest, they should follow the example our nation's enterprising governors are taking: talk about these principles, convert them into values, and start proposing a host of good things on their basis.

The obvious place to start? Well, health care of course. We’ll see a vote to repeal Obamacare this week, the outcome of which everyone knows. Republicans should be proposing alternatives at the same time. And, fortunately, conservatives have health care policy ideas that are just as modernizing as the governors’ education ideas. We should hear more about those ideas – a lot more – in coming weeks.