Marco Rubio embodies Reagan and redefines conservatism for his generation

Earlier this week,  Senator Marco Rubio spoke at the Reagan Library at the invitation of Nancy Reagan. While most reports of the event have focused on Rubio's great catch as Mrs. Reagan lost her footing and nearly hit the floor, the evening's truly exceptional event was Rubio's speech.   While Rubio was paying tribute to Reagan and his ideals, it was nearly impossible not to make comparisons.  Rubio and Reagan possess the same charisma, idealism, and absolute belief in American exceptionalism.
Rubio shared that he grew up as a child of the Reagan era:

"I tell people all the time that I was born and raised in Ronald Reagan’s America. I was raised in Ronald Reagan’s America. He was elected when I was in fourth grade and he left … he left office when I was in high school. Those are very important years, fourth grade through high school, they were the years that formed so much of what today what I believe and know to be true about the world and about our nation."

In explaining the proper role of government:

"[The vast majority of Americans] want it to be free and prosperous, a place where your economic hopes and dreams can be accomplished and brought up to fruition. That through hard work and sacrifice you can be who God meant you to be. No matter who your parents were, no matter where you were born, no matter how much misfortune you may have met in your life, if you have a good idea, you can be anything if you work hard and play by the rules...But they also want us to be a compassionate America, a place where people are not left behind...
"So, we are a nation that aspires to two things – prosperity and compassion. And Ronald Reagan understood that. Perhaps better, again, than any voice I’ve ever heard speak on it."

Then Rubio turned a corner and drew a line between true conservatism and the so-called "compassionate conservatism" of the post-Reagan 1990's:

"Both Republicans and Democrats established a role for government in America that said, yes, we’ll have a free economy, but we will also have a strong government, who through regulations and taxes will control the free economy and through a series of government programs, will take care of those in our society who are falling behind. 

"That was a vision crafted in the twentieth century by our leaders and though it was well intentioned, it was doomed to fail from the start. It was doomed to fail from the start first and foremost because it forgot that the strength of our nation begins with its people and that these programs actually weakened us as a people."

He's right, of course.  The post-Reagan Republican party of the 90's morphed itself into something nearly unrecognizable with its addiction to pork barrel spending, entitlements and soaring deficits (Reagan and Republicans of his era were not immune to excessive government spending, programs, and deficits, of course, but it would have been rather rude for Rubio to point this out at an event honoring Reagan).
But Sen. Rubio doesn't just call for a return to Reagan's conservatism.  While he lauded Reagan at every turn, Rubio advanced the idea that his generation must not only take up the mantle of traditional conservatism, but in addition, must be willing to sacrifice for the survival of the United States:

"These changes will not be easy... It will actually really call upon a specific generation of Americans, those of us, like myself, decades away from retirement, to assume certain realities -– that we will continue to pay into and fund for a system that we will never fully access -– that we are prepared to do whatever it takes in our lives and in our generation so that our parents and grandparents can enjoy the fruits of their labor and so that our children and our grandchildren can inherit the fullness of America’s promise. 

"But you see, every generation of Americans has been called to do their part to ensure that the American promise continues. We’re not alone; we’re not unique; we’re not the only ones. In fact, I would argue to you that we have it pretty good. 

"And yet I think it’s fully appropriate that those of us raised in Ronald Reagan’s America are actually the ones who are being asked to stand up and respond to the issues of the day. For we, perhaps better than any other people who have ever lived in this nation, should understand how special and unique America truly is."

It's a powerful charge to his generation.  It's the truth Americans need to hear and Mitt Romney, who will begin collecting Social Security and Medicare next year, cannot say this with a fraction of the credibility that Gen X member Rubio possesses. Rhetorically linking the challenge of entitlement reform to the Greatest Generation's sacrifice in WWII or the previous generation's Cold War against Communism demonstrates the seriousness of the looming financial crisis and the future austerity staring Rubio's generation in the face.
Rubio finished with a Reaganesque story about his Cuban grandfather who rolled cigars and read classic literature and American history:

"My grandfather didn’t know America was exceptional because he read about it in a book. He knew about it because he lived it and saw it with his eyes. That powerful lesson is the story of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. It’s our legacy as a people. And it’s who we have a chance to be again. And I think that’s important for all of us because being an American is not just a blessing, it’s a responsibility. 

"As we were commanded to do long ago, “Let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” 

"Well, as we gather here today in this place, that pays homage and tribute to the greatest American of the twentieth century, we are reminded that for him and for our nation, being a light to the world, that’s not just our common history, it remains our common destiny. "

I listened to this and was instantly transported back to the days of big hair, leggings, and shoulder pads (OK, so while we had Reagan and the evil Soviet empire met its demise, not everything was great in the 80's).
Meanwhile, back in 2011, the Republicans are dithering around with the likes of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
I've heard all the arguments about why Marco Rubio should not run for president. He has no executive experience. He should spend more time in the Senate to hone his skills. He's too young...Obama redux.
During his Reagan speech, Rubio quipped, “I have no interest in serving as vice president to anyone who could possibly live all eight years of the presidency.”

While it was a cute and clever line, consider what happens to a senator who spends ten years in that place.  The odds are almost insurmountably against him getting out with his conservative values intact. After two  terms, most senators have spent so much time compromising, bringing home the bacon, and pandering to special interests that they are rendered completely unsuitable to occupy the office of the President of the United States.  Consider the most recent failed presidential candidates: Senators John McCain, John Kerry, Bob Dole - all have spent more time in the Senate than most Supreme Court justices with lifetime appointments serve.   All would have surely continued the big government policies of the 90's.

Will we even recognize Marco Rubio in eight years?  Would Reagan have been Reagan if he had spent ten years in Congress?  Of course, we can't know the answers to those questions, but we do know that we like the current iteration of Marco Rubio.  He gets it - and more important - like Reagan, he can communicate it in a way that inspires and uplifts without sounding like an extremist.  Can we afford to walk away from that?

Obama's jobs plan is a National Infrastructure Bank with projects tied to "inequality reduction"

Thursday at a Holland, Michigan plant, President Obama turned on his folksy charm and declared that he would work tirelessly to “Git folks workin’ again” (note to the prez…I’ve been to lovely Holland, MI several times and they don’t talk that way, so there was no need to put on airs). He again terrified the markets by threatening to propose a whole host of new legislation to make sure the government provides everyone with a job. [Please, Mr. President, please, stay at Martha's Vinyard until 2012 and spare us any ideas you have rattling around in that oversize brain!]

One of the buzzwords that the president and his fellow Democrats have been floating this past week is investment in “infrastructure” as the solution to flat economic growth and high unemployment rates. Wednesday on Fox’s The Five, leftist political analyst Bob Bechtel said that a National Infrastructure Bank would help put people back to work.

To be honest, I had never heard of the National Infrastructure Bank until I received an e-mail about it this week from my senator, Sherrod Brown (D-OH), the most liberal member of Congress. Brown proudly announced that he was trying to sell the scheme to business leaders in Cincinnati as a way to rebuild a crumbling bridge. Brown linked to an article in the Cincinnati Business Courrier that covered the meeting :

“Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown assembled a group of business, labor and local government officials in Cincinnati Tuesday to voice support for new legislation that would create a national infrastructure bank to finance big-ticket projects like the Brent Spence Bridge….Brown’s proposal calls for projects of national significance to receive financing as long as they as they can demonstrate “an ability to repay the loan.”

In an opinion piece in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, former PA Governor Ed Rendell and Mesa, AZ Mayor Scott Smith are pushing the rebuilding of our infrastructure via a National Infrastructure Bank:

“It is also time we create new infrastructure financing options, including a National Infrastructure Bank. Many of these new programs, using Build America Bonds, for instance, can be paid for with a minimal impact on the federal deficit.

"The government’s continued neglect of infrastructure will consign our nation and our children to economic decline. Rebuilding America’s future cannot be a Democratic or Republican political cause. It must be a national undertaking.”

Rendell and Smith write as representatives of Building America’s Future Educational Fund, which bills itself as “a bipartisan coalition of elected officials dedicated to bringing about a new era of U.S. investment in infrastructure that enhances our nation’s prosperity and quality of life.”

Alright, if by “bipartisan” they mean a collection of leftists and RINO’s which includes the likes of Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwazenegger, Gavin Newsome, Charlie Crist, David Patterson, and Ted Strickland. The Director of the Board is Donna Cooper from the Center for American Progress. Notice there’s quite a collection of out-of-work former Democratic office-holders on the list. Apparently their wives couldn’t handle having them wandering aimlessly around the estates all day.

So what exactly is this National Infrastructure Bank? Various iterations of it have been tossed around for the past several years. The basic idea is that a government bureaucracy would be set up to lend (or give) money out to fund infrastructure projects. Obama had a version in his 2011 budget announcement. Remember that “invest” is a code word for deficit spending:

“The Administration’s six year plan would invest $30 billion to found a National Infrastructure Bank (I-Bank). The I-Bank would leverage this Federal investment by providing loans and grants to support individual projects and broader activities of significance to our Nation’s economic competitiveness…A cornerstone of the I-Bank’s approach will be a rigorous project comparison method that transparently measures which projects offer the biggest “bang for the buck” to taxpayers and our economy. This marks a substantial departure from the practice of funding projects based on more narrow considerations.”

Well, this all sounds very reasonable, doesn’t it? We all want safe roads and bridges. We all have images of the Minneapolis bridge collapse seared into our brains and recognize that our nation needs upgrades in our infrastructure.

But as often has happened with this administration, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner reveals the real motives behind this plan:

“That’s why the President’s plan will reform our current system to promote merit-based investment by creating a National Infrastructure Bank, which will select projects on the basis of rigorous analysis. The National Infrastructure Bank will also draw private capital to invest in American infrastructure so that we can better leverage scarce taxpayer dollars. We will support projects that produce significant returns on our investment, allow Americans more choices in their modes of transportation, and improve the interconnectedness of our existing transportation networks to maximize the value of our current infrastructure.

“…Eighty percent of jobs created by investing in infrastructure will likely be created in three occupations –construction, manufacturing, and retail trade – which are among the hardest hit from the recession. Nine out of 10 jobs created in these three sectors pay middle-class wages.” [emphasis added]

Once again, the central planners are picking winners and losers. Not only are “three occupations” being targeted for specific consideration (union jobs, of course), but the “bank” will choose which projects have “merit” and thereby which “modes of transportation” will “produce significant returns on our investment,” all under the guise of giving us more “choices” in our modes of transportation (code for the continued push to get us all to “choose” public transportation).

But again, this isn’t necessarily all bad, until you actually read the legislation that has been proposed. It then descends into the usual Democratic pandering and central planning. H.R. 402, The National Infrastructure Development Bank Act of 2011, sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and 56 co-sponsors (all Democrats) was introduced in January and is currently in the subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology:

“Establishment of National Infrastructure Development Bank- The National Infrastructure Development Bank is established as a wholly owned Government corporation…”

Oh no, here we go again. When you see the words “government” and “corporation” together beware. It brings to mind government takeovers of the banks, the auto industry and the student loan program.

“The Bank shall have a Board of Directors consisting of 5 members appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” [emphasis added]

The five members of the Board would have broad powers including:

"To make loans and purchase debt securities; to issue and sell debt securities of the Bank; to issue public benefit bonds and to provide financing to infrastructure projects from amounts made available from the issuance of such bonds; to make loan guarantees; to borrow on the global capital market and lend to regional, State, and local entities, and commercial banks for the purpose of funding infrastructure projects; to purchase in the open market any of the Bank’s outstanding obligations at any time and at any price; to monitor and oversee infrastructure projects financed, in whole or in part, by the Bank."

The eligibility criteria for infrastructure projects receiving assistance from the bank must meet the goals of the Bank:

"IN GENERAL- The Bank shall conduct an analysis that takes into account the economic, environmental, social benefits, and costs of each project under consideration for financial assistance under this Act, prioritizing projects that contribute to economic growth, lead to job creation, and are of regional or national significance."

And like nearly all legislation written by liberal Democrats, it rewards their special interest groups – those with the preferred skin color and gender and of course, the red carpet treatment for the beloved Mother Earth. It also adds the lofty goal of “inequality reduction,” which every good engineer should have foremost in his mind when designing a bridge. Some of the factors considered for transportation projects:

• Job creation, including workforce development for women and minorities, responsible employment practices, and quality job training opportunities. 



• Reduction in carbon emissions 


• Poverty and inequality reduction through targeted training and employment opportunities for low-income workers. 


• Use of smart tolling, such as vehicle miles traveled and congestion pricing, for highway, road, and bridge projects. 

“Smart tolling, such as vehicle miles traveled and congestion pricing”? We’ve heard talk of car transponders that will be able to report our mileage to the government so those who drive too much can pay higher tolls or taxes. Is this what they have in mind?

The requirements are similar for energy and environmental projects. For telecommunications projects it also adds Obama’s goal of internet access for all:
The extent to which assistance expands or improves broadband and wireless services in rural and disadvantaged communities.

Once again, we have the federal government engaging in social engineering – this time calling it “infrastructure” and telling us it’s about building roads and bridges and the smart grid. But if you read the text of the legislation, the priority seems to be picking the winners and losers and deciding who is deserving of this piece of the American Pie and who is not.

Best of all, this bill puts $5 billion in capital into the capable hands of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner:

"There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for purchase of the shares of the Bank $5,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 with the aggregate representing 10 percent of the total subscribed capital of the Bank":

There is a similar measure percolating in the Senate, S. 652, Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long-term Development, sponsored by John Kerry (D-MA) and co-sponsored by six Democrats and Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) and Lindsay Graham (SC). While not including the radical social engineering language of the House version, the 7-member Board, appointed by the president, has broad powers to approve projects which must meet:

“…any criteria established by the Board of Directors or chief executive officer in accordance with this Act.”

Michelle Malkin summarized it this way:

“How would it work, and who would pay? Unveiled at the radical leftist Center for American Progress in January, Kerry and Company’s pipe dream would somehow leverage $10 billion in unidentified public funds into $640 billion in government loans and loan guarantees for union-exclusive construction and bogus green jobs projects. [T]he infrastructure banks would borrow more money the government doesn’t have to dole out grants that wouldn’t be paid back and don’t require interest payments.”

In addition to bailing out banks, auto companies and the student loan industry and propping up state and local governments with stimulus money, our lawmakers are now considering bailing out states and municipalities that failed to plan for the future. They now want to take out million dollar mortgages on roads and bridges they can’t afford with money borrowed from the federal government that doesn’t actually have any money and is borrowing it from China. To…give everyone a job. You can’t make this stuff up.


Cross posted at Red State

Two things we can salvage from this deal

It has been 274 days since the historic 2010 election swept a a new wave of Republicans into Congress - many of them professing to be fiscal conservatives who embraced the values of the Tea Party.  Many of us worked hard to elect legislators who represented our values and we expected something in return. Speaker Boehner promised us fiscal responsibility and transparency. What we got was a deal crafted behind closed doors (perhaps even on the golf course - so much for that 72 hours rule) and budget cuts that amount to a few grains of sand on the beach of our massive federal spending which will do little to curb our crushing federal debt.  Pardon my cynicism, but we sent these people to Washington to change the trajectory and by most accounts, this "deal" is all smoke and mirrors, gimmicks and accounting tricks.


When they were campaigning last year, these avowed conservatives told us that if they were elected we should "hold their feet to the fire" and demand that they keep their promise to get spending under control. The time has come. Although The Budget Control Act of 2011 is now a done deal,  they can still redeem themselves in our eyes and demonstrate some semblance of fiscal responsibility in this process.  Here's how:


1.  Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment before the 2012 election.
Every single member of Congress needs to be on record about the BBA before voters go to the polls in November. The text of S. 365 says:

"After September 30, 2011, and not later than December 31, 2011, the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, shall vote on passage of a joint resolution, the title of which is as follows: ‘‘Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.’’

Of course, there will be resistance, particularly in the Senate. The 20 Democrats who have supported the BBA in the past will have to explain why they won't vote for it now.  But the bill anticipated that.  The BBA can originate in either the House or the Senate and the bill demands that the other chamber must act on it quickly:

(b) SENATE CONSIDERATION.—(1) If the Senate reeives a joint resolution described in section 201 from the House of Representatives, such joint resolution shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the Senate. If such committee has not reported the joint resolution at the close of the fifth session day after its receipt by the Senate, such committee shall be automatically discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.

There are also rules to prohibit maneuvers that would kill or table the bill:

"Consideration of the joint resolution and on all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 20 hours, which shall be divided equally between the majority and minority leaders or their designees. A motion further to limit debate is in order and not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the joint resolution is not in order. Any debatable motion or appeal is debatable for not to exceed 1 hour, to be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the motion or appeal."

Speaker Boehner should put a carefully crafted, clean Balanced Budget Amendment on the schedule as the first order of business upon returning from summer recess. Pass it and then send it immediately to the Senate.  Forcing members to vote on it before the election will increase the chances of it passing. Each and every member of Congress who votes against it should be held accountable on election day.

2.  The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction must include serious Constitutional conservatives.


Stacking the committee with namby-pamby moderate Republicans will not be acceptable. The Democrats will not reciprocate - they will not send their moderates.  Actually, in the context  of our desperate need to cut spending, can anyone think of a single Democrat who would be considered a moderate?  Note that a recent Rasmussen poll showed that  49% of Americans think the Tea Party movement is good for America and 45% believe that Tea Party members have a better understanding of our country's problems than members of Congress do.  It would be unconscionable to exclude their views from this important debate.
Appointments to the committee are to be made by the following:

(i) The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint three members from among Members of the Senate.  (ii) The minority leader of the Senate shall appoint three members from among Members of the Senate.  The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint three members from among Members of the House of Representatives. (iv) The minority leader of the House of Representatives shall appoint three members from among Members of the House of Representatives.

Three for Senator McConnel and three for Speaker Boehner.  The GOP must choose wisely.
In an interview with Greta Van Sustern, Senator McConnel indicated that his main goal was reaching a consensus rather than fighting for spending cuts and reducing the deficit:

"I'm looking for someone who is solid philosophically but also interested in getting an outcome. You know, I think if everybody puts on our most partisan members, nothing happens. We need to get an outcome. Our country is looking for an outcome. We need to save entitlements. It's absolutely essential. They're not going to be there in a few years. And we've had a difficult time getting that done sort of doing things the way we always do it around here so it's time to try something different. And that's what the joint committee is about."

When Greta suggested that strategically it might be a good idea to wait to see if the Democrats stack their side of the committee with partisans before choosing his members, McConnell said he's still going blindly, recklessly for consensus-building:

"I'm going to pick three people that I think are serious, responsible people who want an outcome for the country in a way that Republicans believe in and I'm not going to pay any attention to who anybody else puts up. I"m only responsible for my three and I'm going to make sure they're serious, constructive people who have the same vision for the future of America that I do and that most party members do."

Once again, we're going to get rolled by the Democrats. The Democrats are certainly not going to sit in the dugout waiting to see if the Republicans are going to send "non-partisans" to the plate before choosing their lineup. They're going to send in the heart of their order to get the best deal possible before the election. And McConnell will send in the team from the Old Timers game.

And in the House, Mr. Boehner should be reminded of his recent statement when allegations were made that he would retaliate against Rep. Jim Jordan for his lack of support for Boehner's plan in the House:

“Jim Jordan and I may not always agree on strategy, but we are friends and allies, and the word retribution is not in my vocabulary."

A vote against Boehner's plan should not be grounds for disqualification from committee membership.
I'd also like to remind the Speaker of something he said just a few days before November's historic election at a campaign event for Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH).

"And so, Mr. President, I've got a word for those people, those people who oppose your policies, those people who love our Constitution, who love freedom and who love the principals that America was built on. You know what I call those people?  Not enemies - they're patriots!"

We must insist that both the Speaker and the Minority Leader each appoint at least one Constitution-loving patriot who represents the values of the Tea Party to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.  Because the President and the Democrats are vowing tax increases, it is the only way to assure those of us who worked tirelessly this past election cycle that the committee is little more than Congressional Theater Redux or a rubber stamp for the President.  In addition, such a move heading into 2012 would build a bridge between the GOP establishment and the Tea Party. To exclude these members would be bowing to the ugly rhetoric and accusations of those calling us terrorists and hostage-takers. They should not be permitted to silence and marginalize the views of a majority of Americans.

Clearly, Senator McConnel is not inclined to go this route. To my knowledge, Speaker Boehner has not given us a peek at his lineup card yet.  If conservatives launch an all-out effort to demand representation on the committee, perhaps they will be swayed.  If Obama can Tweet-stalk Congress, conservatives can do it to Boehner and McConnell, I suppose.

It's quite simple. If  the end game of this deal is higher taxes and no Balanced Budget Amendment, we will take these legislators at their word and "hold their feet to the fire."  They can be replaced. If 2010 showed us anything, it demonstrated that everything has changed and no seat is safe. We the People have spoken and we will not be silenced with a tiny bone here and there.  We want to see real, measurable change in the way Congress does business. Complacency is not an option.

 Crossposted at Red State

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI): American Dream for her grandkids includes WIC and Head Start

In a rare moment of overt frankness, Rep. Gwen Moore (Socialist-WI) searched her soul and ended up giving away the Democrats’ end-game plan in her one-minute speech on the House floor Monday. In what was likely intended to be a rant against Tea Party constitutional conservatives who see the cliff we’re driving our grandchildren off, Moore shared the startling, depressing vision she has for her own grandchildren (and likely yours as well):

“So, I wanted to go on record talking about what I want for my grandchildren. I want Head Start for my grandchildren. I want WIC programs and early childhood education programs…I want jobs where they invent things like new energy sources, and yes, I want them to be contributing citizens and pay taxes and I want a safety net for them in case they’re disabled and when they become elderly and when they get cold in the cold winters of Wisconsin that they’ll have some energy assistance. I want my grandchildren to get the American Dream.”

At least give her credit for admitting the truth. The American Dream for the DemoSocialcrats includes an income of $20,050 (the WI Head Start cut off) to $40,793 (the WI WIC maximum income) for a family of four.

Every single day, when Congresswoman Gwen Moore and others of her ilk get out of bed in the morning, they vow to work tirelessly to fulfill their dream of every child on WIC. Every child in Head Start. Every child dependent on the government. This is the best they can hope for in their Utopian Collective.

And then maybe, if the social welfare programs are really, really successful and her grandchildren are really lucky, they can someday aspire to become “contributing citizens and pay taxes.” The irony that being a taxpayer and being dependent on the government are fundamentally incompatible is lost on Ms. Moore. The absurdity of the American Dream and and WIC in the same paragraph would be laughable if the ideology wasn’t day-by-day, dollar-by-dollar destroying our county.

I hope the Honorable Congresswoman Moore’s grandchildren (and their parents) have higher ambitions and aspirations for their own lives than the low bar she has set for them. We must not let this ideology win.

Cross posted at Red State