The Enterprise Blog

Author Archive

(Photo by Peter Holden)

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain heavily referenced his business background as former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza in a discussion at AEI this morning on how to get the economy moving.

Cain, who has been leading the pack of GOP hopefuls in many polls, sat down with AEI’s Kevin Hassett before a packed house to answer questions about his 9-9-9 economic platform.

“In business you develop a solution to the problem; you don’t develop a half solution,” Cain said when expanding upon the differences between businessmen and politicians.

He said that after he took the helm at Godfather’s Pizza, he learned that parent company Pilsbury had decided the pizza chain would go bankrupt. Cain said to overcome this fate, “I went and talked to the people closest to the problem.” That included customers and employees, and the solutions including simplification measures such as eliminating three of four crusts offered.

“We simplified the operation dramatically,” Cain said. “That kind of thinking inspired 9-9-9.”

Two years after taking control of Godfather’s, Cain said he got the full picture of how government regulations can adversely affect business. “I had to contend with all of these external forces,” he said. “I became much more aware of the potential negative impact of government.”

Cain predicted that the business community would rally at simply the possibility that 9-9-9 could become law. “They’re going to get excited that we just might get this thing passed,” he said, predicting that businesses would have growth plans on the table, “ready to pull the trigger.”

“After I’m elected we will begin to work with members of Congress to tee up that legislation,” the candidate said.

“The business community is the engine of economic growth,” he added, noting that his plan would be “fuel for the engine.”

Sharing the credit for his plan—which eliminates the current tax system in favor of a 9 percent personal income tax, a 9 percent corporate income tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax—Cain said “there are [Jack] Kemp’s fingerprints all over 9-9-9.” Cain was an adviser to Kemp when he was the vice presidential candidate.

Cain said his plan can bring together fair tax and flat tax proponents. “Let’s get both of these groups to the table,” he said. “We have now a built-in support for the concept.”

“We want it to be fair—fair according to Webster’s dictionary, not according to Washington,” Cain said.

He expanded upon the fairness concept when asked what role government should have in creating a fair playing field.

“I believe that the government’s role in creating fairness is zero,” Cain said. “When the government steps into picking winners and losers—can we say Solyndra? … Where does it stop?”

He brushed off assertions that his plan mirrored a Value Added Tax (VAT). “It doesn’t matter what you call it,” he said. “The reason why some of my opponents are calling it a VAT is they want to scare people.”

In the realm of fright, Hassett asked Cain which of his GOP opponents he would be for Halloween.

Cain pondered the answer for a while. “I believe I would go as Ron Paul,” he said with a smile.

When asked by an audience member whether his candidacy would have staying power within the GOP, Cain said his grass-roots momentum hasn’t come from the Republican Party.

“The people, not the party,” Cain said. “The people have propelled my candidacy.”

“That’s why this flavor of the week is the flavor of the month and it still tastes good.”

The ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee said at AEI this morning that more revenue or drastic cuts in other programs will be needed to avert defense being “crucified” in discretionary spending cuts.

Representative Adam Smith (D-Washington) said that the “brutal” deficit is simple math—a third needs to be cut across the board to balance the budget.

“The American voters love to cut spending in the abstract,” he said. “Once you start talking about the specifics it gets to be a very different conversation.”

The Super Committee tasked with arriving at a deficit-slashing deal—or deep automatic cuts would be triggered, including draconian cuts to defense—has less than a month to meet the deadline to vote on a plan with $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction.

Even if the Super Committee arrives at that number, Smith said, “that doesn’t even really begin to address the problem.”

“More is going to have to be cut or more revenue is going to have to be brought in,” he added.

Smith said that a strong case needs to be made to spare defense from discretionary cuts in the face of a public that is resistant to cutting mandatory spending, or “inevitably defense is going to be crushed.”

“If there is no new revenue the defense budget is going to be cut,” he said.

The congressman added that if his fellow legislators won’t budge on revenue hikes, “then get out there and start explaining why you want to cut entitlements by one third.”

Smith said another component is reassessing the defense budget to find ways to save money that don’t jeopardize national security.

“How can we rethink about the threat environment?” he said. “What kind of force are we going to need?”

The military has been built on a Cold War mentality and needs to adapt to the asymmetric threats posed by combatants such as al Qaeda. “Where would you better spend your money to confront that threat?” Smith mused.

This calls for a “major strategic review,” he said, without a Cold War specter “infecting our thoughts” or focusing on building a force that anticipates toe-to-toe conflict with China.

Smith added that the process also includes where the military can spend money better in its personnel ranks.

“We have too much middle management,” he said. “Not only are you paying more people than you need but it slows down the process.”

The most important thing lawmakers can do right now, the congressman said, is recognize that it’s “unacceptable” to send military forces out on a mission and not fully fund it.

“Let’s decide what we can afford, what is in our national security interests and then fund it,” Smith said.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) said at AEI today that “we’re facing a survival-level threat to the America we’ve known” from spiraling debt, diminished optimism, and a turning away from self-sufficiency.

Daniels was promoting his new book, Keeping the Republic: Saving America by Trusting Americans, which he said is not autobiographical, or a “candidate’s book” (“This one’s written specifically because I don’t [want to run],” he said), or a manifesto that just preaches without offering solutions.

Instead, he characterized it as “a few reflections on the most important national conversation that we’ve had in a long time.”

And while not thinking “the world needed another tome on the debt,” the governor cautioned that the deficit being amassed threatens “something even larger than our standard of living.”

“Even in bad times, tomorrow will be better,” Daniels said of characteristic American optimism. “If that’s fraying at the edges, that’s something to really worry about.”

He also warned that the “whole principle of self-governance as we know it in this country is on trial” as government doesn’t give Americans due credit for choosing life necessities from healthcare to schooling to light bulbs.

“I would gamble on the capacity of the American people,” Daniels said.

The governor referenced the founders’ early concerns about keeping the new republic intact in noting that slips could still lead to failure. “This is not a philosophical judgment; this is not an ideological point,” he said. “Let’s have the ideological debate some other time.”

He said the country is on track to “permanently stunt the economy … we are not distinguishable from Greece, Italy, Portugal, except by degree.” This hurts America’s international standing in that “nobody follows a pauper,” he added.

Daniels took a shot at President Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan, “Change you can believe in,” by noting that government needs to promote “Change that believes in you.”

“You want to see pain? Just keep going where we’re going,” he said. “The only operating philosophy that makes any sense in this life is optimism.”

The governor isn’t, however, optimistic about Obama’s chances in 2012.

“The president’s got trouble getting re-elected,” Daniels said. “I have never seen good news coming in this economy, not in a year and a half. Now I think it’s pretty clear that there’s a good chance he’ll be running under really adverse economic conditions.”

This doesn’t mean that the GOP nominee can simply run as the “default option” and play it safe in going after Obama, he stressed.

“Let’s lay it out there,” Daniels said.

When asked about Governor Chris Christie’s (R-New Jersey) style of laying it all out there, Daniels quipped, “Gotta have a special style if you live in Tony Soprano’s state.”

(Peter Holden)

The Democratic mayor of Los Angeles said today at AEI that the need to fix schools should rank above both the urge to slash spending and organized labor’s resistance to tough reforms.

Antonio Villaraigosa, who early in his career worked as an organizer for the powerful United Teachers Los Angeles, highlighted his battles with the union in tackling teacher quality, overcrowding, low student performance, and a nearly 30 percent four-year high school dropout rate in the 700,000-student Los Angeles Unified School District.

“I probably terrorize them more than people on the right,” Villaraigosa said after noting that the union hadn’t budged a bit on reform initiatives during his six years in office. “I’m unabashedly pro-union but I’m pro-kid.”

The mayor said the “single most important issue facing cities and indeed the nation today” was raising a generation with the education and skills needed to compete in the new global economy.

“I am not anti-union but I do take umbrage with some of the issues they’ve gotten behind,” he said, adding that one of the biggest problems with teacher union contracts today is that “they’re too focused on rights and not responsibilities.”

“We need union contracts that provide us flexibility to innovate,” he said.

Villaraigosa said the tenure system is “broken” and seniority should not be the deciding factor in teacher assignments, salary, and the like. “Nobody has a job for life.”

He said a “middle ground” that gives greater weight to evaluations and results is needed, particularly as districts ask for more money and the public demands to see change attached to that spending.

“Our schools are starved for dollars and cents; our policies are starved for common sense,” the mayor said.

Villaraigosa said more Democrats need to challenge the powerful unions while Republicans should acknowledge that money is part of the answer. “I have no doubt that we all want the same thing here,” he said. “Our schools are badly broken.”

Villaraigosa was asked how the U.S. Conference of Mayors, of which he is currently president, would reconcile budget cuts brewing in Washington with the need for education dollars. “If there’s a difference between the mayors and the members of Congress it’s that we have a real job,” he quipped, noting that they can’t afford to be “doctrinaire.”

He acknowledged that there is “sticker shock” when people see that the LAUSD has a $7 billion budget, but added, “I guarantee that the money we don’t spend on education right now is money we’ll spend later on food stamps, jail, unemployment benefits.”

“We need funding but we need reform and we need both right now,” he said.

He proudly touted that the LAUSD has more charter schools than any other district in the country and the “vast majority” of them are high performing.

At the conclusion of his address and audience questions, Villaraigosa was presented with the 2011 Champion for Charters Award by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

“Champion for Charters,” the mayor said as he looked at the award. “Champion for kids.”

(Peter Holden)

The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence said at AEI today that ignoring problems beyond America’s borders “ignores the core of the conservative movement.”

Representative Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) addressed the “growing sentiment within conservative circles for a minimized role for America in the world” in light of the 10th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

“Now is not the time to walk away from the rest of the world,” he said. “We must remember—and we must consistently remind the country—that America will not remain safe, America cannot remain a force for democracy and freedom in the world, if we refuse to engage around the world.”

He said that conversations need to take place, including in the presidential campaign and especially from his party, about why isolationism isn’t the way to go. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), for one, has made avoiding intervention around the globe a cornerstone of his campaign.

“The world is a confusing place right now,” Rogers said. “It’s easy to kind of pull back in.”

Rogers cited Ronald Reagan’s example in pushing the United States to battle communism.

“He stressed that we be clear-headed about the threats we face, and proud of American strength and exceptionalism,” Rogers said. “He stressed that with our power and force we strive ultimately for the preservation of freedom and liberty. And he pushed a bigger defense budget so we could best protect the nation and its interests around the world.”

Defense is expected to take a heavy hit in across-the-board budget cuts that Republicans are driving in Congress, raising alarm among many security-minded members of the party.

In addition to vowing to “hold the line” against budget cuts that would “endanger key capabilities,” Rogers said this is no time to let our guard down.

“The threat of al-Qaeda and associated terrorist groups still exists,” he said. “China continues its rise. Iran and North Korea continue their efforts to become nuclear states. And while the Middle East and North Africa are experiencing a significant period of change, the future stability of the region is not without doubt.”

The chairman said that America needs “the national will to engage both the threats and the opportunities we face.”

He said that facing those threats isn’t just about raising awareness, but making sure we have proper defense resources.

“Since 1989, official Chinese defense spending has increased by nearly 13 percent each year,” Rogers said. “Although the actual Chinese defense budget is unknown and kept secret, we suspect that they are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in recent years. That investment includes a build-up of conventional and unconventional military capabilities across the board—in land, sea, space, and cyberspace, China is investing and growing.”

He stressed that he wasn’t there to characterize the U.S.-China relationship as friendly or adversarial, but noted, “What I do believe is that we must be prepared for the potential threat that a rising China poses … China will only surpass us if we let them.”

In the question-and-answer session after his address, Rogers said, “I think we can help China become less aggressive in the future. We only do that by engagement.”

Rogers said it is also crucial to recognize the true threat posed by Iran. “Whether it would supply terrorist groups, bomb Israel, become more aggressive in the region… we don’t know and we must not become resigned to a nuclear Iran.”

Rogers said that America’s relationship with its allies depends heavily on our staying power, and our posture with enemies depends on not retreating from engagement.

“This is why we must maintain our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq until stability is achieved,” he said. “And it hasn’t always popular to say, but it’s why we had to sustain our effort in Libya.”

He said forces in Afghanistan had to be scaled back in a “strategic, coordinated fashion.”

“I fear that President Obama is drawing down our surge forces much too quickly and endangering the progress we have made,” Rogers said. “And I fear too few are saying what the future will require: which is even after our troops leave Afghanistan, we must stay involved.”

Rogers also said that Pakistan is “a relationship we can’t walk away from,” though he said the relationship would improve “exponentially” when the country learns there is “no such thing as a good terrorist.”

(Peter Holden)

The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said at AEI this morning that he would choose a strong defense if forced to pick between tax hikes or military cuts.

Representative Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-California) said that the drive for defense cuts has been “coming at us in a rapid-fire, escalating effect,” particularly as the Super Committee faces a November 23 deadline to vote on a plan that cuts the deficit by $1.5 trillion.

Defense will inevitably suffer a “very heavy burden” with “excessive” cuts, McKeon said, but the default trigger would weaken the military to the point where it could not operate.

“I have never voted for a tax increase,” McKeon said, but if forced to choose between a hike and deeper defense cuts, “I would go to strengthen defense.”

He said that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had visited his committee; as chairman, he noted, “it’s my job to make sure that they’re aware of all the consequences” of defense cuts.

“I hope they share my conviction,” he said of his fellow House Republicans. “I believe they do.”

MORE: McKeon at AEI: Super Committee Deadlock Would Put U.S. Military ‘Out of Business’

(House Armed Services Committee)

The House Armed Services Committee chairman adds to the growing GOP chorus against potential Super Committee cuts or the automatic trigger fallback touching defense when he speaks at AEI this morning.

According to an advance copy of his remarks, Representative Buck McKeon (R-California) will say that the Obama administration has “steadily lowered our guard” while the military faces a more dangerous world.

“Through steady cuts to the defense budget, the message we have sent to the troops is clear: You are not our top priority,” McKeon will say. “President Obama’s policies are reflective of an ideology that treats American power as the principle adversary, not ally, to world peace.”

(Watch the livestream of his full remarks at 10:30 a.m.)

McKeon will criticize the automatic trigger, where half of the cuts will come from defense, that will be enacted if the Super Committee doesn’t reach agreement as a White House plan to force Republicans to choose between tax hikes and a bare-bones military.

“If enacted, the trigger wouldn’t just gut our military. It would put it out of business,” McKeon will say. “And it could mean the end of the United States as a superpower, resigning us to a multi-polar world and all the dangers that come with it.”

McKeon will say that funds aren’t just needed to grow and sustain the military, but to replace aging fleets, stressed aircraft, and outdated equipment.

“A Marine general recently testified in front of my committee that if America had another military emergency, they could only respond to the Central Command area of operations,” he will say. “That’s it.”

“In short, if something happened in the Pacific, don’t bother calling the Marines.”

This comes in the face of the Super Committee’s task of finding $1.5 trillion in deficit savings, and on the heels of two key Republicans in the Senate warning their party against making defense cuts in what is expected to be across-the-board budget slashing in the future.

At Thursday’s Defending Defense project event in the Rayburn House Office Building, Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) warned that he’ll step down from the Super Committee if defense cuts are on the table.

“When we had our first meeting, the Chairman asked, ‘Well, what do we think about defense spending?’ And I said, ‘I’m off the committee if we’re going to talk about further defense spending,’” he said.

Armed Services Committee member Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said that he’ll “have no part” of a budget compromise that includes cutting funding to the military.

“This pisses me off beyond belief that our party would subject the Department of Defense not just to more cuts, but to the end of the finest force ever created in the history of the world,” he said. “This budget deal is a philosophical shift that I will have no part of.”

Last week, McKeon and Representative Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), vice-chairman of the House Armed Services panel, released a YouTube video using the 9/11 anniversary to make the case for continued strong defense funding.

(Peter Holden)

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said that the “most dangerous threat” we face is nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists.

“Nuclear weapons will no longer be a deterrent; they’ll be an incentive,” he said at AEI today.

Cheney sounded the warning when asked about going to blows with President George W. Bush and other administration members over how to deal with North Korea.

“The problem is that threat is very real,” he said, noting that North Korea has now tested two nuclear weapons and we “caught them red-handed” providing Syria—”one of the worst terror-sponsoring regimes on the face of the Earth”—with a reactor.

“Fortunately, Israel took that out,” he said. But the “problem we’re faced with is still very much there.”

“We do not yet have a handle on North Korea,” Cheney said.

The former vice president also said that the Obama administration was getting it wrong on the Iraq withdrawal.

“I think it would be a mistake to cut and run,” he said. “I don’t think we should turn our back on Iraq at this stage.”

“It’s very important for us to complete the mission,” Cheney added. “There’s a danger here, a rush for the exits under the current administration that would be very unfortunate.”

(Peter Holden)

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said today at AEI that victory in the war on terror will be a gradual process without a defining victory moment.

“It’s not similar to what we think of as a conventional war,” Cheney said, adding it’s “not likely to be an ‘a-ha moment,’ say ‘it’s done.’”

“I think there is evidence out there that we’re making significant progress,” he said.

One of those milestones was killing Osama bin Laden, he said, noting that the Obama administration “didn’t just come in and all of a sudden they got bin Laden,” but worked off the policies and mechanisms put in place during the Bush years.

“They’ve been successful in part because of … what we’ve left them with,” he said.

Cheney was asked if he was surprised that bin Laden was found living in the relative open in Pakistan.

“I had no reason in my dealings with President [Pervez] Musharraf to question his commitment or the work he was doing with us,” he said. “He came to believe al Qaeda types threatened him and his regime as much as the United States.”

Cheney was speaking at his first Washington event since the publication of his memoir In My Time, which will debut at No. 1 on The New York Times’s best-seller list.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard (Peter Holden)

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said today at AEI that no member of al Qaeda was subjected to any interrogation technique that wasn’t tested first on U.S. personnel.

“The notion that the United States was wildly torturing anybody is not true,” Cheney said.

He said that enhanced interrogation techniques were limited to a “handful of individuals who clearly had knowledge of what was in the works from the standpoint of al Qaeda.”

“Three people were waterboarded,” Cheney said, “not hundreds, not dozens.”

One of those was professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), whose waterboarding yielded “phenomenal results.”

Cheney stressed that training included testing of the interrogation techniques. “There wasn’t any technique used on any al Qaeda individual that we hadn’t used on our own troops first,” Cheney said.

He said he didn’t know what would happen if a KSM was captured today—”probably read him his Miranda rights, I don’t know.”

Cheney criticized as “terrible” the Obama administration’s initial move toward prosecuting the CIA agents involved in waterboarding. Instead of being prosecuted, he said, those intelligence agents “deserve to be decorated.”

(Peter Holden)

Looking back at September 11, 2001, former Vice President Dick Cheney said that the “two major drivers” in the chaotic hours as the terror attacks unfolded were accounting for all hijacked planes and ensuring those in the line of leadership succession would survive.

At AEI this morning, Cheney said that in the first hours they focused on “taking steps to ensure that somebody in the line of succession survived whatever kind of attack we were under.”

At first, he said, when one plane had hit the World Trade Center in New York, “my immediate reaction is to think how is this possible… a really weird accident.”

He was watching television when the second plane struck the Trade Center, and “that immediately in my mind triggered the notion that this must be a terrorist attack.”

Cheney said he was meeting with key administration advisers before an airliner hit the Pentagon when “all of a sudden the door burst open.” It was his Secret Service detail.

“‘Sir, we have to leave immediately,’” Cheney recounted the agent said, then he “put one hand on the back of my belt and one hand on my shoulder and literally propelled me out of my office.”

Cheney was separated from President George W. Bush, who consulted with his vice president by phone from Florida, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, in the line of succession after Cheney, was also scuttled away to a secure location.

By the evening of 9/11, Cheney was at Camp David, where he “began to think about what we needed to do by way of policy, what steps we might take to deal with this new situation.”

“This wasn’t just a terrorist attack,” Cheney said, adding that up to that point terrorist attacks had been treated as crimes to be addressed by law enforcement. “This was an act of war. We needed to treat it as an act of war.”

Through the evening, the vice president made a series of notes on a legal pad regarding the next steps.

When asked if he broke down at any point, Cheney said, “Not really.”

“It wasn’t that it wasn’t a deeply moving event,” he said, but he’d spent so many years on the continuity of government program that he was intensely focused on that.

(Peter Holden)

The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee introduced a revamp of the half-century-old Foreign Assistance Act today at AEI. His plan is based on a compromise by which Congress gives the administration more flexibility while receiving more information and accountability from the White House in return, he said.

Representative Howard Berman (D-California), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, unveiled the Global Partnership Act of 2011 in discussion draft form rather than as a numbered bill, hoping to stoke bipartisan consensus to streamline overseas operations and replace the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

“Only legislation can make enduring changes to the underlying system,” he said. “Our focus needs to turn to the long-term overall impact.”

This includes the full spectrum of foreign aid—development, democracy promotion, arms transfers and nuclear nonproliferation—but doesn’t include spending levels.

“That, in my view, would be a recipe for disaster,” Berman said.

The congressman said the bill focuses on reorganizing foreign assistance with efficiency and “mutually beneficial goals” in mind. For example, what can be gleaned from Internet research instead of a diplomat at a desk penning a report, and how much can be saved by that approach?

Noting some of the crises unfolding worldwide, Berman acknowledged the challenge of growing calls for spending cuts in Washington. “Some seem to think that foreign assistance is a luxury we can no longer afford,” he said, calling out an “increasing destructive assault on foreign assistance programs” as Congress eyes “mindlessly slashing programs.”

“Aid is not a gift,” he said. “The United States provides foreign assistance because it serves our interests.”

That includes supporting our economy by helping nations develop to the point where they can afford to purchase U.S. products, Berman said.

The congressman said he and his staff have been working on the bill for three years. While not being fiscally or region-oriented, he said the bill would better enable the United States to “seize windows of opportunity like the Arab Spring.”

The act also creates a new emergency humanitarian assistance fund and bans on countries that fund terrorism or engage in gross human rights violations. Berman acknowledged that the discussion over that aspect will be controversial, and said he hoped to postpone that debate while building consensus on the broader principles of reform.

“I can’t make it a bipartisan process unless you folks help me make it a bipartisan process,” Berman told the crowd.

It “will no doubt be an arduous process,” he added.

(Pete Souza/White House)

I hope everyone has recovered from the GOP debate last night—personally, I woke up screaming a few times after Ron Paul talked about TSA “sexual activities,” but I’m on the road to recovery—because tonight is another political television extravaganza. President Obama addresses a joint session of Congress on his latest job-stimulation plan, also known as that event happening before the Saints vs. Packers. And AEI scholars are going to liveblog the speech with blow-by-blow analysis starting at 7 p.m. Come over to www.facebook.com/AEIonline for live commentary from:

- Andrew Biggs, entitlement reform guru.

- Alan Viard, another entitlement reform whiz, and a federal tax and budget policy expert.

- Steve Hayward, brainiac on politics, the presidency, and the environment.

- Ken Green, the energy expert you’ll want to call on when Obama utters “green jobs.”

The liveblog will also carry the Twitter feed of Jonah Goldberg. And you, the audience, can add your comments to the chat. So don’t go through the jobs speech alone!

A sharp blow for ObamaCare today as the U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta ruled against the provision that mandates Americans to buy health insurance or face a penalty. Twenty-six states had challenged the constitutionality of the mandate, which is expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court. “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” the majority said in its opinion. The two judges in the majority on the three-judge panel were appointed by Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.

Democrats fired back at the ruling. The White House predicted that the 11th Circuit judgment will not stand. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tweeted, “Dems oppose efforts to put insurance companies back in charge & I’m confident Affordable Care Act will ultimately be upheld.”  The law is supposed to go into effect in 2014, and the legal battle at the Supreme Court could come right smack in the middle of President Obama’s re-election campaign next summer.

AEI resident fellow Thomas P. Miller, who has helmed our think-tank’s “Beyond Repeal and Replace” project and co-authored “Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America,” has written some good material for those wanting to delve deeper into the battle over the healthcare law. A sampling:

- “Taking the Individual Mandate Off Life Support,” The Weekly Standard: “Whether it is repealed by legislation or by the courts, the mandate needs to be replaced by something else that works better to address serious cost and coverage problems in health insurance.”

- “One Year In, Americans Want a Divorce from Obamacare,” Real Clear Markets: “Facing serious constitutional challenges and persistent political opposition to an individual mandate, the Obama administration has tried to defend it by concocting a mix of half-baked economic arguments and exaggerated factoids.”

- “‘Hoist with His Own Petard’ — The Individual Mandate Blows Up ObamaCare,” The Enterprise Blog: “An additional irony is that our current president and many of his Democratic Party allies in Congress and elsewhere have relied for many years on using the courts aggressively, as well as ambitiously extending regulatory interpretations beyond the original text of statutes, to achieve what they could not win through more transparent and accountable, but less malleable, political processes.”

AEI will be hosting a half-day conference on Sept. 15 to examine the various appellate decisions thus far. Confirmed speakers include Greg Katsas, successful counsel for the plaintiffs in the 11th circuit case decided today, Eric Klaeys of George Mason Law School, and Jim Blumstein of Vanderbilt Law. Stay tuned for more details.

No sooner than Congress had scurried out the door did some members start tweeting their summer plans, including their summer reading lists (none of the publications featured on THOMAS, natch)  a la a beach-books issue of Marie Claire. But those lawmakers left more than a bit of unfinished business as they hightailed it for their home districts; world events don’t wait for Congress to finish summer picnics or for the Speaker to brush up on his tan. So in the spirit of being prepared for the policy world post-recess, here are some reading recommendations from your AEI.org editor:

BEYOND SATANIC PANINI: There may have been an 11th-hour debt ceiling deal reached among the gnashing of peas and Satan Sandwiches, but the issue of reining in the national debt is far from over despite the additional $900 billion in borrowing authority granted to the Treasury. Intrinsically woven into this debate is the question of what’s a “fair share” when it comes to taxes and what’s “fair” when it comes to entitlement reform. “Structural change will only succeed if it’s accompanied by a moral argument—an unabashed cultural defense of the free enterprise system that helps Americans remember why they love their country and its exceptional culture,” AEI President Arthur Brooks wrote in the Washington Post last month in his column “The Debt Ceiling and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

FREE SPEECH BLOW: Did you know that there could be an executive order in the works that, after the Obama administration’s defeat in the landmark Citizens United v. FEC campaign finance case, would require federal bidders to disclose their political donations if they want to be considered for a contract? John Yoo and David Marston wrote about this assault on free speech in “Overruling Citizens United with Chicago-Style Politics.”

VLAD’S GREATEST ENEMY: As Vladimir Putin keeps marching across Russia like a macho man and is most assuredly eyeing another shot at the Kremlin, the opposition to the prime minister’s reign and accompanying repression of free speech and press freedom has a strong, growing ally: the Internet. Leon Aron, who traveled across Russia talking to activists who have found “a shelter in the world of censorship” online, analyzes the growing phenomenon that is a “major and evolving factor in Russian politics today and, even more so, tomorrow.” Read “Nyetizdat: How the Internet Is Building Civil Society in Russia.”

DANGEROUS (LEGAL) DRUGS: A little too much summer fun have you reaching for a bottle of ibuprofen? Think about this before you wash ‘em down: Nearly 80 percent of drug products originate from outside the United States, including $1.74 billion in imports from China. Several pharmaceutical industry experts in China quietly admit that up to a quarter of ingredients purchased by U.S. companies come from unknown sources. Simply put, there’s a reason why they’re cheap. Roger Bate, Julissa Milligan and Lorraine Mooney examine the legal but potentially lethal market in “Dangerous Substandard Medicines: An Increasing Global Problem.”

GREEN ON GREEN JOBS: Eager to tangle in an environmental debate on that beach trip? Check out Ken Green’s recent testimony before the Senate HELP committee on the myth of green jobs, expanding on his spring paper diving into the subject. It included this nugget about the effectiveness of the 2009 stimulus in creating green jobs: “A report September of 2010 pointed out that only $20 billion of the $92 billion allocated for renewable energy projects had been spent. And, according to the Department of Energy, much of that was spent abroad, creating green jobs in China, Spain, and South Korea.”

There’s much more I haven’t touched on here, so browse our research papers and recent articles and commentary for stimulating summer reads.

The White House just released an infographic explaining, in three steps, “the bipartisan compromise” that was reached just in time to avoid default and to let lawmakers enjoy their summer vacations. But the primer is less about being Debt Deal for Dummies and more about setting the stage for Act Two of President Obama’s deficit agenda push—wrangling that will push right onto the campaign trail. Hence, the partisan overtones. The increase was needed, the infographic first explains, to pay for “two wars, Bush tax cuts, investments in education.” The $1 trillion in spending cuts is annotated with the faux sticky note “Protects Pell Grants.” Next, the bipartisan committee is explained via little elephants and donkeys, noting that the deficit reduction recommendations of the six Dems and GOPs must be voted on by Dec. 23. If voted down, the infographic explains, automatic cuts to defense, entitlement programs, and more will be triggered.

And if you thought Obama’s autopen was cool, here’s the veto threat via faux Post-It:

Believe it or not, that’s the last mention of the Bush tax cuts—on this short infographic, at least. The White House posted the infographic in the context of a blog post that sought to further offer their side of the story about the pea-encrusted sugar-coated Satan Sandwich: “Myth: President Obama caved.” “Myth: Republicans got everything they wanted.” “Fact: The joint committee system puts pressure on Republicans to seek compromise.” Biparti-what?

A commissioner on the Consumer Product Safety Commission said that Congress is so occupied with other pressing matters ranging from the debt limit to Afghanistan that excessive regulations, which threaten to shutter businesses and kill jobs, are flying under the radar.

Anne M. Northup, a former GOP congresswoman from Kentucky, was appointed to the commission by President Obama in 2009. The mother of six said at today’s AEI event that she approached the position as any concerned parent who wants to know that the toys she’s buying are safe and that the business environment for the toy makers allowed for constant innovation.

“I carried with me the understanding of what I want as a consumer,” she said. “But I wanted there to be a vibrant market … with new and more creative ideas. That’s a perspective I bring to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”

Northup said that Congress needs to be alert to the fact that “every word they pass in a law is critical” when it comes to what the regulatory agency is going to be able to do with the law. She acknowledged that the makeup of the regulatory panel could push the implementation of the bill to the left or right.

She called the transition from Capitol Hill to the CPSC “insightful.”

Northup said that the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 cast such a wide net over regulating lead in products that come in contact with children, including bike handlebars and zipper pulls, that “every single child product component has to be lead free.”

“Lead actually serves a purpose,” she said, noting its strength and weight, and inclusion in components such as knobs on a child’s dresser.

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) introduced a bill in May that would give the commission greater flexibility and authority to regulate based on risk. Northup called it a “middle ground” that has split Congress on party lines, and thus could pass the House but has a “slim” chance of Senate passage.

“There’s a standoff that’s in place right now,” she said. “There’s complete resistance to this.”

Northup said the issue is so divisive that one Democratic commissioner said it would be “over his dead body that we’d do cost-benefit analysis on any of the rules.”

Warning that the law “threatens small businesses,” she added that her office is keeping track of case studies on business that have been forced to get out of the toy business or sell their products in other countries because of the rules.

“I would love to see the energy grow for regulatory reform,” she said.

Northup advocated that a “fair, impartial department, agency, something” be tasked with determining and reporting the costs of new regulations.

“Very few agencies really have the capacity… to give a valid cost to the economy of the regulations we’re writing,” she said.

In January, President Obama ordered a regulatory review of more than two dozen government agencies, the results of which were unveiled by regulatory czar Cass Sunstein here at AEI in May. Yesterday, Obama “took the next step in his ambitious and unprecedentedly open process for streamlining, improving, and eliminating regulations,” in the words of Sunstein on the White House blog, with an executive order asking independent regulatory agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, to take their own reform steps.

“In a historic initiative, the President has requested the independent agencies to produce plans to reassess and to streamline their existing regulations, and to disclose those plans for public scrutiny,” Sunstein wrote. “In addition, the President has asked the independent agencies to follow the cost-saving, burden-reducing principles in his January Executive Order on improving regulation.”

“Public scrutiny” seems to be subjective. The May 26 proposals were posted online, in a special forum on WhiteHouse.gov, with links by department to Slideshare pages and an invitation to “read the agency plans and share your comments, feedback and questions.” The day after the White House unveiling, I checked the proposals and saw that comments were closed and at zero on every one, suggesting comments had never been active. An oversight, perhaps, as we’re all cursed with technical gremlins from time to time.

However, I checked back today and comments were still closed and at zero on every proposal. The number of views had risen, some had been favorited, some got tweets and Facebook likes. But does a Facebook “like” count as public scrutiny? Maybe for Lady Gaga, but for sweeping regulatory reform?

Reg reform… it’s a lonely, lonely business.

The Dalai Lama receives the Congressional Gold Medal in 2007 (White House)

Just a quick reminder to the White House that there’s still time to meet with the Dalai Lama. I know, you may have been concerned that he would have skipped town before you had a chance to welcome him with open arms, like Capitol Hill did last week in one of the most bipartisan showings in a long time. But luckily the Tibetan spiritual leader will be in town through Saturday.

Reports indicate that the White House is still mum on whether it will invite the Dalai Lama, there’s no meeting on the weekly White House guidance, and the story has lost steam. Maybe it has to do with the inglorious exit given the Tibetan leader in February 2010 when he dropped by 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Surely it has nothing to do with China, right? The PRC’s reaction to the meeting with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) on Thursday was a tad irritated, we’ll say, according to the Foreign Ministry’s weekend statement:

Tibet-related issues are purely China’s internal affairs. China firmly opposes any country or any person’s interference in China’s internal affairs under the pretext of Tibet-related issues. Dalai’s words and deeds over the past decades demonstrate that he is not a pure religious figure, but rather a political exile long engaged in splittist activities under the religious cloak. China urges relevant US lawmakers to stop condoning and supporting anti-China separatist activities of the Dalai clique.

While China is graciously leaving a door open for irrelevant lawmakers to support His Holiness, they wouldn’t be any happier about President Obama meeting with his fellow Nobel Peace laureate. Lawmakers (the relevant ones) have encouraged Obama to meet with the Dalai Lama on this visit. And while crunch time on debt talks may fill Obama’s schedule this week, it can’t be ignored that the Dalai Lama arrived last week for an 11-day visit. It wasn’t exactly sprung on the Oval Office at the last minute.

(Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

After trying to hash out an agreement to raise the debt ceiling for 75 minutes on Sunday evening, President Obama and congressional leaders are set to sit down again today. First, the president will hold an 11 a.m. press conference where he’s expected to push lawmakers to accept a $4 trillion deficit-reduction package as the deadline to increase the national debt limit looms. Republicans, however, would rather scale the package back rather than see Americans hit with the tax hikes that Democrats insist be part of the equation. “Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement over the weekend. “I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.”

In the face of this impasse, the timing couldn’t be more appropriate to examine both the practical and moral arguments against the government taking more of people’s money when it needs to be cutting back. AEI president Arthur Brooks tackles this in the The Weekly Standard:

Why does the president want to increase America’s tax burden? You may think it’s just a way to increase revenues and reduce the deficit. But even the president knows he can’t solve the fiscal crisis by helping himself to bigger and bigger chunks of the income of America’s most successful people. Even if individuals earning more than $200,000 were taxed at a 100 percent marginal rate—and we confiscated their passports so they could not flee—the take would come to $1.27 trillion, or just 77 percent of this year’s deficit.

For the administration, it’s not about the money—as we have heard again and again, it’s about “fairness.” The president believes that we will be a better nation if we redistribute more money from those who have more to those who have less. How much more do we need to redistribute until our system is fair?

As you ponder this question, remember the facts: The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans already account for 59 percent of federal income taxes. Nearly half of our citizens pay no federal income taxes at all—yet two-thirds of us believe that everybody should at least pay something, even if just to remind ourselves that government isn’t free. The Tax Foundation reports that the percentage of Americans who are net takers from the tax system is nearing 70 percent.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said her party is still hopeful for “a large bipartisan agreement, which means more stability for our economy, more growth and jobs, and more deficit reduction over a longer period of time.” But with Friday’s pathetic jobs report, a struggling economy, and the Obama “fairness” argument holding little water in the face of runaway government spending, how can negotiators still bring tax hikes to the table?

Just a few short hours after Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in an AEI address excoriated the White House’s insertion of labor-friendly trade adjustment assistance in a deal to move the stalled free trade agreements forward, Republicans pulled out of a “shotgun markup” of the legislation.

Hatch slammed both the short markup time frame for consideration of 97 amendments and the inclusion of the TAA spending measure at AEI early Thursday afternoon. The markup of the South Korea, Colombia, and Panama FTA deals was scheduled for 3 p.m.

Hatch accused President Obama of “making Jimmy Carter look better all the time.”

After leaving AEI, Hatch, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and other Republicans on the panel held a news conference at the beginning of what he called the “mock markup” to announce that the GOP would not be participating, thus killing the markup.

“We tried everything in our power to work with the majority to find a resolution – to give senators enough time to consider these three agreements and the 97 amendments that had been filed. We want these agreements to pass. We want the Committee to send them to the full Senate for consideration,” Hatch said. “Unfortunately, the majority refused to accommodate our concerns. They refused to give the American people time to understand these agreements. They refused to move the mark up to 10:00 this morning. They refused to move it to 10:00 am next Tuesday. Why isn’t this reasonable to give the senators on the committee the time to consider these agreements? What is the White House afraid of?”

As he stressed at AEI, Hatch challenged Senate Democrats to hold an up-or-down vote on the TAA, which is intended to aid workers who lose their jobs due to free trade agreements.

“Let it stand on its own accord,” Hatch said. “But don’t attach it to these agreements. We gave the administration fair warning on this. We made it clear time and time and time again that we would not stomach attaching a big government spending program onto these agreements.

“The president knew where we stood and he decided to ignore those who don’t agree with him,” he added. “Well, if he wants to play hardball, we are ready to play hardball. It is unfortunate that we have come to this, but the president chose to go down this path and he is going to have to live with his choice.”

Watch the full video of Hatch vs. Obama on trade. A sampling below:

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) slammed the Obama administration for delaying free trade agreements just two days after lawmakers and the White House struck a deal to move the pacts forward.

“This president’s making Jimmy Carter look better all the time,” Hatch said in his AEI address today.  “This is said by someone who likes him, who considers him a friend … I think he’s not measuring up to the job before him and this week is a new low.”

Hatch, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said that the administration’s move to insert Trade Adjustment Assistance into the FTAs is “bordering on malpractice.”

“I thought I’d seen it all,” Hatch said, urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to call for an up-or-down vote on the TAA separate of the FTAs. “If there is widespread support, it should be able to stand on its own.”

Hatch said that attaching the TAA to the South Korean FTA endangered that long-dwindling pact and the Colombia and Panama FTAs.

Trade Adjustment Assistance is meant to provide help to those who have lost jobs due to FTAs. The senator called the TAA a “dubious and costly set of programs at best … its record of success remains a complete mystery.”

The FTAs are scheduled for a 3 p.m. “shotgun markup” today, something Hatch criticized as “sprung on Republicans in the Senate at the last minute.” He called the combination of the “quickie markup” and “the decision to cram TAA” into the agreement to appease labor elements of Obama’s base “a process foul.”

The ranking member, who cited Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) as an ally in the free trade fight, said there are “some very ticked off Republicans on the Finance Committee” in the wake of the White House deal.

Hatch said the years-long holdup on the agreements made no sense as they promise economic growth, more jobs, and “deepening friendships” with the countries involved.

“Even accounting for the usual delays, the time it took to submit these agreements is certainly unacceptable,” he said, adding that the administration recognizes the FTAs are “so noxious to the Left” as Obama tries to court greater favor with the business community.

Hatch said that Obama knows the TAA can’t stand on its own, thus inserted the programs into the free trade pact and “has taken a 75-25 issue and turned it into a jump ball.” He said that 97 amendments have been filed, not all by Republicans, and that lawmakers will have to attempt to jam through the amendments before the holiday weekend.

“For this president, the buck always seems to stop somewhere else,” Hatch said.

“If the president spent less time trying to get his handicap down and more time trying to get the deficit under control,” the economy would be in better shape, the senator said.

The vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee unveiled a spending-control plan at AEI today that he says will “complement” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” and put “guardrails” around it.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) introduced the Maximizing America’s Prosperity Act with a sharp focus on spending caps, including a uniform 10 percent reduction in all discretionary spending and a permanent continuing resolution that would fund the federal government at 90 percent of the current year’s level “until Congress does its job and passes the appropriations bill.”

The MAP Act would also require the president to prioritize programs, putting all federal spending into one of five categories.

Pressed by AEI Economic Policy director Kevin Hassett on what those five categories might be and how the congressman would prioritize spending, Brady said that he believes a top constitutional spending responsibility is defense and homeland security. “A great deal of government falls into the least essential category,” Brady said.

The Ways and Means Committee member said that his plan maps out a “little smaller government than Paul Ryan has envisioned in the ‘Path to Prosperity.’” He said he has been meeting with GOP leaders including Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) to encourage the party to include his “good toolbox” for reining in spending in negotiations for raising the debt limit. Speaker John Boehner has insisted that any hike in the debt ceiling would have to come with massive spending cuts to get GOP votes.

Brady said the Ryan plan includes references to the need for enforceable spending caps, and “we simply pick the tools that accomplish that.”

“It’s a complement,” he said. “It puts guardrails around Paul Ryan’s ‘Path to Prosperity’ in the way we reach it. We think his is the right plan, it’s a bold plan, and we want to be sure we reach that goal.”

Brady’s plan would cap non-interest spending as a percentage of “potential GDP,” or full-employment GDP, at 16.5 percent by 2021. The congressman said the measurement tool was a “more stable member of the GDP family.”

“In the series ‘Two and a Half Men’ it’s not Charlie Sheen; it’s the smarter brother,” he quipped.

Brady said that enhanced rescission authority, greater transparency, and greater attention to sunset provisions are essential in the overall plan to control spending, and thus control the size and scope of government without having to raise taxes.

“It would prevent Congress from pressuring the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates artificially low,” he said.

But Brady stressed that his bill learns from past successes and failures, and would put in place a “tough enforcement mechanism which Congress actually executes.”

“Realistic spending caps and spending goals put much more pressure on members of Congress,” he said.

Texas Republican Kevin Brady, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and ranking Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, is coming to AEI at 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday to unveil the Maximizing America’s Prosperity Act, his plan to rein in runaway spending. With the drop-dead debt ceiling deadline looming and congressional leaders still wrangling over the depth and broadness of spending cuts, it’s the perfect environment for legislators to step in and try to prove their fiscally conservative bonafides. Brady has a track record of policy proposals that should turn the heads of conservatives ready to crack the whip on spending, no matter how sacred the cow.

Brady introduced the Cut Unsustainable and Top-Heavy Spending Act of 2011 back in January, and I zeroed in on the text at the time for the foreign policy column I wrote at The Hill. Included in the broad-reaching bill was a 10 percent reduction in voluntary contributions to the United Nations—monies the United States is not required to give by law—for fiscal year 2011. That would be $3.5 billion saved, and in line with the recommendations made by President Obama’s bipartisan deficit-cutting commission.

“There are constituencies for every spending item in the federal budget, but I believe there can be no sacred cows if Congress is to prove itself to be serious about reducing our deficit,” Brady told me at the time. “America can fulfill its generous financial obligations to the U.N., but will set priorities within the voluntary funding areas. A financially and economically sound United States is in the U.N.’s best interest.”

Besides reducing UN funding, his bill (H.R. 235) included a freeze on federal employee salaries, limitations on government printing and travel costs, a prohibition on the use of federal funds to pay unemployment compensation to millionaires, the collection of unpaid taxes from federal employees, axing federal funding for public broadcasting, elimination of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program, and much more.

With such a demonstrated across-the-board approach to spending, I can’t wait to see what plan Brady is going to unveil to put the brakes on both discretionary and mandatory spending.

I’m not saying CNN is taking a lot of flack this morning for its stewardship of the Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire last night, but there was a “silly” segment that stole the attention of the blogosphere and Twitter. The seven hopefuls were peppered with a series of short “this or that” questions, also known as inane segues meant to either bring out the hip in the candidate or fill up air on CNN. Our Marc Thiessen tweeted during the debate, when foreign policy seemed like an afterthought, “Coke or Pepsi gets a question, but no Iraq or Afghanistan?” But now we know that Newt Gingrich prefers “American Idol,” that pizza godfather Herman Cain likes deep dish over thin crust, and Mitt Romney likes it “spicy.” Just fluff? Psshaww. It actually echoes other recent hard-hitting Washington journalism:


The American Enterprise Institute takes no institutional positions on policy advocacy or political campaigns. The views expressed on The Enterprise Blog represent those of the individual writers.

AEI