senator mike lee: an agenda for our time

5/19/2018 Senator Mike Lee: An Agenda for Our Time

1/71

MIKE LEEUNITED STATES SENATOR, UTAH

AN AGENDA FOR

OUR TIME


2/71

2

INTRODUCTION

ANAGENDAFOR

OURTIME

INTRODUCTIONAN AGENDA FOR OUR TIME

The four speeches in this collection represent a key part of my effortover the past three years to reinvigorate the Republican Party andinspire the conservative movement to produce a positive policyreform agenda aimed at the greatest challenges of our generation.

When I arrived in Washington in 2011, I joined a Republican Partythat had been put in the position of saying no a lot by a Democratic-controlled Congress intent on fulfilling President Obamas campaign

promise of fundamentally transforming the United States ofAmerica. But while minority parties always have to oppose, theycannot grow into majorities unless they also propose. As I saw it, theRepublican Party needed to do a better job articulating a positiveconservative vision for society and connecting that vision to aconcrete policy agenda.

This conservative vision, as I explain in the first speech, is one ofsocial solidarity and mutual cooperation, buttressed by the twin

pillars of American freedom: a free enterprise economy and avoluntary civil society. These institutions exist and operate in thevital space between the government and the individual where organiccommunities form and networks of economic opportunity and socialcohesion are built.

While not inherently hostile toward government, the conservativevision sees the role of government as protecting that space, rather

than trying to control or replace it. Our vision recognizes that themore power government accumulates and consolidates, the more ittends to become unfair, inefficient, unaccountable, and harmful tothe healthy functioning of the free market and civil society. Thusa true conservative reform agenda must do more than just cutbig governmentit also has to fix broken government. And witha government as broken as ours, the first step in this effort is tothoughtfully diagnose the problem.

In the remaining three speeches I lay out a conservative diagnosisof our current government dysfunction and offer some potentialremediessome of my own and some from other reform-orientedconservatives.


3/71

3

INTRODUCTION

ANAGEN

DAFOROURTIME

In my view the greatest domestic challenge of our generation isAmericas large and growing Opportunity Deficit. This opportunitycrisis presents itself in three principal ways: immobility amongthe poor, trapped in poverty; insecurity in the middle class, wherefamilies just cant seem to get ahead; and cronyist privilege at the top,where political and economic elites twist policy to unfairly profit ateveryone elses expense.

The Left assumes this inequality is a sign of market failure or insufficientgovernment regulation. But the fact is that bad government policiesare too often the cause of unequal opportunity. For the same kindof dysfunctional big government that unfairly excludes the poor andmiddle class from being able to earn their success on a level playing

field sometimes unfairly exempts the wealthy and well-connectedfrom having to earn their success.

These speeches are not the culmination of a conservative reformagenda, but merely the beginning. With much of the difficult workstill ahead of us, they are meant to reorient the Republican Partyand direct the creation of its agenda toward the goal that AbrahamLincoln set forth over 150 years ago: to lift artificial weights fromall shoulders clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, [and]

afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.

Mike Lee


4/71

TABLEOFCON

TENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING

WHAT CONSERVATIVES ARE FOR

WHATS NEXT FOR CONSERVATIVES

BRING THEM IN

OPPORTUNITY, CRONYISM, AND

CONSERVATIVE REFORM

6

8

22

40

54


5/71


6/71

6

WHATPEOPL

EARE

SAYING

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING

Lee might be called the GOPs renaissance man because heso obviously relishes ideas on an impressive variety of issues,

and is constantly working to come up with innovative and newconservative solutions for modern times. World Net Daily

Pro tip for all potential 2016 candidates looking for a tax cut thathelps parents, boosts growth, and doesnt blow up the budget: Give acall to Senator Mike Lee. National Review

Senator Mike Lee and others here are proposing incredibly soundpolicies to provide incentives for child rearing families to give themthe kind of support that they need through our tax code. Former Governor Jeb Bush

Lees view is that focusing on eliminating government favoritism,corporate welfare, and barriers to competition is the right answerto the inequality challenge. This agenda accepts as valid many

populist economic critiques from the left but offers an alternative toregulation and mandates, rejecting technocratic tweaks that seek tomitigate the ramifications of government policy in favor of restoringconsumer power and dramatically limiting Washingtons ability topick winners and losers. The Wall Street Journal

Lee has been proselytizing for a comprehensive anti-poverty,upward-mobility agenda making him one of the few Republicanpoliticians talking in any sustained way about stalled economicmobility, stagnant middle-class wages and economic inequalityMike Lees conception of the tea partys future is hardlypredominant within the movement, but it is fully consistent withRepublican success. And it might even help ensure it. The Washington Post

[I am] encouraged by [Senator Lees] policy entrepreneurship to

promote upward mobility and economic security Congressman Paul Ryan

Lee is slowly changing the soul of the party. Townhall


7/71

WHA

TPEOPLEARE

SAYING

7

Credit where its due: Lee is out with a new tax plan thats muchbetter and actually addresses the needs of the middle class. Business Insider

I cant say enough good things about this speech on family-friendlytax reform by Utah Senator Mike Lee. It is a beautifully writtenargument for a Republican tax agenda that prioritizes the interestsof middle-class and struggling working parents. Pete Spiliakos, First Things

Senator Mike Lee of Utah has authored a family-friendly tax-reformproposal and delivered a biting speech opposing crony capitalism. National Review Online

To see a prominent conservative politician take up the cause andoffer the sort of vision of it that Lee did in his remarks today, is acause for great encouragement and hope. Encouraging signs arefew and far between these days, but this was a big one. Yuval Levin

Republican leaders would be wise to listen Wall Street Journal

Senator Mike Lee of Utah has authored a family-friendly tax-reformproposal and delivered a biting speech opposing crony capitalism. National Review Online

Senator Lees proposal is only one step in the right direction. Butwhats particularly encouraging about his proposal is that it wouldlift the sagging economic fortunes of many working-class families

by targeting their payroll taxes. Lets hope more Republicans (andDemocrats) take a page from Lees playbook and seek policies thatrenew the flagging economic fortunes of family life in all too many ofour nations poor and working class communities. The Atlantic

The open-ended nature of many federal subsidies for higher-edborrowing is a big contributor to college costs in the first place.Bringing down prices down will mean more competition and more

alternatives, along the lines of what Republican senators Mike Lee(Utah) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) have proposed. National Review Online


8/71

8

WHATCONSERV

ATIVES

AREFOR


In recent years, as the federal government has expanded its reachand consolidated its power more than any other time in ourhistory, conservatives have tended to define ourselves in terms ofwhat we areagainst. While it is important to oppose the policiesof an overreaching and unsustainable federal government, wemust also make the positive caseforconservatism and articulateto the American people what conservatives are for. Conservatismis ultimately not about the policies we support or oppose, but thekind of society those policies would allow the American people to

create together. The conservative vision for society is one of socialsolidarity and interdependence between neighbors and friends,families and congregations, city councils and local associations,and business owners and customers, who are free to pursue theirown happiness and choose to do so together. The institutionsthat facilitate this pursuitand help solve public problems thatarise along the wayare not distant, bureaucratic agencies, buta free enterprise economy, voluntary civil society, and local andstate governments. Central to this vision is a strong, but limited,

federal government that protects the space for these institutions tothrive and helps all Americans gain access to them. For our federalgovernment to maintain, without exceeding, this indispensible roleit must reject policy privilege that bestows unfair advantages to thewealthy and well-connected, and it must embrace policy diversityamong Americas 50 states and keep policy decisions as close aspossible to the people affected by them.


9/71


10/71

10

WHATCONSERV

ATIVES

AREFOR


What Conservatives Are For

Remarks to the Heritage Foundation

U.S. Senator Mike LeeApril 22, 2013

I. Introduction

In Washington, it is common for both parties to succumb to easynegativity. Republicans and Democrats stand opposed to each other,

obviously, and outspoken partisanship gets the headlines.

This negativity is unappealing on both sides. That helps explain whythe federal government is increasingly held in such low regard bythe American people.

But for the Left, the defensive crouch at least makes sense.Liberalisms main purpose today is to defend its past gains fromconservative reform.

But negativity on the Right, to my mind, makes no sense at all.

The Left has created this false narrative that liberals are for things,and conservatives are against things.

When we concede this narrative, even just implicitly, we concedethe debate before it even begins.

And yet too many of us elected conservatives especially do itanyway. We take the bait. A liberal proposes an idea, we explain whyit wont work, and we think weve won the debate.

But even if we do, we reinforce that false narrative winning battleswhile losing the war.

This must be frustrating to the scholars of the Heritage Foundation,

who work every day producing new ideas for conservatives to be for.

But it should be even more frustrating to the conservatives aroundthe country that we elected conservatives all serve.

After all, they know what theyre for: why dont we?


11/71

11

WHAT

CONSERVATIVES

AREFOR

II. Agenda and Vision

Perhaps its because its so easy in Washington to forget.

In Washington, we debate public policy so persistently that we canlose sight of the fact that policies are means, not ends.

We say we are for lower taxes, or less regulation, or spendingrestraint. But those are just policies we advocate. Theyre not whatwere really for. What were really for are the good things thosepolicies will yield to the American people.

What were really for is the kind of society those policies wouldallow the American people to create, together.

III The Vision

Together.

If there is one idea too often missing from our debate today thats it:together.

In the last few years, we conservatives seem to have abandonedwords like together, compassion, and community as if theironly possible meanings were as a secret code for statism.

This is a mistake. Collective action doesnt only or even usually -mean government action.

Conservatives cannot surrender the idea of community to the Left,when it is the vitality of our communities upon which our entirephilosophy depends.

Nor can we allow one politicians occasional conflation ofcompassion and bigger government to discourage us fromemphasizing the moral core of our worldview.

Conservatism is ultimately not about the bills we want to pass, but

the nation we want to be.

If conservatives want the American people to support our agendafor the government, we have to do a better job of showing them ourvision for society. And re-connecting our agenda to it.


12/71

12

WHATCONSERV

ATIVES

AREFOR

We need to remind the American people and perhaps, too, theRepublican Party itself that the true and proper end of politicalsubsidiarity is social solidarity.

Ours has never been a vision of isolated, atomized loners. It is avision of husbands and wives; parents and children; neighborsand neighborhoods; volunteers and congregations; bosses andemployees; businesses and customers; clubs, teams, groups,associations and friends.

The essence of human freedom, of civilization itself, is cooperation.This is something conservatives should celebrate. Its whatconservatism is all about.

Freedom doesnt mean youre on your own. It means were all inthis together.

Our vision of American freedom is of two separate but mutuallyreinforcing institutions: a free enterprise economy and a voluntarycivil society.

History has shown both of these organic systems to be extremely

efficient at delivering goods and services. But these two systems arenot good because they work. They work because they are good.

Together, they work for everyone because they impel everyoneto work together. They harness individuals self-interest to thecommon good of the community, and ultimately the nation.

They work because in a free market economy and voluntary civil

society, whatever your career or your cause, your success dependson your service. The only way to look out for yourself is to look outfor those around you. The only way to get ahead is to help otherpeople do the same.

What, exactly, are all those supposedly cut-throat, exploitivebusinessmen and women competing for? To figure out the best wayto help the most people.

Thats what the free market does. It rewards people for putting theirGod-given talents and their own exertions in the service of theirneighbors.

Whatever money they earn is the wealth they create, value they addto other peoples lives.


13/71

13

WHAT

CONSERVATIVES

AREFOR

No matter who you are or what youre after, the first questionanyone in a free market must ask him or herself is: how can I help?What problems need to be solved? What can I do to improve otherpeoples lives?

The free market does not allow anyone to take; it impels everyonetogive.

The same process works in our voluntary civil society.

Conservatives commitment to civil society begins, of course,with the family, and the paramount, indispensable institution of

marriage. But it doesnt end there.

Just as individuals depend on free enterprise to protect them fromeconomic oppression, families depend on mediating institutions toprotect them from social isolation.

That is where the social entrepreneurs of our civil society come in.

Just like for-profit businesses, non-profit religious, civic, cultural,

and charitable institutions also succeed only to the extent that theyserve the needs of the community around them.

Forced to compete for voluntary donations, the most successfulmediating institutions in a free civil society are at least as innovativeand efficient as profitable companies.

If someone wants to make the world a better place, a free civil

society requires that he or she do it well.

Social entrepreneurs know that only the best soup kitchens, thebest community theater companies, and the best youth soccerleagues and for that matter, the best conservative think tanks will survive.

So they serve.

They serve their donors by spending their resources wisely. Theyserve their communities by making them better places to live. Andthey serve their beneficiaries, by meeting needs together better thanthey can meet them alone.

Freedom doesnt divide us. Big government does.


14/71

14

WHATCONSERV

ATIVES

AREFOR

Its big government that turns citizens into supplicants, capitalistsinto cronies, and cooperative communities into competing specialinterests.

Freedom, by contrast, unites us. It pulls us together, and aligns ourinterests.

It draws us out of ourselves and into the lives of our friends,neighbors, and even perfect strangers. It draws us upward, towardthe best version of ourselves.

The free market and civil society are not things more Americans

need protection from. Theyre things more Americans need accessto.

Liberals scoff at all this.

They attack free enterprise as a failed theory that privileges therich, exploits the poor, and threatens the middle class.

But our own history proves the opposite.

Free enterprise is the only economic system that does not privilegethe rich. Instead it incentivizes them to put their wealth toproductive use serving other people or eventually lose it all.

Free enterprise is the greatest weapon against poverty everconceived by man. If the free market exploits the poor, how doliberals explain how the richest nation in human history mostly

descends from immigrants who originally came here with nothing?

Nor does free enterprise threaten the middle class. Free enterpriseis what created the middle class in the first place.

The free market created the wealth that liberated millionsof American families from subsistence farming, opening upopportunities for the pursuit of happiness never known before orsince in government-directed economies.

Progressives are equally dismissive of our voluntary civil society.They simply do not trust free individuals and organic communitiesto look out for each other, or solve problems without supervision.

They think only government only they possess the moral


15/71

15

WHAT

CONSERVATIVES

AREFOR

enlightenment to do that.

To be blunt, elite progressives in Washington dont really believein communities at all. No, they believe in community organizers.Self-anointed strangers, preferably ones with Ivy League degrees,fashionable ideological grievances, and a political agenda to redressthose grievances.

For progressives believe the only valid purpose of community is toaccomplish the agenda of the state.

But we know from our own lives that the true purpose of ourcommunities is instead to accomplish everything else.

To enliven our days. To ennoble our children. To strengthen ourfamilies. To unite our neighborhoods. To pursue our happiness, andprotect our freedom to do so.

This vision of America conservatives seek is not an Ayn Rand novel.Its a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Frank Capra movie: a societyof plain, ordinary kindness, and a little looking out for the otherfellow, too.

IV. The Agenda

The great obstacle to realizing this vision today is governmentdysfunction. This is where our vision must inform our agenda.

What reforms will make it easier for entrepreneurs to start newbusinesses? For young couples to get married and start new

families? And for individuals everywhere to come together to bringto life flourishing new partnerships and communities?

What should government do and just as important, not do toallow the free market to create new economic opportunity and toallow civil society to create new social capital?

We conservatives are not against government. The free marketand civil society depend on a just, transparent, and accountable

government to enforce the rule of law.

What we are against are two pervasive problems that grow ongovernment like mold on perfectly good bread: corruption andinefficiency.


16/71

16

WHATCONSERV

ATIVES

AREFOR

It is government corruption and inefficiency that today standbetween the American people and the economy and society theydeserve.

To combat those pathologies, a new conservative reform agendashould center around three basic principles: equality, diversity, andsustainability.

A. Equality/Corruption

The first and most important of these principles is equality.

The only way for the free market and civil society to function to

tie personal success to interpersonal service to align the interestsof the strong and the weak is to have everyone play by the samerules.

Defying this principle is how our government has always corrupteditself, our free market, and our civil society.

In the past, the problem was political discrimination that held thedisconnected down. Today, governments specialty is dispensing

political privileges to prop the well-connected up.

In either case, the corruption is the same: official inequality twisting the law to deem some people more equal than othersmaking it harder for some to succeed even when they serve, andharder for others to fail even when they dont.

And so we have corporate welfare: big businesses receiving direct

and indirect subsidies that smaller companies dont.

We have un-civil society: politicians funding large, well-connectednon-profit institutions based on political favoritism rather thanmerit.

We have venture socialism: politicians funneling taxpayer money topolitically correct businesses that cannot attract real investors.

We have regulatory capture: industry leaders influencing the rulesgoverning their sectors to protect their interests and hamstringinginnovative challengers.

The first step in a true conservative reform agenda must be to endthis kind of preferential policymaking. Beyond simply being the


17/71

17

WHAT

CONSERVATIVES

AREFOR

right thing to do, it is a pre-requisite for earning the moral authorityand political credibility to do anything else.

Why should the American people trust our ideas about middle-classentitlements when were still propping up big banks?

Why should they trust us to fix the tax code while we use their taxdollars to create artificial markets for uncompetitive industries?

Why should they trust our vision of a free civil society when we givespecial privileges to supposed non-profits like Planned Parenthood,public broadcasting, agricultural check-off programs, and theExport-Import Bank?

And perhaps most important, why should Americans trust us at all,when too often, we dont really trust them? When we vote for majorlegislation negotiated in secret without debating it withouteven reading it deliberately excluding the American people fromtheir own government?

To conservatives, equality needs to mean equality for everyone.

B. Diversity/Federalism

The second principle to guide our agenda is diversity. Or, as youmight have heard it called elsewhere: federalism.

The biggest reason the federal government makes too manymistakes is that it makes too many decisions. Most of these aredecisions the federal government doesnt have to make and

therefore shouldnt.

Every state in the union has a functioning, constitutionalgovernment. And just as important, each state has a unique politicaland cultural history, with unique traditions, values, and priorities.

Progressives today are fundamentally intolerant of this diversity.They insist on imposing their values on everyone. To them, the fiftystates are just another so-called community to be organized,

brought to heel by their betters in Washington.

This flies in the face of the Founders and the Constitution, ofcourse. But it also flies in the face of common sense and experience.

The usurpation of state authority is why our national politics is so


18/71

18

WHATCONSERV

ATIVES

AREFOR

dysfunctional and rancorous.

We expect one institution the federal government to setpolicies that govern the lives of 300 million people, spread across acontinent. Of course its going to get most of it wrong.

Thats why successful organizations in the free market and civilsociety are moving in the opposite direction.

While government consolidates, businesses delegate anddecentralize. While Washington insists it knows everything, effectiveorganizations increasingly rely on diffuse social networks andcustomizable problem solving.

We should not be surprised that, as Washington has assumed greatercontrol over transportation, education, labor, welfare, health care,home mortgage lending, and so much else, all of those increasinglycentralized systems are failing.

Conservatives should seize this opportunity not to impose our ideason these systems, but to crowd-source the solutions to the states.

Let the unique perspectives and values of each state craft its ownpolicies, and see what works and what doesnt.

If Vermonts pursuit of happiness leads it to want more government,and Utahs less, who are politicians from the other 48 states to tellthem they cant have it? Would we tolerate this kind of officialintolerance in any other part of American life?

A Pew study just last week found that Americans trust their stategovernments twice as much as the federal government, and theirlocal governments even more.

This shouldnt be a surprise it should be a hint.

State and local governments are more responsive, representative,and accountable than Washington, D.C. Its time to make them morepowerful, too.

In the past, conservatives given federal power have been tempted tooveruse it. We must resist this temptation. If we want to be a diversemovement, we must be a tolerant movement.

The price of allowing conservative states to be conservative is


19/71

19

WHAT

CONSERVATIVES

AREFOR

allowing liberal states to be liberal.

Call it subsidiarity. Call it federalism. Call it constitutionalism. Butwe must make this fundamental principle of pluralistic diversity apillar of our agenda.

C. Sustainability

And that brings us to our third guiding principle.

Once we eliminate policy privilege and restore policy diversity, wecan start ensuring policy sustainability.

Once the federal government stops doing things it shouldnt, it canstart doing the things it should, better.

That means national defense and intelligence, federal lawenforcement and the courts, immigration, intellectual property, andeven the senior entitlement programs whose fiscal outlook threatensour future solvency and very survival.

Once we clear unessential policies from the books, federal

politicians will no longer be able to hide: from the public, or theirconstitutional responsibilities.

Congress will be forced to work together to reform the problemsgovernment has created in our health care system.

We can fundamentally reform and modernize our regulatory system.

We will be forced to rescue our senior entitlement programs frombankruptcy.

And we can reform our tax system to eliminate the corporatecodes bias in favor of big businesses over small businesses andthe individual codes bias against saving, investing, and especiallyagainst parents, our ultimate investor class.

That is how we turn the federal governments unsustainable

liabilities into sustainable assets.

V. Conclusion

The bottom line of all of this is that conservatives in that (thecapitol) building need to start doing what conservatives in this


20/71

20

WHATCONSERV

ATIVES

AREFOR

building already do: think long and hard about what we believe, whywe believe it, and most of all, remember to put first things first.

For conservatives, the first thing is not our agenda of politicalsubsidiarity its our vision of social solidarity.

It is a vision of society as an interwoven and interdependentnetwork of individuals, families, communities, businesses, churches,formal and informal groups working together to meet each othersneeds and enrich each others lives.

It is of a free market economy that grants everyone a fair chanceand an unfettered start in the race of life.

It is of a voluntary civil society that strengthens our communities,protects the vulnerable, and minds the gaps to make sure no onegets left behind.

And it is of a just, tolerant, and sustainable federal government thatprotects and complements free enterprise and civil society, ratherthan presuming to replace them.

This vision will not realize itself. The Left, the inertia of the statusquo, and the entire economy of this city stand arrayed against it.

Realizing it will sometimes require conservatives to take onentrenched interests, pet policies, and political third-rails. Many ofthese will be interests traditionally aligned with and financiallygenerous to the establishments of both parties.

And sometimes, it will require us to stand up for those no one

else will: the unborn child in the womb, the poor student in thefailing school, the reformed father languishing in prison, the singlemom trapped in poverty, and the splintering neighborhoods thatdesperately need them all.

But if we believe this vision is worth the American people being for,its worth elected conservatives fighting for.

What we are fighting for is not just individual freedom, but thestrong, vibrant communities free individuals form.

The freedom to earn a good living, and build a good life: that is whatconservatives are for.

Thank you very much.


21/71


22/71

22

WHATSNEXTFOR

CONSERVAT

IVES


In order for the Republican Party to put forward a unifyingconservative candidate for president in 2016, we must first developa unifying conservative agenda todayone that bridges the gapbetween the partys grassroots and establishment leaders andaddresses the great challenge of our generation: Americas largeand growing Opportunity Deficit. The shortage of opportunitiesin this country afflicts every level of our society. At the bottom ofthe economy there is a crisis of immobility, where families andcommunities are trapped in poverty, sometimes for generations,and are disconnected from the networks of opportunity that

more affluent Americans take for granted. At the same time, thisopportunity deficit exists at the top of the economy in the form ofcrony capitalism and special-interest privilege, where political andeconomic elites collude to make it easier for preferred Washingtoninsiders to succeed, and harder for their competitors to get a fairshot. Finally, our nations shortage of opportunities affects themiddle class, where the hallmarks of the American Dreamfromfamily stability and work-life balance to affordable education andhealth carehave grown too elusive for too many. A conservative

reform agenda must address all three levels of this OpportunityDeficit, beginning first with the middle class, Americas engineof economic growth and the source of our exceptionalism. Afterdecades of poorly designed federal policies that have inflated thecost of, and restricted access to, the staples of middle-class securityand opportunity, we must develop innovative policy reforms forhealth care, education, home ownership, work-life balance, and thecost of raising children.


23/71


24/71

24

WHATSNEXTFOR

CONSERVAT

IVES


Whats Next for Conservatives

Remarks to the Heritage Foundation

U.S. Senator Mike LeeOctober 29, 2013

Thank you very much. Its wonderful to be back at the HeritageFoundation.

It has been quite a month in Washington.

It began with our effort to stop Obamacare a goal that allRepublicans share even if we have not always agreed about just howto pursue it. And it is ending with powerful practical proof of justwhy stopping Obamacare is so essential.

This law is unaffordable and unfair and its getting worse all thetime. As of today, President Obamas policy is to fine any Americanwho does not buy a product that his bungled website will not sellthem.

And they call us unreasonable.

Every week, thousands of Americans get letters from their insurancecompanies, announcing their suspension of coverage, or shockingprice increases. Because of Obamacare, Americans are losing theirjobs, wages, and hours. And when in July the president exemptedbig businesses from the hardships of this law, but not ordinaryAmericans, I felt I had to take a stand.

I am proud of my friend Ted Cruz and the dozens of others including Speaker John Boehner and the House Republicans whofought Obamacare, continue to fight it, and will not stop fighting it.

But a month like the one we have been through should lead us notonly to re-commit to this essential, ongoing struggle, but also to stepback and ask ourselves where we should be headed more generally.

What do we do next, not only to stop Obamacare but to advance alarger, positive vision of America, and craft a practical plan to get usthere? Whats next for conservatives?

That is the question I would like to try to answer today.


25/71

25

WHA

TSNEXTFOR

CON

SERVATIVES

One of conservatives defining virtues is our insistence on learningfrom history. And to help answer the question, whats next?, Ithink the most instructive history that conservatives can learn fromtoday is our own.

In particular, I refer to the history of the conservative movementand the Republican Party in the late 1970s. There are many thingsconservatives today should take from that era, including hope andencouragement but also an urgent challenge.

Allow me to begin at the beginning.

By 1977, the Republican Party was in disarray. The party

establishment had been discredited by political failure and policydebacles, foreign and domestic. A new generation of grassrootsconservatives was rising up to challenge the establishment.

The culmination of that challenge was Ronald Reagans 1976primary campaign against a far-less conservative, establishmentincumbent. That campaign failed, of course, and was derided byWashington insiders as a foolish civil war that ultimately servedonly to elect Democrats.

In other words, we have been here before.

And of course, we know now that Reagan and the conservativemovement were vindicated in 1980.

So it is tempting for conservatives today to believe that history is onthe verge of repeating itself, that our struggles with the Republican

establishment are only a prelude to pre-ordained victory and thatour own vindication our generations 1980 - is just around thecorner.

But there is still a piece missing, a glaring difference between thesuccessful conservative challenge to the Washington establishmentin the late 1970s, and our challenge to the establishment today.

Much of the difference can be found in what happened between

1976 and 1980 the hard, heroic work of translating conservatismsbedrock principles into new and innovative policy reforms.

In The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk observed that conservativesinherit from [Edmund] Burke a talent for re-expressing theirconvictions to fit the time.


26/71

26

WHATSNEXTFOR

CONSERVAT

IVES

That is precisely what the conservatives of the late 1970s did. Theideas that defined and propelled the Reagan Revolution did notcome down from a mountain etched in stone tablets.

They were forged in an open, roiling, diverse debate about howconservatism could truly meet the challenges of that day. Thatdebate invited all conservatives and as we know, elevated the best.

There was Jack Kemp, advancing supply-side economics to combateconomic stagnancy.

There were James Buckley and Henry Hyde, taking up the cause ofthe unborn afterRoe v. Wade.

There was Milton Friedman, promoting the practical and moralsuperiority of free enterprise.

There were Cold Warriors like Irving Kristol and Jeane Kirkpartrick,challenging the premise of peaceful coexistence and moralequivalence with the Soviets.

There were Peter Berger and Richard John Neuhaus, arguing that

the mediating institutions of civil society protected and promotedhuman happiness more effectively than big government programs.

There were Professors Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, challengingthe received wisdom of constitutional interpretation laid down bythe Warren Court.

There were think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and

the new Cato Institute, and a flowering of grassroots organizationsaround the country.

And of course, in the middle of it all, there were Paul Weyrich, EdFuelner, Joseph Coors and The Heritage Foundation, specificallyfounded to chart a new, conservative direction for public policy inAmerica.

Together, that generation of conservatives transformed a movement

that was anti-statist, anti-communist, and anti-establishment andmade it pro-reform.

Contrary to the establishments complaints, conservatives in thelate 1970s did not start a civil war. They started a (mostly) civildebate.


27/71

27

WHA

TSNEXTFOR

CON

SERVATIVES

Because of that confident and deeply conservative choice to arguerather than quarrel, to persuade rather than simply purge - thevanguards of the establishment never knew what hit them.

The bottom line was that in 1976, the conservative movement founda leader for the ages yet it still failed.

By 1980, the movement had forged an agenda for its time andonly then did it succeed.

That, my fellow conservatives, is the lesson our generation musttake from our movements revolutionary era and the enormousand exhilarating challenge it presents to us today.

What that generation did comprehensively re-expressingconservative convictions to fit the time has not been donesince. Conservative activists and intellectuals are still providingnew energy and producing new ideas. But on the whole, electedRepublicans and candidates have not held up our end.

Instead of emulating those earlier conservatives, too manyRepublicans today mimic them still advocating policies from a

bygone age.

Its hard to believe, but by the time we reach November 2016, wewill be about as far chronologically speaking from Reaganselection as Reagans election was from D-Day!

Yet as the decades pass and a new generation of Americans faces anew generation of problems, the party establishment clings to its

1970s agenda like a security blanket. The result is that to manyAmericans today, especially to the underprivileged and middleclass, or those who have come of age or immigrated since Reaganleft office the Republican Party may not seem to have much of arelevant reform message at all.

This is the reason the G.O.P. can seem so out of touch. And it is alsothe reason we find ourselves in such internal disarray.

The gaping hole in the middle of the Republican Party today theone that separates the grassroots from establishment leaders - isprecisely the size and shape of a new, unifying conservative reformagenda.

For years, we have tried to bridge that gulf with tactics and


28/71

28

WHATSNEXTFOR

CONSERVAT

IVES

personalities and spin. But it doesnt work. To revive and reunifyour movement, we must fill the void with new and innovative policyideas. Today, as it was a generation ago, the establishment will notproduce that agenda. And so, once again, conservatives must.

We must.

And three recent efforts show that we still can.

Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, and Jeff Flakes crusade against earmarks,Paul Ryans heroic work on Medicare reform, and Rand Paulsstand against domestic drone-strike authority all demonstrate thatthoughtful, idea-driven conservatism is as powerful today as it has

ever been.

Its time for another Great Debate, and we should welcome all input.

Grassroots and establishment. Conservatives and moderates.Libertarians and traditionalists. Interventionists and non-interventionists. Economic conservatives and social conservatives.All are part of our movement, and all are vital to our success so allshould be welcome in this debate.

There are still nearly three years before Republicans will have achance to select a new, unifying conservative leader. But togetherwe can start debating and developing a new, unifying conservativeagendaright now.

Where do we begin?

A generation ago, conservatives forged an agenda to meet thegreat challenges facing Americans in the late 1970s: inflation, poorgrowth, and Soviet aggression along with a dispiriting pessimismabout the future of the nation and their own families.

I submit that the great challenge of our generation is Americasgrowing crisis of stagnation and sclerosis - a crisis that comes downto a shortage of opportunities.

This opportunity crisis presents itself in three principal ways:

1. immobility among the poor, trapped in poverty;

2. insecurity in the middle class, where families just cant seemto get ahead;


29/71

29

WHA

TSNEXTFOR

CON

SERVATIVES

3. and cronyist privilege at the top, where political andeconomic elites unfairly profit at everyone elses expense.

The Republican Party should tackle these three crises head on.

First, we need a new, comprehensive anti-poverty, upward-mobilityagenda designed not simply help people in poverty, but to help andempower them to get out.

Here, my home state of Utah can be a guide. A recent study foundthe Salt Lake City metropolitan area to be the most upwardlymobile region in the United States.

In a addition to a well-managed, limited government where jobsand opportunity abound, Utah is home to an enormously successfulprivate welfare system led by churches, businesses, and communitygroups and volunteers.

We understand that, as it is lived in America, freedom doesnt meanyoure on your own. Freedom means were all in this together.

This agenda must include but also transcend welfare reform.Additionally, we need to reform education, housing, immigration,health care, and our criminal justice and prison systems.

This new agenda must recognize that work for able-bodied adults isnot a necessary evil, but an essential pathway to personal happinessand prosperity.

And it should also force Republicans and Democrats to acknowledgethat there is another marriage debate in this country oneconcerning fatherless children, economic inequality, and brokencommunities - that deserves as much public attention as the other.

Second, we need a new, comprehensive anti-cronyism agenda, tobreak up the corrupt nexus of big government, big business, and bigspecial interests.

We need a new corporate tax code and regulatory system toeliminate lobbyists loopholes and giveaways, level the playing fieldbetween businesses, big and small, and foster a dynamic, globallycompetitive private sector.

We need to end subsidies that unfairly favor some businesses and


30/71

30

WHATSNEXTFOR

CONSERVAT

IVES

industries over others. And the Republican Party must make afundamental commitment to end its support for corporate welfare inany form including for the Big Banks.

The Left today no longer represents the little guy, but the cronyclients of the ever-expanding special-interest state. Progressiveshave become the Party of Wall Street, K Street, and PennsylvaniaAvenue. We must become the party of Main Street, everywhere.

Which brings me to the third essential piece of our new agenda: anew conservatism of the working and middle class.

Today, working families take-home pay is flat.

But the staples of middle-class security and opportunity healthcare, education, home ownership, work-life balance, and children are becoming harder to afford all the time.

Progressives say we just need more programs to give workingfamilies more government money. But as we have seen once againover the last five years, big government creates opportunity for themiddle men at the expense of the middle class.

And it only masks the broken policies that artificially raise costs andrestrict access in the first place. Instead, conservatives need newideas to address the root causes of those problems.

The first and most important policy goal Republicans must adopt toimprove the lives of middle-class families is, and will remain, the fullrepeal of Obamacare.

Its important to understand why.

Health care is one of the main reasons why the cost of living inthe middle class is increasing too quickly for many Americans tokeep up. At the same time, it is the main reason why governmentspending and debt are out of control.

The law the Democrats enacted on a party-line vote in 2010 is going

to make both of those problems worse - accelerating healthcarecosts both for families and the government.

At the same time, Obamacare poses very serious threats to ourconstitutional system, to the relationship between Washingtonand the states, to individual liberty and conscience rights, to the


31/71

31

WHA

TSNEXTFOR

CON

SERVATIVES

strength of our economy, and to the quality of our healthcaresystem.

That puts healthcare right at the center of what conservativesneed to be thinking about. And it means our movement has to beintensely engaged not only in the fight to repeal, but in the debate toreplace Obamacare.

That debate is not over. Its only just beginning.

It took Obamacare to get Republican healthcare policy innovationoff the sidelines, but were finally in the game. And today,conservative ideas are not only superior to Obamacare they are

superior to the old status-quo before Obamacare.

The House Republican Study Committee has introduced acomprehensive health reform plan led by Representatives SteveScalise and Phil Roe. The Heritage Foundation proposed its ownhealthcare reform package as part of the Saving the AmericanDream plan, which I introduced in the Senate last year. It included,among other things, a universal tax credit to buy health insurance,with extra help for those with lower incomes.

I know my friend Paul Ryan and others are working on their ownhealthcare plans that will continue to improve the debate.

And this is as it should be.

Too many in Washington seem to believe that on any issue,Republicans should either have one plan one that everyone

supports in lockstep or no plans. But unity cannot come at theexpense of creativity. The day will come when Republicans need ahealthcare plan today we need ten!

Conservatives are supposed to believe in the wisdom of markets. Solets trust the marketplace of ideas. If we want policy innovation, weneed to innovate policy!

On healthcare, we have been. And we need more of that kind of

innovation - especially to meet the broader range of problemsconfronting the middle class.

To do my part, today I want to talk about four pieces of legislationspecifically designed to address four leading challenges facingmiddle-class families today:


32/71

32

WHATSNEXTFOR

CONSERVAT

IVES

1. the cost of raising children;

2. the difficulties of work-life balance;

3. the time Americans lose away from work and home, stuck intraffic;

4. and the rising costs of and restricted access to quality highereducation.

These bills wont solve every problem under the sun. Raising afamily isnt supposed to be easy.

But each would restore to working families more of the freedomthey deserve to pursue their happiness: to earn a good living andbuild a good life.

Perhaps the most basic challenge facing middle-class families is howexpensive it has become for couples to simply start and grow theirfamilies: the exploding costs of raising children.

According to the Department of Agriculture, the cost of raising achild to maturity in the United States today is about $300,000.Even adjusting for inflation, thats 15% higher than in our parentsgeneration.

But even that number doesnt count foregone wages, or child careand college, both of which have seen rampant inflation in recentdecades as well.

All told, according to demography writer Jonathan Last, youretalking $1.1 million to raise a single child.

As Last puts it, for a family making the median income:

Having a baby is like buying six houses, all at once. Except that youcant (legally) sell themand after 13 years theyll tell you they hateyou.

Here again, Democrats say the solution is new programs to giveparents more of other peoples money. I say we let middle-classparents keep more of their own money!

And so tomorrow, I will be introducing in the Senate the Family


33/71

33

WHA

TSNEXTFOR

CON

SERVATIVES

Fairness and Opportunity Tax Reform Act.

My plan calls for a 15% tax rate on all income up to $87,850 or$175,700 for married couples. Income above that threshold wouldbe taxed at 35%.

Like any good conservative tax-reform plan, my bill also simplifiesthe code, eliminating or reforming most deductions.

But the heart of the plan is a new, additional $2,500 per-child taxcredit that can offset parents income and payroll-tax liability. Thislast point is crucial. Many middle-class parents may pay no incometaxes but they do pay taxes. Working parents are not free riders.

Actually, when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, parentspay twice: first when they pay their payroll taxes, just like everyoneelse, and then again, by bearing the enormous costs of raising theirkids, who will grow up to not only pay taxes, but cure diseases, andinvent the next iPhone, and most importantly, provide their parentswith grandkids!

So my plan eliminates this anti-family bias in the tax code, while

improving pro-growth incentives for the economy.

Under my plan, a married couple with two children making thenational median income of $51,000 would see a tax cut of roughly$5,000 per year.

For middle-class families, thats money their own money, rightaway to get out of debt, move into a new neighborhood with better

schools, afford child care, help a mom or dad scale back from fulltime to part time, or even to stay at home with young children.

That is pro-family, pro-growth conservative reform.

Another struggle facing working families is the constant challengeof work-life balance. Parents today need to juggle work, home, kids,and community. For many families, especially with young children,their most precious commodity is time.

But today, federal labor laws restrict the way moms and dads andeveryone else can use their time. Thats because many of those lawswere written decades ago, when most women didnt work outsidethe home.


34/71

34

WHATSNEXTFOR

CONSERVAT

IVES

Because of these laws, an hourly employee who works overtime isnot allowed to take comp-time or flex time. Even if she prefers it,her boss cant even offer it.

Today, if a working mom or dad stays late at the office on Mondayand Tuesday, and instead of receiving extra pay wants to getcompensated by leaving early on Friday to spend the afternoon withthe kids that could be violating federal law.

That sounds unfair, especially to parents. But how do we know forsure? Because Congress gave a special exemption from that law forgovernment employees.

This is unacceptable. The same work-life options available togovernment bureaucrats should be available to the citizens theyserve.

In May, the House of Representatives passed the Working FamiliesFlexibility Act of 2013, sponsored by Representative Martha Robyof Alabama, to equalize flex-time rules for all workers.

And this week I am introducing companion legislation in the Senate.

There are real problems in this world, some of which must beaddressed by government action. The fact that most workingparents would prefer to spend more time with their families is notone of those problems. And Congress needs to stop punishing themfor trying to do so.

The federal government also needs to open up Americas

transportation system to diversity and experimentation, so thatAmericans can spend more time with their families in moreaffordable homes, and less time stuck in maddening traffic.

House-hunting middle class families today often face a Catch-22.

They can stretch their finances to near bankruptcy to afford a homeclose to work.

Or they can choose a home in a more affordable neighborhood sofar away from work that they miss soccer games, piano recitals, andfamily dinner while stuck in gridlocked traffic.

The solution is not more government-subsidized mortgages orhousing programs. A real solution involves building more roads.


35/71

35

WHA

TSNEXTFOR

CON

SERVATIVES

More roads, bridges, lanes, and mass-transit systems. Properlyplanned and located, these projects would help create new jobs, newcommunities, more affordable homes, shorter commuting times,and greater opportunity for businesses and families.

Transportation infrastructure is one of the things government issupposed to do and conservatives should make sure it is doneexceptionally well.

Unfortunately, since completing the Interstate Highway Systemdecades ago, the federal government has gotten pretty badat maintaining and improving our nations transportation

infrastructure.

Today, the federal highway program is funded by a gasoline taxof 18.4 cents on every gallon sold at the pump. That money issupposed to be going into steel, concrete, and asphalt in the ground.Instead, too much of it is being siphoned off by bureaucrats andspecial interests in Washington.

And so Congressman Tom Graves and I are going to introduce the

Transportation Empowerment Act.

Under our bill, the federal gas tax would be phased down overfive years from 18.4 cents per gallon, to 3.7 cents. And highwayauthority would be transferred proportionately from the federalgovernment to the states.

Under our new system, Americans would no longer have to send

significant gas-tax revenue to Washington, where sticky-fingeredpoliticians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists take their cut before sendingit back with strings attached. Instead, states and cities could plan,finance, and build better-designed and more affordable projects.

Some communities could choose to build more roads, while othersmight prefer to repair old ones. Some might build highways, otherslight-rail. And all would be free to experiment with innovative greentechnologies, and new ways to finance their projects, like congestion

pricing and smart tolls.

But the point is that all states and localities should finally have theflexibility to develop the kind of transportation system they want,for less money, without politicians and special interests from otherparts of the country telling them how, when, what, and where they


36/71

36

WHATSNEXTFOR

CONSERVAT

IVES

should build.

For the country as a whole, our plan would mean a betterinfrastructure system, new jobs and opportunities, diverse localism,and innovative environmental protection.

And for working families, it could mean more access to quality,affordable homes, less time on the road and making it home intime for dinner with the kids.

And finally, there is perhaps no barrier to middle-class securityand opportunity more frustrating than those surrounding highereducation. While its true that college has never been for everyone

as we transition from an industrial economy to an informationand service-based economy, post-secondary education cannot be aluxury available only to a select few.

Some combination of higher education and vocational trainingshould at least be an option for just about everyone who graduatesfrom high school.

Yet today, the federal government restricts access to higher

education and inflates its cost, inuring unfairly to the advantage ofspecial interests at the expense of students, teachers, and taxpayers.

The federal government does this though its control over collegeaccreditation. Because eligibility for federal student loans is tied tothe federal accreditation regime, we shut out students who want tolearn, teachers who want to teach, transformative technologies, andcost-saving innovations.

And so, in the coming days, I will be introducing the HigherEducation Reform and Opportunity Act. Under this legislation, theexisting accreditation system would remain unchanged. Currentcolleges and universities could continue to use the system theyknow.

But my plan would give states a new option to enter into agreementswith the Department of Education to create their own, alternative

accreditation systems to open up new options for studentsqualifying for federal aid.

Today, only degree-issuing academic institutions are even allowedto be accredited. Under the new, optional state systems that my billwould authorize, accreditation could also be available to specialized


37/71

37

WHA

TSNEXTFOR

CON

SERVATIVES

programs, individual courses, apprenticeships, professionalcredentialing, and even competency-based tests. States couldaccredit online courses, or hybrid models with elements on andoffcampus.

These systems would open up opportunities for non-traditionalstudents like single parents working double shifts - whose liferesponsibilities might make it impossible to take more than oneclass at a time.

They would also enable traditional students to tailor a degree thatbetter reflects the knowledge and skills valued by employers.

Innovations in vocational education and training would open newopportunities in growing fields that are hiring right now.

Qualified unions, businesses, and trade groups could start toaccredit courses and programs tailored to their evolving needs.Churches and charities could enlist qualified volunteers to offeraccredited classes and training for next to nothing. States could useinnovative systems to attract new opportunities and businesses,investing in their own future by investing in the human capital of

their citizens.

Imagine having access to credit and student aid for:

a program in computer science accredited by Apple or inmusic accredited by the New York Philharmonic;

college-level history classes on-site at Mount Vernon or

Gettysburg;

medical-technician training developed by the Mayo Clinic;

taking massive, open, online courses offered by the bestteachers in the world, from your living room or the publiclibrary.

Brick-and-ivy institutions will always be the backbone of our higher-

education system, but they shouldnt be the only option.

If these new models were to succeed, they would create a virtuouscycle. Traditional colleges would be impelled to cut waste, refocuson their students, and embrace innovation and experimentation aspart of their campus cultures.


38/71

38

WHATSNEXTFOR

CONSERVAT

IVES

This reform could allow a student to completely customize hertranscript and college experience while allowing federal aid tofollow her through all of these different options.

Students could mix and match courses, programs, tests, on-line andon-campus credits a la carte, pursuing their degree or certificationat their own pace while bringing down costs to themselves, theirfamilies, and the taxpayers.

This is what conservative reform should be trying to create: anopen, affordable, innovative higher education system to better serveand secure all Americans in a global information economy.

Taken together, some more take-home pay, more time with the kids,a shorter commute, and more access to college wont necessarilyrevolutionize our society, or cause the oceans to recede, or makeeveryone rich.

What they and other conservative reforms could and should dois make our economy a little stronger, our society a little fairer, andlife a little better for Americas moms, and dads, and children.

And thats a mandate for leadership in any generation.

There is obviously much more to be done. But the point Ive tried tomake and the lesson I hope we take is that the Republican Party,at its best, is a Party of Ideas.

It is ideas that unite and inspire conservatives. The leaders of

Reagans generation understood that. And we must, too.

Especially in the wake of recent controversies, many conservativesare more frustrated with the establishment than ever before. And wehave every reason to be.

But however justified, frustration is not a platform. Anger is not anagenda. And outrage, as a habit, is not even conservative.

Outrage, resentment, and intolerance are gargoyles of the Left.For us, optimism is not just a message its a principle. Americanconservatism, at its core, is about gratitude, and cooperation, andtrust, and above all hope.

It is also about inclusion. Successful political movements are about


39/71

39

WHA

TSNEXTFOR

CON

SERVATIVES

identifying converts, not heretics. This, too, is part of the challengebefore us.

In his 1977 CPAC speech effectively kicking off that eras greatconservative debate, Ronald Reagan said:

If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit downand talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if itmeans talking about the principles for the Republican Party.Conservatism is not a narrow ideology, nor is it the exclusiveproperty of conservative activists.

Do we have the same spirit of charity and confidence in our ideas

today? If we do not, this moment and opportunity will pass us by.We will lose, and we will deserve to lose.

And rest assured, in that unfortunate event, it will not be theindifferent Republican establishment that profits from our failure.It will be a parade of progressives who will continue to lead ourcountry, unabated, further away from our hopes, and our values,and our ability to do anything about it.

If our generation of conservatives wants to enjoy our own definingtriumph, our own 1980 we are going to have to deserve it. Thatmeans sharpening more pencils than knives. The kind of work it willrequire is neither glamorous nor fun and sometimes it isnt evennoticed. But it is necessary.

To deserve victory, conservatives have to do more than pick a fight.We have to win a debate. And to do that, we need more than just

guts. We need an agenda.

Our generation of conservatives has big shoes to fill, and a lot of losttime to make up. So, lets get to work.



40/71

40

BRINGTHEMI

N

BRING THEM IN

It has been more than 50 years since President Johnson declaredthe federal governments war on poverty, yet for all the trillionsof dollars spent to create a dizzying array of national programs, thepoverty rate has hardly budged. Standards of living have improved,and government transfers have made poverty more tolerable, butfar too many families, neighborhoods, and communities remainstuck at the bottom of our economy, often for generations. Whilethe Left clings to the same big government, top-down policies

that have failed since the 1960s, conservatives are in a positionto offer a new, comprehensive anti-poverty and upward-mobilityagenda designed not simply to help people in poverty, but tohelp and empower them to get out. Because true poverty is notso much an absence of money as it is an absence of opportunity,an effective anti-poverty agenda must focus on helping the mostvulnerable and underprivileged Americans access those social andeconomic networks where human opportunities are createdourfree enterprise economy and voluntary civil society. This means

reforming the poverty traps put in place by misguided governmentpolicies, including those that penalize marriage, discourage work,shut-out families from affordable housing, trap low-income childrenin failing schools, and leave reformed offenders languishing in prisonrather than helping them transition back into their homes, theircommunities, and the economy.


41/71


42/71

42

BRINGTHEMI

N

BRING THEM IN

Bring Them In

Remarks to the Heritage Foundations Anti-Poverty Forum

U.S. Senator Mike LeeNovember 13, 2013


Its always great to join with the Heritage Foundation in any context.But being a part of this Anti-Poverty Forum is a true privilege.Members of my staff have been here all day, taking copious notes,

and hopefully collecting all the business cards and white papers theycan get their hands on.

It is of course a tragedy that we have to be here at all. Though theBible says the poor will always be with us, its still hard to acceptwhy, in a nation with a $15 trillion economy, the poor are still withus.

And yet, as we approach the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon

Johnsons famous War on Poverty speech, we all know thestatistics.

Despite trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to eradicate poverty sincethe late 1960s, the poverty rate has hardly budged. And just lastweek, the Census Bureau reported that today, more than 49 millionAmericans still live below the poverty line.

Today, a boy born in the bottom 20% of our income scale has a 42%chance of staying there as an adult. According to the O.E.C.D., theUnited States is third from the bottom of advanced countries interms of upward economic mobility.

A recent study in Oregon found that the Medicaid program whichprovides health insurance to the poor produces basically no healthimprovements for its beneficiaries.

A study last December on the Head Start program, issued by theObama Administration itself, found that what few academic benefitsthree- and four-year olds do gain from the program all but disappearby end of the first grade.

We know that poor men and women are less likely to get married


43/71

43

BRIN

GTHEMIN

and stay married, that 30% of single mothers are living in poverty,and that their children are less likely to rise out of povertythemselves when they grow up.

We know that participation in civil society, volunteering, andreligion are deteriorating in poor neighborhoods compoundingeconomic hardship with social isolation.

And we know these trends cut across boundaries of race, ethnicity,and geography.

All of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that 50years after Johnsons speech - Americas war on poverty has failed.

But the evidence proves nothing of the sort.

On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launcha new, bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty if arenewed conservative movement has the courage to lead it.

First, lets be clear about one thing.

The United States did not formally launch our War on Poverty

in 1964, but in 1776: when we declared our independence, andthe self-evident and equal rights of all men to life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness.

For more than two hundred years, the United States throughtrial and error, through good times and bad has waged the mostsuccessful war on poverty in the history of the world. The UnitedStates has become so wealthy that it is easy to forget that, as

Michael Novak once noted, most affluent Americans can actuallyremember when their own families were poor.

Upward mobility has never been easy. It has always and everywhererequired backbreaking work, personal discipline, and at least a littleluck. But if upward mobility was not universal in America, it was thenorm.

From our very Founding, we not only fought a war on poverty we

were winning. The tools Americans relied on to overcome povertywere what became the twin pillars of American exceptionalism: ourfree enterprise economy and voluntary civil society.

We usually refer to the free market and civil society asinstitutions. But really, they are networks of people and


44/71

44

BRINGTHEMI

N

information and opportunity.

What makes these networks uniquely powerful is that they impeleveryone regardless of race, religion, or wealth - to depend notsimply on themselves or the government, but on each other. For allAmericas reputation for individualism and competition, our nationhas from the beginning been built on a foundation of communityand cooperation.

In a free market economy and voluntary civil society, no matteryour career or your cause, your success depends on your service.The only way to get ahead is to help others do the same. The onlyway to look out for yourself is to look out for your neighbors.

Together, these twin networks of service-based success enabledmillions of ordinary Americans to make our economy very wealthyand our society truly rich long before Lyndon Johnson tried to dobetter by growing and centralizing government authority.

These human and humane networks empowered Americans,unlike any people on earth or in history, to protect not justthemselves but each other from both material want and social

isolation.

Now, progressive ideologues reject all this. They do not trustindividuals to join together voluntarily and organically to improveeach others lives and meet common challenges.

As President Obama said in his second inaugural:

No single person can train all the math and science teacherswell need to equip our children for the future, or build theroads and networks and research labs that will bring newjobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, wemust do these things together, as one nation and one people.

But by together, of course, he meant only government.

This discredited mindset which insists collective action can

only mean state action - is itself a kind of poverty. It rejects socialsolidarity in favor of political coercion, and voluntary communitiesfor professional community organizers. It distrusts and deniesthe bonds of cooperation and service that represent the highestexpression of our dignity.


45/71

45

BRIN

GTHEMIN

Look at any thriving marriage, friendship, church, charity, LittleLeague, historical society, theater company, PTA, neighborhood orbusiness. What makes America exceptional and life worth living- is not simply individual freedom, but the heroic, empoweringcommunities that free individuals form.

Free enterprise and civil society operate in the natural human space- between the isolated individual and the impersonal state - wherewe live, and love, and flourish where everyone can earn a goodliving and build a good life where the strong and the vulnerablealike can pursue their happiness, and find it together.

In America, government did not invade or replace that space.

Government protected and expanded it. That is how we provedto the world that freedom doesnt mean youre on your own.Freedom means were all in this together.

The conservative vision for America is not an Ayn Rand novel. Itsa Norman Rockwell painting, or a Frank Capra movie: a nation ofplain, ordinary kindness, and a little looking out for the other fellow,too.

Organic communities formed within the free market and civilsocietys networks of opportunity are not threats that poor familiesneed more protection from. They are blessings that poor familiesneed more access to.

And thats what America was all about. Since the dawn of time, richand powerful men, and friends of the king, always had access toopportunity. What made America different is that here, everyone

did, and governments job was to make sure of it.

This is an important point, for progressives to learn andconservatives to remember: the constitutionally limited butindispensable role that government played in Americas originalwar on poverty. That role was best expressed by a president whounderstood poverty better than most.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln told Congress that the leading object of

American government was:

to elevate the condition of men - to lift artificial weightsfrom all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit forall, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in therace of life.


46/71

46

BRINGTHEMI

NIn a single sentence, Lincoln explains precisely what poverty is, andwhat government ought to do about it.

As Lincoln knew first hand, true poverty was not for most people anabsence of money, but an absence of opportunity a lack of accessto those social and economic networks where human opportunitiesare created.

Then, as now, people were not isolated because they were poor they were poor mostly because they were isolated.

And so, in Americas original war on poverty, government did not

give the poor other peoples money. It gave them access to otherpeople.

In Lincolns era even during a cataclysmic war that was itself astruggle for human freedom and opportunity that meant dredgingrivers, building canals and cutting roads. It meant the HomesteadAct and land-grant universities.

These public goods werent designed to make poverty more tolerable

but to make it more temporary. They reduced the time it tookto get products to market, increased access to banks and land, andincreased the speed at which knowledge could be developed andshared.

Poor farmers and trappers in Lincolns Mid-West were no worse attheir trades than their more affluent counterparts back east. Theyjust didnt enjoy the same access to networks of human, social, and

economic capital.

In the same way, poor children today do not lack the ability toacquire the knowledge and skills necessary to flourish in our marketeconomy and civil society. But they absolutely lack the same accessto the networks of human opportunity where that knowledge andthose skills are acquired.

Properly considered, then, the war on poverty is not so much about

lifting people up. Its about bringing people in.

And so the challenge to conservatives today is to rethink the waron poverty along these lines, to bring into our economy and societythe individuals, families, and communities that have for five decadesbeen unfairly locked out.


47/71

47

BRIN

GTHEMIN

Nineteen-sixty-four wasnt the year Americans started fightingpoverty; it was the year we started losing that fight. To start winningagain, conservatives are going to have to lead the way - not simplyby offering criticism, but alternatives.

Our job is to identify the obstructions that impede Americansaccess to our market economy and civil society and clear them. Andif were looking for impediments to mobility and opportunity, wevecertainly come to the right place!

Today, many of those obstructions are themselves governmentpolicies. These policies unintentionally discourage almost every

positive step underprivileged families can take toward socialmobility and economic security.

Todays government-centric system penalizes marriage, which amountain of evidence now shows is the single most empoweringsocial and economic opportunity there is. It also penalizes low-income workers for making more money by drastically reducingbenefits at arbitrary points along the income-scale. Because of thesepoverty traps, single mothers near the poverty line, for instance, can

face effective marginal tax rates of 80 or even 90 percent.

Thus, in poor communities, government dependence often atrophiescommunity interdependence, fraying the bonds between moms anddads and neighbors and friends and pastors and teachers, old andyoung, native and immigrant.

Meanwhile, education policies leave low-income parents and

children trapped in failing schools. Policies ranging from welfare tohealth care to criminal justice are only exacerbating the explosionof fatherlessness plaguing lower-income communities.

And so conservatives need a new, comprehensive anti-povertyagenda that not only corrects but transcends existing policies.

Anyone looking for ideas would do well to visit my home stateof Utah, where a combination of smart, efficient government, a

growing, prosperous economy, an active and faithful civil society,and perhaps the most successful private welfare system in theworld, have made Salt Lake the most upwardly mobile region in theentire country.

But first and foremost, we should at least pledge to do no more harm.


48/71

48

BRINGTHEMI

NThere is no good reason the federal government should maintain79 separate means-tested programs. There is no good reasonwhy almost none of these programs feature the kind of work-requirements that helped transition millions of Americans into jobsafter the 1996 reform. And there is no good reason federal policyshould reward states for higher spending rather than improvedresults.

And so one of our first priorities should be to simply get existingfederal programs under control. And I am working with the HeritageFoundation and several colleagues on legislation to do just that.

Second, just as we cannot spend our way out of poverty, wecannot really cut our way out, either. We need to fundamentallyfix the system so that every dollar we do spend actually connectsunderprivileged families to new opportunities in the free market andcivil society.

One way to do this would be to block-grant Medicaid funds tothe states, eliminating the federal bureaucracy that today standsbetween underprivileged families and their doctors.

We could do the same thing with the Head Start program, whichspends $8.1 billion every year through a federal bureaucracywithout yielding any lasting educational benefits.

The data doesnt tell us that pre-K education and health insurancefor poor families are bad just that the federal government doesa lousy job of providing them. So instead, lets allow states to

implement real reforms that give low-income families access toeducational and health opportunities somewhere besides the federalbureaucracy.

In Utah, for instance, our legislature has created a special taskforce to study the prospects of charity care affordable medicalservices for poor families provided not by government but byindividuals, businesses, non-profit groups, and local communities.That model might not work in every state, but every state should

have the freedom to solve problems their own way, according totheir own values and priorities.

We need similar reforms to open up our elementary and secondaryschools, giving underprivileged parents and children access to thesame opportunities that wealthy Americans take for granted.


49/71

49

BRIN

GTHEMIN

We need to expand access to higher education, to reform ouraccreditation system to allow federal aid to follow students to newand diverse options: customized courses, programs, tests, on-lineand on-campus, even professional training and apprenticeships.

Another area ripe for reform is the federal governments criminaljustice and prison system. The simple fact is that in America today,we put too many people in prison for too long, with too little benefitto our society.

If inmates are violent and threats to our communities, then wehave a moral responsibility to keep them locked up. If they are notviolent and pose no threat, however, if they have reformed and are

ready to return to their families and communities, we have justas much moral duty to get them re-integrated into our nationsnetworks of social and economic mobility.

Im working on bipartisan legislation to reform federal sentencingand incarceration policies, following the transformative example ofinnovative states. If we are serious about access to opportunity forall, then we have to put rehabilitation back into the vocabulary ofthe federal prison system.

There is so much more to do on issues ranging from housing toadoption to labor to mental health.

And of course, the best thing we can do to help the unemployed findjobs, and low-income workers find higher-income work is to finallyget our economy growing again. Reforms to our tax, regulatory,energy, and transportation systems that spur private investment and

job creation can do more for upward mobility than anything else ingovernments power.

And certainly more than any of the divisive, special-interestpandering that the Washington establishments of both partiescynically substitute for serious debate and reform.

Though many Republicans in Congress are building a serious anti-poverty agenda the right way youll hear from my friends Paul

Ryan and Jim Jordan and others today others are tempted by whatthey see as an easier way.

Too many in our party today seem to have convinced themselvesthat electoral success depends on adopting the Lefts strategy ofdividing the American people.


50/71

50

BRINGTHEMI

N

Slice them up into superficial identity groups, and assume thatstruggling African-Americans, struggling Latinos, struggling Asian-Americans, struggling whites, struggling single parents, strugglingunskilled workers, struggling young people, struggling immigrants,and struggling blue collar workers all want different things.

But dont they all really want the same thing? To not be struggling?

Special-interest policymaking that pits Americans against eachother, is the problem, not the solution. The things that truly fightpoverty economic growth, education, innovation, voluntaryexchange create opportunities for everyone.

I have no idea if empowering poor families regardless of whatthey look like to overcome poverty through the cooperativecommunities of the market economy and civil society will help theRepublican Party. But I do know it will help the American people which is what the Republican Party is supposed to be for.

And finally, we simply must begin to address what we might callAmericas other marriage debate.

It is uncomfortable to talk about, and almost impossible to legislate.But the fact is, the problem of poverty in America is directly linkedto family breakdown and the erosion of marriage among low-incomefamilies and communities.

Implicit marriage penalties in our tax code and welfare programssurely need legislative remedies. But what were really talking aboutis a question of culture, not policy incentives.

For years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have employed termslike family values and marriage primarily as partisan wedges,cudgels to attack ideological opponents.

This fact did not create Americas marriage crisis but it hasnthelped, either.

And now, seemingly every week, scholars are producing more

evidence about the social and economic consequences of thisessentially moral question. We now have scientific consensussupporting what were once thought to be merely traditions andintuitions. According to one study, the taxpayer costs of familyfragmentation are more than $100 billion per year a staggeringsum that nonetheless pales in comparison to the social and human


51/71

51

BRIN

GTHEMIN

costs, borne disproportionately by innocent children.

Yet, this data has arrived at a moment when the controversies aboutsame-sex marriage tend to overwhelm any political discussion of theinstitution.

It could be said that the political sensitivity of marriage today mightbe a good reason not to bring it up at all. But I think the data makesthis the perfect time to begin this debate precisely because it willrequire such sensitivity on all sides.

In an earlier era, our assumptions and vocabulary might haveexpressed judgment instead of compassion, and closed doors instead

of opening them.

Though the foundational importance of family has not changed times and attitudes have. Today, no serious secularist thinksthe institution of marriage is intrinsically oppressive. And noserious traditionalist thinks of the children of single mothers asillegitimate.

Even if we remove morality and religion from the question entirely,

a stable, intact family remains the greatest incubator of economicopportunity and multiplier of human and social capital in this world.To say that children tend to do best when raised by their marriedmom and dad is not a political opinion it is a demonstrable fact.

Saying so does not demean or degrade other family structures. Andfear of facts does not make us sensitive it leaves us ignorant.

Public policy need not incentivize people to get married for mostpeople, life already does. What public policy and even moreimportantly, the people who make and influence public policy must do is to finally accept and embrace and celebrate that fact.

And then see what we can do together to help. Sincerely doingso could do more to win the war on poverty th