Ripon Forum April-May 2006

RIPON

FORUMVolume 40, No. 2 April/May 2006

The Suburban AgendaJohn McLaughlin. Nancy Johnson. Dave Reichert.

Plus: Tom Schatz discusses the Sunset Commission,Bill Beach and Rudy Penner debate dynamic scoring, and

John Boehner looks at the year ahead in Congress.

It made politics noble.Why The West Wing will be missed.

$5.95 U.S./$6.95 Canadawww.riponsociety.org

Pyramidad_Ripon.indd 1 3/14/06 3:40:12 PM

Cover Story

6 The Suburban AgendaBy John McLaughlinA plan to win the new politicalbattleground.

9 SuburbanHealth CareBy Nancy JohnsonMoving from a pen and papersystem to a 21st century world.

10 Q & AWith Dave ReichertThe man who caught the GreenRiver serial killer talks aboutefforts to keep our families safe.

Articles

13 How I See ItBy John BoehnerThe House Majority Leader discussesthe year ahead in Congress.

14 A Bipartisan Solution toOur Big Government ProblemThomas A. SchatzAn idea first proposed by Democratsis taken up by the GOP.

16 Devising a Terrorism InsuranceSolutionCharles M. ChamnessOvercoming the challenges posedby terrorism risk.

Debate

18 Dynamic scoring:The time is now.

By William W. Beach

19 Dynamic scoring:Not so fast!

By Rudolph G. Penner

Observations

22 Politics NeverSounded So GoodBy Robert J. ThompsonAfter seven years, The West Wingcalls it quits.

24 Lincoln, King and ScriptureBy Larry R. Hayward

Sections

26 Ripon ProfileMelissa Hart

28 The Party Line:Great Republican Quotes fromLincoln to Reagan and Bush.

29 From the ArchivesThirty years ago in the Forum.

34 The BackpageMaybe Clinton was right.

RIPON

FORUMVolume 40, No. 2, April/May 2006

“Ideas that matter,since 1965.”

PublisherThe Ripon Society

PresidentRichard S. Kessler

Chief AdministrativeOfficer

George McNeill

Editorial BoardWilliam FrenzelWilliam Meub

Gil Solnin

EditorLouis M. Zickar

Assistant EditorMolly J. Milliken

ProductionJohn M. Boone

Banta Creative Services

© Copyright 2006By The Ripon SocietyAll Rights Reserved

One Year Subscription:$25.00 individuals

$10.00 students

The Ripon Forum (ISSN 0035-5526) ispublished bi-monthly by The RiponSociety. The Ripon Society is located

at 1300 L Street, NW, Suite 900,Washington, DC 20005. Periodicals

postage pending at Washington, DCand additional mailing offices.

Postmaster, send address changes to:Ripon Forum, 1300 L Street, NW, Suite

900, Washington, DC 20005.

Comments, opinion editorials andletters should be addressed to:

Ripon Forum, 1300 L Street,NW, Suite900, Washington, DC 20005 or may

be transmitted electronically to:[email protected].

In publishing this magazine, theRipon Society seeks to providea forum for fresh ideas, well-

researched proposals, and for a spiritof criticism, innovation, and inde-

pendent thinking within theRepublican Party.

exeloncorp.com

© 2006 Exelon

It's one thing to power a community.It's entirely another to energize one.Over the last five years Exelon has donated more than $87

million to a wide range of educational, cultural, environmental,and community development programs within the regions we serve. From partnering with United Way for the “Exelon Stay in School Program” to supporting Chicago’s Joffrey Balletand the Philadelphia Zoo, Exelon is committed to making the towns and neighborhoods we serve better places to live.We’re also committed to preserving our country’s naturalresources through a partnership with The Nature Conservancy.This program is focused on restoring and protecting wilderness and wetland areas in Illinois and Pennsylvania.Whether it’s helping young kids stay in school or planting trees in city parks, Exelon and our 17,000 employees are determined to make a difference. And for us, this is justthe beginning. We believe it’s important to give somethingback to our customers and the community because we don’t justwork here, we live here too. That’s our promise. That’s our waySM.

RIPON FORUM April/May 2006 5

THE RIPON SOCIETYHONORARY CONGRESSIONALADVISORY BOARDSenator Chuck Hagel (NE)Senate Chairman

Representative Nancy L. Johnson (CT)House Chairwoman

Senator Richard Burr (NC)Senator Lincoln D. Chafee (RI)Senator Norm Coleman (MN)Senator Susan M. Collins (ME)Senator Judd Gregg (NH)Senator Orrin G. Hatch (UT)Senator Pat Roberts (KS)Senator Gordon Smith (OR)Senator Olympia J. Snowe (ME)Senator Arlen Specter (PA)Senator Ted Stevens (AK)Representative Judy Biggert (IL)Representative Roy Blunt (MO)Representative Sherwood Boehlert (NY)Representative Ken Calvert (CA)Representative Dave Camp (MI)Representative Eric I. Cantor (VA)Representative Michael Castle (DE)Representative Howard Coble (NC)Representative Ander Crenshaw (FL)Representative Thomas M. Davis, III (VA)Representative Vernon Ehlers (MI)Representative Jo Ann H. Emerson (MO)Representative Philip S. English (PA)Representative Mike Ferguson (NJ)Representative Mark Foley (FL)Representative Vito Fossella (NY)Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ)Representative Paul E. Gillmor (OH)Representative Kay Granger (TX)Representative Melissa A. Hart (PA)Representative Robin Hayes (NC)Representative David Hobson (OH)Representative Sue W. Kelly (NY)Representative Jim Kolbe (AZ)Representative Ray H. LaHood (IL)Representative Steven LaTourette (OH)Representative Jim Leach (IA)Representative Jerry Lewis (CA)Representative Jim McCrery (LA)Representative Michael G. Oxley (OH)Representative Thomas E. Petri (WI)Representative Deborah Pryce (OH)Representative Adam Putnam (FL)Representative Jim Ramstad (MN)Representative Ralph Regula (OH)Representative Joe Schwarz (MI)Representative E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (FL)Representative Christopher Shays (CT)Representative John E. Sweeney (NY)Representative William M. Thomas (CA)Representative Fred Upton (MI)Representative James T. Walsh (NY)

The Ripon Society is a researchand policy organizationlocated in Washington, D.C.There are National Associatemembers throughout theUnited States.

A Note from theChairman

It struck us, as we were beginning work on this issue in the first part ofFebruary, that this is something of a milestone moment in the history of ourmagazine. The Ripon Forum turns 40 this year.

For the record, we have been publishing since 1965. This obviouslymakes us 41 officially, but like a lot of others entering middle age, we lost ayear somewhere along the way and have rounded things downward.Regardless, it is a significant event in the life of the Ripon Forum, and onein which we take a certain amount of pride.

To mark the occasion, we have changed the look of the magazinesomewhat to reflect its original design. The one thing that has not changed,however, is the content. Our goal — today as it was 40 years ago — is toprovide a forum for ideas that matter. In that regard, let me reiterate thatwe are open to good ideas from anywhere. No one group has a monopolyon original thinking. Accordingly, we welcome ideas from any place onthe political spectrum, including, of course, the center.

We have tried to continue that tradition in this issue by focusing on anumber of important topics that we believe will have some prominence inthe coming weeks and months. We lead off with a discussion of theSuburban Agenda, an effort by a group of House Republicans to craft apositive, issues-oriented strategy that they hope will not only help a vitalpart of the American voting population, but also help the GOP hold andbuild its majority in the elections this fall.

We also feature a discussion of the Sunset Commission by good gov-ernment expert Tom Schatz, a debate over dynamic scoring by respectedeconomists Bill Beach and Rudy Penner, and an overview of the year aheadin Congress by a man who is helping to shape the agenda on Capitol Hill— House Majority Leader John Boehner. And, for those fans of TV’s TheWest Wing, we take a look at the program as it ends its seven year run onthe air, and examine its impact on how politics is perceived in America.

We hope you enjoy this issue, and join us once again in congratulatingthe Ripon Forum as it turns 40 (or 41!).

Bill FrenzelChairman EmeritusRipon Society

The SuburbanAgendaA plan to win the new politicalbattleground

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN

There are two basic truths to mid-term elections inAmerica – they are won on themes, and, histori-

cally speaking at least, they are usually lost by theparty in power.

In the mid-terms of 1994, the elections wereabout the corruption of the Democrat-controlled Congress and the failedattempt by the Clinton Administrationto establish a socialized health caresystem.

In 1998, the elections were aboutPresident Clinton’s impeachment, andthe belief among many voters that theRepublican majority in Congress hadoverreached and was ignoring otherimportant issues in its drive to holdthe President accountable.

In 2002, the elections were aboutthe September 11th terrorist attacks,and the belief that our country – ledby President Bush and a Republican-controlled House — needed to doeverything possible to keep the American people andour homeland secure.

In the first two cases, the party in power eitherlost seats in Congress (Republicans in 1998) or lostcontrol of Congress altogether (Democrats in 1994).In the 2002 elections, Republicans defied history andactually gained seats. But if Republicans proved theexception to the rule in 2002, it was because 2002was an exceptional year; the elections were held inthe shadow of 9/11, with the memory of that awfulday still fresh in voters’ minds.

As we approach the five year anniversary of theterrorist attacks, one thing should be clear: politicalpartisanship has returned to America, which meansthe basic truth of the 2006 elections will be that theRepublican majority is likely to lose seats inNovember – unless, of course, they do somethingabout it by putting forward a positive agenda that willhelp them win seats instead.

One member of Congress who is playing a keyrole in doing just that is Republican RepresentativeMark Kirk of Illinois. Congressman Kirk is theleader of a group of just over 20 members of theHouse of Representatives who are working on an

agenda geared around the lives of peo-ple who reside in America’s suburbs.

Why the suburbs?Over the past few decades, subur-

ban voters have usually been a key toRepublican victories. However, inmore recent elections, they have gonefrom being a bastion of electoral suc-cess to a political battleground wherepreviously reliable GOP votes are nowup for grabs.

As part of the effort to craft a sub-urban agenda, Congressman Kirkcommissioned a national poll among1,000 likely suburban voters betweenJanuary 24 and 26, 2006, to learn more

about the issues that are important to them and theirviews on the election this year. These suburbanvoters were chosen from predetermined suburbancounties across the nation in targeted Congressionaldistricts. For Republicans, the results reveal not onlythe challenges that lie ahead, but the opportunities, aswell.

The challenges lie in the numbers. On thegeneric vote for Congress, for example, Democratsare leading 36 percent to 33 percent. There is also apronounced gender gap among suburban voters, withmen supporting Republicans for Congress by a mar-gin of 37 percent to 33 percent, and women support-ing Democrats by a margin of 39 percent to 29 per-cent. Two other segments of concern are independ-ent voters, who are 62 percent undecided with a plu-rality favoring Democrats, and suburban pro-choicewomen, who prefer Democrats for Congress by amargin of 50 percent to 19 percent.

RIPON FORUM April/May 20066

Cover Story

Among all suburban voters, 56 percent believethe country is heading down the wrong track, whileonly 32 percent see it headed in the right direction.Generally speaking, if suburban voters say Americais on the wrong track, they will vote Democrat by amargin of 56 percent to 14 percent. A lot of this hasto do with perceptions about the war in Iraq. A plu-rality of suburban voters — 40 percent, to be exact —believes that America is losing the war. Even moredistressing is the fact that among those who are unde-cided in their choice for Congress, only 26 percentsay America is winning the war, while 34 percentthink we are losing.

Moving beyond the numbers.Clearly, this survey confirms that Republicans

face a real challenge in winning over suburban votersin 2006. It also confirms that just as homeland secu-rity was on the minds of American voters in 2002, thewar in Iraq is on the mindsof many suburban voterstoday. But beyond thesenumbers and beyond thisone issue, the survey revealsone other key thing – main-ly, that the GOP can win thesuburban vote if it puts for-ward a plan that makes adifference in people’s dailylives.

The agenda being developed by CongressmanKirk and the other members of the suburban caucuswould achieve that goal. In fact, the survey revealedthat the issues and ideas being developed as part ofthe Suburban Agenda have a real resonance amongvoters in suburban America. These issues and ideas,and the response they received in the survey, include:

Helping small businesses provide health cover-age for their employees — 92 percent of those sur-veyed favor providing tax credits to small businessowners who provide health insurance for theiremployees.

Making sure our kids are secure in the class-room — 89 percent favor passing a school safetybill, permitting federal background checks on newteachers to prevent criminals or pedophiles frombeing hired. Only 7 percent opposed such back-ground checks as an invasion of privacy.

Making sure our kids are secure online — 87percent favor requiring schools and libraries toinstall internet filters to protect children from child

pornography and Internet predators. Only 9 percentthought that this proposal violated free speech.

Keeping drugs and firearms out of schools —86 percent favor allowing school officials to checktheir students’ lockers for illegal drugs or weaponswithout the permission of the student. Only 11percent felt this would invade the privacy rights ofstudents.

Making sure people don’t lose their health carewhen they change jobs — 84 percent favor requiringhealth insurance plans to be portable so that whenpeople change jobs, they do not lose their insurance.Only 9 percent thought this would be too burden-some a federal regulation.

Helping parents plan for their kids’ future — 84percent favor establishing what is being called a“401 KIDS tax” deferred savings account plan togive parents the ability to establish tax free savingsaccounts for their children.

Making sure teachersare qualified — 83 percentfavor requiring teachers topass a periodic competencytest to ensure they are cur-rent in their subject matter.Only 13 percent opposedthis idea because it increasesdemands on teachers’ timeand attention.

Strengthening personal property rights — 81percent favor protecting homeowners’ propertyrights by limiting the ability of local governments toseize property for the purpose of private develop-ment. Only 15 percent would allow seizing proper-ty for private development with compensation.

Making sure attorneys can’t take advantage ofSuperfund legal fees — 80 percent favor limiting theEnvironmental Superfund legal fees to 10 percent sothat 90 percent of the fund is spent on restoration.Only 11 percent would not limit time and cost.

Helping people buy their first house — 75percent favor a $5,000 tax credit for first time home-buyers to make homeownership more affordable.

Helping people save for when they get sick – 73percent favor allowing a person to set aside money,free from taxes, in a Medical Savings Account to beused to pay medical bills and insurance premiums.Only 16 percent would permit Americans to onlyuse state regulated and approved insurance plans.

Keeping driver’s licenses out of illegal(Continued on page 33)


Over the past few decades, suburbanvoters have usually been a key to

Republican victories. However, inmore recent elections, they have gone

from being a bastion of electoralsuccess to a political battleground

where previously reliable GOP votesare now up for grabs.


From the FieldMcLaughlin & Associates conducted a national poll among 1,000 likely suburban voters betweenJanuary 24 and 26, 2006. These suburban voters were chosen from predetermined suburban countiesacross the nation in targeted Congressional districts. Some of the results of this survey are below:


SuburbanHealth CareMoving from a pen and papersystem to a 21st century world.

NANCY L. JOHNSON

The legislative agenda developed by the suburbancaucus is meant to address our everyday con-

cerns: the safety of our children at school, congest-ed and overcrowded roads, and dwindling openspace, for instance.

At the very top of that agenda is health care.Seniors enjoying their retirement, couples raisingchildren, and individuals in the suburbs face barriersto quality, affordable health care.

Overcoming these barriers and improving ouroverall health care system requires the adoption anduse of electronic medical records and “e-prescribing”systems. Health care information systems can savelives, improve the quality of care, and lower costs.

While the health care we receive in the suburbsis state-of-the-art, the way patients, physicians, phar-macies and other providers record, retain, andsecurely exchange health information is not. It’s apen and paper system. Without new technologies anddigital information systems, health care quality can-not take the next leap forward.

Consider that a person rushed to an emergencyroom may not get the best treatment because theirprivate records are locked in a physician’s officeacross the street - and not available to the emergencyroom doctor treating them in a potential crisis suchas a car accident, a heart attack or serious infection.An interoperable health information system wouldmake accurate health information available to us andour doctors when we need it.

We know the consequences of a pen and papersystem. A landmark U.S. Institute of Medicine studyfrom 1998 found that preventable medical errors —such as misread hand-written prescriptions — causedas many as 100,000 deaths in America each year, farmore than even motor vehicle accidents.

Lost or incomplete medical records cost thehealth system billions and the economy millionsmore in lost time at work. Some estimates put justMedicare’s cost for duplicative testing at $5.4billion a year. Suburban families bear these costsfor themselves and for Medicare and Medicaid

beneficiaries as well.Despite its promise for better health care at lower

cost, widespread adoption of electronic health recordsand information systems has been disappointinglyslow. The current system of overlapping or conflictingstate and federal laws is complicated and not designedfor an era in which records can be transmitted elec-tronically anywhere, accurately and securely.

That is why I introduced legislation to help devel-op a health information technology system with uni-form privacy and security standards. My legislation,supported by 41 bipartisan co-sponsors, will enhanceprivacy protections and allow for the secure healthinformation systems we deserve in the digital age. Andit helps hospitals and doctors’ offices to coordinate soeveryone uses health information systems that can talkto each other.

And as suburban families change jobs, it requirestheir health insurance to change with them.Consumer-controlled plans like Health SavingsAccounts (HSA) are portable, and can be brought withyou from job-to-job. With the benefit of using pre-taxdollars, HSAs can go to pay for things employer plansmay not cover — like braces for our kids.

But greater use of HSAs requires another majorimprovement in our delivery of health care: moreinformation available to the individual on the qualityof care providers deliver and the price they charge.Medicare and some of the big employers are leadingthe way, developing specific measures of quality andpublicly reporting provider performance. AsChairman of the House Ways and Means HealthSubcommittee, I will continue working to improve

(Continued on page 33)


Q&Awith Dave Reichert

Dave Reichert represents Washington’s 8th

Congressional District in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives. Elected in 2004, he first came tonational prominence as the detective who led theeffort to capture the Green River serial killer. Heserves on three committees in Congress, and isChairman of the Homeland SecuritySubcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,Science and Technology. He is also a member ofthe Suburban Caucus. The Congressmandiscusses his role in the Caucus below:

RF: There’s been a lot of discussion so far this yearabout developing a Suburban Agenda that would begeared toward helping families in their everyday lives.You are part of a core group in the House ofRepresentatives working on a plan to do just that.Could you tell us about this effort?

REICHERT: Up until very recently, we viewed ournation as one third rural, one third urban and one thirdsuburban. That’s just not accurate anymore. Americais overwhelmingly suburban, with less than 20 percentof constituents coming from rural areas or big cities.Over half of all voters live in suburbs or small cities.Additionally, these voters tend to be the “swing” voterswe always hear about. If you look at the swing districtsin Congress, almost all of them are suburban districts.But our political agenda in Congress has thus far failedto recognize and specifically target this.

So Congressman Mark Kirk of Illinois went toabout 20 suburban areasand asked the familieswho live there what wasimportant to them, whatconcerns were on theirminds. They told him thecountry is on the “wrongtrack.” Repeatedly, heheard about concerns withhealth care, crime, educa-tion, taxes and the environ-ment. Every single one ofthose concerns is one Ihear over and over again in

my own district in Washington State. The members of the Suburban Caucus have made

a top five list of priorities for the Suburban Agenda,which came out of those discussions with suburbanites:keeping pedophiles from becoming teachers; makinghealth insurance fully portable; long term saving forchildren; more cleanup and less court for the superfundenvironment program; and expanding federal backupto fight international drug gangs. This last priority iswhere my own background and expertise comes in, butthese ideas together form the backbone of theSuburban Agenda.

RF: What is your role and what issues are you person-ally looking at?

REICHERT: I was tapped by Mark Kirk chiefly formy experience fighting drugs and the spread of gangsfrom urban communities into the nearby suburbanareas. Gangs backed by international drug cartels aremoving beyond cities into suburban schools, threaten-ing to overwhelm local police departments. As Sheriffof King County, which is the 12th largest county in thenation and includes Seattle and the surrounding sub-urbs, I wrestled with the spread of gangs and drugsfrom Seattle to outlying areas. With over 500,000 reg-istered members in the U.S., drug gangs in Americawould be the fifth largest army in the world. I took thelead as Sheriff of King County to expand the federalprosecution of gang members, emphasizing the impor-tance of prosecuting gangs who have a presence inschools and that seek to recruit new members there.

The increased presence of meth labs and all of theproblems that go along with that are something I’mparticularly experienced with. The West coast has been

If you look at theswing districts inCongress, almostall of them aresuburban districts.But our politicalagenda inCongress hasthus far failed torecognize andspecificallytarget this.

dealing with a severemeth problem since theearly 1990s, and hasactually fought throughthe worst of it due toWashington State’s veryprogressive, aggressiveapproach to fighting themovement of meth intoour communities. I’d liketo say I played more thana passing role in thatfight. I hope that ourexperience in

Washington State will help other communities in theMidwest and East.

I believe my role as a vocal opponent of domesticviolence could also have a place as we determine whatthis group’s priorities will be.

RF: Some people might scoff and say this is justanother attempt by Washington to put a slogan on anissue and impose a “one-size-fits-all” solution on peo-ple’s problems. What makes this effort different?

REICHERT: The relatively recent development ofsuburban neighborhoods as important political areasproduced a new reality, which has not been given thesame study or consideration that rural or urban areashave. It’s only a natural progression to move our focusas the population migrates as it has from rural to urbanto suburban.

RF: On a similar note, some people might say thatsome of the issues being talked about as part of theSuburban Agenda – teacher checks and mandatoryInternet filters are two examples — are issues betteraddressed and handled by the states. Why do youbelieve there is a role for Washington in these areas aswell?

REICHERT: The Internet isn’t just an intrastatecapability—it crosses state lines. It crosses nationalboundaries and is an international issue. Teachers alsocan move as they please, changing state residencywhen they wish. Information may not be easily or read-ily available from state to state. The increased mobilityof our population requires that we take necessary stepsto ensure that those we entrust with the care and edu-cation of our children are worthy of that responsibility.

RF: What about costs? The federal government isrunning a deficit as it is. Can we afford to be under-taking something as ambitious the Suburban Agenda?

REICHERT: There is no dollar figure attached to theSuburban Agenda. It is more accurately described asproviding a focus for suburban priorities which can beincluded in current bills. We’re already doing that withthings like permanent tax cuts, small business incen-tives and programs to reduce drug and gang activity. Avery recent example was the inclusion of teacher back-ground checks in the Children’s Safety and ViolentCrime Reduction Act, which the House voted onrecently.

RF: Your background as a Sheriff makes you ideallysuited to tackle these issues head-on. How much doesyour experience in local law enforcement shape yourefforts on the issues you are working on today?

REICHERT: My experience as a cop has a substan-tial influence on the issues I’m working on. Peter King,Chairman of the House Homeland SecurityCommittee, tapped me last year after HurricaneKatrina to be Chairman of the Subcommittee onEmergency Preparedness, Science and Technology. Hedid so despite my relative inexperience in the House—I am only the sixth freshman in the history of Congressto chair a subcommittee—because he understood thevalue of my law enforcement experience. That experi-ence is the reason Mark Kirk tapped me for theSuburban Agenda as well. I’m also Vice-Chairman ofthe Coast Guard and Maritime TransportationSubcommittee of the House Committee onTransportation and Infrastructure because of my expe-rience working with the Coast Guard and protectingports in Washington State.

Beyond that, my experience as a cop shapes my


The increasedmobility of ourpopulationrequires that wetake necessarysteps to ensure thatthose we entrustwith the care andeducation of ourchildren areworthy of thatresponsibility.


Subcommittee’s agenda too. We’ve dedicated our-selves this year to solving the problems our firstresponders face with operability and interoperability asthey attempt to communicate during a disaster.Operability is the ability of communication devices tofunction when their users require them to and interop-erability is the ability for the varied types of communi-cation devices used by all emergency response person-nel and various other officials in the event of a disasterto work together, ensuring information is shared in atimely, efficient and effective manner. I know fromfirsthand experience what it’s like to call for back-upand not be able to reach your colleagues.

My experience as Sheriff also taught me theimportance of collecting useful, timely intelligence. Asa Congressman, I’m doing everything I can to makesure our intelligence community has information gath-ering capabilities that ensure they have access to thebest, most accurate information available.

RF: Finally, this is very much a vision-based plan,where you have a number of different issues held

together by one overarching theme. What one mes-sage would like people to come away with as theybecome more familiar with the effort and some of thegoals you and your colleagues are trying to achieve?

REICHERT: Suburban issues are different from ruraland urban issues. Our suburban priorities are trans-portation — suburban dwellers often commute to andfrom their jobs, making their roadways of utmostimportance — the migration of gangs into suburbanareas, and the increasing prevalence of drug use bysuburban students. We are listening to our constituentsin suburban areas and the Suburban Agenda is theresponse to what we’re hearing. Suburban constituents’concerns are unique and they require a focused, coor-dinated approach, which the members involved in thiseffort are dedicated to providing. RF

At the end of the day, it’s all about experience.

And after that, it’s all about sharing it.

Because the only thing more important than the results

you see today is who you share them with tomorrow.

www.mellon.com © 2006 Mellon Financial Corporation

Asset Management Private Wealth Management

Asset Servicing Cash Management Investor Services


How I See ItThe House Majority Leaderdiscusses the year ahead inCongress.

JOHN BOEHNER

From the moment I was elected to serve my fellowHouse Republicans as Majority Leader, I’ve been

asked the same question innumerable times by innu-merable people: “What do you think about [insertissue of the day here]?”

The question is simple enough. What do Ithink about increasing access to health insurance forAmerican workers? Strengthening border security?Lobbying reform? I’m for them all, and HouseRepublicans are taking aim at each. But beneath theveneer of these simple questions is, I believe, a fun-damental misunderstand-ing of the role a MajorityLeader is supposed to play.

The answer to thosequestions shouldn’t bewhat I personally think, butwhat the Members of theHouse RepublicanConference think. As Isee it, the Majority Leaderisn’t here to issue commands from the top downbased on personal preference. The role of aMajority Leader is to facilitate, to guide, and to buildconsensus from the ground-up.

Already in the last few weeks I’ve had theopportunity to do just that.

The House Republican vision for the year is tak-ing shape from the ground-up. We’ve already iden-tified a set of themes we’ll drive in the comingmonths. We’re pledging to keep America prosper-

ous, ensure affordableand accessible healthcare, spend tax dollarswisely, and strengthennational security andborder security.

Our united visionwill be critical as alodestar to guiding ourlegislative efforts,ensuring Republicanunity, and ensuring our

constituents clearly understand why we’re here andwhat we’re all about. It is my job as MajorityLeader to ensure whatever policy we put forthreflects that vision. I will do so the same way I haveapproached crafting the vision — from the ground-up.

Remember: the Majority Leader and the rest ofthe elected Leadership are important. But thelifeblood of the House runs through the Committeesand their Members. I will work to facilitate plan-ning for success without interfering with theCommittees’ prerogatives to set policy, and to makesure that any bill that will subject Members to politi-cal risk will have sufficient political and communica-tions support.

How will I do that? First, I will work to takeour collective vision and implement it acrossCommittee jurisdictional lines. These lines are nec-essary for the efficient working of the House, but

they can also present obsta-cles to developing andadvancing our very bestideas. And many importantthemes cross jurisdictionallines. We must identifykey substantive themesbased on our vision, andthen ensure that the appro-priate Committees work

together to develop agendas to drive those themes.Second, I will work with the Committees and

their Members to lay the groundwork for successfuloutreach. Battles are ultimately won with superiorpreparation — planning, strategy, identifying weak-nesses early and solving them before they becomeexposed. We are most successful advancing bothpolicy and political goals when we integrate policy-making with strategy.

Big goals take communications and outreachstrategies as well as policy strategies, and each isstronger when informed by the others. This is whyan aggressive communications effort isn’t just aboutcommunicating with the press; it’s communicatingwith Members. It’s ensuring every Member knowswhere we’re going and how we’ll get there andensuring everyone is part of the decision makingprocess. Again: success begins at the ground level.

In addition, any communications effort musthelp prepare Members to win the debate as well asthe vote. After all, if our goals are serious, we have


Remember: theMajority Leaderand the rest of theelected Leadershipare important. Butthe lifeblood of theHouse runsthrough theCommittees andtheir Members.

Articles


A BipartisanSolution to OurBig GovernmentProblemTHOMAS A. SCHATZ

It’s not often that Jimmy Carter and George W. Bushagree on an issue. But when it comes to cutting pro-

grams and getting government spending under control,there is one issue on which they see eye to eye.

The issue is the establishment of a SunsetCommission. For the second straight year, PresidentBush is proposing the creation of such a commissionas part of his budget plan. Under this proposal,every federal agency and government program wouldautomatically receive a 10-year expiration date, atwhich time they would essentially be required to jus-tify their existence. It would be the job of the SunsetCommission to determine whether their justificationshave merit.

The Sunset Commission would be comprised ofseven members – two selected by the majority inCongress, two by the Congressional minority, andthree by the President. Their task would be to evalu-ate every federal agency and program and recom-mend if it should be abolished, streamlined, consoli-dated, or reauthorized with recommendations forimprovements.

The overarching mission of the SunsetCommission would be to make government workbetter, and make sure federal programs earn the tax-payers’ dollars. By consolidating programs and

eliminating waste, theCommission wouldsave tax dollars andimprove program per-formance. At a time ofskyrocketing deficits,war, and concerns overhow well our govern-ment is doing its job,these are two goals thatare desperately needed.

Indeed, federalspending has increasedat an alarming rate over

the past 11 years. Total outlays were more than 60percent higher in 2005 than in 1994. The situationwill reach a crisis level when entitlement spendingexplodes with the retirement of the Baby Boomers.Short-sighted as ever, Congress is not taking the nec-essary steps to get spending under control. Congressfails to oversee and evaluate a large chunk of the pro-grams it funds year after year. About 30 percent ofthe discretionary budget – or $170 billion in fiscal2005 – is unauthorized. Congressional leaders usu-ally waive the rule that requires federal spending tobe authorized. Consequently, a number of federalprograms coast under the radar without beingreviewed by a congressional authorizing committee.

Government programs are often launched withgreat fanfare but receive scant attention when theycrash and burn. The lack of accountability hasallowed the federal budget to fester with wasteful,duplicative, outdated, and ineffective programs.Thirty percent of federal programs reviewed by theadministration’s Performance and AssessmentRatings Tool have been found to be either ineffectiveor unable to demonstrate results. Citizens AgainstGovernment Waste’s report, Prime Cuts 2005, iden-tifies wasteful spending that totals $232 billion infiscal 2006 and $2 trillion over the next five years.

Members of Congress have little incentive toeliminate waste one program at a time. Every gov-ernment program develops a constituency that profitsfrom its continued existence. A Member ofCongress must overcome fierce resistance to elimi-nate a single program, and the resulting savings is aminiscule slice of the total federal budget.Furthermore, proposals to eliminate programs must

...the idea ofestablishing aSunsetCommission isvery bipartisan innature. It wasfirst proposed bythe lateDemocraticSenator EdmundMuskie of Mainein 1976.

The late Senator Edmund Muskie (D-Maine).

navigate a cumbersome process that requiresapproval from multiple congressional committeesand committee chairmen who are not inclined to giveup any turf.

Of course, such problems are not new; nor arethey problems that only one political party has triedto address. In fact, the idea of establishing a SunsetCommission is very bipartisan in nature. It was firstproposed by the late Democratic Senator EdmundMuskie of Maine in 1976. His bill mandated that allfederal programs would be automatically shut downevery ten years unless Congress voted to continuethem. The bill enjoyed bipartisan support in theSenate with 55 co-sponsors, including SenatorEdward Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Jimmy Carter endorsed the idea during his pres-idential campaign. In his 1976 biography, Why Notthe Best?, Carter reflected upon his time as a Georgiastate senator. He wrote that he was, “appalled to dis-cover that we spent all of our time assessing propos-als to finance new programs only. Once a programhad been in operation for a year, there was little like-lihood that it would ever be closely examined again.It would just grow inexorably like a fungus…”Carter’s opponent in the 1980 presidential race andhis successor in the Oval Office expressed a similarsentiment. “The nearest thing to eternal life we’llever see on the earth,” Ronald Reagan once stated,“is a government program.”

Thirty years later, many people inside theWashington Beltway still do not see the wisdom ofestablishing a Sunset Commission. But a growing

number of Americans outside the Beltway do. Thereare 28 states that currently use some form of a SunsetCommission to promote fiscal accountability andresponsibility within their respective state govern-ments. In Texas, for example, strong support fromthe legislature has resulted in 90 percent of the StateSunset Commission’s recommendations beingpassed into law. According to Texas RepublicanCongressman Kevin Brady, the prime sponsor of theSunset Commission bill in the House, it has alsoresulted in the elimination of 44 state agencies, sav-ing state taxpayers $720 million along the way.

The federal response to Hurricane Katrinasparked renewed public attention on governmentaccountability. It also reawakened congressionalinterest in waste-cutting commissions. In the wakeof the storm last September, the House GovernmentReform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce andAgency Organization held a hearing on the issue,with one of the focal points of discussion beingwhether the time was right to establish a SunsetCommission.

Let there be no doubt – the time is right to estab-lish a Sunset Commission. In fact, the time is longoverdue. Taxpayers deserve the establishment of acommon sense way to rein in spending and keep fed-eral programs under control.

The Sunset Commission would do just that. Itdeserves to be enacted today. RF

Thomas A. Schatz is President of Citizens AgainstGovernment Waste.



Devising aTerrorismInsurance SolutionCHARLES M. CHAMNESS

When Congress enacted the Terrorism RiskInsurance Act (also known as TRIA) in 2002,

the government-backed terrorism reinsurance pro-gram it established was designed as a temporarystopgap to give insurers time to regroup and sort outthe complexities of dealing with terrorism risk. Theinsurance industry was still reeling from the effectsof the then-costliest disaster in U.S. history—at least$33 billion in insured losses. President Bush pro-claimed that America was engaged in a protractedwar with a shadowy but sophisticated global terrornetwork, and warned that the country should bracefor more attacks.

In 2005, however, proposals to extend the TRIAprogram beyond its original three-year lifespancaused some federal policymakers to conclude thatthe insurance industry had grown too comfortablewith TRIA. Opponents argued that by providinggovernment reinsurance for this particular risk, TRIAmade taxpayers liable for insurer losses that wouldordinarily be covered under private reinsurance con-tracts. This argument was based on the theory thatthe same law of supply and demand that governsother economic sectors must apply to insurance aswell, not realizing that insurers are constrained byregulator-mandated price controls and underwritingrestrictions.

Some officials further implied that if TRIA wereleft to expire, the invisible hand of the market would

generate a supply ofreinsurance—that is,the insurance thatallows primary insur-ers to transfer a por-tion of the risks theyinsure—sufficient tomeet the total demandfor reinsurance. UnderTRIA, insurers had infact purchased billionsof dollars’ worth ofprivate terrorism rein-

surance just to cover their TRIA deductibles, whichfor some companies ran as high as $3 billion. Butreinsurers made clear that they had little appetite fortaking on additional terrorism risk. Indeed, the rein-surance industry was among the strongest proponentsof TRIA renewal, a fact that contradicts the assertionthat TRIA was depriving them of market share asTRIA critics maintained. Because these opponentshad the power to prevent either an extension of TRIAor an overhaul of the law, supporters of an ongoingprogram – a bipartisan majority of Congress – had tosettle for a two-year extension of TRIA.

Today the National Association of MutualInsurance Companies (NAMIC) is working withother industry leaders to fashion a long-term solutionto the seemingly intractable problem of terrorismrisk. Our principal objective is to create new mech-anisms to maximize the role of the private sector tothe greatest extent possible. Some of the ideas beingstudied include innovative investment vehicles thatwould tap the capital markets, as well as varioustypes of insurer risk-pooling arrangements. At thesame time, our understanding of the nature of terror-ism risk prevents us from indulging the fantasy thatan effective solution can be found that precludes gov-ernment participation.

NAMIC has developed a statement of principlesthat recognizes that the way to responsibly maximizeprivate sector capacity for insuring against terrorismrisk is to attract as many individual insurers as possi-ble into the terrorism insurance market. To that end,we urge Congress to preempt state laws that preventthe free market from setting adequate rates for terror-ism insurance. We also call upon Congress to pro-

...our understandingof the nature ofterrorism riskprevents us fromindulging thefantasy that aneffective solutioncan be foundthat precludesgovernmentparticipation.

Charles M. Chamness

vide a permanent reinsurance program to supplementthe private reinsurance market, with insurerdeductibles set at levels that would enable the insur-ance industry to continue to meet its financial obliga-tions and perform its vital economic role after payingoff its share of losses following a terrorist attack. Wealso recommend the establishment of a permanentevent trigger set at no more than $50 million. Ahigher trigger would drive small and medium sizedinsurance companies from the market because rein-surance costs would be too high, forcing these insur-ers to either exclude terrorism coverage or chargepremiums that many of their policyholders couldn’tafford. And because there are limits to the amount ofloss exposure that even very large insurers canabsorb, no one should assume that large carrierswould fill the void created by the middle market’sexit.

That’s because in addition to being a man-maderisk that is deliberately unpredictable, terroristattacks are intended to produce large-scale catastro-phes for which losses tend to be correlated. In other

words, the terrorist’s objective is to inflict damagethat results in thousands of concurrent losses whoseaggregate cost reaches staggering sums. If too muchof this risk is covered by too few insurers, a singleevent could bankrupt a company, leaving it unable topay claims. For this reason, insurers prudentlyattempt to avoid overexposure to extreme events suchas terrorism, earthquakes, and hurricanes.

Because the frequency and magnitude of terror-ist attacks is less predictable than natural disasters,the need to avoid overexposure to this maddeninglycapricious risk is especially great. Public policyshould therefore attempt to establish conditionsunder which many different insurers are capable ofbearing a portion of terrorism risk. Maintaining agovernment reinsurance backstop is essential toachieving that objective. RF

Charles M. Chamness is President and CEO of theNational Association of Mutual InsuranceCompanies, a trade association of more than 1,400member companies.



Dynamic Scoring:The Time is Now.

WILLIAM W. BEACH

It is hard to find any serious economist who wouldargue that the federal government’s tax and spend-

ing policies make no difference to U.S. economic per-formance.

Indeed, all across the political spectrum andthroughout the leading schools of economic thought, abroad consensus exists that what governments do withtax dollars and how they raise those revenues mattersin the larger, dynamic, economicworld.

Thus, one would suppose thatPresident George W. Bush’s call for anew Dynamic Analysis Division inthe Department of Treasury’s Officeof Tax Analysis would be met withoverwhelming approval. After all, thenew division’s purpose is to advisethe President and key policy makerson how proposed tax policy changeswould affect economic activity and touse the latest advances in economicmodeling to prepare that advice.

This new division may also belaying the groundwork for dynamicscoring, which is a revenue estimationtechnique that uses models of the U.S.economy in conjunction with so-called static, non-economic models toestimate revenue change. That’s goodnews, if you believe that better gov-ernment results from improving the information poli-cy makers get when they are deciding on competingchoices. It is even better news when one realizes thatdynamic scoring not only involves more experts in thepolicymaking process, but provides engaged citizens,who are now outside of the “secret chambers” of pol-icy formation, a better ability to see into the process,itself. The result is better tax policy and more trans-parent government by including more economics inour tax policy work.

The only criticism to greet this wholly sensiblemove toward better tax policy has focused on the like-lihood that creating this division for dynamic or eco-nomic analysis does, indeed, constitute a major steptoward dynamic scoring. Those analysts who worry

about dynamic scoring base their concern in large parton a suspicion that the only reason for implementingthis technique is to show that tax cuts cost less thancurrent official estimates. For example, a static, non-economic tax model says that a tax rate reductionmight cause the government to lose $25 billion dol-lars, but a dynamic score that includes economic activ-ity might estimate the revenue loss at only $12 billion,because a stronger economy produced more taxableincome than the static model assumed.

At a deeper level, opponents of dynamic scoringgenerally also oppose tax policy changes that focusprimarily on the after-tax price of labor and capital,which most economists believe are the crucial connec-

tors between tax policy and the econ-omy. They favor instead targeted taxcuts, or tax credits and deductions thatsubsidize certain types of economicand social behavior over others.

These critics believe that if thegovernment were to adopt dynamicscoring, the economic models wouldshow that targeted tax cuts do little forthe economy when compared withacross-the-board rate reductions onlabor and capital income. This show-ing might induce policy makers toabandon targeted tax cuts in favor ofmore broadly applied tax policychanges (like the 2001 and 2003 Bushtax cuts).

No one knows, of course, whatpolicymakers will do, even when theypossess the very best analytical tools.This we do know, however: the stan-dard, conventional or static tax models

that are used today by the official revenue estimatorsin Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) andthe Congressional Budget Office are highly inaccuratebecause they do not include the economic effects oftax policy changes. It is this record of inaccuracy and,thus, bad policy advice which has fueled the interest indynamic analysis and scoring and will, I believe, leadto the inevitable adoption of dynamic scoring tech-niques.

In the real world, we know that businesses andconsumers will respond to both tax cuts and tax hikes,and they do so in fairly predictable ways. Tax cutsspur investment, which spurs hiring, which spurs addi-tional payroll taxes – and that leads to a positive feed-


Debate

Dynamic Scoring:Not so Fast!

RUDOLPH G. PENNER

dvocates for pro-growth tax cuts arefrustrated.

They are frustrated because formal revenue lossestimates used by Congress during the budgetprocess ignore revenues recouped from the increasein economic activity which occurs as a result of thepro-growth tax cuts. Thus, formal revenue estimatestend to exaggerate a pro-growth tax cut’s negativeeffects on the budget deficit. This isobviously illogical, but those who arefrustrated and want the error correct-ed should be cautious. They may becursed by getting what they wishedfor.

The fact of the matter is thateconomists differ significantly in theirassessment of the effects of tax cuts.A good number of economists alsobelieve that more research into theseeffects — also referred to as dynamicanalysis — may narrow some of thedifferences in these assessments, andthat new research should definitely beencouraged. These economistsshould be happy, for that is exactlywhat’s happening.

The president’s 2007 budgetwould establish a Division onDynamic Analysis in the U. S.Treasury. The establishment of thisoffice follows up on the decision of the JointCommittee on Taxation (JCT) to provide a fulldynamic analysis of the 2003 tax bill. The JCT hasdone similar studies of other tax options, as well.The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) also rou-tinely conducts dynamic analyses. The dynamics ofthe president’s budget are analyzed annually, andnumerous papers study the economic effects of dif-ferent tax and spending policies. Of course, in thesecases, dynamic analysis is conducted for informa-tional purposes only and plays no formal role inCongressional budgeting.

Formal, static scoring is used to enforce budgetdiscipline. For example, the Congress’s budget mayset a limit on revenue losses. Analysts from the JCT

or CBO then evaluate tax policy changes, and if theestimated revenue loss exceeds the limit, the legisla-tion is subject to a point of order that can only beovercome by 60 votes in the Senate. Formal scoringis said to be static, because tax policy’s effects onmacroeconomic variables such as gross domesticproduct (GDP) and the consumer price index (CPI)are not considered. However, not all effects on indi-vidual behavior are ignored. If, for example, theCongress is considering a cut in the gasoline excisetax, the revenue estimate will assume that thedemand for gasoline will rise as its price falls. It willnot, however, consider any effect on the CPI. Thus,the estimate will ignore the deficit reduction from

using a lower CPI to index benefitprograms and the income tax ratestructure.

It seems illogical to ignore sucheffects, but there are important con-ceptual, political, and logistical rea-sons why a more complete analysiswould be difficult, if not impossible.Conceptually, the tax cut’s effectson economic activity depend cru-cially on how it is financed. Is it byimmediate spending cuts, or spend-ing cuts in the future? Is it by futuretax increases, or by more govern-ment borrowing? Or is it financedsimply by printing more money? Toproduce a single estimate, analystswould have to decide which of thesemechanisms is most likely. Thatwould immediately land them inpolitical hot water, because theCongress gets very annoyed when

their employees forecast future votes on policyissues.

However, there is a more unseemly politicalproblem. Many tax cuts have a negative impact oneconomic activity. For example, increasing the gen-erosity of the tax treatment of housing will drawinvestment from more productive activities and, inthe process, dampen economic growth. It would biasthe policy process terribly to examine positive, butnot negative, impacts. One can be sure, though, thatCongress will tire of dynamic scoring quickly if neg-ative impacts are made explicit.

But they need not worry. Consistent dynamicscoring is logistically impossible given current



A

(Penner, continued from page 19)technology. Scoring is a hectic process. The CBOand JCT produce hundreds of scores each year.Congress always wants scores instantaneously, andanalysts often work through the night to keep themhappy. Dynamic scoring would force analysts tomake many more judgment calls than they do today.Quality control would be difficult, and that implies ahigh risk that ideological biases will pollute theanalysis. Even if that doesn’t happen, dynamicanalysis would be just as logically inconsistent asstatic analysis.

As it stands now, all analysts work from thesame assumptions regarding the GDP, CPI, and othermacroeconomic variables. But under dynamic scor-ing, analyst A may decide that provision 203(c) of atax bill raises the GDP. Theoretically, that probablyshould affect the score provided by analyst B for sec-tion 413(d) of that same bill. But what if analyst Bdecides that his provision reduces GDP? Analyst Ashould then redo her estimate, but she probablywon’t have time. The problem grows exponentially,because dozens of analysts may be working on taxand spending proposals simultaneously, all changingmacro variables at will and using inconsistentassumptions without the full knowledge of anyone inauthority.

There may come a day when there is sufficientagreement about dynamic effects to automate theprocess using powerful computers. But we are manydecades from such technology. So, for a very longtime, the Congress will have to be satisfied with stat-ic scoring. That is not so bad. The CBO’s dynamicanalysis suggests that static scoring is usually prettyaccurate. The middle of their wide range of esti-mates of the dynamic effects of a 10 percent incometax rate cut implies that static analysis overstates theincrease in the deficit by less than 14 percent over a10-year period.

Oratory praising the beneficial effects of tax cutsmay be more effective when unrestrained by suchanalysis. RF

Rudolph G. Penner is a Senior Fellow at the UrbanInstitute and a former director of the CongressionalBudget Office.


(Beach, continued from page 18)back effect for government treasuries. Yet it is exact-ly this kind of feedback effect that static analyses miss.

It happened in the early 1960s, when PresidentKennedy’s plan to cut the top marginal tax rate from91 percent to 70 percent took effect. Total tax rev-enues actually climbed 4 percent, despite predictionsthat the cuts would plunge the country deeply intodebt. It happened again when President Reagan cutthe top rate from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1981.Economists employing the static models now in use atkey government agencies predicted federal revenueswould fall by $330 billion over five years. Instead,they fell by $79 billion, and the economy boomed.

Even more interesting is the recent revenuegrowth from capital gains. The JCT forecast revenuedeclines following the 2003 tax rate reduction. That’sexactly what many in official Washington expected,too. However, the recent explosion in capital gainsrevenues — now well above the $40 billion forecast— indicates the strong economic reaction that fol-lowed the cut in the after-tax price of trading appreci-ated assets, like stocks and bonds.

In these cases, taxpayers got higher post-taxincomes, expanded economic opportunities and betterfinancial security. The government got a faster-grow-ing economy, more people working, more taxableearnings per worker and, thus, more revenue than“static” estimates had predicted.

Advocates of dynamic scoring must be carefulnot to oversell its capabilities or benefits. There arelegitimate disagreements about which economic mod-els best capture the economic effects of tax policychanges. There also is little reason to believe that taxcuts, even the best ones, will pay for themselves rightaway through super-nova revenue reflows from astronger economy. Finally, the technical difficulties ofeconomic modeling mean that this technique shouldbe reserved for only the most important tax issues.

Even so, we get better, more transparent govern-ment by encouraging the introduction of more eco-nomics into the evaluation of tax policy choices andthe occasional use of dynamic scoring models toadvise policy makers on the really big tax bills. Bettergovernment and better tax policy is, I believe, a win-ning combination of benefits that assures the wide-spread adoption of dynamic analysis and scoring. RF

William W. Beach is the Director of the Center forData Analysis at the Heritage Foundation.


(Boehner, continued from page 13)to take them seriously. When we stop caring urgent-ly about winning the debate as well as the vote, welose confidence in our accomplishments, and evenvictories seem a little hollow. We shouldn’t be satis-fied with winning just because we have more votes;we want to win because we’re right on the merits aswell.

I’m hopeful the lessons I’ve learned over the last15 years will serve our Conference well. When Iserved as Chairman of the Education and theWorkforce Committee, we worked from the ground-up on every major piece of legislation we moved.We developed principles that guided us through theentire process; asked the tough questions about poli-cy, message, and where our support would be; andwe sought bipartisan support without sacrificingRepublican principles. When we asked Members totake tough votes, we provided them with press andcoalitions support in their districts. Our victorieswere the products of the same extensive planning,Member outreach, press and coalitions support I willbring to the entire Conference.

In the end, I see a tremendous opportunity forHouse Republicans to recapture the energy, spirit,and creativity of the early years of our majority.During my tenure, the success of our ideas, our prin-ciples, and our Members will come first. As a result,the final answer to the “What do you think...” ques-tions won’t simply be my personal preference — itwill come from a united House RepublicanConference. RF

John Boehner represents the 8th District of Ohio inthe House of Representatives and is the HouseMajority Leader.

Business Software Alliance...promoting future innovation for

the commercial software industry and its hardware partners

through education and policy initiatives on copyrights, patents,

cyber security, trade, and e-commerce.

Adobe

Apple

Autodesk

Avid

Bentley Systems

Borland

Cadence DesignSystems

Cisco Systems

CNC Software/Mastercam

Dell

Entrust

HP

IBM

Intel

Internet SecuritySystems

McAfee

Microsoft

PTC

RSA Security

SAP

SolidWorks

Sybase

Symantec

Synopsys

The MathWorks

UGS

Visit BSA online at www.bsa.org

PROMOTING A AND

DIGITAL WORLDLEGALSAFE

BSA MEMBERS


Politics NeverSounded So Good.After seven years, The West Wingcalls it quits.

ROBERT J. THOMPSON

We wring our hands in this third century of theAmerican Experiment. More of us, we’re told,

can identify Paris Hilton than Paris, France. Frothycelebrity magazines thrive while serious politicaljournals struggle. Citizens seem more excited aboutvoting for the American Idol than the AmericanPresident. Entertainment trumps civic engagement;staying amused is more appealing than stayinginformed; and in the struggle for the American soul,Hollywood, not Washington, seems to have been ourcapital for a long time now. Perhaps it’s becauseHollywood knows how to talk. In the ancient old artof rhetoric, Hollywood has Washington beat handsdown — even when it’s telling stories aboutWashington.

What was so compelling about The West Wingwasn’t its politics, but the way its characters talkedabout politics. Their speech was literate, intelligent,and sophisticated; open to nuance and ambiguity.Sure, the orations of President Bartlet (Martin Sheen)and the monologues of his staff could be melodramat-ic, overwrought, idealistically naïve, and hyperbolic.But they were also usually convincing and alwaysrefreshingly candid. And it’s not like Cicero, Lincoln,or Martin Luther King were adverse to a little melo-drama and hyperbole. Public political communica-

tion is a rhetorical per-formance — an act ofpersuasion.

More than any-thing, The West Wingwas about language,and how to find lan-guage with which totalk about politics withvision and sincerity in anation where cynicismhas been metastasizingsince Vietnam,Watergate, Monica, andbeyond. Remarkably,The West Wing present-

ed government as some-thing noble, civic life assomething to be proudof. An episode in the fallof 2000 actually endedwith the whole staffrepeating the phrase“God Bless America” ina toast. Wizened, think-ing citizens in this timebetween the Clintonimpeachment and theterrorist attacks of September 11 might have beenexpected to roll their eyes at the Capra-esque jingoismof such a scene, but they didn’t. The scene worked.In spite of their hip, ironic, Machiavellian dialogue,the characters on The West Wing exhibited an earnest-ness that seems impossible in the era of Jon Stewart’sDaily Show, and unlikely since the era of Laugh-In.

Around the same time that episode was playing,George W. Bush and Al Gore were engaging in thefirst of a series of televised debates. Here, the rheto-ric wasn’t quite so inspiring. The debate offered littlein the way of memorable imagery or metaphor. Thebest one-liner of the night was Bush’s, “I’m beginningto think not only did he invent the Internet, he invent-ed the calculator.” Needless to say, it was no, “You’reno Jack Kennedy.” The entire debate revealed anotable poverty of political rhetoric. A good late-night infomercial was better at selling an idea; ataped-delayed Olympic medal ceremony better ateliciting pride of nationhood. A viable language,style, and vocabulary seem very often to elude con-temporary American leaders.

People spent a lot of time uncovering and expos-ing the liberal messages in The West Wing, which waskind of like spending time uncovering and exposingthe traditional family values in The Waltons. The WestWing was, after all, a show about a liberal Democraticadministration. Its principal characters were liberalDemocrats, as were many (but certainly not all) of thepeople who made the show.

It wasn’t just the president and his staff who werearticulate on The West Wing, however. TheirRepublican opponents were also masters of the lan-guage. If the victories of the superheroes are to meananything, of course, they have to do battle with adver-saries that are worthy of the fight. Arch-Republicanand recurring character Ainsley Hayes (EmilyProcter) was such an adversary. She could deliverpitch-perfect oratorical flourishes that left her

More than any-thing, The WestWing was aboutlanguage, and howto find languagewith which to talkabout politics withvision and sincerityin a nation wherecynicism has beenmetastasizing sinceVietnam, Watergate,Monica, andbeyond.

Observations

Democratic listeners speechless on more than oneoccasion. In the presidential election campaign of thefinal season, the Republican candidate Arnold Vinick(Alan Alda), has proven a formidable opponentindeed, his rhetorical skills matching, if not surpass-ing, his adversary in the live debate that aired lastNovember.

As for the larger claims made by fans of The WestWing, we should tread carefully. It isn’t a civics les-son. One should no more turn to The West Wing tolearn about presidential politics, policy, and proce-dures than one should turn to ER to learn about emer-gency surgery or to Shakespeare to learn about thereign of Richard III. Sure, some insights may begleaned from these sources, but they are all, in theend, fiction and fantasy.

Political rhetoric at its best is supposed to moveits audience — to engage them, to make them care, tomake them interested. Much political speech todaydoesn’t do that. It succeeds only in making the otherside angry. Television is often blamed for the “dumb-ing down” of political discourse, but the political dis-course we heard on The West Wing was usually a lot

more intelligent and complex than what we hear inactual political speeches, even big and importantones.

In this regard, perhaps it could also be argued thatThe West Wing set the bar too high when it came toAmerican politics. It raised our expectations of howpublic officials should talk, only to have these sameexpectations lowered when we realized that politi-cians in real life are not nearly as eloquent as theactors who play them on TV.

While this last point is obviously debatable, onething is certain – Hollywood and Washington are bothin the business of communicating with our nation’scitizens. Washington, these days, just isn’t very goodat it. RF

Robert J. Thompson is Trustee Professor of Mediaand Popular Culture in the Newhouse School ofPublic Communication at Syracuse University, wherehe is also founding director of the Bleier Center forTelevision and Popular Culture. He has written oredited six books on American TV.



Lincoln, King andScriptureLARRY R. HAYWARD

When Americans marked the birthdays ofAbraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.,

earlier this year, we were paying tribute to two lead-ers who did more to advance the causes of equality,human dignity, and civil rights in this country thanperhaps any other Americans.

We were also paying tribute to two leaders whofound their source of strength in one common place– scripture. As we reflect on their lives and consid-er how their actions helped shape our world, it mightalso be worthwhile to reflect on how their use ofscripture helped unify the nation, and how the exam-ple they set remains highly relevant today.

American history has been marked by one glar-ing contradiction – slavery – followed by its godchild– segregation. While many defenders of slaverycame from the ranks of learned Protestant clergy,particularly in the South, Christianity had a signifi-cant role in eradicating slavery – in its first stage, onehundred years after our founding; in its second stage,another hundred years later.

During the first stage, the language and cadencesof scripture, which had been used to justify slavery,played a significant role in its elimination. Lincoln’suse of scriptural language, perhaps best exemplifiedin his Second Inaugural Address, is significant in thisregard:

“Both read the same Bible and pray to the sameGod, and each invokes His aid against the other.”

“It may seem strange that any men should dareto ask a just God’s assis-tance in wringing theirbread from the sweat ofother men’s faces, but letus judge not, that we benot judged.”

“Fondly do we hope,fervently do we pray, thatthis mighty scourge ofwar may speedily passaway. Yet, if God willsthat it continue…as wassaid three thousand yearsago, so still it must be

said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and right-eous altogether.’”

These most remembered phrases operate at amythical level. They give voice to the idea that anation cannot be free as long as some of its citizensare enslaved. This combination of community andindividualism marks American society at its best.

A century later, scripture played an equally sig-nificant role in eradicating segregation through thevoice of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. His famous “IHave A Dream” speech, delivered on the steps of theLincoln Memorial, is resplendent with Biblical lan-guage and images:

“We are not satisfied, and we will not be satis-fied until ‘justice rolls down like waters, and right-eous like a mighty stream.’”

“I have a dream that one day every valley shallbe exalted, and every hill and mountain shall bemade low, the rough places will be made plain, andthe crooked places will be made straight; ‘and theglory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shallsee it together.’”

King’s most memorable passage, which emergesfrom these Biblical images, leans toward individual-ism as a constitutive element of community inAmerica:

“I have a dream that one day my four childrenwill live in a nation where they will not be judged bythe color of their skin but by the content of their char-acter.”

Lincoln and King used Biblical language thatspoke to community. Their language transcendeddifferences, religious and otherwise. At the deepest,most personal level, Lincoln and King affirmed thatthe opportunity for individuals to live freely andflourish is a — if not the — fundamental promise andpremise of American life. These two speeches ofthese two leaders are certainly among the most his-

At the deepest,most personallevel, Lincoln andKing affirmed thatthe opportunity forindividuals to livefreely and flourishis a — if not the —fundamentalpromise andpremise ofAmerican life.

torically significant uses of scripture in Americanhistory.

The reason their use of scripture was so power-ful is that it addressed a fundamental dimension ofAmerican culture – one that is spiritual and existen-tial. Their use of scripture was much deeper than theway today’s political parties and religious camps vol-ley individual verses across the net at one another –with great intensity – seeking to score political ortheological points and drive one another out of thegame.

The capacity to give voice to individualism iscrucial to Americans. But at our best, we recognizethat for individualism to flourish, communities mustbe healthy.

Lincoln and King captured this creative balancein their use of scripture. For our nation to flourish,we must capture the balance between individualismand community. For our nation to flourish “underGod,” we would benefit by looking at the wayLincoln and King used scripture.

Indeed, whoever aspires to lead our nation at thiscrucial point in our history – a time when Judaism,Christianity, and Islam have come to play such animportant role in our domestic and internationalaffairs – needs to affirm the individualism so impor-tant to our heritage in a way that lifts the communityas the context in which individuals can flourish.

Lincoln and King affirmed that premise in a waythat resonated and shaped American history. Despitethe plethora of religious books in the marketplaceand of religious leaders influencing national policy,no political or religious leader of recent decades hasconnected scripture to the creative tension betweenindividualism and community that marks our society.

I hope someone will. Soon. RF

Larry R. Hayward is the Pastor of WestminsterPresbyterian Church in Alexandria, Virginia.


www.perennialsg.com www.perenniallg.com www.perennialpac.org

P e r e n n i a lP e r e n n i a lS t r a t e g y G r o u p

www.perennialsg.com www.perenniallg.com www.perennialpac.org

Government Relations

International Trade

Business Development

Government Relations

International Trade

Business Development

26

Ripon

Name: Melissa HartHometown: Bradford Woods, Pennsylvania

Current job: Member, U.S. House of Representatives –4th Congressional District of Pennsylvania.

Hobbies: Cooking, cross-country skiing, golf, reading,ice skating.

Songs on my playlist: “All I Really Want to Do,” by BobDylan; “Nether Lands,” by Dan Fogelberg; “All the Way,” byFrank Sinatra; “The Dance,” by Garth Brooks; “What aWonderful World,” by Louie Armstrong.

Books that I’d recommend: West with the Night byBeryl Markham; What I Saw at the Revolution by PeggyNoonan; The Bible; The Devaluing of America by WilliamBennett; The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde; AnAmerican Childhood by Annie Dillard.

Political inspiration: Former Pennsylvania GovernorDick Thornburgh, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, thelate Pennsylvania State Representative Elaine Farmer (Elainewas my state representative when I first ran for thePennsylvania Senate. She was an invaluable advisor and anamazing human being.)

Most important issues facing America:The War on Terror and securing our Homeland; creating arobust economy that spurs continued job creation; educatingpeople about personal financial responsibility and savingmoney for retirement; energy security; restoring integrity tothe national discourse and public service.

Why I am a Republican: I am a Republican becausewe are the only party that is offering positive ideas to makeour country and our communities a better place to live andraise families. Our party stands for individual liberty and theopportunity for everyone to achieve the American Dream.Our party was home to Abraham Lincoln, who freed theslaves and Ronald Reagan, who played an instrumental partin winning the Cold War. The Republican Party continues tobe the driving force in promoting freedom and democracyacross the world.

Profile


Global Transportation andSupply Chain Security

prmmloqfkd eljbi^ka pb`rofqv fkfqf^qfsbp

Supply Chain SecurityC-TPATOperation Safe Commerce

Maritime PortSecurity ComplianceUSCG •IMO •ISPS

TransportationAir •Sea •Truck • Rail

Cargo Theft

Vulnerability/Risk Assess

GAP Analysis

Policy & Procedure Revi

Education & Trainin

Needs Identificat

Master Port Security Pla

Strategic Planni

Facility/Ship Security

Proven Theft Prevention Prog

Recovery Focused Investiga

www.securitasinc.com 800-232-7465

Department of Homeland Security Certified

The DHS has Certified Securitas Security Services USA as an approved anti-terrorism service provider.Receiving the highest level of liability protection afforded by the SAFETY Act – “Certification” – Securitas

extends this protection to all parties in the supply chain, including customers and sub-contractors.


Sections

TheParty Line:Great Republican Quotes from

Lincoln to Reaganand Bush.

“The legitimate object of government is to do for acommunity of people whatever they need to havedone, but cannot do at all, or cannot do as well forthemselves in their separateand individual capacities.”

Abraham LincolnSpeeches & Writings1832-1858

“Ideas are the greatwarriors of the world,and a war that has noideas behind it is simplebrutality.”

James A. GarfieldMaxims of JamesAbram Garfield1880

“There is no one thingwhich does so much tobring about a reduction ofwages and to injure the American wageearner more as the unlimited introductionof cheap, foreign labor through unrestrictedimmigration.”

Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr.Speech in the U.S. SenateAugust 16, 1896

“Into the life of every generation comes someopportunity for great public good.”

Robert La FolletteAccepting Nomination for GovernorAugust 8, 1900

“The mother is the one supreme asset of nationallife; she is more important by far than the success-ful statesman, or businessman, or artist or scientist.”

President Theodore RooseveltSpeech in Washington, DCMarch 10, 1908

“It must be remembered that the welfare of ourpeople is not recorded on the financial pages of thenewspapers. It cannot be measured in stock market

prices. The real test is to be found in the abilityof the average American to engage in business,to obtain a job, to be a self-supporting and aself-respecting member of his community.”

Alf LandonJuly 23, 1936

“Peace is never handed to a nation on a platterof complacency. Peace must be waged. Peacemust be earned.”

U.S. Rep. Katherine St. George (NY)Chicago, ILJuly 9, 1952

“A responsible patriotismdoes not deny – but doesdemand – a responsible par-tisanship. For the way aparty speaks and acts can –and should – inspire the waya nation speaks and acts.”

Nelson RockefellerJune 8, 1960

“Above all, we must realizethat no arsenal, or noweapon in the arsenals of theworld, is so formidable asthe will or moral courage offree men and women.”

President Ronald ReaganFirst Inaugural AddressJanuary 27, 1981

“Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have alwaysbeen at war, and we know that God is not neutralbetween them.”

President George W. BushSpeech before Joint Session of Congress

September 20, 2001

James A. Garfield

Katherine St. George

From the

ArchivesAn editorial, printed verbatim from theMarch/April 1966 edition of the Ripon Forum:

Political SceneLast month forty-five different House

Republicans joined in groups of varying size to issuetwo in-depth statements, one on the draft, the otheron foreign aid; eighteen introduced a Civil RightsLaw Enforcement Act of major significance. Thespearhead for this initiative was once again theWednesday Group of moderate Republicans, joinedin the draft study by Congressmen John Anderson(Ill.), Tom Curtis (Mo.), Albert Quie (Minn.) andDon Rumsfeld (Ill.)

It is good to see initiative among CongressionalRepublicans, in spite of glaring non-leadership at thetop. At long last, it appears, Republicans who wantthe GOP to have the opportunity someday to solvethe nation’s problem have set about themselves toconvince the voters that Republicans have somethingworthwhile to say.

Foreign AidThe statement on foreign aid is the product of a

six-month study by minority members of the ForeignAffairs and Appropriations Committees. Their analy-sis is comprehensive and provocative. Pointing outthat “if we made no effort to guide the revolution ofrising expectations in a peaceful course toward polit-ical stability and economic prosperity, we will soonhave to choose between ‘war of national liberation’everywhere or an illusory isolation in a world wherethe cause of freedom seems doomed to failure,” theCongressmen assert that “[a]n economic infrastruc-ture cannot provide meaningful human progressunless it springs from a vibrant human infrastruc-ture.”

Specifically, the Republicans recommenddefined criteria to assure that aid recipients areencouraging broad popular participation in govern-ment and development, and are taking steps to mini-mize inefficiency. Emphasizing the short as well asthe long term role education must play, the statementcalls for: the establishment of a Latin American CivilService Academy funded in part by the U.S.; a Latin

American Institute for Democratic Developmentunder the joint sponsorship of the Republicans andDemocratic Parties; technical and management train-ing by U.S. business abroad; expanded links betweenU.S. labor unions and workers in the developingcountries; and increased efforts by U.S. farm andagriculture workers’ organizations to export agricul-tural modernization.

Urging a greater role for the private sector of theU.S. economy, the Congressmen recommend: theloan by business (at its own expense) of junior exec-utive talent to AID on a rotating 1-year basis;Congressional consideration of the WatsonCommittee recommendations to increase U.S. invest-ment in the developing countries; and greater use ofU.S. private investment to fund and manage specificprojects, thereby freeing AID to concentrate on theoverall political administration of development.

Perhaps the most innovative proposal is that theU.S. states establish aid programs to individual coun-tries in Latin America by enlisting the state’s busi-ness, academic and professional communities’ sup-port of a state coordinated program.

The thrust of the analysis is that U.S. foreign aidmust be used aggressively rather than as an exercisein goodwill. The concrete recommendations coalescein a plea for recognition of an obvious factDemocratic administrations insist on ignoring; thatthere are some things the federal government cannotdo better. It is shortsighted to think that AID officialsare always more competent than practicing business-men and lawyers to forge the tools of economicdevelopment. Conversely, the statement recognizesthat political supervision and overall administrationby AID is essential.

The DraftThe statement calling for an immediate

Congressional investigation of the draft and themethods used to persuade our allies to supply man-power to Vietnam and Southeast Asia received exten-sive coverage by national news media. It chargesinequities in the ad hoc prescription of limits on age,mental and physical capacity, and inequities in theoperation ill-defined guidelines for student defer-ment. It charged bureaucratic inefficiency in theprocessing of papers, and Defense Departmentinefficiency in the employment of drafted servicepersonnel on jobs (such as golf course maintenanceand officer club bartending) which should be held bycivilians.



Finally, the Congressman point out that a yearago the President directed the Secretary of Defenseto undertake a study of the Selective Service Systemand to provide precise recommendations on how theservice manpower needs of the nation could best bemet. The completed study, which General Hersheyhas never seen, sits unpublicized on Mr. McNamara’sdesk.

And Civil RightsThe introduction by Republican Congressmen of

the Civil Rights Law Enforcement Act of 1966 is anotable event in the Party’s history. The legislatorsrecognize that courts are handicapped by inadequate,imprecise and antiquated criminal statutes. Withstudied deference to the federal system they also rec-ognize that the scope of the Fourteenth Amendmentis broad enough to accommodate legislation aimedat: providing an objective and equitable standard forjury selection; protecting civil rights workers fromprivately organized violence; and making govern-mental employers civilly liable in damages for acts

of violence committed by public officials. RecentSupreme Court opinions in the Guest and Price caseswould seem to support this judgment. The progressof the bill should be watched with care; we intend todo so. RF

Mike Deaver. Bethesda, Maryland. For more than 20

years Mike Deaver stood alongside Ronald Reagan, trusted

counsel to one of America’s most beloved and effective

political leaders. By 2000, he could barely stand on his own

without debilitating pain. Mike’s knees were hobbled by

osteoarthritis, and he was seriously considering leaving his

successful career as communications counsel to CEOs

and political leaders across the globe.

Fortunately, innovative medical technology allowed

Mike’s doctor to replace his diseased knee joints with

prosthetic knees. Like millions of Americans, this procedure

put Mike back on his feet – and let him keep doing the work

he loves.

Whether giving doctors the tools to detect disease early

or opening new doors for patients like Mike Deaver, medical

technology creates new possibilities for millions of people.

So they can continue sharing their wisdom with us all.

www.advamed.org

These knees were made for walking.

At Baxter, one of our primary goals is to advance the best in healthcare worldwide. We focus on assisting people with some of the most complex conditions —from hemophilia to cancer and immune disorders to kidney disease. Together, our caring hands help healthcare professionals enhance the care they provide their patients.

Medical Devices Pharmaceuticals Biotechnology

www.baxter.com© 2005. Baxter Healthcare Corporation. All rights reserved.


AmerisourceBergen's focus onpharmaceutical services producesbenefits for everyone from suppliers,to the pharmacists filling prescriptions,to the people who benefit from thetherapy. Pharmaceutical servicesrepresent one of the few segmentsin healthcare where costs havebeen reduced steadily,consistently and reliably.

AmerisourceBergen® people capitalize ontheir value creation ability to help suppliersand healthcare providers deliver safe,quality care at a reasonable cost.

AmerisourceBergen promises that a safe,efficient, reliable pharmaceutical supplysystem is offered to our suppliers, ourcustomers, our shareholders, and ourpeople. That promise is better care forlonger and healthier lives.

AmerisourceBergen CorporationP.O. Box 959Valley Forge, PA 19482800.829.3132 www.amerisourcebergen.com

We have one focus — pharmaceutical services.

The Ripon Society is a research and policy organization located in Washington, D.C. There are National Associate members throughout the United States.

• Subscribe Online• Renew Membership• Latest Ripon News

• Event Coverage• Archived

Ripon Forums

Log on today!


(Johnson, continued from page 9)care quality and to empower our families to be betterhealth care consumers.

Of course, improving the quality of our healthcare would be in vain if suburban families cannotafford that care in the first place. I was proud to offerthe law creating the state children’s health insuranceplan (SCHIP) in the House, and it has made healthcare more affordable and accessible for millions ofchildren in the last nine years.

In the short term, however, we can do more tomake sure all children eligible for public safety nethealth programs like SCHIP are enrolled in them.Studies show that families of these children are notaware that these programs are available to them. Alongwith Dr. Bill Frist in the Senate, I have introduced inthe House the “Covering Kids Act,” legislation author-izing $100 million in federal grants to states, schools,community and non-profit groups to conduct the cre-ative outreach that we know works.

For suburban families with so often two parentsworking, the goal of maintaining family health, mini-mizing work disruptions and preventing illness can befar more effectively accomplished with advanced,broadly disseminated health information and healthcare that is more portable and affordable.

Concerns about cost and quality demand that wecontinue working to make such a system areality for families in every community acrossAmerica. RF

Nancy Johnson represents the 5th District ofConnecticut in the U.S. House of Representatives.

(McLaughlin, continued from page 7)immigrants’ hands — 73 percent favor prohibitingstates from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immi-grants. Only 19 percent thought giving undocu-mented workers driver’s licenses would encouragemore car insurance and driver testing.

Keeping gangs out of schools — 70 percentfavor increasing federal funding to fight againstgangs in schools who are linked to internationaldrug cartels. Only 21 percent thought this was anunnecessary expansion into local police jurisdiction.

Encouraging people to conserve land — 69 percent favor federal tax incentives to individualsand businesses for donating their privately ownedopen space for environmental conservation.

Putting an end to frivolous lawsuits — 68 percentfavor stopping frivolous lawsuits against doctors bycapping medical malpractice awards at $250,000 ineconomic damages. Only 26 percent would givepatients unlimited rights to sue their doctor orhospital.

Improving electronic medical recordkeeping —61 percent favor setting a federal date for all doctorsand hospitals to keep electronic medical records.Only 26 percent opposed it because it would be eas-ier to invade private medical records.

Helping parents save for college — 61 percentfavor providing parents with a $1,000 educationaltax credit to be used for their child’s educationalexpenses. Only 32 percent preferred increasing fed-eral spending on government programs to assist pub-lic schools over the tax credit.

The consensus for these issues is so broad and sowide, that they can certainly attract support from amajority of suburban voters. Nine of these issues pollover 80 percent support. Another eight issues receivean over 60 percent majority. If political strategy isbased upon significant public opinion numbers, itwould be hard to develop a more popular agenda.

The real challenge, of course, will be to makeprogress on these issues before November. Time isrunning short. Work needs to begin immediately toget this done. Legislation needs to be strategicallyintroduced in the House in the spring and early sum-mer, and then promoted by the membership when theyreturn to their districts for their August work period.Likewise, Republicans also need to craft a comprehen-sive communications strategy to sell this plan for whatit is – a positive effort to make government work.

Implemented successfully, the Democrat opposi-tion will have only two real choices: 1) adopt and pass

this legislation, which will give the Republican major-ity real accomplishments to point to in the election; or,2) fight a losing battle against this agenda, which inturn will give the GOP important contrast issues inNovember.

For Republicans, it’s a win-win proposition eitherway, which is why the Suburban Agenda is not onlythe kind of plan parties win elections with, but the kindof plan parties in power need to retain and build upontheir majority. RF

John McLaughlin is the CEO of McLaughlin andAssociates.


Maybe Clintonwas right.(...not about school uniforms and theV-chip, but about smart governmentinitiatives in a small government world.)

Ten years ago this past January, Bill Clinton deliv-ered his State of the Union Address in which he

famously declared that “The era of big government isover.” In this same speech, he also reiterated his sup-port for school uniforms and the V-chip.

His endorsement of these two initiatives wonhim praise and criticism from both sides of the aisle.It also helped set the stage for a run of political suc-cesses over the next 10 months that culminated notonly in his victory over Bob Dole in November, butin Democrats picking up seats in Congress, as well.

During this period, President Clinton pushedforward with a series of proposalsintended to help show that he wasin touch with the American peopleand was working on their con-cerns. He talked about tuition taxcredits for college students, pro-posed that workers be able to taketime off instead of extra pay forovertime, and went after deadbeatdads by garnishing their federalbenefits and plastering their mugshots in post officesacross the country.

In his book, Behind the Oval Office, formerClinton advisor Dick Morris described these initia-tives as being part of a positive values agenda thatsought to put Republicans on the defensive.“Trivialized in the press as ‘small bore,’” Morriswrote, “it [the values agenda] nevertheless showedvoters what an activist President could do for theaverage person with the help of Congress and oftenwithout it.”

Clinton’s support for these “small bore” initia-tives also showed voters something else – mainly,how a President or political party could express theirsupport for limited government and pursue an activistgovernment agenda, too. It was a balancing actRepublicans, at the time at least, never quite under-stood. Indeed, in the years after they took control ofCongress in 1994, GOP rhetoric and talking pointsfocused almost exclusively on the need to cut the sizeof government. While this appealed to the party’s

base, it failed to recognize that most Americans donot just want smaller government. They wantsmarter government, as well.

Bill Clinton recognized this. So, too, did GeorgeW. Bush, who, when he ran for President as a com-passionate conservative in 1999, stated that,“Government should do a few things, and do themwell.” Some might argue that some of the President’sproblems these days stem from the fact that he seemsto have forgotten these words. Under his administra-tion, government has gotten larger, not smaller. And,given the response to Hurricane Katrina, it’s safe to

say that most Americans do notperceive the federal governmentas being very smart.

The challenge forRepublicans this November is tochange these perceptions. And todo this, they need to put forwardpositive ideas designed to reaf-firm to voters that Republicansare committed to making limited

government more effective. The Suburban Agendais one such idea. It is a comprehensive effort byHouse Republicans to make government work with-out making government bigger. The proposal toestablish a Sunset Commission is another idea. It isan attempt to set limits and promote accountabilitywithin the Washington bureaucracy – two things thatare essential if smaller, smarter government is to suc-ceed.

The key thing for Republicans is to present apositive plan. In his book, Dick Morris referred tothis as a “message of relevance.” Maybe that’s thekey lesson to take away from the values agendaPresident Clinton promoted in 1996. It wasn’t aboutschool uniforms. It wasn’t about the V-chip. It was-n’t about any of the initiatives he pushed in his drivefor reelection that year. Rather, it was about beingrelevant – which, when you think about it, is not justsmart government, but smart politics, as well.

Louis M. ZickarEditor, Ripon Forum

Building towards a better tomorrow.Freddie Mac is dedicated to strengthening communities by

expanding housing and rental opportunities throughout the U.S. In many ways, we work towards a common goal: a better tomorrow

for everyone in America. www.FreddieMac.com

Documents

Ripon Forum April-May 2006