the
Insider
Summer/Fall 2006
Conservative Solutions For Advancing Liberty
Principles to Govern by
Toward Restoring
Limited Government
INSIDE:
Unlimited Government
Budget Reform
Trade as Wealth
A Think Tank Success
4
12
18
26
A
s November approaches, it’s an opportune time to remember the importance
of principles in the political process. Principles help us see the difference between political expedience and good policy.
prise. Prosperity, however, does not necessarily breed limited government. Daniella
Markheim and Anthony Kim remind us of
the benefits that the United States and the
world have reaped from free trade.
Over the past months, immigration
reform has been an emotional issue
in Washington, D.C., and throughout
the country. Good immigration policy,
says Matthew Spalding, should be about
making good citizens—assimilating newcomers to America’s ideas and ideals.
Finally, there’s a cautionary tale for legislators who abandon the principles that
they pledge to uphold. Matthew Brouillette
writes on the success his Pennsylvania think
tank had, along with the help of a diverse
coalition, in drawing attention to some very
unprincipled legislators. Many of these legislators are now out of a job.
Editor’s note
This edition of The
Insider highlights the
principles that are
important to the American republic. Christopher DeMuth writes on
the decline of the principle of limited government as set forth in the Constitution. Brian
Riedl explains ten steps that federal legislators can take to put limits back on an everexpanding government. Joseph Bast, Steve
Stanek, and Richard Vedder outline a plan to
put limits back on state government.
Limited government breeds prosperity
because it allows for a system of free enter-
The Insider
Bridgett Wagner
Director of Coalition Relations
Larry Scholer
Editor of The Insider and InsiderOnline.org
Summer/Fall 2006
Edwin J. Feulner, Publisher • Bridgett Wagner, Director, Coalition Relations • Larry Scholer, Editor, The Insider • Teri
Ruddy, Deputy Director • David Barnes, Project Coordinator • Becky Norton Dunlop, Vice President, External Relations
The Insider is published quarterly by The Heritage Foundation’s Coalition Relations Department. Begun in 1978, The Insider
brings together knowledge and news from all parts of the conservative movement. The Coalition Relations Department
serves as Heritage’s liaison to a network of some 500 policy groups and over 2,000 leading scholars and activists worldwide.
Features for The Insider are picked by the Editor and Director, but studies and other publications can be submitted for
consideration and publication on InsiderOnline.org to:
The Editor, The Insider, The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4999, (202)
546-4400, fax (202) 544-0961, e-mail [email protected]. Interested in advertising with The Insider? E-mail insider@
heritage.org for more information.
Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the view of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of
any bill before Congress.
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
Summer/Fall 2006
4
20
18
12
Who We Are
What We Believe
Doing Too Much, Badly:
Unlimited Government
Our government has come unhinged
from the Constitution
Ten Elements of Comprehensive
Budget Process Reform
A Time to ‘Tank’
4
26
Ten Principles of State Fiscal Policy 29
Sound fiscal principles lead to sound
government
12
Fixing a broken system
Free Trade and American Prosperity 18
Free trade benefits America and the world
The Case for Patriotic Assimilation 20
Making good citizens
A victory for ideas in Pennsylvania
What We Do
So You Want to Hold a Public
Event A guide to a successful event
30
Visit insideronline.org
Doing Too
Much, Badly
Unlimited
Government
By Christopher DeMuth
J
What We Believe
ohn F. Kennedy once described Washington
as a town of northern charm and southern
efficiency; it has since become more northern
and more efficient.
The emergence of 24/7/52 legislating is one
of many ways in which modern American government has become much busier and more
businesslike than it used to be. While busyness
is a virtue in most of life, the men who founded our nation would not have considered it
advantageous to government. They carefully
contrived a state that would be cumbersome
and inefficient at getting its act together, with
divided and contending powers both inside
Washington and between Washington and
the states, and a profusion of checks and balances throughout. They wanted government
to be robust and decisive in a limited sphere,
but also considered government a threat to
freedom and happiness, and worried it would
engross private society, property, commerce,
and culture. “Government,” said John Adams,
“turns every contingency into an excuse for
enhancing power in itself.” Certainly today’s Supreme Court has strayed
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
far from its original assignment. Not only does
it fail to enforce Constitutional limits on the
activities of government, it has joined Team
Big Government itself—becoming a super-legislature that decides many controversial matters that the Constitution manifestly leaves to
the political branches, to the states, or to the
people. That the judicial confirmation process
has become so contentious and extended—and
now managed like election campaigns by supporters and opponents—proves the critics’
point that the Court has become a third political branch. When the justices stuck to legal
interpretation and enforcement, most nomination hearings were perfunctory and lasted
only a few days.
But at least we are having a debate on issues
of judicial performance. Thanks to the checkand-balance of Presidential nomination and
senatorial confirmation of new judges and justices, critics have some prospect of nudging the
judiciary back toward its appointed rounds.
The confirmation battles, however, are also
a symptom of a broader and more important
development: Modern political practices have
left the Constitution in the dust in ways that
no one is debating, and few have even noticed.
Slowly and insensibly, James Madison’s
parchment barriers have been worn down.
Outside a few important strictures from the
Bill of Rights, the very notion of limited government—the bedrock of our Constitutional
order, brilliantly articulated for the ages in
The Federalist Papers—has
become little more than an
antiquarian curiosity.
rural health clinics, and other worthy causes.
The Accounting Oversight Board raises its
entire operating budget with its own national tax levied on all publicly traded corporations of any size. The Board sets its budget
for the year ($103 million for 2004, then up
33 percent to $137 million in 2005), divides
that amount by the number of U.S. companies
weighted by their market
capitalizations, and sends
each company a bill.
The very notion of limited
Neither Congress nor
government—the bedrock of
Government
the President is in the loop
our Constitutional order—has
Unlimited
on any of this. Of course
Let me offer two examples become little more than an
Congress wrote the laws
of practices that are unques- antiquarian curiosity.
that established these protionably un-Constitutional
cedures, but Congress is
yet are hardly questioned
not supposed to be able to
at all. Neither even came up at Chief Justice excuse itself from its assigned Constitutional
Roberts’s confirmation hearing. The first con- duties—and none is more important than takcerns taxation.
ing political responsibility for imposing taxes.
The framers, regarding taxation as the With the emergence of bureaucracies with
most politically sensitive of government pow- their own autonomous taxing-and-spending
ers, required that all bills for raising revenue authority, we have crossed a great Constitumust originate in the people’s chamber, the tional Rubicon; it is an innovation in outsideHouse of Representatives. This is the sort of the-box, plug-and-play government that is
fussy procedural formality that is just a damn sure to replicate.
nuisance when it comes to running a modern,
My second example concerns federalism.
efficient government. Accordingly, twice in Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in a famous
recent years Congress has empowered agencies opinion that federalism fosters “laboratories
to devise and collect taxes all on their own— of democracy,” where policies can be tried
first the Federal Communications Commission in individual states and their good or poor
in 1996, and then the new Public Company results noted elsewhere. The growth of federal
Accounting Oversight Board established by power has shuttered many of those laboratothe Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. Both agen- ries. A federal government that can ban the
cies decide how much they want to spend, set personal use of medical marijuana grown right
a tax that will generate the desired funds, and in your own backyard—which is plainly neiincrease the tax as needed to keep their busi- ther “interstate” nor “commerce” (yet the ban
ness plans on track.
was easily upheld by the Supreme Court last
The FCC tax, on long-distance telephone term)—can do just about anything to blot out
calls, has grown from 3 percent to 11 percent, local policy choices.
and presently garners $6.5 billion a year. The
Even more striking are the new coast-toCommission spends this on computers for coast regimes being constructed by state offischools and libraries, Internet connections for cials like New York Attorney General Eliot
Visit insideronline.org
Spitzer. He candidly admits that his mission is
the wholesale restructuring of entire industries
on a nationwide scale. The agreements he has
imposed on Merrill Lynch and other financial
services firms make detailed requirements of
how the firms are to be managed in the future.
This has created, thanks to collaboration with
officials in other states, new national regulatory programs established entirely outside the
legislative process and outside the public rulemaking procedures of regulatory agencies.
Instead, the deals are cut in lawyers’ offices.
The results are policy cartels with no exit for
any firm or customer, no policy competition or
experimentation, no federalism.
The emerging phenomenon is one of multiplying special-purpose national governments
operating in parallel with the official national
government and without any coterminous
political accountability. This has come to
pass because of the desuetude of several Constitutional provisions, none more important
than the Compact Clause, which provides
that “no State shall, without the Consent of
Congress, enter into any Agreement…with
another State.” The requirement of Congressional approval is unqualified and it is fundamental. For a gang of states to go off on
their own and set up independent governing
regimes is, politically, a form of partial secession. Yet this protection has lapsed through
judicial neglect.
Here the big innovation was the 1998 settlement agreement among most of the states and
the leading tobacco companies. The agreement
established a national regime for the marketing of tobacco products, including a de facto
national excise tax on cigarettes designed to
raise $246 billion over 25 years, a range of
spending programs funded by the revenues,
entry controls to limit competition from new
manufacturers, and a host of other regulatory requirements. The states have become so
addicted to the tobacco revenue windfall that
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
the decline in cigarette smoking is now a serious fiscal worry.
The tobacco program was followed by the
Spitzer-led initiatives for regulating investment
firms. The pharmaceutical industry—already
heavily regulated by the official federal government—is next. Attorney General activists
are already closely coordinating a variety of
cases in courts across the nation.
Who’ll fight for the
Constitutional order?
My examples may seem arcane and tedious
compared to abortion, religious displays in
public places, detainment of suspected terrorists, and other hot issues now at the center of our Constitutional arguments. And
that is exactly my point. The Constitution’s
own purposes, provisions, and architecture
of government no longer attract our interest
or give us much pause when they stand in the
way of doing something that sounds good or
is backed by an influential constituency. It is
now invoked mostly in opportunistic ways to
bulk up arguments about policies we support
or oppose for other reasons.
In the Republic’s early days, Presidents used
their veto power almost exclusively to strike
down bills they regarded as violating the
Constitution, not those they disagreed with
on policy grounds. But in modern times the
original practice has been turned completely
on its head. In recent decades, Presidents have
routinely—about once a month on average—
signed bills into law while announcing that
they regard some of their provisions as unConstitutional (before 1945, this strange procedure occurred only about once a decade).
Legislation these days is hundreds or
thousands of pages long, and the product of
months or years of negotiations among members of Congress and administration officials
and their staffs and friends and foes among
the lobbyists and interest groups. So it seems
preposterous to suggest that the whole pro- Constitutional, and said that he would veto the
duction should be jettisoned at the last minute then-gestating McCain-Feingold bill because
because Congressman Jones slipped in an un- of its infringements on political speech. Then,
Constitutional rider when no one was watch- shortly after arriving at the White House, he
ing. The Constitution’s requirements are under sent the Senate a statement urging that camsuch continuous assault today, at so many dif- paign finance reforms should protect the rights
ferent margins, that making a stand in any one of “individuals to participate in democracy”
place and time has become quixotic.
and “citizen groups to engage in issue advoThe modern practice,
cacy.” The statement added
which may be described as
that if the courts found any
Constitutional agnosticism in
provision of such a reform
The Constitution’s own purposes,
the political branches, is funto be un-Constitutional, the
damentally different from the provisions, and architecture of
entire law should fall.
government
no
longer
attract
our
earlier practice of ConstituBut when McCaintional contention. The Loui- interest or give us much pause when Feingold passed in 2002,
siana Purchase, the Jackson they stand in the way of doing
it contained even greater
Bank veto, FDR’s New Deal
restrictions on individual
something that sounds good or is
legislation and court-packing
speech and group issuescheme, and Harry Truman’s backed by an influential constituency. advocacy than earlier verseizure of the steel industry
sions of the bill, and lacked
were all subjects of passionate, often sophisti- any provision to invalidate the full law if parts
cated Constitutional argument among politi- proved un-Constitutional. Whereupon Presical leaders. For many decades now, Presidents, dent Bush, under intense political pressure folsenators, and congressmen have, for the most lowing six years of Congressional deliberation
part, simply washed their hands of Constitu- on the bill, signed it into law anyway—while
tional issues—saying that those are matters for noting his “serious Constitutional concerns”
the courts to decide.
and his expectation that “the courts will
This division of labor in Constitutional resolve these legitimate legal questions.”
interpretation is another instance of the streamWhen the law was challenged in court, howlining of modern government. By removing ever, the Department of Justice did not oppose
one bone of political contention, it generates a the speech-limiting provisions the President
much higher volume of legislation. By leaving said he objected to, but rather defended them
the sorting out of Constitutional issues to the based on extrapolations of Supreme Court
courts, the branch with the least democratic precedents. With its way thus paved, the Court
sanction, it ensures that resistance to govern- agreed with “the Government” and held the
mental growth will be sporadic and anemic.
regulations to be Constitutional—noting for
A telling illustration of the current practice good measure its own “proper deference to
is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Congress’s ability to weigh competing ConstiReform Act of 2002—where a genuine First tutional interests in an area in which it enjoys
Amendment debate seemed to be brewing particular expertise.”
within and between the Bush administration
and the Congress, only to fizzle out. As a can- Government Bloat 1980 – 2005
didate, George W. Bush agreed that Presidents
Well, what difference does all of this make?
have a duty to veto bills they regard as un- Why in the age of the Internet, globalization,
Visit insideronline.org
and al-Qaeda should we attend fastidiously from about $900 billion to about $1.8 trillion
to a document written more than two centu- (in 2000 dollars). Today the federal governries ago, in radically different circumstances, ment’s fiscal imbalance—the excess of projectthat itself contains many artful fudges and ed future expenditures over projected future
reflects many political compromises on issues revenues—is close to $70 trillion. About $20
that long ago lost their salience? Here are three trillion of this enormous sum was tacked on
reasons why we should be much more fastidi- just in 2003, with the addition of a massive,
ous than we are.
unfunded Medicare entitlement to prescription
First, the American
drug benefits. Increasing
political order is very old
taxes to pay for our standand very successful, and
ing policy commitments
‘Government at the present time
tolerable Constitutional
would move U.S. rates
is so large that it has reached
adherence has already seen
to the levels prevailing in
the
stage
of
negative
marginal
us through many epochs
today’s socialist European
and crises. Have you heard
nations.
productivity, which means that
the joke about the student
In recent years, with the
any additional function it takes
who went to the reference
Republicans in charge of
on will probably result in more
librarian and asked for a
both houses of Congress,
copy of the French Con- harm than good.’
domestic expenditures
stitution? “I’m sorry,” the
(even excluding post-9/11
librarian replied, “we don’t keep periodicals “homeland security” spending) have been
here.” Ours is the oldest written Constitu- growing faster than during the previous two
tion, and our nation, for all of its problems decades of divided government, and the inciand shortcomings, has been an unprecedent- dence of pork-barrel projects has reached an
ed success. For most of our 216 years, other all-time high.
countries have been places of continuous
And the expenditure and debt figures
political upheaval and oppression, punctuat- offered here seriously understate the extent
ed by periods of mass violence. Progress and of recent government growth. That is because
stability are cardinal virtues where political they ignore the burst of regulations whose
systems are concerned; when you find your- costs are borne largely by the private sector.
self in possession of them, hold fast to your As with domestic spending, off-budget regulainstitutional inheritance.
tory growth has been particularly pronounced
Second, the principle of limited govern- in the recent years of unified Republican govment is not a bit less urgent today than it was ernment. Examples include the institution of
two centuries ago. It has now been 25 years national “corporate governance” and accountsince Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington ing regulation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
announcing his intention to “check and reverse national school testing requirements under the
the growth of government.” That quarter cen- No Child Left Behind Act, the Securities and
tury has been governed mainly by Republican Exchange Commission’s issuance of a profuPresidents, and increasingly by Republican leg- sion of new rules throughout the financial
islatures, and even the one Democratic Presi- services sector, the Department of Justice’s use
dent declared that “the era of big government of aggressive new legal theories to prosecute
is over.” Yet the federal government’s annual “economic crimes” and establish new forms
domestic spending doubled during the period, of federal crime, and the national regulatory
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
regimes established by state attorney general to popularize the personal benefits of shifting
litigation described earlier. In 2005, political insurance and subsidy programs from governleaders of both parties proposed national price ment administration to private institutions
controls for gasoline, heating oil and gas, and and markets. But these and other expedients
pharmaceuticals. The bipartisan deregulation have had little durable effect. It seems that,
movement of the late 1970s and ’80s has been when accepted external constraints on governsupplanted by new, equally bipartisan enthu- ment action are abandoned, there is no solusiasm for regulation.
tion within the political system to the problem
These developments have
of government’s turning
not come without resis“every contingency into an
tance, but the nature and
excuse for enhancing power
Xxxxxxx
It is a mistake to transfer the
futility of that resistance is
in itself.”
modern be-all-you-can-be
highly instructive. With the xxxxx
sentiment to government. Limits
decline in Constitutional xxxxxx
Doing too much,
adherence, political leaders xxxxxx
badly
on government can be freedom(mainly Republican) have enhancing, not only for individuals
A third reason to be conbeen searching for several
cerned over the decline in
but for government itself.
decades now for substitute,
Constitutional discipline is
sub-Constitutional devicthat it is plausibly related to
es for curbing government growth. During two of the most worrisome features of today’s
President Reagan’s first term, I participated in public sector—the nasty partisanship of our
lively White House debates where some pro- politics and the objectively poor performance
moted a “starve the beast” strategy of contin- of many government programs. A government
uous tax reductions (reasoning that swelling that is empowered to do just about anything
government deficits would produce pressure to or for anybody is one that it is very difficult
for spending restraint), while others favored to be civil about. It is also unlikely to do many
a “serve the check” strategy of matching taxes things well.
to current spending (on the theory that chargRonald Coase, who won the Nobel Prize
ing voters the full costs of government, rather in 1991, puzzled over why so many studies of
than bucking some of them to our grandchil- government programs found that they were
dren through borrowing, would create a con- ineffective or actually worsened the problems
stituency for spending control). Reagan came they were supposed to ameliorate. He condown unhesitatingly for tax reductions, with cluded that “an important reason may be that
auspicious political and economic results that government at the present time is so large that
made tax cutting the new mantra among all it has reached the stage of negative marginal
practicing Republicans.
productivity, which means that any additional
In the Congress, Senator Phil Gramm function it takes on will probably result in
devoted much of his public career to devising more harm than good.… If a federal program
budget rules that would oblige his colleagues were established to give financial assistance to
to make difficult spending choices they would Boy Scouts to enable them to help old ladies
rather avoid. More recently, House Speaker cross busy intersections, we could be sure that
Newt Gingrich’s theme of an “opportunity not all the money would go to Boy Scouts, that
society” and President George W. Bush’s some of those they helped would be neither
theme of an “ownership society” have aimed old nor ladies, that part of the program would
Visit insideronline.org
10
be devoted to preventing old ladies from crossing busy intersections, and that many of them
would be killed because they would now cross
at places where, unsupervised, they were at
least permitted to cross.”
That’s amusing, and also a pretty accurate
premonition of the government’s Keystone
Cops response to Hurricane Katrina in September 2005. The Katrina aftermath—combining an inept response to a major civil
emergency (unquestionably an important
government function) with a subsequent, panicky splurge of government spending (aiming essentially to reconstitute the entire Gulf
Coast with federal dollars)—stands as a perfect testament to the predicament of unlimited
government. Although the performance of
certain federal officials came in for angry criticism, it’s unlikely the performance would have
been much different if George C. Marshall and
Elihu Root (to take two of the most able government administrators in American history)
had been in charge. Agency heads today have
practically no management discretion. They
are hemmed in by elaborate legislative and
regulatory specifications of every element of
program administration and by “ethics” rules
that systematically wall them off from the
outside world. They are beholden to multiple
Congressional oversight committees—88 in
the case of the Department of Homeland Security—whose members and staffs occupy their
days with hearings, demands for information
and reports, and political and constituent service requests.
Reviving respect for limits
The unraveling of Constitutional government seems to have deep causes, not only in
modern organization and communications,
but in modern habits of mind. A new political principle—“personal autonomy,” or freedom from all external constraints—is making
a strong bid for addition to the pantheon of
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
fundamental liberal values. It is telling that
today’s conservative politicians are employing
concepts such as the “opportunity society”
and the “ownership society” which emphasize
growth rather than limits, the person rather
than the institutional context.
The difficulty is that individual rights
and personal strivings are no match for the
growth of state regimentation. It is a mistake
to transfer the modern be-all-you-can-be sentiment to government, or for that matter to
any other organization. Even business firms
and other private associations have constitutions of their own, in the form of articles
of incorporation, bylaws, and mission statements that specify what they should and
should not do. The purpose of such boundaries is not to make an organization cumbersome but to make it effective, not to hold its
members back but to make them free and productive. Formal limitations are all the more
important in the case of government—which
possesses a monopoly on the use of coercion
and is less constrained than other institutions
by competitive pressures.
The decline of the principle of limited government has already placed enormous strain
on one central institution of liberal democracy, the politically independent judiciary. If
the post-Katrina calls for assigning important
domestic functions to the military make any
headway, another important institution—the
apolitical military—may come under stress as
well. But in the observation that limits on government can be freedom-enhancing, not only
for individuals but for government itself, there
may be a means of reviving appreciation for
limited government in the modern mind.
Christopher DeMuth is president of the
American Enterprise Institute. This article
is excerpted, with permission, from The
American Enterprise, January/February 2006
(www.taemag.com/issues/issueID.180/toc.asp).
“A Timely and Timeless REad.”
“Eye-Opening, At Times Shocking.”
—Sean Hannity
“Acute and Inspiring.”
—Edwin Meese III
“Outstanding.”
—Baroness Margaret Thatcher
“remarkable.”
—Senator George Allen
“Unique, Insightful.”
—Newt Gingrich
—William F. Buckley Jr.
0-307-33691-3
$26.95 HardcovER
T
he era of liberal dominance is finally over, but sometimes you wouldn’t know it.
Government spending is out of control, waves of illegal immigration endanger
our security and our American identity, the government infringes on our liberties,
American businesses are fleeing overseas, and terrorism threatens us more than ever.
How do we put America back on course when our leaders refuse to? By following the
six-point action plan laid out in Getting America Right. Find out the solutions to our
problems from Edwin J. Feulner, president of The Heritage Foundation, America’s
preeminent conservative think tank, and Doug Wilson, chairman of Townhall.com,
the nation’s leading conservative news and community Web site.
For more information, visit
GettingAmericaRight.com.
Order now at GettingAmericaRight.com, or by calling The Heritage Foundation
at (202) 608-6004.
A Member of the Crown Publishing Group
CrownForum.com
Visit insideronline.org
by Brian M. Riedl
Elements of Comprehensive
Budget Process
Reform
C
12
reated in 1974, the current federal budget process has been subjected to over
30 years of abuse from lawmakers trying to
exploit its structural flaws. Instead of providing an orderly roadmap for deter­mining
the nation’s annual spending and revenue
pri­orities, the current budget process stifles
debate, prevents cooperation, and frequently
breaks down.
The flaws in the budget process are numerous. No statutory spending caps exist that
require lawmakers to set priorities and make
trade-offs. Even modest congressional budget
restraints are routinely overrid­den by a simple
majority vote in the House of Repre­sentatives
and a three-fifths vote in the Senate. When
crafting annual budgets, the President and
Congress are not brought together to agree on
a basic frame­work until the end of the process. Once the appropri­ations process begins,
two-thirds of the budget is deemed “uncontrollable” and excluded from the oversight of
annual appropriations. Emergency spending
is also typically excluded from annual appropriations bills and is instead relegated to ad
hoc budgeting outside of normal budget constraints. Static tax scoring and baseline budgeting create biases in favor of spending increases
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
and against tax cuts. Budgeting by credit card,
Congress does not even measure its own longterm financial commitments. Overall, the broken budget process has enabled Con­gress’s
spending spree and hindered rational alloca­
tion of taxpayer dollars.
While the entire budget process needs
an over­haul, three reforms deserve priority
attention.
•Enact government-wide statutory spending caps that force lawmakers to set priorities and make trade-offs. These caps should
apply to both entitlement and discretionary
spending.
•Begin measuring the federal government’s
long-term unfunded obligations, particularly in
Social Security and Medicare. Congress should
also pass rules against adding to these unfunded
obligations and then develop a plan to address
the $44 trillion in current debt and unfunded
social insurance obligations.
•Strengthen budget rule enforcement by
clos­ing the plethora of loopholes that currently render most budget restraints meaningless.
The following list provides ten elements for
reforming the federal budget process. Most
ideas are drawn from the think tank community, as well as Congress.
1
#
Statutory Spending Caps
•Establish a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights That Caps Spending. The most prom­ising budget
reform would be to cap federal spending increases at the inflation rate plus population
growth (economic growth rates could be another, albeit looser, target). Lawmakers
could allocate federal spending however they wish as long as total government growth
does not exceed this predetermined rate. Such a cap could save $3 trillion over the next
decade by forcing lawmakers to set priori­ties and to make trade-offs.
•Establish an Omnicap. Like a taxpayers’ bill of rights cap, an “omnicap” would apply
a single cap to all fed­eral spending (including mandatory). Rather than cap spending
increases by a preset for­mula, lawmakers would manually set omnicap levels every few
years, similar to the discretion­ary spending caps of the 1990s.
•Establish Discretionary Spending Caps. Discretionary spending caps successfully
restrained discre­tionary spending while in effect from 1990 through 2002. Bringing
back these caps would help to rein in federal spending, although law­makers should
improve on previous caps with supermajority enforcement and by closing the “emergency” loophole.
•Establish Entitlement Spending Caps. With entitlement spending projected to consume
the entire federal budget eventually, the country cannot afford to allow entitlements to
remain on autopilot. Law­makers could write one cap for total entitlement spending or
write a formula that would apply to each program individually (such as inflation plus
growth in beneficiary population). This could be enforced by requiring Congress to
reform excessive enti­tlement spending or face an across-the-board sequestration.
2
#
Realistic and Honest Budget Scoring
•Account for Unfunded Liabilities in the Budget. While businesses compute their longterm liabilities, Congress does not. Budgets should include a calculation of all future
explicit and implicit taxpayer liabilities and lawmakers should create a point of order
against increasing these liabilities.
•Require Dynamic Scoring of Taxes. Currently, Congress evaluates tax policies by “static scoring,” a method that assumes changes to tax policy have almost no economic
impact. History, economics, and common sense prove this assumption false. Dynamic
scoring would more accurately estimate the economic and budgetary impact of tax
changes.
•End Baseline Budgeting. Baseline budgeting keeps enti­tlement spending on autopilot
and creates the false impression that anything less than a large, previously assumed
spending increase is a cut. That is a rec­ipe for rapidly accelerating spending.
3
#
binding Budget Resolutions
•Pass the Annual Budget Resolution as a Law. The budget process begins every spring
when Congress sets out a budget blueprint known as the budget resolution. The budget
resolution sets overall spending and revenue levels, as well as spending levels for funcVisit insideronline.org
13
tional categories. The budget resolution is not a law, however. It is a voluntary framework that Congress imposes on itself. As such, appropriators can often get around
the spending limits of the budget resolution. If the budget resolution were made law,
then appropriators would not be able to ignore the spending limits. Also, if the budget
resolution had to be voted up or down as a law—i.e., if it had to be presented to the
President for signing—then the President and Congress would have an incentive to
negotiate spending levels at the beginning of the process, rather than waiting until the
very end to hash out any differences.
•Divide the Budget Resolution by Committee, Not Function. The budget resolution’s
func­tional breakdowns have no binding effect and can be altered by the Appropriations
Commit­tees. Dividing the budget resolution’s discre­tionary spending by appropriations
subcom­mittee makes more sense, especially since Congress uses this breakdown when
filling in the discretionary budget.
4
#
Enforcement of Existing Budget Rules
•Require a Roll Call Vote to Waive a Point of Order. The House Rules Committee has
rou­tinely reported rules automatically waiving all points of order against excessive
spending. Rules that can be so easily circumvented quickly become irrelevant.
•Require a Supermajority to Waive a Point of Order. Budget rules are supposed to prevent a simple majority from violating predetermined budget standards. Yet allowing
the same simple majority in the House to vote to ignore its own rules effectively eliminates all enforcement. Raising the bar to three-fifths would make it harder to violate
budget rules.
•Require a Caucus Majority to Waive a Point of Order. If the majority party fears a
three-fifths requirement would give the minority party a veto on bypassing budget
rules, they could enact an internal party rule requiring a majority vote of the caucus
before bringing to the floor a motion to waive a point of order.
•Enforce Spending Limits. The Budget Committees should be empowered to enforce
the budget resolutions that they write. Spending bills that exceed the budget resolution should be sent back to the Budget Committees for approval, modification, or
rejection.
14
5
#
Tools for Accountability
•Require a Roll Call Vote for Authorizations. Lawmakers often pass expensive authorization bills by voice vote, thus removing individual lawmaker accountability with
voters. Roll call votes should be required to pass legislation authorizing $50 million or
more over five years.
•Require a Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for Every Bill. The CBO does not
provide cost esti­mates for all bills and only rarely for conference reports. Lawmakers
should always know the cost of a bill before they vote.
•Repeal the “Gephardt Rule.” House lawmak­ers should not be able to hide debt limit
increases by automatically including them in the budget resolution. Lawmakers who truly
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
believe in policies to increase
federal debt should be willing to
vote that way publicly.
•Limit the Tenure of Appropriators. Long-time appropriators
have some of the highest spend­
ing records in Congress. Even
appropriators who may wish
to restrain spending are often
required to vote for runaway
spending to remain on the committee long enough to build
seniority. Placing a term limit
on membership on these committees would help to tear down
the barrier between appropriators and other Members of
Congress, and free appropriators to vote for less spending.
•Elect Appropriations Subcom­mittee Chairmen. Currently, only the chairman of the
House Appropriations Committee is elected by his peers. Yet chairmen of appropri­
ations subcommittees also have enormous power and have been accused of wielding
that power in ways detrimental to Congress as a whole. Basic accountability requires
that sub­committee chairmen also be elected by their peers in a caucus vote.
•Budget Biennially. Lawmakers rarely finish all budget bills by October 1, when the federal fiscal year begins. Biennial budgeting would free lawmakers to spend more time
overseeing federal programs and reforming failed or unnecessary programs.
6
#
Tools for Spending Restraint
•Include Entitlement Spending in the Appro­priations Process. Entitlement program
bud­gets are currently left on autopilot outside the normal budget process, growing
each year with little or no congressional oversight. Bringing entitlements into the
appropriations process would improve accountability and force lawmakers to set
priorities and make trade-offs.
•Stop Advance Appropriations. Lawmakers can currently appropriate spending that does
not become available until future years. This loophole encourages spending by making it
appear free today. The justification that cer­tain education programs need advance appro­
priations because of the school year’s unique calendar has been proven false.
•Create Family Budget Protection Accounts to Cut Spending on the Floor. Lawmakers
who cut appropriations bills on the House or Senate floor typically see those savings
automatically allocated to other spending. This reform would create a deficit reduction
account to protect any such savings.
Visit insideronline.org
15
•Stop “Such Sums” Authorizations. Authori­zation laws are supposed to cap the amount
that can be annually appropriated to particular programs. Authorizing “such sums as
neces­sary”—which basically means no cap at all—ignores that duty and encourages
runaway spending.
•Stop Funding Unauthorized Programs. Lawmakers continue to fund unau­thorized programs despite their non-existent or expired statutory guidelines. If lawmakers can­not
decide how to run a program, they should not fund it.
•Stop Adding to Unfunded Lia­bilities. Medicare and Social Security cur­rently have $44
trillion in unfunded future liabilities. Lawmakers should not be able to put trillions of
new spending on the credit card and then dump the payments in the laps of the next
generation.
•Stop Entitlement Expansions. Entitlement expansions permanently push up the longterm spending baseline and worsen the fiscal picture. Lawmakers should create some
roadblocks for these unaffordable policies.
•Enhance Presidential Rescission. President George W. Bush’s line-item veto proposal
is actually an enhanced rescission bill that would require Congress to vote up or
down on presi­dential rescission requests. This would provide another tool to rein in
spending.
7
#
Tools for Eliminating Wasteful Spending
•Stop Budget Increases for Agencies That Fail Audits. The Government Accountability
Office has found that several federal departments and agencies can­not pass a basic
audit. Lawmakers should not throw budget increases at agen­cies without sufficient
evidence that the fund­ing will not be wasted.
•Require Congressional Committees to Pro­duce Public Oversight Reports. Congress
is supposed to oversee the executive branch, but few congressional committees
produce reports determining whether the agencies that they oversee are effectively and efficiently accom­plishing their goals. Semiannual oversight reports would
strengthen oversight.
•Require GAO Duplication Estimate for Each Bill. Even with 342 economic development pro­grams, 130 programs serving the disabled, and 130 programs serving at-risk
youth, Congress continues to add new programs on top of exist­ing ones. A GAO duplication estimate could help lawmakers to streamline bureaucracy and reduce administrative confusion by reducing program duplication.
16
•Establish Government Waste Commissions. These commissions would write legislation elim­inating wasteful and unnecessary programs that would receive expedited
floor consideration and an up-or-down vote with no amendments allowed.
8
#
Pork and Grant Reform
•Identify Legislative Sponsors of and Require Written Justifica­tions for Each Earmark.
Lawmakers should be required to specify why each earmark is neces­sary and constitutional and to disclose any per­sonal or financial interests in the earmark.
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
•Require Earmarks to be Placed in the Bill Itself. Placing earmarks in conference reports,
rather than in the bills themselves, prevents lawmakers from amending them out of
legislation. No earmark should be placed in a category above congressional debate and
amendment.
•Stop Earmarks Added in Con­ference Committees. Adding earmarks in last-minute conference committee reports prevents lawmakers from having sufficient time to scru­tinize
earmarks before voting on legislation. Lawmakers should be willing to add their ear­
marks in broad daylight.
9
#
Rational Emergency Spending
•Define “Emergency.” Congress currently skirts budget constraints by classifying regular spending as “emergencies.” Lawmakers should limit emergency spending to only
sud­den, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary events.
•Require a Supermajority for Emergency Spending. To restrain lawmakers’ appetite for
abusing the “emergency” designation, a three-fifths supermajority should be required
to des­ignate legislation as emergency, unless the funding comes from a designated
emergency reserve fund.
•Create a Reserve Fund for Emergencies. Just as families are encouraged to keep emergency reserves, so should the federal government follow this sound practice. A good
target would be 1.5 percent of discretionary budget authority ($12 billion today), with
unused balances rolling over to the following year. This would prevent small-scale
emergencies from busting the budget.
•Require Automatic Across-the-Board Emergency Off­sets. This mechanism would automatically trigger an across-the-board budget rescission whenever emergency spending
exceeded designated emergency reserve funds.
10 Reduced Uncertainty
#
•Create an Automatic Continuing Resolution. Members of Congress have proven themselves increasingly incapable of finishing appropriations by the start of the new fiscal
year (October 1). To reduce uncertainty, Congress should pass an automatic continuing resolution that funds federal pro­grams at a rate slightly below the rate of the pre­
vious budget until the funding bills are enacted.
Conclusion
Out-of-control federal spending threatens to force massive tax increases. Furthermore, the Medicare and Social Security
costs from the impending retirement of the
baby boomers will place an unprecedented strain on the federal bud­get. The current budget process, which dates from
the 1970s, makes addressing these budget
chal­lenges of the 21st century even more
difficult. This antiquated budget process
does not cap spending, does not force Congress to set priorities or to make trade-offs,
and is heavily biased towards spending
and tax increases. The options presented
here can create a budget process that better matches America’s budget priorities.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann
Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic
Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Visit insideronline.org
17
&
American
Prosperity
by Daniella Markheim and Anthony Kim
F
18
or over 50 years, the United States and the
world have reaped the economic benefits
of gradual liberalization in trade and investment. Recognizing the benefits of open trade,
the U.S. government has been a leading advocate of trade liberalization. Today however, the
place of free trade in American policymaking is
far from secure. Rising protectionist sentiment
in the wake of the aborted United Arab Emirates ports deal, concern about the U.S.–China
economic relationship, and frustration over
the pace of global trade talks are combining to
threaten trade liberalization, both in America
and around the world.
In the coming months, Congress must steel
itself against protectionism. It should objectively debate and then approve free trade
agreements with Peru, continue to support U.S.
leadership and negotiations for new bilateral
agreements and in the World Trade Organization Doha Round, and resist the temptation of
reactionary protectionism. Congressmen who
talk about punitive tariffs or restrictive investment measures without actually intending to
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
enact them still inflame public opinion. Congress would do well to spend more time recognizing the prosperity that exists in America as
a result of free trade and pushing for further
trade reforms.
As former U.S. Trade Representative Rob
Portman said: “We all must fight the protectionist forces with the facts, which show that
benefits from trade are substantial.” Today, the
$12 trillion U.S. economy is bolstered by free
trade, a pillar of America’s vitality. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, American exports support one in five
U.S. manufacturing jobs. Jobs directly linked
to the export of goods pay 13 to 18 percent
more than other U.S. jobs. Moreover, agricultural exports hit a record high in 2005 and
now account for 926,000 jobs.
In Colorado, international trade supports
one of every 20 private-sector jobs and more
than 20 percent of manufacturing jobs. Data
from the International Trade Administration show that South Carolina benefits from
having one of every ten private-sector jobs
and more than 25 percent of manufacturing
jobs supported by trade. State by state, across
the nation, international trade promotes
opportunity.
Because today’s global economy offers unparalleled opportunities for the United States, it
is in America’s economic interest to continue
to expand trade by lowering barriers to trade
in goods and services. Freer trade policies
have created a level of competition in today’s
open market that leads to innovation and
better products, higher-paying jobs, new
markets, and increased savings and invest­ment. Small businesses, a critical component
of the U.S. economy, create two out of
every three new jobs and account for about
a quarter of America’s exports.
Trade has been a driving force in producing America’s high living standards, and
breaking down more trade barriers would
increase these standards even further. Gary
Clyde Hufbauer of the Institute for International Economics estimates that trade liberalization over the last 50 years has brought
an additional $10,000 per year to the typical American household. If all trade barriers
were eliminated and global trade and investment became truly free, Hufbauer estimates
that American households would gain an
additional $5,000 per year. According to a
University of Michigan study, if today’s international trade barriers were reduced by just
a third, the average American family of four
would enjoy $2,500 per year in additional
income.
Freer trade enables more goods and services to reach American consumers at lower
prices, giving families more income to save or
spend on other goods and services. Moreover,
the benefits of free trade extend well beyond
American households. Free trade helps spread
freedom globally, reinforces the rule of law,
and fosters economic development in poor
countries. A Center for Global Development
study determined that a successful conclusion to the Doha Round would result in an
additional $200 billion flowing to developing
nations, reducing poverty and economic hardship. The national debate over trade too often
ignores these important benefits.
More generally, economic freedom leads
to higher standards of living. According to
The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom, countries
with freer trade policies experience higher
per capita economic growth than countries
that maintain trade barriers. Countries that
opened their trade policies between 1995
and 2004 saw their per capita gross domestic
product grow at an average compound rate
of 2.5 percent. Countries whose trade policies were unchanged experienced an average
compound growth rate of 2.1 percent. Finally, countries that increased their barriers to
trade managed only a 1.8 percent average
compound growth rate.
Despite more than five decades of evidence
demonstrating the benefits of liberalizing
trade, the impact of international trade and
open markets on the U.S. economy remains a
contentious issue. Fortunately, in past battles,
free trade won the day, providing greater economic opportunity to Americans and allowing the United States to maintain its role as
a leader in the international economic community. Defending free trade and fighting
for new trade agreements are central tasks
for Congress in coming months. Expanding
global trade is one of the keys to building a
stronger economy at home and promoting
better relationships abroad. Trade is one of
keys to American prosperity.
Daniella Markheim is Jay Van Andel Senior
Analyst in Trade Policy, and Anthony B.
Kim is Research Data Specialist, in the Center
for International Trade and Economics at The
Heritage Foundation.
Visit insideronline.org
19
The Case for
Patriotic
Assimilation
By Matthew Spalding
T
20
he American theory of citizenship necessitates that the words immigration and
assimilation be linked in our political lexicon
and closely connected in terms of public
policy: Where there is one, there must be
the other.
A policy of homogeneity—the complete
breaking down of cultural differences to create
sameness—demands too much and requires a
uniformity that is impracticable, going beyond
what is necessary and conducive to free government. Such an unrealistic ideal makes
immigration, in both theory and practice,
virtually impossible. Multiculturalism, at the
other extreme, is unacceptable for the opposite
reason: It claims that all cultures (as with all
values) are equally valid; there can be nothing
substantially in common between Americans
because the only thing that unites them is their
diversity. By this argument, any idea of citizenship that goes beyond its narrowest technical
meaning to imply the existence or formation
of a common creed is objectionable because it
imposes our values on others. In the end, the
very idea of allegiance, especially national or
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
patriotic, is problematic. At best, we are all
transnational citizens of the world.
Each of these views—what amounts to
cultural determinism, on the one hand, and
cultural relativism, on the other—is incompatible with self-government and the rule of law.
Both deny the possibility of a people holding common principles despite their cultural
differences.
It is assimilation—the idea of acquiring certain habits and attitudes while respecting other
differences, of becoming similar in crucial
but not all respects—that is consistent with
the American understanding of both human
equality and popular consent, and thus civil
and religious liberty. Assimilation has nothing to do with forcing a stifling uniformity of
opinions and passions upon immigrants. Nor
is it about destroying the ethnic heritages and
cultural identities of the various groups and
diverse subcultures that have always been part
of the American experience. What it does do is
appeal to the common principles and mutual
understandings that transcend these differences and that bind us together as one people.
Indeed, it is the maintenance of what we hold United States. Through its laws, the people
in common that allows for the flourishing of of the United States consent for those who
our differences and prevents the American are aliens to join them, under certain condi“melting pot” from becoming a boiling caul- tions, as residents and in many cases as feldron of multiculturalism.
low citizens. Congress has the constitutional
This compatibility in principle, though, responsibility both “to establish an uniform
portends a certain degree of uncertainty in rule of naturalization” that sets the terms and
practice; hence the challenge of immigrant conditions of immigration and citizenship and
education. This is because
to ensure the fairness and
the progression from alien to
integrity of the legal process
citizen is more a change of
by which immigrants enter
Assimilation—the idea of acquirmind and heart than a mere
the country, establish resiactivity or replicable skill ing certain habits and attitudes
dency, and gain citizenship.
while
respecting
other
differences,
set. As a result, assimilation,
Especially for the sake of
while it is to be encouraged of becoming similar in crucial
those who obey the law and
and promoted, and while cer- but not all respects—is consistent
follow the rules to enter the
tain meaningful elements can
country, naturalization laws
with the American understanding
and should be required in the
must be equitably and connaturalization process, ulti- of both human equality and
sistently enforced.
popular
consent.
mately can’t be compelled.
At the same time, this
It, too, is a matter of conauthority should also be
sent; in the end, immigrants
seen as an opportunity
must choose to become Americans. This point to make the naturalization process more
is further strengthened by the fact that while meaningful, emphasizing the laws’ and the
government has certain key responsibilities, process’s intended role in forming citizens
many of the more important activities asso- “of good moral character, attached to the
ciated with assimilation occur on their own, principles of the Constitution of the Unitbeyond the reach of the state, as if by some ed States, and well disposed to the good
“invisible hand” of American civil society.
order and happiness of the United States,”
It is the responsibility of lawmakers to as it says in the Immigration and Nationalset the legal parameters and create the best ity Act. This can be done by emphasizing
possible conditions for successful immigrant the educational, ceremonial, and symbolic
assimilation. The basic components that are aspects of naturalization over and above the
necessary for such a policy should be appar- mere technical efficiencies of the bureauent from this analysis of the early understand- cratic process. A renewed emphasis on the
ing of the theory and practice of citizenship terms of citizenship also demands rethinking
and naturalization.
and clarifying, both in our political rhetoric
and within the law, the limits of citizenship,
A Meaningful Naturalization
and that includes addressing the growing
Process
problem of “dual allegiance” citizenship
Individuals who are not citizens do not and the conditions under which naturalized
have a right to American residency or citi- citizens (and native-born citizens, for that
zenship without the consent of the American matter) violate those terms and might be
people as expressed through the laws of the expatriated.
Visit insideronline.org
21
22
An Understanding of the
civic engagement—fosters patriotism. But as
Principles of Free Government
constitutional signer James Wilson reminds us,
“Every species of government has its spe- “Law and liberty cannot rationally become the
cific principles,” Jefferson noted. “Ours per- objects of our love, unless they first become
haps are more peculiar than those of any other the objects of our knowledge.”
in the universe.” Citizenship education occurs
primarily at home and through childhood A Common Language
schooling. Without the natural advantage of
“The bond of language,” Alexis de Tochaving been born and raised
queville observed, “is
in this country, immigrants
perhaps the strongest
as a matter of public poliand most lasting that
The naturalization process’s
cy must be given a specific
can unite men.” Repubintended role [is] in forming
education in the history,
lican government and
citizens
‘of
good
moral
character,
political ideas, and instituordered liberty—not to
tions of the United States.
mention the articulaattached to the principles of the
They must know who we
tion of common political
Constitution of the United States,
are and what we believe as
principles—require clear
and well disposed to the good
a people and a nation. They
communication, mutual
order and happiness of the United
must know that legitimate
deliberation and civic eduStates.’
government is grounded in
cation, and that demands
the protection of equal natthat citizens share one
ural rights and the consent
common language. Engof the governed—the principles of the Decla- lish is that language in the United States.
ration of Independence—and must understand This doesn’t necessarily require that English
and appreciate how the Constitution and our be the official or exclusive language of the
institutions of limited government work to nation, but it does mean that English needs
protect liberty and the rule of law.
to be the primary and authoritative language,
That is why, by law, citizen candidates particularly in public and political discourse
must demonstrate “a knowledge and under- as well as the laws, records and proceedings
standing of the fundamentals of the history, of government.
and the principles and form of government,
To comprehend the naturalization proof the United States.” This knowledge is dem- cess, to assimilate into American society, and
onstrated by a history test for new citizens, a to become involved in our democracy, immitest which should be reevaluated and strength- grants must learn, understand, and be able to
ened with this goal in mind; at the same time, communicate in English. Thus, candidates for
immigrants should be prepared for the test citizenship must demonstrate “an understandwith educational materials and classes. The ing of the English language, including an abilobjective, as the great educator Noah Webster ity to read, write and speak words in ordinary
put it, is to implant in the mind “the principles usage in the English language.” Rather than
of virtue and of liberty and inspire them with encouraging the retention of native languages
just and liberal ideas of government and with with programs like bilingual education, there
an inviolable attachment to their own coun- should be incentives and programs to assist
try.” History fosters attachment, and attach- immigrants in learning English. The objective
ment—a necessary precondition to sustained should be to build a nation of English speakThe Insider Summer/Fall 06
ers: “[T]o preserve a sameness of language
throughout our own wide spreading country,”
John Marshall noted, “that alone would be an
object worthy of public attention.”
less discordant and their assimilation more
likely. It is through their neighbors, friends,
and fellow countrymen—in local communities, churches, schools, and private organizations, not to mention in the workplace and
Engaged Character-Forming
through simple economic exchanges—that
Institutions
immigrants acquire the habits, practices, and
America’s principles are the defining char- spirit of Americans, strengthening their virtues,
acteristic of its national
their work ethic, and social
identity, but that identity is
responsibilities. Civic educasustained by a thriving civil
tion in particular is strengthWithout the natural advantage
society. From the very beginened as immigrants observe
ning, America’s creed and of having been born and raised
and then participate in
in
this
country,
immigrants
as
a
culture have developed
American political life, seetogether, nourishing each matter of public policy must be
ing equality before the law
other for their common given a specific education in the
and consent being translated
good. It is not surprising,
into local, state, and nationhistory, political ideas, and instithen, that candidates for
al policies. In this way, as
citizenship must show that tutions of the United States.
Washington predicted, immi“they have been and still are
grants “get assimilated to
of good moral character.”
our customs, measures and
In the law, this condition is defined by that laws: in a word, soon become one people.”
which would preclude a finding of good moral
character: as being a habitual drunkard; a Economic Opportunity
gambler or polygamist; convicted of or admitWhile it will come as no surprise that
ting to a crime of moral turpitude; involved most individuals and families that immigrate
in prostitution, smuggling, or drug trafficking; to the United States come seek­ing economic
giving false testimony or failing to support opportunity (“inspired with an assurance of
dependents. A healthy and supportive social encouragement and employment,” just as
infrastructure is necessary to maintain and Hamilton forecasted), it should not be overstrengthen good character. Thus, one of the looked that economic opportunity—stable
best ways to assist immigrants is to strengthen employment, better household income, job
and involve faith-based and private civil soci- flexibility, property ownership, upward
ety institutions, both directly and indirectly, in mobility—is also an important factor in
the cause of assimilation.
the success of immigrant assimilation. The
It should be a concern when large num- fruits of hard work and entrepreneurship for
bers of immigrants from the same country, the sake of improving the conditions of self
speaking the same foreign language, and and family, combined with the opportuniwith many of the same habits live in enclaves ties that have long been associated with the
isolated from American society. After all, it pursuit of the American Dream, all good in
is the diffusion of immigrant groups among and of themselves, have the added virtue of
the population—not the mixing per se but harnessing self-interest to bind immigrants
their day-to-day interactions with native Amer- to their new home—the proximate cause of
ican citizens—that makes their political effect their economic liberty—and help to equalize
Visit insideronline.org
23
24
the social differences between immigrants subject or a citizen,” to “support and defend
and native citizens.
the Constitution and laws of the United States
In this way, commerce provides the initial of America against all enemies foreign and
glue of attachment, even if it remains “the defect domestic” and “bear true faith and allegiance
of better motives,” to use Madison’s formulation to the same.” As the culmination of the natuin Federalist No. 51. For their sake, and for our ralization process (the taking of the oath is the
own, the best thing we can do for new citizens is moment that the foreigner becomes a citizen),
to offer them a hand up rather than a handout the importance and substantive meaning of
and make sure that immithese historic words cangrants (especially poor and
not be overestimated. Not
low-skilled immigrants) are
only should the oath be
It should be a concern when large
not drawn into the ranks of
promulgated, its meaning
numbers of immigrants from the
the underclass by the perverse
taught in the naturalizasame
country,
speaking
the
same
incentives of the modern weltion process, and new citifare state and its policies that
zens held to its pledges, but
foreign language, and with many
discourage self-reliance, famthe concept of allegiance
of the same habits live in enclaves
ily cohesiveness, and financial
should be promoted as a
isolated from American society.
independence.
central part of the public rhetoric of citizenship.
National Allegiance
“All possess alike liberty of conscience and
“Citizens by birth or choice, of a common immunities of citizenship,” to quote Washingcountry,” Washington reminds us, “that coun- ton again. Yet the United States “requires only
try has the right to concentrate your affec- that they who live under its protection should
tions.” The very word citizen, stemming from demean themselves as good citizens in giving it
the Latin civis and the Greek polis, is associated on all occasions their effectual support.”
with membership and participation in one particular political association, as city-state, pol- Making Patriots
ity, or, today, nation. American citizenship is
By these conditions, an effective naturalizaby definition bound to the United States; thus, tion process would aim to create new citizens
becoming a citizen of the United States neces- who would understand the principles of free
sarily means primary allegiance to the Ameri- government, speak a common language, reflect
can political order or regime. Allegiance is the good character and civic virtue, and have a
duty that citizens owe to that country which real stake in America’s economic success. As
protects and secures their individual freedoms a result, immigrants would become more than
and fundamental rights. In the United States, mere inhabitants living in isolated communities.
the allegiance of citizenship stems in particular They would be Americans, drawing their prifrom a profound attachment and deference not mary national identity from the United States,
to political leaders or some abstract state, but even as they retained their ancestors’ language
to the Constitution and the rule of law.
and culture. They would become citizens in the
This is seen in the solemn oath of new citi- fullest sense of the term, owing their allegiance
zens to “absolutely and entirely renounce and to their new homeland, sharing in the politiabjure all allegiance and fidelity to any for- cal rights of its people, deserving its protection,
eign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, entitled to—and celebrating—the privileges and
of whom or which I have heretofore been a opportunities of free government.
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
Assimilation is necessarily patriotic in the the meaning of citizenship and the natural
sense that it fosters not only “that temperate love attachment of a people to the land of their
of liberty, so essential to real republicanism,” to forefathers. But what of those others “whose
use Hamilton’s phrase, but also a genuine attach- ancestors have come hither and settled here”?
ment to this country and to these people. The Why should they become attached to some
objective is not “my country, right or wrong,” distant past to which they have no native
but “my country.” That is, for the immigrant to connections?
come to regard this nation as my country. The
What Lincoln said then of all those who
goal is an enlightened patriowere not blood descendants
tism based on an understandof the Founders, which is to
ing of and commitment to
say virtually everyone today,
The concept of allegiance should
America, what it stands for,
speaks to all of us:
be promoted as a central part of
and who we are as a people.
As well, assimilation is the public rhetoric of citizenIf they look back through
patriotic in that it reflects ship.… The goal is an enlightened
this history to trace their
our national self-confidence patriotism based on an underconnection with those
and is a measure of our comdays by blood, they find
standing of and commitment
mitment to America. How
they have none, they
can we expect the immigrant to America, what it stands for,
cannot carry themselves
and
who
we
are
as
a
people.
to love America if we do not
back into that glorious
love it ourselves—if we do
epoch and make themnot strive to make it worselves feel that they are
thy of affection? Reviving and deepening our
part of us, but when they look through
understanding of citizenship and strengthenthat old Declaration of Independence
ing the conditions for civic formation is a way
they find that those old men say that “We
to remind all, native and immigrant alike, why
hold these truths to be self-evident, that
this regime—its principles and laws, its history
all men are created equal,” and then they
and statesmen, its meaning and promise—is
feel that that moral sentiment taught in
good and worth defending. It is in this sense
that day evidences their relation to those
that a policy of assimilation demands as much
men, that it is the father of all moral prinor more from Americans as it does from those
ciple in them, and that they have a right to
who want to become American.
claim it as though they were blood of the
In the end, a confident policy to assimilate
blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men
immigrants must be understood as part of a largwho wrote that Declaration, and so they
er renewal of our principles, a reaffirmation of
are. That is the electric cord in that Decwhat we hold to be self-evident. After all, it is not
laration that links the hearts of patriotic
the technical requirement to affirm a peculiar set
and liberty-loving men together, that will
of historical claims that ties immigrants to Amerlink those patriotic hearts as long as the
ica as much as it is our common recognition of
love of freedom exists in the minds of men
transcendent truths that bind us all together and
throughout the world.
across time to the patriots of 1776.
In 1858, less than three years before the Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Director of the B.
outbreak of civil war and the gravest crisis in Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies
our history, Abraham Lincoln contemplated at The Heritage Foundation.
25
Pennsylvania
Harrisburg
A Time to‘Tank’
By Matthew J. Brouillette
T
Who We Are
26
hink tanks are seemingly conflicted institutions. As nonpartisan, nonprofit educational organizations dedicated to researching
and developing public policy solutions, we do
not and we cannot legally engage in electoral
politics. Yet, at the same time, our success as
institutions is fully dependent on politicians to
bring our policy ideas to fruition. So how do
we, as think tanks, effectuate policy and ideological change when we can’t and don’t engage
in direct political action.
At 2:00 a.m. on July 7, 2005, we at the
Commonwealth Foundation—Pennsylvania’s
free-market think tank—had to answer that
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
question. It was on this night, in the wee hours
of the morning, that the Republican-dominated Pennsylvania General Assembly decided to
make themselves the highest paid state lawmakers in the nation—and violate the state
Constitution in the process. In the days and
weeks following that fateful night, the Commonwealth Foundation had to decide how to
weigh in on the civic crisis.
A little more background may be helpful
in understanding how we decided to use this
new political opportunity to advance our
policy agenda. In addition to boosting the
pay of the judicial and executive branches,
On July 7, 2005, in the wee hours of the morning, the Republicandominated Pennsylvania General Assembly decided to make
themselves the highest paid state lawmakers in the nation—
and violate the state Constitution in the process.
the “Harrisburg Hogs” (as our legislature
was affectionately called by The Wall Street
Journal) awarded themselves salary increases
upwards of 54 percent. This was on top of
already generous health care benefits, lucrative pensions, free SUVs and luxury cars,
and $130 daily stipends just for showing up
for work.
The constitutional violation occurred
when the General Assembly sidestepped a
prohibition against legislators collecting a
salary increase during the term in which it is
approved. Ignoring the people’s contract with
their government, many lawmakers began
taking thousands of dollars per month in
added compensation defined as “expenses” 16
months early.
Lawmakers knew there would be an outcry, but they believed the backlash would be
short-lived. They were counting on history
to repeat itself, as in 1995 when the General
Assembly passed an automatic annual costof-living pay increase that was supposed to be
the “pay raise to end all pay raises.” The public was outraged then, but the anger subsided
and not a single lawmaker lost his or her seat
because of a pay raise vote.
What a difference a decade makes. In 2005,
the fury never dissipated. Four months after
the pay raise, in the November election, Pennsylvania voters were looking to vent their
frustration with Harrisburg. The only statewide ballot races were retention elections for
two state Supreme Court Justices. Pennsyl-
vania Supreme Court Justices are subjected
to a retention vote every ten years. Most are
retained by wide margins.
Political pundits scoffed at the notion that
Justices Russell Nigro and Sandra Newman
would be removed from the bench because of
the pay raise. But Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy lobbied for and defended the
new law. His role in the pay raise scandal was
not lost on the citizens of Pennsylvania and it
placed the two associate justices in the crosshairs of angry voters. The result? Nigro was
ousted from office and Newman was retained
by a slim margin.
The General Assembly quickly returned to
Harrisburg after the historic judicial retention election and repealed the pay raise. They
hoped to throw water on the brush fire that
was burning across our commonwealth. But
they couldn’t douse the flames. Indeed, by the
beginning of the new year, nearly 30 members
of the 253-member legislature announced
their retirements. All of them either voted for
the pay raise and/or refused to return their
unconstitutionally acquired increases in salary
(which boosted lawmakers’ pensions by thousands of dollars).
But the voters were not done yet.
In May 2006, more incumbents lost their
primary races to same-party challengers than
in the previous eight primary elections combined. In total, 17 incumbents were defeated,
including the two highest posts in the Senate—the President Pro Tempore and MajorVisit insideronline.org
27
28
ity Leader. These two GOP legislative leaders
could not garner more than a third of the vote
against a county commissioner and a tire salesman—despite outspending their challengers by
more than $2 million.
Political observers now believe that another
wave could come crashing down on incumbents in the fall. When all is said and done, 50
to 60 new faces could be coming to Harrisburg
in January 2007. A 20-percent turnover rate in
a town with an historic recidivism rate of 98
percent –99 percent has turned our capitol on
its head. In addition to the necessary reorganization in the Senate, a coup may occur against
the GOP House leadership who also led and
adamantly defended the pay raise but survived
their primary election challenges.
So how does all of this relate to a non­
partisan, nonprofit think tank?
Although the 2005 pay raise lit a powder keg
in Pennsylvania, explosive material had been
piling up in Harrisburg for decades. Despite a
decade of Republican control of the General
Assembly (by wide margins) and promises to
limit government and restrain spending, state
government continues to spend out of control
while the commonwealth’s economy sputters.
The numbers are ugly. Job growth, income
growth, population growth, and other key economic indicators remain anemic relative to the
rest of the nation. Employment in government
now exceeds employment in manufacturing
jobs—the sector that built our commonwealth.
These issues finally became electoral factors in
light of the pay-raise scandal. The advantages
of incumbency were mitigated, and challengers were able to appeal to the electorate on a
relatively level playing field.
In the key Republican races, all of the
victorious challengers ran on more than the
pay raise. They utilized the years of research
and the policy agenda of the Commonwealth
Foundation to make a strong case for the need
for change. They talked about the failure of
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
the incumbents’ efforts to tax, borrow, and
spend our state to prosperity. They argued for
the need for more choice and competition in
education. And they committed themselves
to restoring the ideals of public service and
reforming the culture of self service that has
overtaken our state capitol.
We certainly didn’t bring attention to the
culture of Harrisburg alone. In fact, we were
part of a coalition that brought together organizations from all points along the ideological spectrum. While we would never agree on
many important policy positions, we were able
to coalesce around the need for more open,
transparent, and accountable government.
We worked closely with Common Cause,
the League of Women Voters, the Pennsylvania Council of Churches, and others from
the political Left. The newly created Young
Conservatives of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Club for Growth pushed from the
political Right. It hasn’t been a Democrat
and Republican fight; it has been a battle
between us (the people) and them (the political establishment).
We couldn’t be more excited about the
future of Pennsylvania. The dark clouds of the
July 2005 pay raise have provided a silver lining for our policy agenda, even before a new
legislature convenes in January 2007. Principles are already being championed, and power
continues to be challenged.
We still have a long, long way to go before
we fully salvage the ideals of public service
and limited government that made Pennsylvania the cradle of American liberty. The Commonwealth Foundation is proud of the role it
and its supporters have played in beginning
that restoration process. So far we’re enjoying
the bumpy ride in the tank.
Matthew J. Brouillette is president and CEO of the
Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives (www.CommonwealthFoundation.org).
Ten Principles of
State Fiscal Policy
By Joseph L. Bast, Steve Stanek, and Richard Vedder, Ph.D.
S
ound fiscal principles promote economic
growth, protect citizens from uncertainty
and excessive taxation, and help lawmakers
deal with tough economic times.
1. Above all else: Keep taxes low
The evidence is clear and has been for
many years: High taxes hinder economic
growth and prosperity.
2. Don’t penalize earnings
and investment
Taxes on earnings and investment income
are particularly harmful to economic
growth.
3. Avoid sin taxes
Taxes on specific goods and services are
often unfair, unreliable, and regressive.
4. Create a transparent and
accountable budget
Focus attention and resources on providing
those services that are the core functions of
state government.
5. Privatize public services
Privatization is a proven way to reduce
government spending while preserving
or improving the quality of core public
services.
6. Avoid corporate subsidies
Subsidies to corporations and selective tax
abatement are questionable politics and
bad economics.
7. Cap taxes and expenditures
A tax and expenditure limitation (TEL)
protects elected officials from public pressure to spend surplus tax revenues during
good economic times.
8. Fund students, not schools
States and cities that have experimented
with school choice have seen gains in
academic achievement.
9. Reform Medicaid
Spending on Medicaid can be brought
under control without lowering the quality
of care received by Medicaid patients.
10.Protect state employees from
politics
State and local governments should
be prohibited from deducting funds used
for political purposes from the paychecks
of public workers.
Joseph L. Bast is president of The Heartland
Institute. Steve Stanek is managing editor of
Budget & Tax News. Richard Vedder, Ph.D.,
is distinguished professor of economics at
Ohio University. This article is excerpted
from “Ten Principles of State Fiscal Policy”
published by the Heartland Institute (www.
heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId19354).
Visit insideronline.org
29
So You Want To Hold a
Public Event.
by John Hilboldt
Y
What We Do
30
our boss wants to put on a special event?
Great idea! (Hey, it’s the boss’s idea…)
But before you book the grand ballroom
or reserve the local VFW Hall, you’ll need to
ask and answer some questions objectively.
Events require a significant investment of time
and talent as well as energy and perseverance.
Set aside the rose-colored
glasses to evaluate
your expectations
and develop a sound
strategy.
At The Heritage
Foundation, we host
some 175 general public programs annually—not to mention the
dozens of briefings, discussions, and luncheons
hosted by colleagues at Heritage, around the
city, and across the country each year.
Successful events can open doors, encourage donors, forge alliances, and advance agendas. But before you book, ask yourself:
What’s the purpose? Is it necessary to hold
a public event? What do I hope to achieve?
Everything depends upon what you are trying to accomplish.
Nobody wants to sponsor a press conference that draws no reporters or a lecture
before a sparsely filled auditorium. Make sure
The Insider Summer/Fall 06
the idea or topic genuinely merits a public airing or formal presentation. For current news
items, can anything else be said that hasn’t
already been said? An event requires time to
structure and build an audience. Do you have
enough time to get everything together? You
can simply say, “us, too”
by issuing a press release
or position paper.
Who are my partners?
Is your organization the
best one to host on this
topic? Should you consider a programming
partnership?
Teaming up with
like-minded groups
is a win-win for both
organizations. By selecting a respected cosponsor or well-regarded local association,
you’ll open doors to new contacts. Plus, both
parties will have a chance to enhance their
reputations.
At Heritage, we celebrate fellow foundations’ significant anniversaries or the introduction of their new publications. Likewise,
we recognize the contributions of fellow think
tanks in issue debates through targeted cohosted programming.
Our annual Resource Bank Meeting now
regularly features national and international
partnership activities. Attendees profit from
an ever-expanding base of contacts, greater
exposure for their work, and much more productivity for the investment of time, travel,
and budget. It all began when we reached out
to a known ally and found a potential shared
benefit.
Who is my audience? Who do you want
to reach? Which people are you trying to
motivate?
Attendance depends upon how well you
define and identify your key audience.
indeed “ready for prime time.” Here partnerships add particular value. Identify co-sponsors who can strengthen your weaknesses.
Divide planning assignments to save everyone
time and ease anxiety. Utilize one another’s
best talents and noted speakers. Share each
other’s best practices. Learn from one another’s past disasters. Multiply not only the number of people you reach, but also the purpose
behind the event in the first place. How will I promote this? What if nobody
comes?
Events require a significant investment of time and
talent as well as energy and perseverance. Evaluate
your expectations and develop a sound strategy.
If your target audience is the media, a debate
or other format that produces a few “sparks”
may be the draw, not just a stand-alone lecturer.
If your target audience is Hill staff or policy
types, a well-respected expert to provide straightforward and clear data with an appropriate commentator or two is much more effective than a
theoretical, academic guru’s monologue. If your
target audience is current and hoped-to-be future
supporters, a “big name” may be the ticket.
What’s the program? What format best
suits your purpose? What location benefits
your audience?
Everyone values his time, so an appropriate and convenient location is a must. Even
though Heritage is just minutes from the Capitol, sometimes the best location for a program
is on the Hill itself—particularly when we’re
targeting rushed-to-death staff members.
Sometimes it’s best to use outside venues as
a convenience to co-sponsors or to provide a
more neutral setting for more contentious policy discussions. And, sometimes your audience
may just benefit from a change of routine.
Also, make sure proposed speakers are
The courtesy of a timely notice works wonders. Earlier may not always be better, but
last-minute notices are virtually pointless. An
appropriately timed invitation shows respect
for your invitees. Electronic invitations are
an efficient, effective, and prompt method for
reaching large numbers. However, just because
the process may be deemed “instant,” audiences don’t appear at the blink of an eye.
Programming partners again provide added
impact, increasing the likely connections with
media, advancing your invitation network, and
generating additional buzz for your activity.
Public events do require groundwork and
a lot of labor. They can be subject to missteps
but they can be the best method for marketing
your message, building your image, and promoting your agenda.
So, you want to have an event. Then get
busy!
John Hilboldt is Director of Lectures and
Seminars for The Heritage Foundation. This
article was originally published in The Hill on
March 15, 2006.
Visit insideronline.org
31
the Insider online
Conservative Solutions for Advancing Liberty
E
ver wonder what you could get done with
1,000 policy analysts working for you?
Stop wondering. InsiderOnline.org brings
together the best brains of the conservative
movement on one Web site. InsiderOnline’s
database is updated daily with new policy
papers, features and legal action from across
the conservative movement. The site also
features a blog—knowledge and news from
conservative thinkers on the issues of the day.
You’ve got policy problems. Conservative
thinkers have answers. Find them here.
InsiderOnline.org
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 546-4400 • heritage.org