Transcript: Mitch Daniels addresses CPAC

[^_^ 5,021]

Full transcript is here. Excerpts I found interesting are below:

...

I bring greetings from a place called Indiana. The coastal types present may think of it as a “flyover” state, or one of those “I” states. Perhaps a quick anthropological summary would help.

We Hoosiers hold to some quaint notions. Some might say we “cling” to them, though not out of fear or ignorance. We believe in paying our bills. We have kept our state in the black throughout the recent unpleasantness, while cutting rather than raising taxes, by practicing an old tribal ritual – we spend less money than we take in. We believe it wrong ever to take a dollar from a free citizen without a very necessary public purpose, because each such taking diminishes the freedom to spend that dollar as its owner would prefer. When we do find it necessary, we feel a profound duty to use that dollar as carefully and effectively as possible, else we should never have taken it at all.

...

When we cut property taxes, to the lowest level in America, we left flexibility for localities to raise them, but only by securing the permission of their taxpayers, voting in referendum. We designed both our state employee health plans and the one we created for low-income Hoosiers as Health Savings Accounts, and now in the tens of thousands these citizens are proving that they are fully capable of making smart, consumerist choices about their own health care.

We have broadened the right of parents to select the best place for their children’s education to include every public school, traditional or charter, regardless of geography, tuition-free. And before our current legislature adjourns, we intend to become the first state of full and true choice by saying to every low and middle-income Hoosier family, if you think a non-government school is the right one for your child, you’re as entitled to that option as any wealthy family; here’s a voucher, go sign up.

...

Every conflict has its draft dodgers. There are those who will not enlist with us. Some who can accept, or even welcome, the ballooning of the state, regardless of the cost in dollars, opportunity, or liberty, and the slippage of the United States into a gray parity with the other nations of this earth ... The task of such people is now a simple one. They need only play good defense. The federal spending commitments now in place will bring about the leviathan state they have always sought. The health care travesty now on the books will engulf private markets and produce a single-payer system or its equivalent, and it won’t take long to happen.

...

An affectionate thank you to the major social welfare programs of the last century ... The creation of new Social Security and Medicare compacts with the young people who will pay for their elders and who deserve to have a backstop available to them in their own retirement. These programs should reserve their funds for those most in need of them. They should be updated to catch up to Americans’ increasing longevity and good health. They should protect benefits against inflation but not overprotect them. Medicare 2.0 should restore to the next generation the dignity of making their own decisions, by delivering its dollars directly to the individual, based on financial and medical need.

...

We are currently borrowing the entire defense budget from foreign investors. Within a few years, we will be spending more on interest payments than on national security. That is not, as our military friends say, a “robust strategy.” I personally favor restoring impoundment power to the presidency, at least on an emergency basis. Having had this authority the last six years, and used it shall we say with vigor, I can testify to its effectiveness, and to this finding: You’d be amazed how much government you’ll never miss.

...

It’s time we had, in Bill Simon’s words “a tax system that looks like someone designed it on purpose.” And the purpose should be private growth. So lower and flatter, and completely flat is best.

...

A moratorium on new regulation is a minimal suggestion; better yet, move at least temporarily to a self-certification regime that lets America build, and expand, and explore now and settle up later in those few instances where someone colors outside the lines. Finally, treat domestic energy production as the economic necessity it is and the job creator it can be. Drill, and frack, and lease, and license, unleash in every way the jobs potential in the enormous energy resources we have been denying ourselves. And help our fellow citizens to understand that a poorer country will not be a greener country, but its opposite.

...

We must be the vanguard of recovery, but we cannot do it alone. We have learned in Indiana, big change requires big majorities. We will need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean. Who surf past C-SPAN to get to SportsCenter. Who, if they’d ever heard of CPAC, would assume it was a cruise ship accessory. The second worst outcome I can imagine for next year would be to lose to the current president and subject the nation to what might be a fatal last dose of statism. The worst would be to win the election and then prove ourselves incapable of turning the ship of state before it went on the rocks, with us at the helm. So we must unify America, or enough of it, to demand and sustain the Big Change we propose.

Here are a few suggestions: We must display a heart for every American, and a special passion for those still on the first rung of life’s ladder. Upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise, and the stagnation of the middle class is in fact becoming a problem, on any fair reading of the facts.

...

We should distinguish carefully skepticism about Big Government from contempt for all government. After all, it is a new government we hope to form, a government we will ask our fellow citizens to trust to make huge changes. I urge a similar thoughtfulness about the rhetoric we deploy in the great debate ahead. I suspect everyone here regrets and laments the sad, crude coarsening of our popular culture.

Edited February 12, 2011 by \

[luckytxn 2,263]

Nice sound bites.

[^_^ 5,021]

Nice sound bites.

I am not so sure that "I favor restoring impoundment power to the presidency" is a winning sound bite.

And "Social Security and Medicare ... should reserve their funds for those most in need of them" is a sentiment I agree with but it opens him up to the "socialist!" charge from the hard right.

As for his prediction that PPACA will "produce a single-payer system" - well, that's what a lot of people who oppose PPACA want!

[Danno 1,228]

OF course the first.... and biggest red-flag is when middle-left and Left wingers like the guy.

[Pooky 3,348]

OF course the first.... and biggest red-flag is when middle-left and Left wingers like the guy.

Which means a lot of independents are likely to take a good look at this guy.

Seriously, if a Republican who stands by fiscal responsibility is liked beyond the GOP, isn't that a good thing?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Mitch should be a contender. As to whether he stands a chance, time will tell.

Clinton sounded good at this point in his Presidential run, and I really liked what he had to say. When I saw Teddy put his arm around Bubba at the Democratic convention, I knew the fix was in, and America was screwed.

[Danno 1,228]

Which means a lot of independents are likely to take a good look at this guy.

Seriously, if a Republican who stands by fiscal responsibility is liked beyond the GOP, isn't that a good thing?

It's a good thing yes, but no seriously candidate who is -fiscal cutter is going to be fawned over by the near Left.

It wasn't all that long ago the Middle and the Left loved McCain, in fact I can't tell you the number of people (my Dad included) who thought McCain was the answer...... someone "majorities could embrace".

Need I finish the story?

[^_^ 5,021]

... who thought McCain was the answer...... someone "majorities could embrace".

Need I finish the story?

McCain could have built a winning majority if he didn't end up running against a Democrat who did it better. Obama built a winning majority that went well beyond traditional Democratic voters. Whoever does a better job of doing that in 2012 will win.

Unless, of course, you think a hardcore right-winger can win 2012 without any crossover votes from the left or middle

[^_^ 5,021]

[mawilson 2,133]

I am not so sure that "I favor restoring impoundment power to the presidency" is a winning sound bite.

I agree, the President should keep his dirty hands off my vehicle!

[Danno 1,228]

McCain could have built a winning majority if he didn't end up running against a Democrat who did it better. Obama built a winning majority that went well beyond traditional Democratic voters. Whoever does a better job of doing that in 2012 will win.

Unless, of course, you think a hardcore right-winger can win 2012 without any crossover votes from the left or middle

You are absolutely right about McCain and other like him, few people vote for a Democrat-lite when they can just for for a Democrat.

I think a Rightwinger can win *WIth* crossover votes.

[^_^ 5,021]

I think a Rightwinger can win *WIth* crossover votes.

And I agree. However, as on the "left" there are variations in tone and message on the "right". Fire breathers tend to get fewer crossovers.

[Danno 1,228]

And I agree. However, as on the "left" there are variations in tone and message on the "right". Fire breathers tend to get fewer crossovers.