February 16, 2017
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life." --Abraham Lincoln
Chairman's Note: Conservatism for the Forgotten Man
Donald Trump’s presidency represents a substantive – and long overdue – indictment of Washington’s political and policymaking consensus.
For too long, Democrats and Republicans alike have clung to policy solutions that are no longer relevant to our evolving world and that fail to address the most urgent problems of our generation: economic insecurity, unequal opportunity, political marginalization.
These problems are why Donald Trump ran for president and why he won. Government did not create these problems. They were mostly caused by larger forces – like globalization, technology, and changing social attitudes – that are beyond the realm of public policy. But what government has failed to do is see that for millions of Americans these forces have not been welcomed as exciting innovations of “Progress.” They have been endured as attacks on their lives and livelihoods.
President Trump was elected to help these Forgotten Americans. And conservatives have a duty to help them too. Not by pouring more money into the same dysfunctional government programs that take power away from American workers and give it to government elites, but by changing the fundamental ground rules of our economy so that the American Dream is within the reach of all Americans again.
For generations, the U.S. economy worked by aligning the interests of people who might otherwise be adversaries. In over-simplified terms, it brought together proverbial “rich people” with money to invest and “not-rich people” who have labor to sell. They formed cooperative, profitable partnerships that helped each other, their families, their countries, and the world.
But with globalization a lot of investments that used to flow to places like Michigan or Arkansas now flow to places like India and China. The rich in the United States and the not-rich in other countries are now better off, but the American middle-class is being left behind.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We can make America work again – for all Americans – by bringing more of the global economy here rather than sending more of the American economy abroad.
A simple but powerful two-step federal tax reform would go a long way toward accomplishing this goal: eliminate the federal corporate tax altogether, and then raise the rates on investment income – dividends and capital gains – to treat it like ordinary income.
This would accomplish three things:
First, this would allow U.S. corporations to raise wages. Economists estimate that up to one-half of corporate tax revenue come directly from workers’ paychecks. Second, it would level the playing field between American workers and American investors. Globalization has disproportionately benefitted American investors compared to American workers, and the tax code should not unfairly compound that inequity.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this new tax framework would actually tilt the playing field in the global economy in favor of the United States. Rather than competing against foreign tax havens, the United States would become the world’s most attractive tax haven. For foreign investors, this tax reform would be an offer they couldn’t refuse: zero tax on profits produced by American-based companies and jobs.
Our broken immigration system needs a similar fix. While immigration provides real benefits to the immigrants who come here and to those who employ them, workers in the same industries as new arrivals – including foreign-born and naturalized citizens – often face real loss.
There is no silver bullet solution to this problem. No one “comprehensive plan” will balance everyone out. But there are some small things we can do on the margins to begin to level the playing field.
The president has begun work on a border wall and other enforcement measures to help reduce illegal immigration. My colleague Sen. Tom Cotton has suggested limiting legal immigration to nuclear and not extended families. Those policies would help. Reducing low-skilled inflows and recruiting more high-skilled immigrants would help too.
Whether we’re talking about tax policy or immigration reform, the point is that we cannot fix our broken status quo, from the right or left, by giving more power to the same government that has failed at so much for so long. President Trump made this very point in his inaugural address: “[T]oday we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.”
Together, we can forge a new conservatism for the Forgotten Families of our Republic, meet the challenge the American people have put before us, and – as the saying goes - make America greater than ever.
Issue in Focus: The Military Humanitarian Operations Act
One of the most important features of the United States Constitution is the sharing of war powers between Congress and the president. The Framers knew the Executive Branch, united under the direction of a single individual, would possess certain characteristics – “Decision, activity, secrecy, and despatch,” as Alexander Hamilton famously wrote – that are necessary for conducting successful wars and responding quickly to national-security emergencies. Likewise, they understood that the Legislative Branch’s unique attributes – its proximity to the people and its consensus-based policymaking process, for instance – are best suited for making decisions that involve long-term commitments and include significant changes to the United States’ relationship with a foreign power.
Accordingly, the Constitution gives the president the power to conduct war, while reserving for Congress the power to declare war. By sharing the powers to protect the lives and liberties of the American people, the Framers ensured that our military and diplomatic policies would be informed by a long-term vision of American interests – forged through the kind of open debate and patient deliberation that are the province of Congress – while remaining flexible enough to respond to threats as they arise.
The authors of our Constitution were not naïve, however. They fully expected that their elegant division of labor in the realm of foreign-policy and national-security would produce conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches just as often as it would result in cooperation. How could the commander-in-chief of the world’s strongest military force in the world not grow impatient with pace of decision-making in the world’s greatest deliberative body, and vice versa?
But over time, as the separation of powers became less important to Washington politicians than the separation of parties, Congress became less deliberative and more comfortable yielding to the Executive Branch in matters of domestic and foreign policy. And presidents of both parties have been all too happy to take advantage of Congress’s acquiescence by unilaterally committing American blood and treasure to foreign conflicts, even when there is no compelling case that such a conflict poses a direct threat to our national security.
One of the most common pretexts that recent presidents have used to try to defend their go-it-alone approach to military engagements is preventing a humanitarian crisis. This is how President Obama justified his administration’s decision to intervene in Libya, without any authorization or consent from Congress, and it could likely be how President Trump might justify using the United States military to establish safe zones for refugees in the Middle East, as he promised in last year’s campaign.
But if you think about it, this is no justification at all. Regardless of whether humanitarian concerns are at stake, Congress deserves to be involved in the decision to commit America’s military forces to a prolonged armed conflict with the potential for loss of life and significant alteration of America’s geopolitical relationships. And more importantly, the men and women of our armed services deserve to have their elected representatives in Congress seriously consider and debate the merits of these missions before they are called to undertake them.
That’s why I recently introduced the Military Humanitarian Operations Act, a bill that will require the President receive authorization from Congress before using the military for humanitarian purposes where conflict is likely.
We only need to look at President Obama’s failed 2011 venture into the Libyan civil war to understand why this legislation is needed. Obama and his national security team initiated military action in Libya ostensibly to forestall a humanitarian disaster, but after we helped to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi the situation only got worse, culminating in the death of four Americans in Benghazi in 2012, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the first American ambassador killed in an attack in over 30 years. Libya is now a war-torn country riddled with ungovernable spaces where terrorist who threaten the United States are able to take root.
Congress should have debated the merits of using American forces in Libya, and stopped the president from doing so unilaterally. Had we been more prudent in the lead up to this engagement, the outcome would have been better for Americans and Libyans alike. With this legislation I hope we can take steps toward restoring the constitutional balance of power and better secure the freedoms of American citizens.
------------------------------------------
Senators Request Change to Civilian Employment Freeze for Military Facilities
WASHINGTON – Today, Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), David Perdue (R-GA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), John Boozeman (R-AR), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and James Lankford (R-OK) sent a letter to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regarding the implementation of the Presidential Memorandum on Federal civilian employees at military facilities across the country, requesting that OPM work with the Department of Defense (DOD) to improve implementation guidance. The letter states:
"It has come to our attention that, due to implementation guidance on the Presidential Memorandum, waivers for civilian hiring at military depots, shipyards, plants and arsenals are being issued by service secretaries on a job-by-job basis. This practice is extremely inefficient, impractical, and should be changed immediately. By the very nature of the work done at these facilities, commanders and managers must persistently address vacancies and new needs in the workforce to adapt to the constantly fluctuating demands of the warfighter.”
Utah is home of the Ogden Air Logistics Complex at Hill Air Force Base, which supports depot-level maintenance for some of the Air Force’s most vital weapons systems, including the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the F-35 Lightening II, and the Minuteman III ICBM. The Tooele Army Depot, which is the DOD’s ammunition hub in the western United States and its ammunition peculiar equipment center, is also in Utah.
Copies of the letter were also sent to Secretary of Defense James Mattis and recently confirmed Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Mick Mulvaney.
