Mitch Daniels: "Keeping the Republic"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-09-26/mitch-daniels-keeping-republic
Mitch Daniels is serving his second term as governor of Indiana. Since he took office in 2005, he has gained national attention for putting Indiana's fiscal house in order. He is credited with turning a $700 million deficit into a billion-dollar surplus. Many of his supporters were disappointed when he decided not to run for president. The governor's detractors contend he's anti-union, anti-immigrant and has done little to help struggling families. In a new book, Daniels explains his policy decisions and how to restore prosperity to America. A conversation with Governor Mitch Daniels.
Guests
Governor Mitch Daniels
Republican governor of Indiana; he was director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush; and was a senior aide to President Reagan.
Gov. Mitch Daniels Answers Audience Questions
Q: I've lived in Indiana for 10 years and moved to our particular town because of the wonderful school system. Under Mitch Daniels, we've seen funding for public education at all levels reduced every year. How can he boast about being fiscally responsible, when his cuts steal from our future by denying the best possible education for our young people? - From Robyn via Facebook
A: Robyn, those are simply not the facts. Spending on K-12 is far higher than when we arrived and has gone up every year except one, when virtually every state in the country was reducing it further than we did. It is rising again this year, plus we have resumed our drive to fund full day kindergarten for every 5 year-old.
As I said on the air, 56% of every Indiana state tax dollar goes to K-12, the highest percentage in state history and the highest in America.
That said, more money has not led to better results, in Indiana or anywhere else. Since you obviously care about the academic achievement of our kids, please be a vocal supporter of the reforms we have passed this year. They are the kinds of actions that people from President Obama to me agree on.
Q: You've been a supporter of investing in infrastructure. What do you think of President Obama's infrastructure plan in the "American Jobs Act?"
Q: I live in Indiana. Daniels sold off our state's assets and told us we had a surplus of money that we can use for a rainy day. Our unemployment is higher than I've ever seen in my lifetime. Could you please ask him what he meant by a "rainy day?" Thank you.
- From Cheryl via Facebook
A: Rebuilding America's infrastructure should be another goal on which people who otherwise disagree should come together. I think there is a far better route than the old-school, centrally-driven approach the President just proposed. The two keys are to welcome rather than spurn private capital as part of the solution, and to jettison as much of the ponderous and redundant federal regulatory rulebook as possible, so that projects don't take years just to get started.
Cheryl asks indirectly about this subject. She incorrectly says we "sold off state assets." In fact, we sold nothing, but through converting our Toll Road, which we continue to own, to a tightly regulated public utility, we harvested billions of dollars which we are reinvesting in a record infrastructure building program. None of these dollars – zero – went to our rainy day funds. Those funds, which were below empty when we arrived, have been rebuilt to a reasonable surplus. We used them during the recent downturn to avoid the huge cuts to public education, Medicaid, and other services that happened in almost every other state.
Read an Excerpt
Excerpted from "Keeping the Republic: Saving America by Trusting Americans" by Mitch Daniels by arrangement with Sentinel, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc., Copyright (c) Mitch Daniels, 2011:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
You seem to be saying, "How dare Mitch Daniels suggest that we stop forcing others to pay for our free lunch!" The people who scream the loudest, who get angriest, when people like Daniels suggest getting rid of - or at least privatizing - all the free lunches (social security, public school, public housing, welfare, disaster relief, etc., etc.) are the parasites enjoying the free lunch.
TANSTAFL!
great point!
Well said, except you have a loose definition of "borrow." What you call borrowing, I call coercion.
TANSTAAFL!
A quick note and a reality check for Mitch and the caller who agree on dissolving federal retirement plans..... unlike Mitch's budgets for the Bush administration, those programs are fully funded, not budgeted. Those trust funds were used to support paying for government operations during the recent bazaar campaign by House Republicans to shutdown the Federal government over the debts ceiling.
Mari352 -
Glad to see you are using our taxpayer dollars wisely while at work. I'm sure you'll do the economical thing & get a new job soon. In the meantime, my mother has worked her hind-end off for over 50 years for a very sensible family-owned business. They may or may not survive this recession, and she has had to make incredible concessions in her pay (1/2 of what she was making 3 years ago) to keep the company afloat. But she is loyal to the company & understands what they have to do to survive. The company treats the employees very well when times are good, and they have been very smart with their compensation plan- they pay into a 401K rather than saddling themselves with an unsustainable retirement scheme. Now contrast this little bit with the federal government. The only thing I will give you is that steady pay may help stabilize the economy, but the lack of flexibility is crippling the country. All you have to do is study Greece. If government workers refuse to make concessions to keep their "business" afloat, it will eventually go under. Government workers have very little attachment to their "business" because it is such a huge & faceless monstrosity. I guess government workers who refuse to compromise for the greater good really just don't give a hoot about what happens to the country.
Not trying to be critical, Monte, but can you give us an example of the kind of small government that works? From what I hear, a big reason small businesses are not creating jobs is that they can't get loans. The banks are sitting on their money, after being bailed out by you and me. Forget about the big corportaions. It is much more profitable for them to create jobs overseas. The tax rate can't be the problem either. It was much higher in the 50's and 60's which were for the most part boom years for the U.S., a time when we built the interstate highway system, GM and Ford were thriving and we had a growing middle class. Now we are fighting for funds to fix bridges. And it's not that we are a poor country, like Greece or Spain. We have all the money we need. Just not the willingness to reinvest it in our country.
On the Diane Rehm show on Sep 26,
Mitch Daniels gets the housing bubble and economic crisis backwards and like most Republicans overlooks deregulation and Wall Street.
As reported by Michael Lewis in The Big Short and many others, the record is unequivocal: private lenders created the deterioration of mortgage standards; Wall Street securitized and financed them; and Fannie resisted and then belatedly followed.
P.S.
Prior to the housing bubble, one couldn't get a mortgage
without a down payment and the price couldn't exceed
3 or 4 times one's income.
However, in 2004, Bush talked up the 'opportunity society'
where even the poorest person could own a nice home,
regulations weren't enforced (e.g., SEC chair Chris Cox thought
that markets were self-regulating), and mortgagors fed the
housing bubble by loaning on housing that exceeded
6X, 8X, 10X... the median income in an area--with an
unrealistic expectation that housing prices would continue
to go up.
Alan Greenspan's assertion that the fundamentals of
housing were strong was way off base.
There also was no requirement that mortgagors hold
the mortgages they originated for a certain period
of time. Subprime mortgages were "sold" to
unqualified buyers, securitized, bundled, sold,
and resold.
It was all very unsustainable.
Reckless Reporting re 'Reckless Endangerment' by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner
Fannie-Backwards American Prospect, September, 2011 by Robert Kuttner
Why Fannie and Freddie Are Not to Blame for the Crisis by J Madrick and F Partnoy, NYRB, 7/13/11
tax at 68 percent this force big money to invest and not sit on the money like they are doing now
Daniels put forth so many half-truths and flat out lies it's hard to know where to begin. Please have someone on your show (soon please) for a rebuttal who presents some facts and not opinions fostered by the people that want to get rid of the federal government.
I find it interesting that politicians are restructuring Social Security yet they don't draw or pay into it! It is really easy to cut a program when it doesn't affect you in any way!
Yoko, does the same logic apply to those who want to raise taxes on the high-income workers?
Rozzieman wrote:
"Not trying to be critical, Monte, but can you give us an example of the kind of small government that works"
Answer: the United States before the "New Deal" and "Great Society" It wasn't perfect but it was good enough to make us the most prosperous people the world has ever seen.
Daniels completely misrepresented FDR's position on public employee unions. FDR was in favor of government employees having a right to collective bargaining. He was opposed to government employees striking. I oppose public employee strikes as well, especially safety and sanitation workers. I do favor union representation for government workers. There's more to unions than just the ability to strike. Daniels is just pandering to the union busting crowd who likes to frame the argument as an all or nothing for public employee unions.
We see the result of private sector employees being convinced that union representation is obsolete. Their pensions are gone. They work harder for less and are told to be grateful. Their retirement security is tied to the whims of the market (401(k)s were great on paper). They are told public employees who have unions and get pensions are greedy and should not have what private employees don't have. Divide and conquer.
When it comes to Social Security, why do Republicans at the federal level say they want SS given back to the states and municipalities, then tout public employee pensions and retiree healthcare as a model of success in getting people off the SS/Medicare roles? They cite the better retirements that are available to employees if they opt out of SS in favor of a local pension system.
While at the local level, Republicans are pitting private sector employees against the public sector by creating envy of those with pensions. They are trying to take away pensions, severely curtail benefits and put new public employees on SS or nothing but a 401(k).
The next phase will be to get private and public employees on a local system, then severely cut those benefits to the bone.
It won't stop until all employees have no voice and little or no retirement security. People will work until they die. The net effect is redistribution of dollars to the pockets of the "job creators".
"meanconser wrote:
People believe that FDR was this great president that saved the US from disaster. However during his first 8 yrs there were no jobs created other than those temporary make work jobs."
(The) President... first reviewed his own accomplishments of the past two years:
Many undertakings have been organized and forwarded during the past year to meet the new and changing emergencies which have constantly confronted us . . . to cushion the violence of liquidation in industry and commerce, thus giving time for orderly readjustment of costs, inventories, and credits without panic and widespread bankruptcies.
Measures such as Federal and state and local public works, work-sharing, maintaining wage rates ("a large majority have maintained wages at high levels" as before), curtailment of immigration, and the National Credit Corporation, (He) declared, have served these purposes and fostered recovery. Now, (He) urged more drastic action, and he presented the following program:
1. Establish a Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which would use Treasury funds to lend to banks, industries, agricultural credit agencies, and local governments;
2. Broaden the eligibility requirement for discounting at the Fed;
3.Create a Home Loan Bank discount system to revive construction and employment measures which had been warmly endorsed by a National Housing Conference recently convened by (Him) for that purpose;
4.Expand government aid to Federal Land Banks;
5. Set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand Federal public works;
6. Legalize (His) order restricting immigration;
7.Do something to weaken "destructive competition" (i.e., competition) in natural resource use;
8.Grant direct loans of $300 million to States for relief;
9.Reform the bankruptcy laws (i.e., weaken protection for the creditor).
(Cont)
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
(Cont)
(He) also displayed anxiety to "protect railroads from unregulated competition," and to bolster the bankrupt railroad lines. In addition, he called for sharing-the-work programs to save several millions from unemployment.
The Tax Increase
With a $2 billion deficit during annual year 1931, (He) felt that he had to do something in the next year to combat it. Deficit spending is indeed an evil, but a balanced budget is not necessarily a good, particularly when the "balance" is obtained by increasing revenue and expenditures. If he wanted to balance the budget, (He) had two choices open to him: to reduce expenditures, and thereby relieve the economy of some of the aggravated burden of government, or to increase that burden further by raising taxes. He chose the latter course. In his swan song as (the) Secretary of Treasury, advocated, in December, ..., drastic increases of taxes, including personal income taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, and postal rates. Obedient to the lines charted by (the Secretary and President), Congress passed, in the Revenue Act of 1932, one of the greatest increases in taxation ever enacted in the United States in peacetime.
Ludwig von Mises Institute
http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=7e2399f4-98fa-4564-94e8-62e2e6dafac7
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Dian,
When I heard Mitch Daniels' opening statements I decided I didn't need him to spoil my Monday morning. (Fortunately, I turned my radio back on later and caught your interview with Bob Edwards, the ultimate class act).
Poor Michigan, to be saddled with a guy like Daniels. I speak from experience. I live in Arizona. We are stuck with a bunch of losers, too.
kane o wrote:
"Poor Michigan, to be saddled with a guy like Daniels. I speak from experience. I live in Arizona. We are stuck with a bunch of losers, too."
He is from Indiana. What is it like to go through life with a bag over your head?
I was surprised that Diane would schedule an Author of a political book in her first hour. There are many good political books that refute facts that Daniels puts forward. I would hope to hear one of these authors on her show in the very near future.
I also suggest that Diane watch Jon Stewart's interview with Daniels. Stewart is just as pleasant as Diane but he was able to make some telling points.
Daniels is very adept at dealing with unpleasant facts that your listeners bring up. His defense of his attempt to shut down Planned Parenthood is a case in point.
FDR warned against collective bargaining for government unions (read his 1937 letter)
The American Presidency Project ^ | August 16, 1937 | Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Posted on Friday, February 18, 2011 9:27:33 AM by SE Mom
My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government." successful.
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
Very Sincerely Yours,
(FDR)
"anj wrote:
UNBELIEVABLE that everyone says there hasn't been any increase in the cost of living for the last 2 years.
Gas is higher than ever even though the price per barrel is LESS than when Bush left office.
Our average cost of groceries for a family of 3 has gone up by 50% and rent has gone up 5% every year. Adding to this, there hasn't been an equal change in pay!
Please, someone explain how that's not an increase in the cost of living.
September 26, 2011 - 10:45 am"
Last Summer, Trilby Lundberg (A plump Jewish smoker), predicted that Gas prices would continue to rise till the end of the year.
I said,"Bull Cr_p, the price will plummet during September and be at rock bottom Sep 30 in time for the Fixing of the CPI for the year of 2011 just like it has done for the last Decade".
This morning Lundberg said something like, prices fell this week and may well fall some more by the end of the Month.
So for 3/4 of the year, we are mercilessly gouged yet since the gas CPI is price Sep 2011- price Sep 2010 we are told there was no increase in gas prices and thus no increase in the CPI from gas.
The CPI/COLA was destroyed by Reagan and Gingrich and is one of the major contributors to the destruction of living standards for Wage Workers and Social Security Annuitants.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Economically, Indiana is a "third world nation" as it stacks up relative to living standards and progress among other states. Thanks directly to the republiCON job that grips it and shreds it to pieces. It is a state that people are leaving, not moving to, nor would want to.
His sad character is a clear example of the deceit and charade tactics...typical of republicans and conservatives in all that they do each day in office.
Did you notice how often he would mutter.."I think..."and he proceeded to spin and deny. That is his problem... he thinks. And while he does, he is not a good candidate for public office. I could see him managing a pawn shop in a small, depressed town. Somewhere in the middle of his state would be nice. There are certainly plenty of them thanks to him.
mancuroc wrote:
@ meanconser
Interesting that you should bring up Howard Jarvis and the Proposition 13 property tax cap in California. California's education system up to that time had been the envy not only of the nation but of the world; now it ranks among the most dysfunctional in the nation. You cite a 1978 TIME article to claim it didn't hurt. It didn't exactly have time to bite so soon but I find the evidence of a 33-year-long decline quite convincing.
There is other factors that have contributed to California educational downfall other than the property tax limits by proposition 13. California even to this day has some of the most progresse taxes in the union. Spending on education I do not believe is the problem being that it is a very blue state and education is a big thing for Democratics.
"GraywingB43 wrote:
We've had the lowest effective corporate taxes and taxes on so-called "job creators" ever--and the highest unemployment and inequality we've had in generations"
Graywing:
Have no idea where you got that from. In August 2006 unemployment was at 4.7% thanks to tax cuts. You and Account need do more research when stating unemployment numbers. Accountant in last weeks thread mention that Bush did not create any jobs but if I remember correctly there were whole quarters that unemployment was under 5% during Bushes times. Am I missing something?
I enjoyed the first 6 pages of your book. How nice of you to say you don't use labels and then describe modern liberals as a person desiring governmental assistance. And why is it you too insist in describing American geographically? Yes, "republic" refers to a area of land. Does our form of government so upset you?
I could go on. Your work is upsetting. So much of the standard GOP boiler plate material it is a stretch to imagine it original in any amount.
You contempt against the "non-payer" is heartless. Prey tell, where does one get "pay" when there is no desire for one's knowledge, skill, or abilities?
President Obama is right to say the GOP desires to destroy America. You will not stop until every American family is beyond all means and no longer capable of self support. And then label them "liberal" because they ask for help — than to perform "hara-kiri."
Sadly, you are right. Democracies can fail. While Hitler was called a dictator, the fact is, he was democratically elected.
Tell me, is this work a "master plan?" Mein Kampf?
"cyclebear wrote:
Economically, Indiana is a "third world nation" as it stacks up relative to living standards and progress among other states. Thanks directly to the republiCON job that grips it and shreds it to pieces. It is a state that people are leaving, not moving to, nor would want to."
So the great cyclebear reappears again.
Wonder why you didn't stay in Europe being that you were their for 17 years . Did you know that today California is 50th in job creation. Big Blue State run for many years by the Dema$$e$.
@meanconser
"There is other factors that have contributed to California educational downfall other than the property tax limits by proposition 13. California even to this day has some of the most progresse taxes in the union. Spending on education I do not believe is the problem being that it is a very blue state and education is a big thing for Democratics."
You do not "believe" - well, here's another fact for you. You are surely aware that, blue state or not, California has put itself in a financial strait-jacket by mandating that tax decreases can be passed by a simple majority while tax increases require an almost impossibly high super-majority.
Incidentally, if you don't think education is a "big thing" for our society you must be in favor of ignorance - as is quite evident in your contributions.
"monte wrote:
kane o wrote:
"Poor Michigan, to be saddled with a guy like Daniels. I speak from experience. I live in Arizona. We are stuck with a bunch of losers, too."
He is from Indiana. What is it like to go through life with a bag over your head?"
Must be pretty darn ugly looking.
In addition, it is total demagoguery to imply, as Daniels does, that Social Security is a fraud, specifically, that the government is saying or has led us to believe that we are paying for ourselves. Anyone who's been paying any attention knows that current workers pay in to support those who are retired. Trust the American people? I don't think Daniels does, but instead bets on folks being confused and/or afraid, thus readily swayed by his innuendo and slippery rhetoric.
Diane, you were far too polite and kind, at least in this part of the discussion! I am really sick and tired of ideologues like Daniels being let off so lightly with their distortions and fear mongering ....
Same talking points from the corporate sausage factory: "Deregulate, cut taxes for the rich, and cut social programs for the elderly, the sick, the poor, and the young." We've been fed this message now for over 30 years, and decade by decade the vast majority of Americans have suffered as the middle and working classes have evaporated. The consummation of this policy came upon us in the GW Bush administration. Are you better off (with tax cuts, military spending, and deregulation) than you were before GW Bush? We are in no better shape now than we were following the administrations of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover that led directly to the Great Depression.
Instead of this transference of wealth "trickling down," corporate money went into purchasing media and creating ad (propaganda) agencies called think tanks and spending money in campaigns, and on lobbying, while outsourcing jobs, and playing monopoly with the stock market. To a point where the government and the corporation have become, especially regarding the Republican Party, the very same thing. The clearest example of this is the Tea Party, which was created by a PR firm working for the Insurance industry (see the book by Cigna's top public relations man Wendell Potter called "Deadly Spin"). And doesn't it strike you as a bit screwy that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney made millions of dollars as a result of hiring private military and infrastructure contractors (in which they owned stock and held board positions) to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, many on no-bid contracts?