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.
Finally, the CEO takes in about 400 times what the working man makes. Who's the real parasite in this? Don't try to tell me that these hogs drinking at the luxury trough actually "earned" 400 times what another person makes. And Mitch Daniels and those like him are hitched to the wagon of these rich and perversely powerful.
Mussolini said that the state of fascism is achieved when you can barely fit a cigarette paper between the government and the corporation.
Voila.
ps. Ronald Reagan's family who were poor during the Depression were helped out by programs from FDR's New Deal, and subsequently he was himself (as was Milton Friedman) a New Deal enthusiast, until big money came knocking.
I wish to call into question 2 points mentioned in this broadcast that I often hear but seldom hear challenged.
1- Federal employee retirements and compensation: I pay Social Security and invest in my own retirement. My Federal employer does not even come close to matching my investment. (75% me, 25% employer) Added to that, the money is placed in investments. My medical is a private sector plan available to others involved in my profession. Taxpayers are getting a bargain when you consider that and this response to the second glib non sequitur point...
2- Federal employee wages on average are paid more than taxpayers. As stated that may seem true but I have not found fast food workers or retail sales help in the Federal work force. I am, in fact, paid LESS than someone with my education and experience doing the same job in the private market. It is not rare to find degree holding professionals working as GS 7 or GS 9. I am more likely to challenge the fairness of the American economy than cut one of the few sectors of that economy that is still functioning.
I recognized the Government offered stability over a private corporation and was willing to accept less for that stability. I left a job offering more pay and benefits to serve as a civil servant and I am tired of people acting as if I am a tax collector for King George.
Who has failed when your democratically elected government is seen as your enemy?
Meanconser ... your point about capping taxes burdening retirees does not counter hoosier7's point: cutting taxes has not been helpful to California's state budget.
Just promising candy sweet soundbites like "cut taxes" without the careful consideration of what roles and services the public wishes their government to perform is tremendously harmful. I think the majority wants defense, social security, public K-12 education, etc. In the meantime, the Federal government is entering the second year of a continuing resolution because Congress cannot get a budget across the line.
"del wrote:
tax at 68 percent this force big money to invest and not sit on the money like they are doing now"
Invest in what del?
"sandifop wrote:
Meanconser ... your point about capping taxes burdening retirees does not counter hoosier7's point: cutting taxes has not been helpful to California's state budget"
No sandifop: The hosier used the 1978 tax reform referring to Proposition 13. Perhaps I should of stated that the people that were hit the hardest in 1978 California because of high property taxes were retirees and people on fixed income leading to Proposition 13. Do you understand now?
sandifop continued
"Just promising candy sweet soundbites like "cut taxes" without the careful consideration of what roles and services the public wishes their government to perform is tremendously harmful. I think the majority wants defense, social security, public K-12 education, etc. In the meantime, the Federal government is entering the second year of a continuing resolution because Congress cannot get a budget across the line
And you don't think that the reason that California residents are existing the state, umemployment 14% and present job creation is 50th in the Union are not due to high taxes?
mancuroc wrote:
@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
Mancuroc:
Jim Lehar during one of the debates told candiiate Obama that the US is second or fourth in total educational spending in the world. Then he followed up with the question would you favor vouchers which Obama stated he favored charter schools.
Sounds like we have come a long ways in 30 years in funding education.