1) Hillary Clinton has stood strongly against the lunatics from the far-left wing of the Democrat Party, fighting their selfish and blind love of ideology over service for country.

“Clinton knows this, it’s her only path to victory, and she doesn’t care. She is willing — nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power…It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I’m concerned, she doesn’t deserve “fairness” on this site… But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately… To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn’t care… That’s why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others.”
- The Daily Kos

2) Hillary Clinton will naturally oppose the class warfare policies of the Democrats.

“One of the many members of Obama’s cabinet wealthier than he is his former presidential primary opponent and current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s estimated average net worth in 2010 was $31 million — more than four times that of Obama’s $7.3 million — making her among the wealthiest cabinet members.”
- Open Secrets

3) Hillary Clinton will refrain from using the bully pulpit of the Presidency as a platform for federal activism.

“What difference does it make?”
- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

4) Hillary Clinton is a special person blessed with a uniquely elevated status in our social order.

“she’s not just one of us.”
- Michael Tomasky, Newsweek

5) Hillary Clinton rejects the identity politics playbook of the Chicago Democrats.

“Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.”
- Senator and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton

6) Hillary Clinton has no skeletons in the cupboard we do not know about.

Just ask President (Bill) Clinton.

7) Hillary Clinton is an open-minded and tolerant leader.

Read Game Change. And http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/09/the-front-runner-s-fall/306944/

8) Hillary Clinton will end the gridlock in Washington.

“Turn up the heat on the Republicans”
- Senator and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton

9) Hillary Clinton inspires strong feelings from Americans.

See all of the above.

The time is now for history. Clinton-Clinton. For Themselves, for a Change

This demonstrates the inconsistency and weakness of many American voters, who urge deficit reduction while electing the party of tax-and-spend policies and calling for pro-growth, fiscally responsible Republicans to compromise on their principles. An approach of “letting it burn” by capitulating to the Democrats’ demands, or even hurtling over the cliff, is looking increasingly attractive. After all, the people have spoken, and they spoke in favor of higher taxes, more debt, and slower growth.

Nevertheless, if we wish to pursue a bipartisan approach to getting the deficit back under control and on the path to balance, we must take several key steps:

1) Advocate for a simpler, fairer, and more competitive tax code. Reduce marginal tax rates on working families and job creators, in exchange for broadening the revenue base by limiting, removing and reforming unfair and distortionary tax loopholes, including the mortgage interest and employer-based health insurance deductions, on the model of Simpson-Bowles or Wyden-Coats. This may include increasing the tax rate on capital income, as advocated by many bipartisan deficit hawks, but also shunned by many fiscal Conservatives due to the negative impact on savings and investments, and, eventually, tax revenues. However, overall, such a tax reform plan would lead to higher revenues, through broadening the base as well as promoting economic growth. The Democrats would be unreasonable to reject such compromise, with substantially higher tax revenues, especially from the high-income taxpayers whom they detest so much and who benefit disproportionately from tax expenditures.

(Ideally, this should lead to a massive streamlining of both the personal and business tax codes, and should be coupled with a review of the payroll tax system alongside entitlement reform.)

2) Support reversing domestic discretionary spending to 2008 pre-bailouts, pre-stimulus levels, and continuing to cut it in real terms over the next few years. This should be enforced via stricter spending caps than under the Budget Control Act, and a comprehensive review of all federal agencies and programs. It would also be ideal if Republicans were able to provide a full list of detailed, specific spending reforms, shielding them from some of the demagoguery that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were subjected to. Possible spending cuts include the abolition of corporate welfare, welfare reform, and federal workforce reform, among others. If played well, in the name of “tough choices”, “shared sacrifice”, and “value for money”, but without resorting to vague generalities about “efficiencies” and “waste, fraud, and abuse”, we can convince the American public that we, unlike Democrats, are really willing to tighten Washington’s belt while protecting essential services. We will be firm and fair.

(This must involve a total deconstruction of any image the Democrats have left as “responsible” or “fair” or “compassionate”. It is not responsible, fair, or compassionate to bankrupt essential public services and leave future generations in a sea of red ink, just for political gain.)

3) Accept modest restraint in real terms defense spending. The administration has identified efficiency savings throughout the entire Pentagon, especially in the benefits system and bureaucracy, coupled, of course, with lots of harmful, wholesale cuts to the national defense. We should embrace the former, but reject the latter. We will be the party of a strong and cost-effective national defense, while the Democrats will be the party of cutting funding for our servicepeople to splurge on cronies.

(Some defense investments may have to be postponed or cancelled. While this may be risky, it will allow us to restore our image as the party of managerial competence, with no sacred cows. The Pentagon should not be ring-fenced at the cost of larger debt and higher taxes.)

4) Push for fundamental entitlement reforms, in order to preserve a strong, but limited and affordable, social safety net for the poor, young, old and sick. Medicaid reform may be a sensitive issue for low-income people, but this should not prevent us from demanding that the Democrats reform it by converting it to a block-grant to encourage state-level innovation, and then focus on expanding access to affordable, private health coverage, preferably through a generous means-tested tax credit for those who lack employer-based health insurance. Converting Medicare into a premium support system, and targeting assistance to the poorest and sickest seniors, has had bipartisan support in the past, and could be based on the Domenici-Rivlin plan, which is imperfect but is far superior to the status quo. Meanwhile, Social Security could be reformed by changing the cost-of-living adjustment, indexing the retirement age to longevity, and means-testing benefits growth, possibly combined with the liberal idea of raising the payroll tax cap. The nature of many of these reforms will ensure that they are viewed by the public as reasonable, mainstream ideas, preventing Democrats from attacking them easily.

(Again, this must involve a total deconstruction of any image the Democrats have left as “responsible” or “fair” or “compassionate”. It is not responsible, fair, or compassionate to bankrupt essential public services and leave future generations in a sea of red ink, just for political gain.)

While many of the steps here do not fit perfectly with Conservative preferences, they would be far superior to the alternative, and would reposition the Republican Party squarely in the mainstream of American politics, as a moderate, reasonable force countering the Democrats’ fiscal irresponsibility. And just as a note, these should not be adopted as party policies or principles, but as the furthest compromise which we can offer to the Democrats. The Democrats will have three options- take it, leave it, or come up with a more Conservative compromise. Unless they take the third option, they will ultimately be the ones suffering politically. That is, if we do not bungle the blame/credit game and let Obama, Pelosi, and Reid claim the title of the Great Compromisers. Republicans must be the ones making this offer of compromise first, and we must present it as the best deal we can give the Democrats after a tough decision, playing up its bipartisan credentials.

Of course, if we had a choice, the fiscal plan would be much bolder on issues like tax and entitlement reform. Instead of Simpson-Bowles, it’d be the Ryan or Huntsman tax plan. Instead of Domenici-Rivlin, it’d be the Coburn-Burr or the Heritage Foundation Medicare proposal. Unfortunately, our choices are limited.

This reflects the underlying differences in the images of the two political parties. While Republicans have traditionally been viewed as the party of high earners and big business, Democrats are viewed as the party of the working poor, minorities, and intellectuals. While Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were able to appeal to the swing bloc of middle income voters with the promise of tax relief and increased military spending, and, the latter, even reach out, with limited success, to Democrats’ core constituencies with his proposals for faith-based programs, immigration reform, and No Child Left Behind, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney all failed in this area, both due to personal qualities and the image of the Republican Party.

Nevertheless, the traditional approach of large reductions in income tax rates may be losing its appeal. From data available since the 1950s, voters have always viewed their taxes as being too high, even after the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s. However, since the end of the 1990s, large numbers of voters have started viewing their tax burden as being “about right”, sometimes tying with those who view their tax burden as “too high”. Almost 60% of voters also believe that the amount of federal income tax that they have to pay is “fair”.

Just as worrying for Republican tax-cutters is the fact that while the wealthiest Americans are currently paying a disproportionate portion of the total income tax take, more than 60% say that high-income earners and corporations are paying “too little” in tax, and 40% say that low-income people are taxed “too much”. Meanwhile, a majority of Americans believe that the middle class pays a “fair share”. Americans also favor a more even distribution of wealth, and are evenly split on whether this should be achieved through government taxation.

These statistics explain the substantial support for liberal proposals for higher taxes on investors and job creators, such as the Buffett Rule and the expiration of the Bush-era tax rates on incomes above $250,000. Despite this, in an apparent contradiction, a plurality of Americans still favor decreasing the amount of federal taxes that they pay.

I believe that it is a combination of the feeling that the tax burden is mostly “about right”, support for policies such as temporary tax credits and the payroll tax holiday, concern for the low revenues which have contributed to large deficits, and opposition towards relatively low marginal tax rates on corporations and high-income earners, which has allowed the Democrats to neutralize, and even reverse, the Republican advantage on the issue of taxation, and thus win the middle class vote. The Republican reputation for supporting “large, debt-funded tax cuts for the rich” and “draconian cuts to social programs (especially healthcare and education)”, definitely has not helped us. Furthermore, this has also undermined our attacks on issues like cronyism, federal spending, and welfare, because while Americans agree with us on these issues, we lose overwhelmingly on “empathy” and “compassion”.

Barack Obama and the Democrats exploited our weaknesses here aggressively, using personal attacks on Mitt Romney’s affluence and character, identity-based warfare-style criticism of Republican fiscal and social policies, doubts of Republicans’ honesty and trustworthiness, and carefully-targeted initiatives to individual constituencies (such as student loan forgiveness, public school funding, and birth control subsidization).

While we may have lost in this election, we continue to hold a few key advantages on ideas and issues. Americans largely continue to favor small, limited government, rather than an activist Washington (although Rasmussen shows a big shift on this front, in the Democrats’ favor). Americans would also support a bipartisan tax overhaul that lowers overall rates and reduces complex loopholes and preferences.

Nevertheless, our image as an extreme, hyperpartisan, somewhat hypocritical party of the “rich” that lacks the common touch makes it difficult for us to make use of these openings. Even our reputation for managerial competence has been left shaky after the two Bush administrations.

Our first step must be to repair our image as the party that is competent in managing the economy. While we historically held the advantage on this area, except in the decades immediately following the Great Depression, Bill Clinton’s leadership allowed the Democrats to catch up, while the two Bush administrations faltered in economic management.

This is why we must, above all, distance ourselves from the failures of these administrations. We must acknowledge that many mistakes were made. For instance, we failed to restrain pork-barrel spending, and allowed Wall Street to go out of control (with a lot of help from the Democrats’ insistence on throwing up red tape that reformed nothing and confused everyone), leaving Main Street taxpayers and consumers with the tab.

This also means that we must come up with serious, substantive policy proposals that represent a clear break with the failures of the past. While Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Congressional Republicans put in a lot of effort on this area, they were often impeded by the party leadership, and a media that pecked at every detail, or lack thereof. Thus, we must improve on our current policy proposals by making them clearer, bolder, more specific, and more practical, like the Medicare premium support proposal has evolved. This includes our proposals for tax reform, where we have not always been totally clear and honest about which specific preferences we would limit or eliminate, allowing accusations of a budgetary black hole, and for budget cuts, where we have advocated large reductions in overall discretionary spending but not specified the reforms that much be implemented to achieve many of the savings. In some cases, the problem has also been a mere lack of marketing, especially in healthcare, education, regulatory reform, housing, and infrastructure.

We must then reclaim our natural ground as the party of “empathy” and “compassion”. To do this, above all else, we have to explain how our principles and policies help ordinary people, and not just in terms of a “moral case for free-market capitalism” or “a rising tide lifts all boats”.

We need to show how common-sense Conservative Republican policies that reduce the size, reach, and cost of the government not only help entrepreneurs, investors, and entrepreneurs, but also how they encourage work, saving, and investment by letting people keep more of what they earn, and thus create more jobs and higher take-home pay, improve the quality of life, guarantee financial security, and lower the cost of living for hardworking middle-class families.

We also need to reach out to the working poor, and those on the lower side of the income scale. While many of them voted for the Democrats, they are not inevitably in favor of the culture of dependency and entitlement represented by that party. Many of them can be won over by a smartly-tailored message of social mobility and economic empowerment, achieved through anti-poverty, pro-growth economic policies that help people off welfare and into good-paying work, as well as education reform that tackles the “soft bigotry of low expectations (or rather, of poor schools)”. We must begin to realize that Conservatism is not restricted to libertarian fundamentalism, or Bush-style big government “compassion”, but is rather based, yes, on limited government and free enterprise, but also on the strong communities and families that these bring.

And then, we must have effective messengers to the middle class and low-income voters. This is not only on the Presidential level. We should ensure that our party is represented by people who can articulate common-sense Conservative principles and policies, and communicate the purpose of these, both to the entire population and to individual people, and all the different levels in between. Preferably, they should demonstrate how we are the party of aspiration rather than privilege.

There is a debate to be had on our message on social issues, as well as foreign policy and national security. Nevertheless, on economic policy, our party’s direction is clear. We must be the party of the Opportunity Society, as Mitt Romney said but never explained very well. We must fight for the little guy, against the corruption of Washington, represented by insider politicians, lobbyists, and cronies. We must stand up for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in its many forms. We must represent the entrepreneur’s dream, the retiree’s security, the parent’s reward, and the youth’s opportunity. And we must represent the nation, society, and communities that they form together.

Low, simple, flat and fair taxes. Low spending and balanced budgets. Light and sensible regulations. Strong and stable currency. Free and fair trade. Choice and accountability in education. Sustainable social programs for the old, poor, and sick. These things actually work. But how will Americans know?

Look at this latest Romney ad:

Yes, it does point out Obama’s failures, and mentions that Romney has a plan for more jobs and take-home pay. That’s what politicians always say, but where’s the beef?

An ideal political ad should be able to build and solidify a clear contrast between the two candidates, and this contrast must be favourable for our candidate. Clearly, the choice in this election is one of two futures, and two very different men with very different visions and records. Team Romney must use this to its advantage. So here’s my take on an ad that Team Romney could make.

“[Pictures from the Obama economy] President Obama has had four years to fix the economy. He promised to cut the deficit in half. He gave us $5 trillion in new debt, more than any President in history. He pledged to hold unemployment below 8%. It’s been above that level for 42 months, and counting. His plan to tax, borrow, spend and regulate our way out of recession has clearly failed. Now he proposes to try it once again.

[Gov. Romney's voice comes in, over images of him and ordinary, hardworking Americans] Unlike President Obama, I have a real plan for a stronger middle class. I will approve the Keystone Pipeline and ensure that America has access to cheap and secure energy. I will ensure that our kids have the skills they need to succeed in life. I will open new markets on terms that work for America, and ensure a level playing field for American businesses. I will get the deficit under control and get America on track to a balanced budget, by making the tough choices we need to make government simpler, smaller, and smarter. And I will champion small businesses by reining in red tape, making taxes simpler and fairer for American families, and replacing Obamacare with common-sense healthcare reforms.

My plan means 12 million more jobs, and more take-home pay for hardworking Americans, with less debt and smaller government. I believe in America, and I believe in Americans, which is why my plan will give them the freedom and opportunity they need to have a better life for themselves and their children. Let’s build America again. With the right leadership and the hard work of millions of Americans, we can do it.

I’m Mitt Romney, and I approve this message.”

I had previously thought of candidates ranging from Bobby Jindal and Susana Martinez to Fred Thompson and Tom Coburn. All of these offer their unique strengths and areas of expertise. Nevertheless, I believe that Congressman Ryan would be the best choice Governor Romney can make, as the race stands now.

Paul Ryan would help Romney to regain the trust of grassroots Conservatives. He would have instant credibility with the base, but also with Establishment Republicans and our more moderate brethen. This is because Paul Ryan has constantly advanced proposals to create a smaller, simpler, and smarter federal government, consistent with Gov. Romney’s own efforts in Massachusetts, and is a firm advocate for taxpayers. Paul Ryan would thus reinforce Romney’s credentials as a competent reformer.

Paul Ryan would also signal that Romney is serious on renewing America’s free enterprise economy. I have often criticised Romney for his lack of focus on specific, positive plans. Picking Paul Ryan would show both Conservative Republicans and independent voters that Mitt Romney is intent on pushing through the tough choices needed to get our fiscal house in order and create the best environment possible for job creation.

For these two simple reasons, I believe that Paul Ryan would be the best choice to complement Romney’s strengths as a successful businessman and reformer in public service. Paul Ryan is also one of the most articulate champions for balanced budgets and economic freedom in today’s Republican Party, and he has proven that he can work with others in Washington and find common ground without abandoning the cause of liberty and opportunity. He embodies the Tea Party’s approach to changing Washington from inside out.

If Team Romney wants to fight this election on its own terms, they have their man for Veep. Romney-Ryan’s the ticket for the strivers.

Now, of course, the non-partisan source Obama cited turned out to be… partisan. But, voters are not going to care about that. They are going to care about how Mitt Romney’s tax plan will impact their wallets, and at this point, Obama is the only person telling them that. Team Obama’s strategy is clear- to discredit Romney’s policies by discrediting Romney’s personal record on those issues. On jobs, it was Bain. For ethics, it was Romney’s personal records and investments.

Romney now holds a small lead over Obama on the issue of taxation, but it may be lost if Obama manages to discredit his policies. Republicans have always held this advantage with the promise of tax cuts, but it has been whittled down under Bush, and now, most Americans actually think they pay “about right” in taxes to Washington.

Mitt Romney is said to be planning a policy rollout in the next few weeks. He should use that opportunity to make the economic and moral case for lower taxes. He should talk about the complexity of the tax code, the time it wastes, and the chances it presents to tax cheats like those running amok in the White House, as well as well-connected special interests. He should talk about how high, uncompetitive tax rates (the highest corporate tax rate in the world, for one) stifle free enterprise and hinder job creation, while discouraging hard work and hitting responsible Americans. He should talk about how he will reform the tax code to clean out loopholes that disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers, whose success should be lauded but who do not need to be coddled by the nanny state, outlining specific examples while pledging to protect and strengthen vital incentives for charitable giving, saving, homeownership, education, and healthcare. He should talk about how small businesses will benefit and create more, better-paying jobs under his plan, how he will give millions of middle-class Americans the chance to invest and save, and how we can create jobs by making America open for business again.

But above all, Romney needs to tell us how America’s working families will stand to gain from a simpler and flatter tax code, and why his plan is actually the fairer alternative for the millions of strivers. People who work hard and want to succeed in life, so that they and their children can do better and live better, simply should not be discouraged and punished, and a punitive and unfair tax system only does that. Governor Romney is the only candidate in this election who stands for equal opportunity and a truly fair shot for everyone. Americans just don’t know that yet.

Governor Romney must not shy away from defending his tax plan on his own terms. Rather, he must learn to show Americans that it is the only chance of achieving a simpler, fairer, and flatter code that works for them.

(And if Romney wants a more developed tax reform plan, Simpson-Bowles, Sen. Coburn’s Back in Black, and the Bush-era President Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform all offer a good start.)

America’s working families have suffered under President Obama. Many have seen their incomes and home values plunge, even as jobs become more difficult to find and the cost-of-living rises. These people want honest solutions that help ordinary folks. They don’t care about economic theory, they want a fair chance to work, an opportunity to be free.

1) Put Money Back in Taxpayers’ Pockets: John McCain proposed this in 2008. Some Conservatives may dislike this because many lower-income families have already been taken out of the tax system. However, there are many taxpayers who remain entrapped, and increasing the personal exemption would allow them to keep more of the money that they earn tax-free. This should be coupled with reforms in the Earned Income and Child Credits to simplify the personal tax code, help families, and encourage work (See President Bush’s Tax Reform Panel).
Grade for the GOP: 5/10

2) Encourage Middle-Class Workers to Save and Invest: Mitt Romney has a common-sense proposal that should really be more visible. Exempting taxpayers earning below $200,000 from Capital Gains Tax is a good idea. It encourages middle-class strivers to save for their future and take part in the process of wealth creation, while giving a big boost for small business. It’s the best way to give such families a chance to create a better life. Another way in which this can be achieved is by allowing people to invest a portion of their own payroll taxes in personal accounts. This may be a politically-dangerous idea, but could also prove to be revolutionary.
Grade for the GOP: 5/10

3) Affordable and Sustainable Energy: Build the Keystone Pipeline, expand fuel exploration, invest in basic research, and slash through red tape, including the offshore drilling ban. Make sure American drivers are shielded from high gas prices by creating an automatic gas tax holidays when prices spike, which would expire when prices stabilised. This could be modelled after Britain’s Fair Fuel Stabiliser. And hold the line against a national energy tax.
Grade for the GOP: 8/10

4) Reform the Welfare System: We should take off where the 1996 bipartisan reforms left. While the reforms worked for a while in tackling the culture of dependency, it left many other programs untouched. Now is the time to make welfare truly work. Harsher penalties and stricter checks for fraud. Making sure people who can work, do work, possibly based, again, on Britain’s Work Programme or John Howard’s “Work for the Dole” scheme in Australia, which was maintained by a Labour Government. Capping welfare benefits for each person to ensure people are better off in work. A drastic simplification of the benefits and tax credits structure. And reforming training and re-employment programs so everyone is equipped for work. Welfare reform is one of the smartest ways, both politically and fiscally, to wean people off dependency on big government. Another part of this could be means-testing social security. All these could be used to pay for additional tax relief for working families. (Iain Duncan Smith in Britain has passed ambitious reforms which should be studied by conservative policymakers in a Romney administration.
Grade for the GOP: 2/10

5) A Choice for Every Parent Means a Chance for Every Child: Governor Romney has covered this area in detail- tying federal funds to students to promote parental choice in education, ensuring schools are honest and accountable to parents, and ending the government monopoly of higher education funding, among other sensible measures. The only problem now is how they will be implemented, which remains to be seen, and whether bolder reforms to refocus the federal role in education are needed.
Grade for the GOP: 7//10

Of course, there remain a variety of other policies- the death tax, income tax, payroll tax, regulatory reform, immigration reform, entitlement reform, Obamacare etc. for the GOP to address. But these are just areas where I think the GOP should focus on.

Gov. Walker was right. Without making tough choices to reform all levels of our nation’s governance and economy, we will be unable to restore and renew America’s promise. Paul Ryan has proposed much-needed entitlement and tax reforms. Scott Walker has been a national model for public sector labour reform. Jim Jordan and the RSC have spearheaded the fight for stricter fiscal discipline in Washington. There are many other bold leaders in our party with bright solutions to our nation’s problems. However, their proposals usually fail. This is because Republican leaders have not been able to work together in presenting a firmly united and coordinated case for them. The first thing we need is a theme. And reform should be at the heart of that theme.

Budget reform: Make Democrats stick to what they agreed to last year, and push for stricter limits on federal spending. Pursue a cyclically-adjusted balanced budget amendment capping government spending between 18-20% of GDP. Dock the pay for members of congress if they do not pass a budget on time. Continue to attack the culture of wasteful spending by strengthening the ban on pork barrel spending and conducting a regular comprehensive review of government programs. And last but not least, set out a practical schedule for deficit reduction, possibly modeled after Rep. Connie Mack’s Penny Plan, cutting spending by at least 1% each year.

http://conniemack.com/issues/penny-plan

Entitlement reform: As I mentioned above, Rep. Ryan has proposed meaningful entitlement reforms by transforming Medicare into a premium support program, giving seniors the right to choose affordable, high-quality insurance coverage. We can go further in this area by advocating means-testing for Social Security. It is simply unreasonable for wealthier retirees to expect their benefits to continue growing at high rates at the expense of working taxpayers. Other common-sense measures include indexing the retirement age to longevity and adjusting the Social Security COLA to more accurately reflect seniors’ needs. Last but not least, we should be willing to make the case again for allowing future generations to save and invest a portion of their payroll tax liability. In any case, we will avoid disrupting retirement plans by exempting those above 55 from changes.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

Tax reform: Many Conservatives want a flat tax. Meanwhile, the POTUS-to-be Romney has advocated slashing income tax rates by a fifth, helping small businesses and working families. And all of us agree on the need to bring corporate taxes down to internationally-competitive levels. And we want to keep or create tax incentives when necessary, such as the R&D credit, full expensing of investments, territorial taxation, the personal exemption, etc. I would personally like an increase in the personal exemption, which would allow American workers to save more of their income tax-free, without the government taking it from them, as well as continuing the payroll tax holiday for a while and extending it to employers. However, whichever approach we prefer, there is a pressing need to pair tax relief with tax reform- a drastic overhaul to simplify the tax system and make it fairer for businesses and individual taxpayers. One key step is to reduce the number of tax brackets. There should be no more than three brackets in a reformed tax code. And we must also work to broaden the tax base. Our 43rd President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, as well as the ignored Fiscal Commission, offered many intriguing suggestions which should be taken into account.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/final-report/index.html

Welfare reform: Mr. Obama just gave Bill Clinton a middle finger by undermining his bipartisan reform effort to make welfare truly work. That is a clear sign of how he does not value opportunity and hard work. Mitt Romney wants to cooperate with states to reform retraining programs to help individuals seek re-employment. The RSC wants to limit welfare spending. These are all common-sense proposals which should be passed, because we desperately need an overhaul of the welfare system to end the culture of dependency and make sure people are better off in work, and have the chance to work.

http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/wra.htm

http://www.heritage.org/issues/welfare

Regulatory reform: Governor Romney has said that he wants to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, replacing them with a streamlined regulatory framework with less red tape for job creators, passing the REINS Act, and introducing a one-in, one-out rule. Those are smart moves. However, he has failed to detail how this new framework would be implemented. Transparency and accountability- giving shareholders to power to hold management to account, ensuring prompt surveillance and enforcement to make banks and companies play by the rules, protecting consumers, and ensuring that systemic risk is detected and curbed, should be the goals of any regulatory reform plan. On the other hand, we could also be much more ambitious in slashing red tape, say, instead of “one-in, one-out”, what about “one-in, three-out”?

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/regulation

Government reform: The Office of Congressional Ethics is a joke, the General Services Administration is another joke, the Government Accountability Office is fought everyday, and the Congressional Budget Office is fundamentally biased against low taxes. Cutting the size of the federal government by 10% through attrition and extending the pay freeze are just tiny steps. The oversight system should be reformed to hold politicians and bureaucrats responsible. Put John McCain in charge of that…

Education reform: Parental choice means a chance for every child. Enough said.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/education

Health care reform: Really, we’ve got great plans that we have already laid out, even in the Pledge to America. Just let people know they exist.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

I would like to conclude by noting that I understand that the time is not ripe for us to release specifics, but I think Conservatives would like the assurance that Team Romney is working on them and will release them in due course.

We all know what Obama and the Democrats advocate. Larger government, more spending, more red tape, higher taxes, and continued corruption and mismanagement in Washington. Although they disguise them very nicely (so that some people are actually fooled by the glittery words like “investment” and “insourcing”), their plans have already been exposed by their deeds. The ultimate result of their big-government policies: more debt, fewer jobs. Americans are tired of them.

However, they are also able to run against cardboard cut-outs of the Republican Party. Few Americans actually know what the Republican Party proposes, other than vague commitments to “cut spending” and “cut taxes”. This is a result of our party’s failure to lay out clear alternatives to the Democrats’ policies, and when we actually have alternatives, we fail to publicize them and make our case to the American people. It puts us at risk of being accussed of wishing to “cut Medicare”, “offer tax breaks for fat cats”, “cut aid for women’s health”, and “blow a hole in the deficit”. These are of course simply untrue, but we are not challenging the perception, and comments like Mitch McConnell’s (30 million people losing insurance if Obamacare is repealed- a phony number, by the way, are “not the issue”) do not help.

It’s time for us to define our plans and defend them on our own terms. This is the only way to control the narrative. Yes, we must continue to attack the Democrats’ incompetence, but Republicans must also be willing to unite behind a consensus, common-sense Conservative framework for governance. Put out clear, coherent, and constructive plans, package them, and sell them to the American people in a concise way. We cannot afford to fuel the perception that we are the “Party of No”, not least because that is untrue- what we have are a President and a Senate of No. They have opposed common-sense bills proposed by Republicans, and have made no effort to find common ground. However, most Americans don’t know that those bills existed in the first place. A package of our plans, that includes the principles and proposals in these bills, will offer a stark contrast with the Democrats, which Americans haven’t seen yet.

Let us follow the example of parties in the Commonwealth. Put out a plan. It can be a contract, a pledge, a blueprint, a roadmap, a manifesto, a platform, a white paper, anything. Just show Americans our plan. Give them a reason to believe in the Republican Party, and to believe in America’s future. This election is a referendum on Obama, but in referendums, people make choices as well. And in this referendum, they must have a choice between two visions, not a choice between two vacuums.

Let us be the Party of Common-Sense Ideas and Real World Solutions to Real World Problems once again.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

It is clear that our Founding Fathers believed firmly in the inalienable and fundamental nature of those rights- Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. They knew that our rights came not from the state, but from God Himself. The meaning of this is clear- we are a Republic, built on freedom and life, under God. America, and Americans, cannot be separated from these rights. And it is by the grace of God, that we continue flourishing as the land of liberty, and even when we face tests, we never stop believing in God, and we never stop believing in America. It is because of this that America comes out from each crisis much stronger, and also much wiser.

When we talk about life, we tend to think of protecting the lives of our unborn children and fighting against policies which undermine the sanctity of life. But this right also means something much more basic. It is a guarantee to every American that we have the right to live. Our lives are not the possessions of the Government, or of anyone else, but they are a right granted by the grace of God. Life is one of the greatest gifts God could have ever given to us. We must treasure our lives, and indeed, it is our duty to live our lives meaningfully, because they belong to us- our life is our privilege, and our right, but it is also our responsibility, like a piece of clay which we must mould and strengthen. So treasure life.

There is nothing which is as American as liberty itself. We are a nation built on liberty. We have the right to live our lives freely, not as servants, but as masters of our own destiny. The founders of our party had this in mind when they came together to fight for their cause. It was, and continues to be, the mission of the Republican party to protect and advance American liberty. Abraham Lincoln did so by fighting slavery. Theodore Roosevelt did so by campaigning against corruption in Government, and in business, which undermined Americans’ freedom. Ronald Reagan did so by rolling back the frontiers of the state and halting the Soviet Union. George W. Bush did so by bringing a message of respect for human rights and the advancement of democracy to the rest of the world. Today, it is time for us to learn our lessons from these Presidents, and to take up their torch once more, in the fight for freedom. It’s Americans’ duty to hold that torch, and it’s Republicans’ duty to re-light that torch.

At the heart of America’s free enterprise system is opportunity. In America, every person has the chance to pursue happiness in their unique ways. Indeed, the liberal critique of success is precisely so dangerous because America’s prosperity depends on the hard work of millions of individuals, each contributing in their own unique ways to America, and to their fellow Americans. The goal of reducing tax burdens on working families and small businesses, cutting red tape, creating jobs, balancing our books and paying down the debt is not economic growth, which is merely a sign that our foremost goal has been achieved. That goal is to create an opportunity society, based on responsibility and merit, not an entitlement society centered on government. It’s big society, not big government, that really makes a difference in our lives.

At this juncture, our Federal Government, and our political and economic elites, have shown themselves blind to these basic principles. But our Founding Fathers knew this would happen, which is why America is not only a Republic, it is also a constitutional democracy. In November, Americans have a chance to hold our politicians to account- and we must exercise our civic duty by casting our ballots for a Republican ticket. “R” not only means “Republican”, it also means “reform”, “restoration”, and “renewal”. Only with a winning ticket for America can we rebuild our party and restore America’s promise.

Happy Independence Day, and keep believing in America!