On Friday, a Wisconsin judge issued a temporary restraining order to block Governor Walker’s recently passed collective bargaining bill.  It is important to consider the merits of the bill and look at the protections that the collective bargaining bill provides to residents.

So what has Scott Walker really done in Wisconsin?  Well, he has restricted, not ended, collective bargaining, which will protect taxpayers from way over the market benefit packages that have resulted from the past alliance of politicians and the unions who fund them. We have seen the damage these spiraling and uncontrollable pension and benefit liabilities can do to states many years after they are adapted. Prime examples include Illinois and California where huge unfunded liabilities have led to budgetary crises, threatened credit ratings, and increased interest rates on public debt.  Walker also has brought public employee benefit packages into line with the rest of Wisconsin workers, changing the benefit plans so that state workers will pay into their pensions and healthcare benefits.

While the left attempts to portray the removal of collective bargaining as un-American, the simple fact is that residents entrusted the state with making the right decisions with their tax dollars.  Yet for decades, these states opted to give public unions pensions that would eventually spiral out of control and cause major fiscal disruption to state governments.  For example, Ohio’s unfunded liability could be as high as $166 billion dollars or 35% of the Gross State Product.

When these plans were awarded, politicians justified these deals because they were literally playing with someone else’s money, and they never contemplated the fiscal damage unfunded pensions could cause down the road.  Now states across the nation are facing fiscal ruin because of these well intended but fiscally reckless deals. Worse, some are calling for the federal government, facing its own ballooning deficit due to entitlement spending like Social Security and Medicare, to bailout these states.

Governor Walker has also taken away the Holy Grail for public employee unions – automatic union due deductions.  With the removal of the automatic deduction, now public employees can make their own decisions on whether or not to pay union dues. Walker is ultimately giving workers the ability to be pro-choice with their union dues and have a fair choice about their union. While this is great for public employees, this is terrible for union bosses.

Governor Scott Walker has shown leadership and courage through a rancorous time, having to deal with an ironic hijacking of the democratic progress by Wisconsin Democrats while fighting the union establishment, unsympathetic media and well-organized progressive groups.  Governor Walker could have followed many other politicians down the road of subservience towards the unions and raised taxes to balance the budget.  Instead, Scott Walker campaigned on fighting for Wisconsin residents who don’t have the luxury of a taxpayer-funded union machine.  And because of his fight, he won, and so did we.

On October 28^th, just days before the November general elections I wrote about four gubernatorial candidates to watch as unconventional politicians. Those included New Mexico’s Susana Martinez, Nevada’s Brian Sandoval, Oregon’s Chris Dudley and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker.  Dudley, a terrific man lost but hopefully will be back to fight again.  The other three won and are already showing results.  I wrote how Scott Walker “demonstrated how to balance a budget consistently without raising taxes.” And he is showing that right now as Governor of Wisconsin.

This nation is faced with frightening deficits and unfunded liabilities.  Federal spending is double what it was ten years ago, and this year’s deficit is projected at $1.6 trillion.  States add another $130 billion of shortfalls this year, and almost all states have large unfunded pension and health care liabilities.

I for one am thankful that governors like Scott Walker are showing how to deal with this looming crisis.

Wisconsin itself is facing a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years and Governor Walker has proposed real solutions that would decrease the state’s structural deficit by 90 percent. As part of Walker’s plan to tackle Wisconsin’s looming budget crisis, he has made the courageous and crucial decision – like Chris Christie in New Jersey – to bring public employees’ benefit packages down to a more comparable level with those in the private sector.

Read More →

I wrote this piece that is featured in today’s Washington Times :

With only days to go until Election Day, most Beltway reporters and bloggers are focusing on races that will affect what will go on inside the Beltway. Will Republicans come up just short in the House, or will there be a complete landslide? Is the Senate within reach for the GOP? What does a Republican Congress mean for President Obama’s chances in 2012?

All these questions are fine and good. But a lot of political analysts are missing where the real action is for Republicans: in the states with gubernatorial races.

For Republicans in these races, what are important to notice aren’t the usual cliches of using states as laboratories of conservative ideas or how this is laying the groundwork for potential presidential or vice-presidential candidates.

In fact, it’s simpler than that: It’s about the injection of new blood into the Republican Party with so many new faces in these gubernatorial races. And this new blood isn’t just about giving the Republican Party a different look; it’s also about playing in states that pundits only a couple of years ago thought were turning blue or were permanently blue.

There are four Republican candidates for governor who are making waves because all of them have something unconventional to offer:

• Susana Martinez , New Mexico: In June, she became the first Hispanic woman nominated by a major party for governor anywhere in America. One could have thought otherwise, but Mrs. Martinez has a very strong stance against illegal immigration, seeking to get rid of laws that provide driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. It’s no surprise, though, when you look at her background: district attorney and New Mexico’s prosecutor of the year in 2010.
• Brian Sandoval , Nevada: Another crime fighter, he is running against Sen. Harry Reid’s son. He’s had political experience before as a chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission and as Nevada’s attorney general earlier this decade. But he took a break from politics and was appointed a federal judge for the state of Nevada in 2005. When was the last time someone gave up a lifetime appointment for the prospect of a four-year term? And, oh yes, he’s also of Hispanic heritage. Isn’t it appropriate that the party of Lincoln would have two outstanding gubernatorial candidates of Hispanic heritage?
• Chris Dudley , Oregon: Mr. Dudley spent his career blocking shots and rebounding in the NBA, while his post-basketball career included the successful opening of a charity organization devoted to diabetic children as well as becoming a wealth-management adviser. With no political experience, he’s taking on a former governor in what should be a very close race.
• Scott Walker , Wisconsin: Unlike the previous three Republicans, Mr. Walker has plenty of political experience: He has been a member of the Wisconsin state Assembly for a decade and Milwaukee County executive for the past eight years. That’s right: a Republican county executive in a very Democratic county. And an executive who has demonstrated how to balance a budget consistently without raising taxes.

But notice the one thread that ties all of these gubernatorial candidates together: None of them is a current or former member of Congress. If there’s any reason to believe in the power of the Tea Party movement and the conservative shift that many independent voters have undergone, I believe this is the most stark. Conservatives and independents (and even some Democrats) aren’t interested in anybody with experience in Washington. Americans are interested in candidates who live, work and raise their families among themselves. Yes, this all comes from an anti-Washington sentiment, but it has produced a young, pro-conservative slate of candidates who can start to do great things within the states they plan on leading.

This week, a memo leaked to Politico, by DNC pollster Joel Benenson, warned that Democrats risk facing a backlash on the way they have handled Obamacare. Specifically, the polling found that independent voters were most angry with “the stagnation and the backroom deal-cutting, particularly those that benefit the constituents of key swing senators or special interests.”

Democrats are facing the same political consequences as the Republicans in 2006: The loss of the valuable middle, and for precisely the same reasons.

This is dangerous territory for the majority. Voters have reason to be upset with Pelosi’s tricky maneuvering, and they have even more reason to be furious with what’s in the bill.  Unfortunately, while most of the pundits and news media are caught up in the legislative chess match and games of political chicken, almost everyone in official Washington has lost sight of the substance of the debate — the bill does nothing to truly reform health care. 

Our country is torn apart for a bill that covers only 4% of total health care expenditures — it raises costs, taxes and balloons the deficit, all while lowering the quality of care.

What is the real goal of this health care package — to control health care costs or control the market space?  The proof is in the legislation. The Senate-passed bill increases costs and taxes by putting a policy in place that ultimately leads to a government takeover: the regulations are structured in a way that makes it nearly impossible for free enterprise to flourish.

For example, if the goal of this bill was to control costs, why would the legislation penalize younger, healthy workers with a tax when they are precisely the group that diversifies the insurance risk pool for insurance providers, which concretely lowers everyday insurance premiums?    

Not all new proposals and regulations are bad. A good litmus test for any new government initiative is this — regulations should not punish an individual or family because they (or their employer or labor union) choose to pay for premium services. Nor should an individual be punished for choosing nothing. They should be forced to face the consequences of their risky decisions.

At a time when distrust in government is at an all-time high, it is no wonder why there’s such passionate resistance to the heavy hand of government being so involved in such a critically important and personal industry. But with all the focus on process (which the president and Democrats have already lost on), let’s focus on what really matters: lower health care costs for Americans. This bill is not the solution.

The big news and focus in right-of-center and Republican circles this time of year is always CPAC. For many students and young people, it is their first exposure to the wide-ranging and yes, diverse people and organizations that make up the conservative movement, and it is very important. But it’s also not the only important event that happens this time.

As it happens, I spent three days this month at the Winter session of the Republican Governors Association. This is where sitting governors and candidates for the 2010 races can get together and plan for the coming year. It may not have the grand quality of a packed ballroom, but it is a very exciting thing to be part of, and I have the honor of chairing the Executive Roundtable meetings.

My main takeaway is that we have recruited superb candidates this cycle and I do believe we will enjoy some major victories this year, particularly across the middle of the country. It is not my intent here to comment on all races, but I would like to focus on the Midwest, plus Pennsylvania and Colorado.

For example, I believe Republicans will hold big states like Florida with Bill McCollum. I think we will also hold on to California, likely with Meg Whitman. California has a long history of Republican leadership, of course including Ronald Reagan. And in the Midwest I think we are in very good position to win some back: Right now we are on track to take over governorships in Kansas with Sam Brownback and Oklahoma with Mary Fallin.

But the big news, in my view, is that we will elect Republican governors in six large states that will be pivotal both to the 2011 re-districting and to winning these states in the 2012 Presidential election. These states are Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado and Iowa.

The reasons Republicans will win are due partly to public resentment of the Obama Administration’s lurch to the left, highlighted by big government, mounting deficits, and spiraling debt burdens with increasing interest. However, the cause of victories will be mostly due to the quality of candidates. Having spent parts of four decades in and out of politics, I am more convinced than ever that candidate quality really matters, and boy are we loaded. I predict victory in all six of the following:

• Ohio: John Kasich is a proven deficit hawk and a charismatic leader. Ohio is always tough, but John (a fellow Czech-American) will prevail. He will also be helped by a strong and winning Senate candidate, Rob Portman.
• Wisconsin: I have written before about my enthusiasm for Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. He has reduced spending, kept a balanced budget, and at age 40 still won re-election in 2008 by a large margin in a very blue county. He is a proven leader who will control spending, and he’ll get to do so at the statewide level next.
• Pennsylvania: Tom Corbett has been an enormously effective as Attorney General, and in his last election received more votes than any Republican in Pennsylvania history. He too will be helped by a winning Senate candidate, Pat Toomey.
• Iowa: Terry Branstad is a proven leader as a former Iowa Governor, and it is fortunate he has decided to run again. His great capacity combined with current Gov. Chet Culver’s unpopularity gives me great confidence in an Iowa victory.
• Colorado: Former Sheriff and Congressman Scott McInnis is the real deal, especially when it comes to creating jobs and controlling spending. Here is a guy who slept in his office during his early time in Congress and who has an unmatched worth ethic, along with a contagious optimism. He will win and also be aided by winning Senate candidate, Jane Norton.
• Michigan: We have a contested primary in Michigan but have truly outstanding candidates battling for the nomination. Whoever emerges as the winner of the primary will win the general election in this most battered and mismanaged of states.

So there you have it – six out of six, and well positioned to create jobs, control spending, and help win these states for the 2012 Presidential candidate. Too optimistic or euphoric? Nope – good candidates really do matter, and we have the best.

P.S. Lastly, I want to say that Gov. Haley Barbour, the RGA’s chairman, and Nick Ayers, the executive director, continue to inspire. They are providing excellent leadership and Republicans will have them and their hard work to thank for the victories ahead. Meanwhile, this was the first time we had newly-elected Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. Both led panels at this year’s session and both showed why they are effective leaders. I don’t think the governor’s office is the last stop for either of them.

No one has recently dominated the news more than Sarah Palin, and as an outgrowth of this, I have been invited to appear on a number of television shows and otherwise to comment. So, let me start by clarifying that I am not an advisor and am not in Sarah’s inner circle. However, I do admire her and feel she is filling a need in this country like few other political leaders. And, she is not to be underestimated – people tend to forget that she took down a sitting Governor in her own party and that she had the highest approval rating of any Governor in the country when she was selected as a Vice Presidential candidate. As we are learning, no one can deny her popularity as seen by the crowds of people standing in lines for hours in the cold to catch a glimpse of her on her national book tour. Can you name a single Senator or Governor in either party (maybe besides Arnold) that could draw 5,000 people to a Barnes and Noble in the suburbs right now?

I came to know Sarah and Todd Palin during 2008 in my role as Finance Chair for the McCain campaign. I felt she performed extremely well under some pretty tough circumstances for anyone running with an “R” by their name. Additionally, I believe Sarah Palin was largely responsible for our lead in the polls in early September. Sure, the Couric interview wasn’t her finest performance – as Sarah herself admits publicly, but I’ve been around the block for a long time and its been years since I’ve seen a national candidate burst on the scene and electrify a party and in some cases a nation as she did last Fall.

As the election came to a close, leaks emerged from our campaign unfairly criticizing Sarah, some in a highly personal way. These leaks were not only false but offensive, and lacking in chivalry and loyalty. Most of all, they reflected poorly on the man we all served, John McCain.

John reinforced my instincts to defend and befriend a fine person who was being unfairly attacked when he called me Friday, November 6, to thank me for my role in the campaign. I was at campaign headquarters counseling our able young finance team on finding jobs and asked John to talk to the group. He thanked them but also commented on how much he disliked the criticisms of Sarah making the rounds in the media.

The Sarah Palin of these criticisms did not, and does not, reflect the person I know. I invited her to be my guest at the Alfalfa Club dinner in late January, and to my delight she accepted. Sarah was a total hit at the dinner, and it was gratifying to see the high regard shown to her by many of Washington’s leading lights. Over the coming months, we stayed in touch, and we remained friends. It has been a pleasure telling people about the real Sarah Palin – a first rate Governor; a gracious, genuine and down to earth woman; and a caring and loving mother, wife, and grandmother.

Now to 2012 – will Sarah run? I have no earthly idea. She doesn’t seem to be making any preparations and is focused on the 2010 runs, but it is smart for her to keep her options open. Her charisma and plain speaking conservative and populist approach have great appeal. That said, if this really were a campaign in waiting, I would think her book release would be in November 2010, vs. November 2009, but what do I know about these things? The bottom line is that we as a party have an embarrassment of riches with a number of extremely capable and well-qualified potential candidates. Mitt Romney has excelled in everything he has done from private equity to the Olympics to governing; and he has huge name recognition and a lot of goodwill built up in the party after coming so close to capturing the nomination in 2008. Tim Pawlenty has an extremely effective record as a two term Governor, he has assembled a first rate team for his political action committee, and he has an appealing, fresh faced demeanor. If he decided to make a run, Governor Haley Barbour would be incredibly formidable. His role as party chair in 1993 when Republicans took back the House and Senate, his proven leadership in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and his effectiveness as chair of the Republican Governor’s Association all evidence his capacity. Governor Mitch Daniels could also be a first tier contender should he decide to run and of course former Governor Mike Huckabee would be in a leading position should he give up his successful television career and run for President.

Please note, all of these contenders, including Sarah Palin, are sitting or former Governors. My view is that the executive experience and decision making authority is important preparation for a successful President. The Presidency, after all, is not just about setting tone and true leadership is not proven by delivering a flawless speech or coining a campaign rally cry. Leadership is tough stuff and these are dangerous and troubled times. All of these potential candidates have a proven record of making tough decisions under duress and achieving success in leading their states. Impossible to say who will run, but it’s great to have so many excellent choices.

Last year, as national finance chairman for John McCain’s Presidential campaign, I strongly supported my friend Sen. McCain, but have kept an open-mind about President Obama’s administration, which you can see in the “100 Days Scorecard” posted here back in April. Don’t get me wrong, it was not a glowing assessment. In particular, I gave him a “D” on the Economy, and his recent decision to levy a tariff on Chinese tires makes me all the more certain this was fair. But I also gave him a “B+” on foreign policy, writing at the time:

“He’s had the good judgment to rely on our distinguished generals and not to withdraw prematurely from Iraq. The build-up in Afghanistan is badly needed, but probably not enough.” Also, in that time frame he stated that Afghanistan was a war of necessity.

I would not rate his judgment so highly today.

While the President took a commendable approach to Afghanistan at the outset, his uncertain response to Gen. McChrystal’s request for additional troops is troubling. Gen. McChrystal has made it very clear that success in Afghanistan depends on a significant increase in forces, and yet the New York Times reports that the White House is divided against itself on this very issue.

Reportedly, the President is considering alternatives, among these an option raised by Joe Biden to withdraw from the country and concentrate on striking Taliban targets from the air only. Let us not forget that this is not far off John Murtha’s plan for Iraq, which the President supported as senator. Further adding to the judgment question, then Sen. Obama opposed President Bush’s successful surge policy in Iraq while Sen. McCain strongly supported it.

The President seems to be moving in questionable direction in other areas of foreign policy as well, including his decision to block a U.S. missile shield base in the Czech Republic and Poland, appeasing the undemocratic leadership in Russia. That this comes at the same time new revelations about Iran’s very serious nuclear program raise ever more concern.

The President’s decision to give Attorney General Eric Holder a free hand to pursue criminal investigations against CIA and other U.S. personnel who dealt with terrorists and other highly dangerous detainees is one more mistake in the making. His own CIA Director as well as seven former CIA directors serving under both Republican and Democrat administrations have publicly opposed this decision, and yet the President allows the investigation to proceed despite his earlier statements against such a move. Has it occurred to him that these people deserve our heartfelt gratitude for protecting us from another terror attack these past eight years?

My sense is that these decisions are driven in part by a Democratic base that is divided about what to do in Afghanistan, but adamant about holding the Bush administration responsible for Abu Ghraib and anything else they can. The same goes for the trade war with China. American car companies and tire manufacturers did not want it, but the United Auto Workers did. Labor is still a powerful force in Democrat circles, even if only there. Why else create these international headaches and penalize auto companies at such a dangerous time? The President’s poll numbers have been falling as his health care plans have proved unpopular, and he is battening down the hatches ahead of a midterm election that could be very bad for his party. I fear President Obama is rejecting his sounder judgment in favor of domestic political considerations.

Perhaps you remember, last summer Sen. Barack Obama suggesting that his lack of executive experience was not a matter for concern in foreign policy because, he said, his judgment was much better than that of his opponents. In fact, he used both words in an interview with ABC News during the primary campaign. Specifically, the future President said: “One thing I’m very confident about is my judgment in foreign policy. … The notion that somehow from Washington you get this vast foreign policy experience is illusory.”

It was apparent to those of us who supported John McCain that Obama had no choice but to downplay the value of foreign policy experience, where no one doubted that Sen. McCain had the overwhelming advantage and where Sen. Obama simply elevated the judgment argument and asserted that his judgment was the better. To her credit, Hillary Clinton tried to make this very point in her “3 am call” ad. He guessed correctly that the mainstream media would not dwell greatly on whether this was actually true. If they had, they would realize that this was a question they could not answer, because Obama had very little experience where he could demonstrate it.

Those of us who questioned whether Senator Obama was ready to be President Obama are finding that our concerns were warranted. Putting the U.S. back on the right track will take an enormous effort. Hopefully the President will start showing some of that judgment he’s told us about. If he doesn’t, independents will continue to desert him, and the American people may well decide he does not deserve a second term.

Read More →