 |
 |
|||||
|
 |
 |
 |
Ed Feulner — The Victory NH
Interview
|
© 2006 Chas Geer |
VNH: To begin, for some of our younger readers who may be hearing about The Heritage Foundation for the first time, let’s start with how it began.
Feulner: The Heritage Foundation, which was founded in 1973, is an educational organization, not a lobbying group. We work to educate the Congress on the traditional values of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, a strong national defense and traditional American values. These traits are to us what defines a conservative. The Heritage Foundation was formed in order to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society can flourish. That was our vision statement when we began. That is our vision statement today.
My colleague, Phil Truluck (our Executive Vice President) and I came to Heritage in 1977. We've always envisioned Heritage's role being to provide “quick response” in the form of our short studies (Congressmen and their staff aides do not have time to read full-length books on pending policy issues), based on each specific pending policy issue. We must get the studies delivered in timely fashion (if it arrives too early, nobody pays attention to it; and if it arrives too late, and you miss the key vote, you might as well have not produced the paper). The goal then has been to produce studies on public policy issues from a conservative viewpoint, where the facts are separated from the conclusions. The conclusions are clearly marked at the last section and where reasonable people can differ about the conclusions.
VNH:
I think it's fair to say that one of Heritage's most
significant accomplishments was your book,
Mandate for Leadership. What
part did it play in launching the Reagan Revolution?
"Bill Simon asked us a seemingly rhetorical question: 'Wouldn't it be great if an incoming conservative executive branch official had a real guide as to what policies he should be pushing?' And, just as importantly, how to get there." |
Feulner: In 1979 several Heritage Board members who had held key positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations were discussing their experiences with the rest of us at a board dinner before our formal meeting. Bill Simon asked us a seemingly rhetorical question: "Wouldn't it be great if an incoming conservative executive branch official had a real guide as to what policies he should be pushing? And, just as importantly, how to get there." We kicked this question around and decided to take it on as a major project.
We set up a structure with 23 separate task forces of volunteers to look at every department and agency of the federal government and ask the key question: "If you were an incoming member of a new conservative administration, what specifically would you do--on a priority basis--to move the government in a more conservative direction?
Our
directives were specific: Not pie in the sky theory, with which we all agree
anyway, but concrete specific steps to take to move the government in our
direction.
The result? 1,093 pages with thousands of recommendations for restructuring departments, signing executive orders, and specific policy recommendations to be approved, all towards moving the conservative agenda forward.
By late 1979, it became clear that there was an outside chance that the project could really be useful to a conservative candidate (Ronald Reagan, of course), and that if he wasn't the candidate, at least the conservatives would have a measuring rod to put up against both Carter and whoever the Republicans picked.
Of course, Ronald Reagan went on to win the primaries, the nomination and the election. Meanwhile, his key campaign staff aides had been kept informed of the progress of our project. The president-elect was so delighted with it that he passed out copies to each cabinet member at his first cabinet meeting in 1981.
Thus, Mandate for Leadership became the "bible of the Reagan Administration," and thousands of our specific recommendations for tax policy, energy policy, land use, public diplomacy, NEH/NEA reform, HHS welfare and health reform were adopted. We had the specific ideas, and the good guys and gals were in place to make them happen.
The 6 Questions...
|
VNH: Now in your new book, Getting America Right, you've essentially, come up with a blueprint for another revolution in Washington: 6 questions that every citizen and every policymaker should be asking about every proposed government action or policy. Let’s go through them. Starting with...
1. Is it the government's business?
Why did you begin with this question?
Feulner: “Is it the government’s business?” is, of course, the most basic question we can ask. Specifically, it includes not only the question, is it the government’s business, but which level of government? That is, in our federal system, we believe strongly that part of “the government’s business” is that part which is closest to the people. That is, if something can be done at the local or county level, it is better that it be done there than at the state level. Similarly, if it can be done at the state level, it is much better that it should be done there than at the federal level. And of course best of all, is if it is done by what Edmund Burke called “the little platoons of society,” that is individuals, families and private organizations that assemble to deal with social issues and social problems on the local level.
"... if it can be done at the state level, it is much better that it should be done there than at the federal level... by what Edmund Burke called 'the little platoons of society...'" |
VNH: Now, you cover Education Reform in this chapter. Since that is a very a hot topic in New Hampshire these days, how do you apply this question to this issue?
Feulner: There are ways that the Federal Government’s involvement in education has been appropriate. For example, the Federal Government has done useful things in the form of education like the GI Bill at the end of World War II, which was in effect a voucher system for returning veterans to go to college and enjoy an opportunity which most of them would not otherwise have realized; and to do so in recognition of their extraordinary service to the American people during the War. Because of the format in which it was designed, it helped not only the individuals, but it also helped institutions, whether public or private or church-related. There was real choice for the prospective students.
"Instead of sending money from New Hampshire to Washington for local schools, let’s let the people of New Hampshire decide how best to design their own education system and give their own citizens as much choice as possible." |
Contrast that with what’s going on now with legislation
where the federal government provides a large block of
money to local school boards and then basically demands
that it have the power to set standards for all of the
local school authorities. After several years of this,
it is now apparent that one-fourth of all the public
schools in the United States that are receiving
assistance under the
No Child Left Behind Act are
substandard. So why should the Federal Government be
subsidizing not only mediocrity but absolute failure?
We
simply need to do better. Instead of sending money from New Hampshire to
Washington for local schools, let’s let the people of New Hampshire decide how
best to design their own education system and give their own citizens as much
choice as possible.
VNH: Next you
ask...
2. Does this measure promote self-reliance?
Why is this so important?
Feulner: Self-reliance is important because that’s a basic trait of the American people. The American people were taught and have grown up in a culture where we are not overly dependent on others. When we are dependent on others it should be a temporary situation where the "little platoons of society" can again come together and help us. American people, given equal opportunity, will rise to meet the challenges and will do much better than they could independently and without that kind of independent support.
VNH: Two of your examples are Welfare and Social Security Reform. Let's start with Welfare Reform. How did it come about and why is it a focus in this chapter?
© 2006 Chas Geer |
Feulner: Welfare Reform in 1996 was critical because instead of just focusing on catchy phrases like the so-called Welfare Queens receiving multiple checks, we talked about the underlying culture of individuals becoming reliant on the federal government for income because the Congress had decided as a federal policy that we would subsidize certain things (illegitimate births). As Milton Friedman has shown us, if you subsidize something, you’ll get more of it. What happened with the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was that the think tanks and Congress came together and designed a program based on the experiments that had been so successful in Wisconsin and Michigan in reducing the number of illegitimate children, reducing the unemployment rate among welfare mothers, and increasing their employment, as well. Of course when 2001 rolled around, we had learned which parts of the ’96 Act had to be changed. The House promptly passed a good bill, the Senate dithered. Finally, in 2006, the President received an updated version of Welfare Reform which has now been signed into law and we congratulate him and the Congress for having finally gotten this back on track.
"We need to move forward in this area and make it politically acceptable across the spectrum to deal with the three major entitlement programs... which, after all, in a short space of the next 15 years together with interest on the national debt will consume the entire federal budget." |
VNH: Now, Social Security Reform is sure to be front and center in the '08 debate, particularly here in NH where Senator Sununu has been leading the charge on this issue. Tell us about how this battle has played out so far, and what has to happen for real reform of this antiquated system?
Feulner: Social Security Reform. The President had the guts to bring this up as a national issue. We didn’t get where we should be. Clearly we will have to do it in the foreseeable future. It’s not an easy subject to deal with, but that’s what we pay the politicians for: to make the hard decisions and to move ahead on it. Here again, I congratulate Senator John Sununu for his leadership and his willingness to take it on as a major issue. We need to move forward in this area and make it politically acceptable across the spectrum to deal with the three major entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) which, after all, in a short space of the next 15 years together with interest on the national debt will consume the entire federal budget. At that point, we’ll have two choices: either cut out all the rest of federal spending, or raise our taxes to a level equivalent to that of France. This obviously is not an acceptable alternative because France, instead of being the butt of our jokes, would then become a pattern for our future with its low employment rates, low rates of economic growth (and hence low rate of economic prosperity) and low income growth across the board. This is not the future of the United States.
All these things are connected; social security reform is one of the critical issues.
VNH: Which brings us to...
3. Is it responsible?
"Since governments consist of humans disguised as politicians and masquerading as temporary demigods, they are no more trustworthy than the rest of us." |
VNH: This chapter has one of my favorite phrases in the book: "Since governments consist of humans disguised as politicians and masquerading as temporary demigods, they are no more trustworthy than the rest of us."
Take us through what has happened to the budgeting process and more importantly, who are some of the people fighting the good fight to fix it?
Feulner: The Federal Government’s budget process has basically broken. Since the Budget Reform Act of 1974, every incentive in the budget process is to spend more money and to increase taxes. One of the points that Newt Gingrich makes so eloquently is that if we are to govern effectively as conservatives we have to stop governing within the framework that we’ve inherited from our political opponents. Fundamentally, this must include reforming the budget process.
Most of
the people who are fighting to fundamentally change it are inside
The
Republican Study Committee of the House of Representatives. There they are
led by its chairman,
Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), one of the real up
and comers in the entire conservative firmament of bright young stars. Congressman Jeb Hensarling
(R-TX) is his colleague and has pulled together a
wonderful alternative budget which deserves conservative support
across the board.
© 2006 Chas Geer |
VNH: The only good thing to come out of the Abramoff scandal is that earmarks are finally in the spotlight. This practice cuts right to the problem, so what has to be done?
Feulner:
With
regard to earmarks, in Getting America Right we make specific recommendations: every earmark must be identified specifically both in the
appropriation bills and in the accompanying committee reports or conference
reports. That means that the line item for that particular spending should be
identified. It also means that the sponsor of that particular amendment should
be specifically identified. They must be posted on the Internet at least 24
(preferably 72) hours before they are voted on.
Transparency is the best disinfectant and if we can get individuals to actually
be responsible for their earmarks, the American public and so many activist
organizations can then fight the battles to eliminate the earmarks which have
grown to more than 6,000 in last year’s highway bill from just 15 or 20 a couple
of decades ago.
"We have to prove that we are in the game by
proposing specific alternatives. We can’t,
|
The Contract for America – Renewed budget which I already mentioned, is one of the real bright spots in the whole panoply of solutions that are available to conservatives as concrete alternatives this year. We have to prove that we are in the game by proposing specific alternatives. We can't, as was said about one congressman years ago, “go to Washington and fall asleep on the ‘no’ button!”
Our alternatives have to be principled and they have to deal with the new reality and they have to be thinking outside the box which is why your role here with Victory NH is so important.
Click here to read Part 2 of our exclusive interview with Dr. Feulner...
And if you're not receiving our free activist alerts, click here to sign up, today!
|
|
||
 |
 |
 |
|
Home | Upcoming Events | About Us | Donate | Coming Soon Victory NH — 497 Hooksett Road, #162,
Manchester, NH 03104 — 603-624-8253 —
VictoryNewHampshire@VictoryNH.com |
||