An image.
Login | Subscribe
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
An image.
An image.
  • WASHINGTON  – Even if Republicans accomplish nothing else from their standoff with President Barack Obama over the federal budget and his signature health care reform law, they will have changed the way Washington works – perhaps in a manner that winds up costing them politically. Most of the time in the capital, policy debates are full of political posturing, threats and bluffs that end somewhere short of the brink. As the government shutdown heads into its third day, the GOP has pushed far past the edge of the cliff. The party is actually providing a real-time test of the hypothesis that Americans are so upset with so-called Obamacare that they will tolerate – even support – shuttering large chunks of the government and enduring potentially bad economic fallout. It’s a huge risk.  
  • WASHINGTON — As President Barack Obama reels from three controversies that have mired the start of his second term in scandals that threaten to overshadow his agenda, Republicans in the Indiana congressional delegation say their party has a responsibility – even a duty – to dig into the matters.
        
    “The role of House Republicans is to find out what the facts are,” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-8th CD.
        
    Weeks – perhaps months -- of investigations and oversight hearings loom.
        
    On Wednesday, Obama accepted the resignation of the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Miller, after the agency was found to have targeted conservative groups for greater scrutiny over applications for tax-exempt status.
        
    The administration on Wednesday also released emails related to the way it portrayed an attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last September that killed the U.S. ambassador.
        
    In addition, the administration is grappling with fallout from the Department of Justice’s seizure of phone records of Associated Press journalists related to the news organization’s reporting about al-Qaeda activities last year.
        
    For now, the scandals are playing to the GOP’s strength. They can each be portrayed as the result of an overreaching government or an administration that emphasizes political expediency.
        
    But the GOP could do some overreaching itself, as it delves into the controversies while issues like immigration, tax reform and the economy are potentially delayed.
        
    In a speech on the House floor on Tuesday, Rep. Luke Messer, R-6th CD, addressed those concerns.
        
    “Some may call it political, but there is nothing political about keeping the oath of every member of this chamber to protect and defend the United States Constitution,” Messer said. “There is nothing political about working to ensure that none of these scandals gets swept under the rug.”
        
    Hoosier Republicans say they do not anticipate political backlash.
        
    “We’ve had good discussions in the House Republican Conference about making sure this is about facts, not politics,” Bucshon said.
        
    Rep. Todd Rokita, R-4th CD, said that Republicans are staying in their lane.
        
    “The American people have the right to know what the White House knew and when,” Rokita said. “We need to go as far as we need to go to find the full truth.”
        
    Two freshman GOP members of the Hoosier delegation say that their constituents support congressional probes.
        
    “The voters of the Fifth District do believe it is Congress’ role to provide oversight,” said Rep. Susan Brooks, R-5th CD. “This is not about beating on the president. This is about holding the executive branch accountable for the priorities it sets, for the mistakes it makes.”
        
    Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-2nd CD, said that she has been approached frequently by constituents who are concerned about the emerging scandals.
        
    “I heard about it all weekend,” Walorski said. “People are shocked. This is an overreaching of government, and that offends every American. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. This is an American issue.”
        
    On Wednesday, Walorski sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew that outlined 19 questions about the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups. She demanded answers by June 15. It’s one of what is likely to be dozens of GOP requests for more information from the Obama administration.
        
    The pushback goes beyond his party, said Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-3rd CD.    
        
    “It’s not just Republicans asking questions,” Stutzman said. “The press is asking questions; the American people are asking questions.”
        
    Democrats are, too. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has scheduled a hearing next week about the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.
        
    U.S. Sen. Dan Coats wants criminal penalties for IRS employees. “It smells a lot like Watergate,” Coats said.
        
    Rep. Todd Young, R-9th CD, said each side of the aisle have been responsible in their approach to the controversies. “Both parties seem committed to ferreting out the answers the American people deserve,” Young said. “It’s amazing how disciplined we’ve been. I’m most hopeful we can get answers from a cooperative administration.”
        
    One of the primary answers that will be sought is who gave the IRS directive. “Typically, priorities and strategy comes from higher levels of government,” said Brooks, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. “I find it hard to believe that low-level employees thought of this on their own.”
        
    The House GOP will have to decide on the scope of the inquiries. For instance, the chamber is poised to vote on a resolution that would establish a special committee to probe the Benghazi episode.
        
    Stutzman is undecided and said that the current investigatory panel is effective.
        
    “Our oversight committee is doing fantastic work [and] asking the right questions. [It] has been diligent and thorough,” Stutzman said.
        
    Over the next few months, it will have plenty to do.
        
    Schoeff is HPI’s Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - Republicans in the Indiana congressional delegation assert that the GOP should maintain its principles but be more open to those who disagree with some of them – echoing a recent national party overhaul plan.
        
    “Conservative values are good for everyone,” said U.S. Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-8th CD. “We need to [say] that in a way that doesn’t alienate anyone; that doesn’t put litmus tests on people’s views and exclude them from the Republican Party.”
        
    A 100-page report released last week by the Republican National Committee, “The Growth and Opportunity Project,” largely made the same point. It offered a sober, sometimes scathing, assessment of the party’s shortcomings that led to the loss of House and Senate seats in 2012.
        
    The document said that the party has driven away young and minority voters and that it reached “all time lows” in public perception.

    “We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue,” the report states.
        
    It goes on to recommend dozens of changes in messaging, campaign mechanics, fundraising and outreach to various demographic groups.
        
    U.S. Rep. Luke Messer, R-6th CD, said that the report is “very balanced and candid.” The self-analysis could help the party expand its appeal beyond the elderly and married couples. “It wouldn’t be a good growth strategy to simply wait around for the young to get old and the single to get married,” Messer said. “We need to grow our base.”
        
    The report by the national Republican Party reminds Messer of one that the state GOP wrote in 2002, when he was the party’s executive director and Jim Kittle was chairman. That blueprint was meant to be catalyze the “rebirth” of the state party in part by increasing African Americans and Hispanic support.
        
    Messer said that the effort was “modestly successful” and demonstrated that follow-up is central to party improvement. “The key is that the outreach not just be symbolic,” Messer said. “It needs to be organized, persistent and include the investment of meaningful resources over time.”
        
    Hispanics should be a natural constituency for Republicans, according to Messer, because by and large Latinos are family oriented, hard working and socially conservative. But they voted overwhelmingly Democratic in 2012.
        
    “We don’t have enough trust with that community for them even to listen to us,” Messer said.
        
    The GOP report acknowledges that the party also has significant ground to make up with other demographic groups that don’t include white males.
        
    “We can and should be the party of young people, minorities, women and anyone else who shares our belief in free enterprise and limited government,” U.S. Rep. Susan Brooks, R-4th CD, said in a statement. “My own campaign benefitted from support from many of these same groups because we took the time to have honest and real conversations about the issues they cared about. It takes hard work, but it’s a commitment our party must make.”
        
    The GOP’s “limited government tent ought to be big enough to include differing opinions on social issues, immigration or even tax-and-spending issues,” Messer said.
        
    That accommodation extends to same-sex marriage, a topic that was tackled by the Supreme Court this week. Messer emphasized that he supports traditional marriage between a man and a woman. “Our party must be big enough to include a diversity of opinions, but my view hasn’t changed,” Messer said.
        
    None of the lawmakers who talked to HPI suggested that Republicans should alter their policy stances.     U.S. Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-2nd CD, said that the party’s insistence on cutting federal spending resonates in north central Indiana.
        
    “The feeling I’m getting is that people are very glad they have a clear choice on the budget,” Walorski said.
    As she travels around the district – and goes to her local supermarket each Saturday – she said that people are less concerned about party labels than the direction that Congress is going.
        
    This is especially true of the women Walorski meets. They are most often concerned about the economy.
    “They want to know what I’m doing to make sure they have more money in their pockets,” Walorski said.
        
    That’s a general theme from all constituents.
        
    “They want to know what I’m doing for them,” Walorski said. “They’ll tell me I’m doing a good job or ‘I don’t agree with that.’”
        
    Bucshon also stressed that he’s an “honest, straight shooter” about his own political views when talking to voters but that he tries to demonstrate that they’re all his constituents.
        
    “We’re working on everyone’s behalf regardless of who you are,” he said.

    Schoeff is HPI’s Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON – When $85 billion worth of automatic spending cuts begin to take effect on Friday, the Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center in southern Indiana will be in the firing line.
            
    The base will take a $36-million hit to its budget between now and Sept. 30, when the first round of the so-called sequester concludes, according to Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly. It’s part of the down payment on $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years that Congress agreed to in 2011 to raise the debt limit.
        
    Donnelly told reporters in a conference call on Wednesday that taking a whack at Crane, as well as other across-the-board sequester cuts, is a bad way to reduce the federal deficit.
        
    “I have been hopeful we can reach a thoughtful, smarter way to cut; that we can include revenues as well,” Donnelly said.
        
    The gulf between Republicans and Democrats over the sequester is illustrated by the stance taken by the GOP lawmaker whose district lies next door to Crane.
        
    “Of course I’m concerned about defense cuts,” Rep. Todd Young, R-9th CD, said in a recent HPI interview. “But I’m also concerned about my children and grandchildren.”’
        
    Taking care of the next two generations requires that the country make substantial progress in reducing annual deficits that have topped $1 trillion for the last several years and a debt that totals about $16.4 trillion, according to Young.
        
     “The president and Senate Democrats seem disinclined to deal with what is driving our nation’s deficit,” Young said. “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.”
        
    Young and other Republicans say that Obama got the tax increases on the wealthy that he was seeking in the New Year’s Day legislation that averted hundreds of billions of dollars of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts known as the fiscal cliff.
        
    That’s where Young and Donnelly diverge. Donnelly supports a Senate bill that likely will be voted down that would replace the sequester with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. On the revenue side is the so-called Buffett Rule, which would ensure that people earning more than $1 million annually pay at least a 30 percent tax rate.
        
    Donnelly said that federal revenues are running at about 16 percent of the economy, while spending is at 23 percent. Spending needs to come down, but revenues also need to increase.
        
    “We’re still shy on that [revenue] number,” Donnelly said. “I hope people realize that.”
        
    That’s the interesting question. Where will the American people come down on how to tackle the budget? Over the next several weeks, we’ll have a chance to see the debate evolve in real time.
        
    This is not one of those issues that requires waiting until the next election to sort out. As March 1 dawns, the voters seem split on the efficacy of the sequester.
        
    But it may be difficult for Americans to make up their minds because much of the sequester won’t be felt until weeks or months down the road – and even then only in certain areas of the country.
        
    That means that Republicans and Democrats likely will enter the next budget battle – over a March 27 deadline for shutting down the government – without much evidence of who is winning.
        
    The situation creates an opening for bold thinking about the budget in general and, specifically, reform of social insurance programs, such as Medicare. If Republicans truly want to find out how their cut-the-deficit stance is working, they should call Obama’s bluff -- offer a big package of structural spending reforms, and see how he reacts.
        
    At the moment, Obama continues to ride a popularity wave that has him above 50 percent in job approval. It will be hard for Republicans to win the spending debate just by asserting that Obama has ignored that side of the equation. They have to put something creative on the table that forces him and Democrats to walk away, if they want to establish bright lines between the parties on spending.
        
    The other outcome is that such a move forces Democrats to come up with a counter offer that goes beyond trimming around the edges of deficit reduction. They might engage with some of their own big ideas or come up with a way to make revenue increases more palatable to Republicans.
        
    Ultimately, the best politics is for the sides to come together to cure the nation’s fiscal ills. If they can’t do it in March of an off-year, they never will.
        
    In perhaps a faint sign of such movement, Donnelly said that he is part of a group of 25 senators that has been meeting to come up with a sequester alternative. They are gathering “just as Americans, not Democrats or Republicans.”
        
    “Everybody agrees that there has to be a better way to do this,” Donnelly said.

    Schoeff is HPI’s Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama tapped the emotional core of the gun debate during his State of the Union address, urging Congress to act quickly on stricter controls and drawing skepticism from Indiana Republicans.
            
    Obama’s comments about another volatile issue – immigration – were more tailored to appeal to the GOP, as he emphasized border security, “earned citizenship” and an improved legal immigration system.             
    On this topic, the president may have a better shot at winning over Hoosier lawmakers.
        
    It took Obama nearly an hour to get around to guns in his speech before Congress. When he did, he generated more applause and energy than in his previous several thousand words.
        
    Invoking recent deadly mass shootings, he asserted that a majority of Americans support strengthened background checks for gun sales and that police chiefs want to “get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets.”
        
    “Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress,” Obama said. “The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote.”
        
    The entreaty did not move Hoosier Republicans.
        
    “What he was talking about [Tuesday] night I know wouldn’t have stopped Sandy Hook,” said Rep. Todd Rokita, R-4th CD, said in reference to the December shootings at the Connecticut elementary school.
        
    Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-3rd CD, worries that Obama’s approach would curb constitutional rights.
        
    “Let’s not punish [gun owners] because of a few crazies who have committed these heinous acts in a couple places around the country,” said Stutzman, who has introduced a measure that would allow gun-permit holders to take their weapons into other states that also have concealed-carry laws.
        
    The GOP message the day after Obama’s speech was to tread carefully on gun control.
        
    “I’m going to do everything I can to ensure people’s Second Amendment rights are not undermined by ill-conceived or hastily assembled legislation,” said Rep. Todd Young, R-9th CD.
        
    While Obama pushes for stronger gun laws, Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly acknowledged that the skepticism of House Republicans will limit what kind of gun controls can be put in place. He said that enhanced background checks have the best chance to draw bipartisan support.
        
    “My focus is on what we can pass that can make a difference… in providing additional protection for our children and families,” Donnelly said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday.
        
    Hoosier Republicans want the discussion to include an exploration of mental health care as well as gang and drug violence and the effect of movies and video games.
        
    “The problem is the individual,” said Rep. Susan Brooks, R-5th CD. “A gun is the tool they choose to use. We have to look deeper than what the weapon is.”’
        
    A former U.S. attorney and deputy mayor of Indianapolis, Brooks said that more attention should be paid to initiatives that bring together law enforcement and members of the community to work on crime prevention and economic development in struggling neighborhoods.
        
    “These are holistic approaches, far more holistic than what we are talking about now,” Brooks said.
        
    Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-2nd CD, said that the best solutions to gun violence likely will percolate up from local government, citing advances South Bend has made in school security.
        
    “As communities wrestle with what works for them, we’ll probably see some creative ideas emerge,” Walorski said.
        
    Rep. Luke Messer, R-6th CD, said that improving care for the mentally ill is an area that could gain wide support.
        
    “I would be open to the consideration of additional funding there,” Messer said. “I speak to no one who does not believe that there’s a role for government in protecting those who cannot protect themselves.”
        
    Messer is disappointed in the approach that Obama is taking.
        
    “He has chosen the most divisive topics, including a gun ban that now virtually everyone agrees will not pass,” Messer said.
        
    Obama may be launching immigration reform on more solid footing, especially with his emphasis on border fortification.
        
    “If we address the border security issue early, I think people like myself would be willing to look at the options for the 11 million people who are here [illegally],” said Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-8th CD.
        
    Another area that Obama mentioned – reforming the legal immigration system and making it easier for highly skilled immigrants to stay in the country – also resonates with Republicans.
        
    In Rokita’s district, that would help keep in Indiana – or at least in the United States – international students earning science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) degrees at Purdue University and other schools.
        
    “There’s some very good common ground on the STEM side of immigration,” Rokita said.
        
    But like other Hoosier Republicans, Rokita wants to ensure that illegal immigrants pay a price for breaking the law before becoming legal residents.
        
    “A crime was committed, and the punishment has to fit the crime,” Rokita said. “The issue is: What is that punishment?”
        
    Stutzman is cautiously optimistic about Obama’s immigration proposals.
        
    “I didn’t sense any amnesty program from the president [Tuesday] night,” Stutzman said. “But we’ll see what his actions are moving forward.”
        
    How Republicans handle the immigration debate may determine whether the party can make inroads with Latino voters, who are rejecting the GOP as they become a more influential voting bloc.
        
    “Immigration reform can be part of the platform to help us invite people from other countries to support our party and become part of our party once they become legal citizens,” Brooks said.
        
    Bucshon said that the GOP needs to expand its appeal. “Conservative policies are good for all of our citizens,” Bucshon said. “We need to show we’re compassionate. We want legal immigration.”
        
    As a U.S. attorney, Brooks presided over many swearing-in ceremonies for new Americans. She calls those events among the most moving of her political career. They’re part of her motivation to streamline the legal immigration system.
        
    “I want to give opportunities for more people to go through that process,” Brooks said.
        
    Getting to that outcome will be a difficult political journey for Brooks and her colleagues.

    Schoeff is HPI’s Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - Over the two decades that I’ve been in Washington, I’ve encountered scores of students and young people who aspire to a vocation in politics. When they ask me for advice on how to navigate Capitol Hill, I always begin with the same guidance: believe in the person for whom you’re working.
        
    I am surprised by the number of congressional staffers who are lukewarm toward their bosses. It’s clear that they’re serving on his or her staff because they love politics and they want to be part of that compelling game in a place where the stakes can be the highest. Their member of Congress is sort of a vehicle to get them to where they want to be.
        
    Although that approach can satisfy a political ambition, it also can lead to a cynical place. Instead, I advise them to do what I did – join the staff of someone whose public service you believe is critical to the country.
        
    That’s what I experienced in my more than five years on the staff of Sen. Richard Lugar. I was hired as Lugar’s deputy press secretary in 1992 and was promoted to press secretary in 1995. I was in each position for almost exactly two-and-a-half years.
        
    I was fortunate enough to work for Lugar during one of the most exciting times of his career. Among other things, from 1992-97, he chaired the Senate Agriculture Committee and championed an original and creative farm bill that would fundamentally reform U.S. ag policy and reduce federal spending.
        
    I had a front-row seat as Lugar continued to build the Nunn-Lugar program that has eliminated thousands of weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union and around the world.
        
    In addition, Lugar ran for president in 1995-96, when he offered the country a substantive agenda to make it safer and more prosperous. He was prescient during that campaign in warning that we must prepare for a terrorist attack on our own soil.
        
    Protecting Americans against our worst nightmare was always at the forefront of Lugar’s agenda. One of the most memorable moments of my career was also one of my longest days on Capitol Hill. I arrived as usual around 7:30 a.m. near the end of my time on Lugar’s staff in May 1997. Lugar, by the way, was always in the office even earlier. That particular day was the one that Lugar managed the vote on a chemical weapons treaty. I headed home just before midnight.
        
    Across those hours, Lugar spoke on the Senate floor and did the tough political work required to secure a victory for the weapons agreement. It wasn’t a sexy issue. In fact, despite the news releases we launched through the day, I doubt many reporters – or their audiences – were paying particularly close attention to what Lugar was doing.
        
    That effort, however, illuminates the essence of Lugar’s public service. He was putting everything he had into making the world safer for America. It took commitment, diligence, skill and great intellectual capacity – everything that Lugar offers to Hoosiers and all Americans every day.
        
    One of my favorite occasions while working for Lugar was to be invited into his office when he would tell the staff his decision on a particular issue. It would give us our marching orders for explaining his stance to reporters, constituents and colleagues.  During those moments, it was a privilege it was to see true leadership firsthand.
        
    I had little to do with Lugar’s success during my time on his staff. I just tried to make a positive contribution to helping communicate the importance of his work. One of the ironies of being a press secretary is that it’s best to work for a politician who doesn’t actually need one.
        
    The reward of working for Lugar was not what I accomplished but rather the history that I witnessed. My rule for a good job is one in which you write something and learn something every day. Both goals were satisfied during my Lugar tenure.
        
    One reason that my experience was such a good one is because Lugar was consistently out in front on issues. He would dissect and eloquently describe how to address them. That’s how he continues to operate at the end of his Senate career. In his valedictory speech on Dec. 12, Lugar was incisive in analyzing what has gone wrong with politics and leadership in Washington.
        
    “[W]e do our country a disservice, if we mistake the act of taking positions for governance,” Lugar said. “They are not the same thing. Governance requires adaptation to shifting circumstances. It often requires finding common ground with Americans who have a different vision than your own.”
        
    Lugar excelled in practicing that type of governance. We can only hope that his congressional colleagues listen and do likewise.
        
    Lugar said that he hesitated “to describe our current state as the most partisan ever.” But without Lugar in the Senate, we’re at risk of devolving further into divisiveness.
        
    For Lugar’s University of Indianapolis students who aspire to work in politics, I have a piece of advice: Choose a boss like your professor.

    Schoeff is HPI's Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - In September, Dave Crooks was feeling good about his chances to win the 8th CD.
        
    The Democrat said that an internal poll showed him within six points of incumbent Republican Rep. Larry Bucshon. Then outside money started pouring into the district to buy ads on Terre Haute and Evansville television.
        
    The avalanche of Super Pac spending on Bucshon’s behalf – including $750,058 from Citizens for a Working America and $114,340 from the American Action Network – was too much for Crooks to overcome.
        
    “We felt the earth move in a very short amount of time – and we just couldn’t climb out of it,” Crooks said in an HPI interview. “They did a great job of tying in the president and somehow connecting him at my hip. It drove my numbers down.”
        
    In the end, Bucshon prevailed, 53.4%-43.1% with 3.6% going to libertarian Bart Gadau.  Bucshon also bested Crooks in fundraising -- $1.2 million to $971,978, according to Federal Election Commission filings as of Oct. 17.
        
    “It took me more than a year-and-a-half to raise $1 million,” said Crooks, a radio executive and former state representative. “In less than a month, there was $1 million of outside money hammering away at my name and voting record.”
        
    Crooks also benefited from independent expenditures. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $516,483, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
        
    “The outside influence was pretty much a wash,” Bucshon said in an HPI interview.
        
    A cardiovascular surgeon, Bucshon said he won his first re-election because he consistently communicated to voters that he is a fiscal conservative who wants to reform social insurance programs, rein in the Environmental Protection Agency and overturn the health care reform law.
        
    His office also was fastidious in responding to tens of thousands of constituent inquiries.
        
    “We were able to get our message out over the last few years,” Bucshon said. “People appreciated that level of communication with their member [of Congress] and they awarded it with a win.”
        
    Crooks acknowledges he may not have won even if outside spending was not a factor. He was running in a difficult political environment, where President Barack Obama only drew 24% of the vote in Daviess County, where Crooks lives.
        
    “It’s tough for a Democrat to get a [ticket] split in southern Indiana, unless you’re running against someone talking about rape and God,” Crooks said.
        
    He was referring to Democratic Senate candidate Joe Donnelly’s victory over Republican Richard Mourdock, whose campaign tanked after he said in a debate that pregnancies resulting from rape are God’s will.
        
    Donnelly gave up his 2nd CD seat in order to run for the Senate. The race to replace him was the closest in the state. Republican Jackie Walorski edged Democrat Brendan Mullen, 49% - 47.6%, with libertarian Joe Ruiz taking 3.4%.
        
    The money competition between Walorski, a former state representative, and Mullen also was close. Walorski had raised $1.6 million and Mullen, an Iraq war veteran, had raised $1.1 million as of Oct. 17. Outside groups spent about $600,000 on each candidate.
        
    When every vote counts, ground operations are decisive.
        
    “I attribute the victory to an awesome grassroots network,” Walorski said in an HPI interview. “It’s that team effort that makes the difference in these kinds of races.”
        
    The day after the vote, Mullen was exhausted but proud of what he accomplished as a rookie.
        
    “As a first-time candidate, I’m so thrilled with what we put together,” Mullen said in an HPI interview. “We marched the ball down the field. We turned it over on downs on the one-yard line.”
        
    Despite the negative ads and tough rhetoric that highlighted the contest that stretched from South Bend to Wabash, Walorski suggested that voters were looking for someone who could bridge the partisan chasm in Washington.
        
     “Our message resonated – what we’ve done in the state of Indiana we can do at the federal level,” Walorski said. “We can work across the aisle. That has to be the attitude that prevails in Congress.”
        
    During the campaign, Mullen asserted that Walorski was changing her political stripes to appeal to an electorate seeking moderation. He said that Walorski, the former assistant Republican floor leader, had been a fierce partisan in the Indiana House.
        
    The day after the election, Mullen was conciliatory.
        
    “I salute and applaud Jackie Walorski and her husband Dean for wanting to serve our country,” Mullen said. “I urge her to govern in the moderate voice she campaigned on.”
        
    It sounds as if Mullen will be monitoring whether she does. For the time being, he plans to concentrate on raising his young family and running a business that assists Indiana National Guard members and their families.  But he’s not ruling out another run.
            
    “This is not the last you guys are going to see me,” Mullen said. “I’m going to continue to serve our country in one capacity or another.”
            
    It’s also almost certain that the 8th and 2nd districts will be competitive in 2014. 
  • WASHINGTON - Democrat Dave Crooks is confident that he’s closing in on incumbent Republican Rep. Larry Bucshon in southwest Indiana’s 8th CD.
        
    “Big Mo is on our side,” Crooks said in an HPI interview this week. “Big Mo lives in the 8th District of Indiana. It’s nice to have my phone ring for once rather than me calling everyone else constantly.”
        
    Crooks asserts that internal polls demonstrate his momentum. You’ll have to take his word for it because he won’t release the numbers. “That’s privileged information,” said Crooks, a radio personality and former state representative. “I can assure you that it’s razor close.”
        
    Former Rep. Baron Hill penned a fundraising letter in late September making similar vague references. “I just got off the phone with Dave, and he shared his internal polling with me,” Hill wrote in a Sept. 27 letter.   “The race is very close, and Dave is within striking distance. He’s counting on us to put him over the finish line. If we don’t help, he can’t win. It’s that simple.”
        
    Bucshon, a heart surgeon who first won the seat in 2010 with 57% of the vote, dismisses Crooks’ bravado. “He’s creating a false story because he has a weak campaign,” Bucshon said in an HPI interview.
        
    Bucshon tried to combat the perception that he is vulnerable by previewing his fundraising totals for the third quarter prior to the Oct. 15 release deadline. He raised about $400,000 and has $320,000 on hand – his biggest haul of the cycle. “It shows we have a lot of momentum going into this month [before Election Day],” Bucshon said. “I’m optimistic about the level of financial support the campaign has.”
        
    As of June 30, Crooks had raised $742,605 with $530,191 on hand. Bucshon had raised $844,566 with $386,851 on hand.
        
    Crooks promises strong third quarter results. Unlike Bucshon, he’s not offering a sneak peek.
        
    “We’re trying to make sure everything is accurate – that the I’s are dotted and the T’s are crossed,” Crooks said.
        
    Crooks acknowledged that he has reduced his television buys in the Terre Haute and Evansville market. “We made some modest adjustments so I can get to the finish line,” Crooks said. He quickly adds that he is receiving outside help. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began running an ad in support of Crooks this week.
        
    “We’ve made the cut for the most competitive House races, and I’m proud of that,” Crooks said. “We have more resources on the way.”
        
    Bucshon is also benefitting from outside help in the form of $114,000 that the American Action Network has spent on ads opposing Crooks.
        
    As the DCCC jumps in to try to even the score, the National Republican Congressional Committee trusts that Bucshon can hold his own.“If the DCCC wants to waste money spending on this race, we welcome that,” said Katie Prill, NRCC Midwest press secretary. “This is a Republican seat. Larry Bucshon has been campaigning tirelessly to keep it that way.”
        
    The DCCC ad takes aim at an issue that Bucshon has focused extensively in his campaign – health care reform. The DCCC spot criticizes Bucshon for voting in favor of the budget written by the GOP vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan. The Ryan plan would transform current pay-for-service Medicare into a program that provides premium support for participants to buy their own insurance in the private sector or to purchase traditional Medicare.
        
    Republicans argue that the reforms won’t affect anyone in or near retirement while preserving Medicare for future generations. Democrats say the Ryan approach would end the Medicare guarantee. “Bucshon takes from Indiana seniors and gives to his special interest friends,” the DCCC ad states. A DCCC spokeswoman said that tying Bucshon to higher Medicare costs resonates.
        
    Bucshon’s votes are “not in line with where middle-class families are,” said Haley Morris, DCCC Midwest press secretary. “That’s why you see so many Hoosiers excited by Dave Crooks’ campaign to be an independent voice in Congress.”
        
    Medicare attacks don’t faze Bucshon. In fact, he levels his own against the health care reform law, which Bucshon said cuts $716 billion out of Medicare that would otherwise benefit current retirees. “I’m a physician, and I understand the issue very well,” Bucshon said. “I get a positive response on it. [Voters] know that we’re trying to do something to save the program.”
        
    Crooks has been trying to shift the focus of the campaign to the economy, arguing that Bucshon has supported trade agreements that ship Hoosier jobs overseas. “He seems to be out of sync with the typical person living in this district,” Crooks said. “He’s running like it’s 2010. The only thing he can talk about is repealing Obamacare. People want to know about jobs. They’d rather see jobs in Indiana than India.”
        
    Last fall, when he voted in favor of free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, Bucshon said they would create jobs. “It is imperative that these pending trade agreements be implemented immediately to open new markets for Hoosier exports,” Bucshon said in a statement. “More exports mean more jobs.”
        
    Shortly after the vote, Toyota announced that it would export the Sienna model manufactured in Princeton, near Evansville, to South Korea – the first time the vehicle has been sold outside of North America. Early this year, the company announced a $400 million deal to move Highlander production to Princeton.
        
    Perhaps the biggest challenge for Bucshon is not one that Crooks can pose. It’s general voter disgust with Washington. “I went [to Washington] to change the direction of the country,” Bucshon said. “We have had some success doing that – changing the conversation from how we spend money to how we save money.”
        
    Bucshon will know in less than a month if 8th CD voters will send him back to Washington to continue the conversation. Horse Race Status: Leans Bucshon

    Schoeff is HPI's Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - Since Paul Ryan joined the Republican presidential ticket Saturday, Rep. Larry Bucshon, R-8th CD, has not run away from the Medicare issue. Instead, it looks as if he’s decided that offense is the best defense.
        
    “The only people who have put laws into place that have cut Medicare are Democrats, including President Obama,” Bucshon said in an HPI interview. “The Republican approach is to preserve and protect Medicare for current and future seniors.”
        
    The topic has become more intense in the aftermath of presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney selecting Ryan, a seven-term Wisconsin congressman, as his running mate. Overhauling Medicare is central to the budget resolutions that Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, has written the past two years.
        
    Under the Ryan plan, people under 55 would receive subsidies to purchase private insurance on a Medicare exchange or to enter the traditional fee-for-service program. Current coverage would not change for people in or near retirement.
        
    Medicare reform was a key element of House budget blueprints that Bucshon supported in 2011 and 2012 that were designed to cut federal spending.
        
    His opponent, former Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks, says Bucshon’s votes put him at odds with southwest Indiana voters.
        
    “Every time I talk to people about Medicare, they’re troubled that he would end the Medicare guarantee and force future seniors to pay $6400 more per year to keep a basic Medicare plan,” Crooks said in an HPI interview. The cost increase estimate is from a Congressional Budget Office report.
        
    “He’s totally out of sync with the rest of us in the district,” Crooks said.
        
    Bucshon counters that congressional Democrats approved the 2010 health care law that cuts Medicare by about $716 billion over 10 years to fund measure’s reforms.
        
    “They’re trying to deflect criticism of what they’ve done to Medicare,” Bucshon said of Democrats. “They’re going to limit access to health care for seniors with these dramatic cuts to provider reimbursement.”
        
    Crooks said he would vote to overturn the Medicare cuts in the health care reform law. He emphasizes that they were included in Ryan’s House budgets.
        
    “When the Ryan plan was rolled out, they could have changed the numbers,” Crooks said. “Ryan left them in, and Bucshon supported it.”
        
    In his fiscal year 2013 budget blueprint, Ryan acknowledged maintaining the health care reform law’s Medicare reductions.
        
    “This budget . . . ensures that any potential savings in current law would go to shore up Medicare, not pay for new entitlements,” the outline, the Path to Prosperity, states.
        
    Criticism of the inclusion of the Medicare savings in the Ryan plan is “unfounded,” Bucshon said, because “budgets are based on what’s in current law.”
        
    House Republicans have voted multiple times to do away with the health care law altogether. Crooks said the law shouldn’t be scuttled but does need some revisions.
        
    “There are some positive things in there,” Crooks said. “We need to make it better.”
        
    In Indiana’s other competitive House race, the open seat in the 2nd CD, both candidates are hewing to their party lines. “The Romney Ryan ticket provides Americans with two very different leadership options for the next four years,” said Republican Jackie Walorski. “Americans can either choose to remain on this dismal path of slow job growth and bigger government, or vote for real change. I remain focused on improving our economy and creating jobs by repealing Obamacare, preventing tax increases, and reducing red tape on small businesses.”
        
    Democrat Brendan Mullen said the Ryan plan would hurt north central Indiana. “Congressman Ryan’s budget, which my opponent supports, just doesn’t make good fiscal sense for our families because it cuts Medicare that people rely on, forces folks to pay thousands more for their benefits, but keeps tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas,” Mullen said. “The last thing my mother and father or any Hoosiers want or need is to take money out of the pockets of seniors when special interests are getting a tax break.”
        
    In terms of campaign mechanics, the Ryan selection is boosting fundraising for Crooks. “We sent out a [email] blast on Monday and got a very good response,” Crooks said. He declined to say how much was generated in donations but called it “above average.”    
        
    The reaction to Ryan among voters has been positive, according to Bucshon. He calls him “a Midwestern guy, a family man with strong moral character and strong conservative values I agree with.”
        
    It’s a good thing that Ryan’s budget has spurred a debate about the size and scope of government, according to Bucshon.
        
    “We need to have these big issues on the table so the American people can decide who they think has the best plan for America,” Bucshon said. “Of course, I believe we do.”

    Schoeff is HPI’s Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - While Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock hopes to continue his success this election cycle by staking out and holding political ground on the right, the candidates in the 2nd CD are rushing to the middle.
        
    Former state Rep. Jackie Walorski, a Republican, launched a television ad in July that shows her driving rural roads in the district and extolling centrist virtues. She believes that’s where voters are on the political spectrum.
        
    “They choose an independent voice to represent them in Washington,” Walorski said in an HPI interview. “That’s exactly who we are. That’s exactly what we’re running on.”
        
    Her Democratic opponent, Brendan Mullen, said Walorski is trying to hide her true nature.
        
    “She has been a political bomb-thrower for her entire career,” Mullen said in an HPI interview. “She’s a finger-in-your-face party hack who has only voted along party lines. For her to re-invent herself 100 days before the election is unacceptable.”
        
    Mullen said that his campaign is gaining momentum “because of the moderation I’m selling. People are fearful of the Tea Party and what they’ve done to the state and to Washington.”
        
    What both candidates agree on is that the political middle is the place to be in north-central Indiana.
        
    For Walorski, that means highlighting a Statehouse record that she says steered clear of divisive politics. She served from 2004 through 2010 and estimates that only about 15% of the legislature’s votes were on “hot partisan issues.”
        
    “That’s what [voters] expect to see in Washington,” Walorski said. “They want to see people coming across the divide. We were a model of that in Indiana.”
        
    State Democratic Chairman Dan Parker counters that the most accurate portrait of Walorski was her 2010 race against incumbent Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly, who is running for the Senate this year against Mourdock. Donnelly edged Walorski by 3,000 votes in a tough campaign.
        
    “Jackie Walorski’s image coming out of the 2010 election is one of a Tea Party candidate who is extremist and partisan,” Parker said. “That’s why I think you’re seeing her try to change her image in her first ad, which I thought was hilarious.”
        
    Walorski’s legislative record buttresses her claim of centrism, according to campaign manager Brendon DelToro. In a statement, he said that she was “instrumental” in co-authoring or supporting “multiple bipartisan bills” including one that strengthened identity theft laws.
        
    “Jackie has consistently been an independent voice for Hoosiers as proven by her successful tenure in the state legislature,” DelToro said in a statement. “On the contrary, Brendan Mullen is a D.C. insider who doesn’t know the first thing about building bipartisan coalitions to pass meaningful legislation for the benefit of Indiana’s second congressional district.”
        
    This is the first run for any office for Mullen, a military veteran. He grew up in South Bend and attended John Adams High School before going to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where he was the place kicker on the football team.
        
    His military service took him to South Korea, Iraq, where he trained Iraqi security forces and was embedded with them on missions, and Ft. Belvoir, near Washington, D.C.
        
    After he left the military in 2006, he worked in the Washington area for a small company that specialized in anti-terrorism and disaster-readiness consulting, where employment grew from one to 110 during his tenure. He then established his own firm, MKS2 LLC, a strategic planning, communication and information technology consulting firm that also engages in advocacy for Indiana National Guard and Reserve soldiers and their families and employs six full-time and 31 part-time workers.
        
    Mullen moved his company, and family, back to the district in 2011 because he and his wife wanted to raise their daughter – with another one on the way – in South Bend. He’s quick to defuse attacks on his residency.
        
    “I feel like I’ve never left,” Mullen said of his hometown.
        
    He was inspired to run for office while attending memorial services for fellow soldiers at Arlington Cemetery, across the Potomac River from Washington. He said that the behavior of politicians was not living up to his friends’ sacrifices.
        
    “I was raised on the values of hard work, family, fellowship and public service,” Mullen said. “Those are not the guiding lights that folks in Washington, D.C., are leading our country by. They’re bickering and acting like children.”
        
    Although Mullen is trying to use the political-novice theme to his advantage, he’s raking in money like a savvy lawmaker. He has raised $804,177 as of June 30 and has $574,909 in cash on hand, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Walorski has raised $1,126,605 and has $724,545 on hand.
        
    Walorski said that her fundraising is the product of a strong grass-roots network. She slapped the “Washington” label on Mullen to dismiss his numbers, asserting that he is raising money from Democratic leaders and unions.
        
    “It’s not a surprise that Washington liberal Democrats are supporting a D.C. insider,” Walorski said.
        
    Mullen shot back that he is as rooted in the district as Walorski.
        
    “We are not a Washington, D.C., inside campaign,” Mullen said. “We are through-and-through a grass-roots effort. We are blessed, humbled and thrilled with the extraordinary response we’ve gotten.”
        
    The question is whether Mullen can get voters to agree with his argument that the moderate Walorski is a fake Walorski.
        
    There’s no doubt that the former TV reporter, university development professional and international humanitarian worker is a tireless campaigner who talks fast and can hit hard.
            
    But her tenure in the state house was defined by the blue-collar area she served, according to a former colleague.
            
    “Her district has the South-Bend personality,” said Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-3rd CD and a former state senator who was in Indianapolis when Walorski was the assistant Republican House floor leader. “She knows the issues and challenges that people of north-central Indiana deal with.”
            
    She’s also willing to go to bat for them, Stutzman said.
            
    “She’s aggressive. She’s bold. She’s very articulate,” Stutzman said. “She’s not one to back down from a fight.”
            
    Mullen will try to use Walorski’s time in the state house against her.
            
    “My opponent has been walking in parades while I was in Iraq getting shot at,” Mullen said. “Washington no longer needs professional politicians. Indiana no longer needs professional politicians.”
        
    Walorski sounds similar to Mullen when talking about the ire voters direct toward Washington.
        
    “Hoosiers are more fed up with Congress today than they were in 2010,” Walorski said. “They’re looking for an independent voice to represent their values and not the two parties.”

    Schoeff is HPI's Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - When Gov. Mitch Daniels officially takes over as president of Purdue University in January, it will mark the second time in consecutive presidencies that the school has transcended the traditional when choosing its leader.
        
    Daniels follows Purdue’s first female and first Hispanic president, France Cordova, who leaves an important legacy even though she served just five years. The first breakthrough she achieved was to bring diversity to the leadership at Hovde Hall, Purdue’s administration building.
        
    Although he’s a white male, Daniels, too, represents diversity in the chief executive position at Purdue. He’s the first president not to come from a science background. He also is the first to step into the role straight from politics.
        
    What this means is that Daniels can bring a different perspective to Purdue. Just as he’ll have to adjust to the science and engineering faculties, they’ll have to adjust to him, too. They won’t be dealing with a president who, like Cordova, the former chief scientist at NASA, has spent time working in a lab.
        
    But they will have a president who has a varied and rich professional background – serving as chief of staff to Sen. Richard Lugar and as a top aide to President Ronald Reagan, remaking himself as a think-tank executive with the Hudson Institute, working for more than a decade as a top executive at Eli Lilly and Co., running the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush and then winning two terms as governor of Indiana.
        
    With these points on his life trajectory, Daniels will offer a unique approach to running a university. He’ll have a different understanding of how the world works and what Purdue’s role in that world should be. He won’t have to learn the political dimensions of a college presidency; he’ll be an expert in that area from his first day.
        
    Critics have said that Daniels is not qualified to be a university president because one thing he hasn’t done in his career is worked in the publish-or-perish academic environment. He’s written two books, but his curriculum vitae is not sprinkled with peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals. In his self-deprecating manner, Daniels took on this skepticism directly in his statement upon accepting the position. “I have not made a life in the academy, but I have spent my life reading, admiring and attempting to learn from those who do,” Daniels said. “I am not a scholar in the sciences, but I am as avid a student of their advances as a lay person can be, and have taken every step I could think of to elevate the scientific disciplines in the eyes of our citizens and in the educational paths of our young people. I will have to earn the honor of this appointment through strenuous work to build the understanding, alliances and personal relationships, especially with the faculty, required for a successful presidency.” It’s likely that Daniels wrote those words himself. Unlike many politicians, he does his own writing. When he speaks, you’re hearing his own words expressing his own beliefs.
        
    If you’ve read the first chapter of his book, “Keeping the Republic,” you know that Daniels likes to think expansively and critically. He lays the ground work for the urgent need to build public support to tackle the country’s burgeoning debt problem – what he calls the “red menace” – by taking the reader on a rhetorical tour of the history of democracy that ranges from Plato to Pericles to the Renaissance to Nietzsche to Hamilton, Madison, Adams, de Tocqueville and even Tom Friedman. Daniels makes connections and draws parallels. He likely is demonstrating the liberal arts education he received as an undergraduate at Princeton and as a law student at Georgetown University. I hope he brings this mindset to Purdue.
        
    The school has a strong tradition of science and technology breakthroughs and must build every day on those advances for the good of Indiana, the nation and the world. But Purdue must teach its scientists and engineers to think critically and express themselves articulately – something that it too often overlooks.
        
    One of the exciting things about Cordova’s tenure was that she stressed interdisciplinary learning. For instance, she established the Global Policy Research Institute “to create synergies between researchers across disciplinary lines in order to address global challenges,” according to Purdue literature. This kind of approach is not surprising from someone whose undergraduate major was English.
        
    I’m not suggesting that Purdue be transformed into a liberal arts college. But the liberal arts must be elevated because beyond campus is a global economy that demands people who can think and communicate as well as crunch numbers. Daniels probably understands this better than anyone else Purdue could have hired.
        
    I want Daniels to succeed in West Lafayette because I’m a proud Purdue alum and Purdue investor. My annual donation qualifies me for membership in the President’s Council. I want to see my modest contribution support a well-rounded school.
        
    The Daniels administration holds much promise. I hope he will build on the strong Purdue science and technology pedigree by helping all of us Boilermakers think differently.

    Schoeff is HPI's Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - Over the course of the 20 years that I’ve worked in Washington, the partisan divide has steadily grown into a chasm.
        
    First, the Clinton administration made its campaign war room a central feature in daily policy battles. Later, the George W. Bush administration wasted an opportunity to cement bipartisan comity following the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedy by attacking Democrats in the 2002 election on security issues.
        
    Democrats then became obsessed with payback – and Bush bashing continued for years. Today, the parties have implacable differences on nearly every issue.
        
    At each milepost along the journey, I was bullish about American politics. At the most critical times, legislators would figure out a way to compromise.
        
    I’m losing my confidence following the defeat of Sen. Richard Lugar in Tuesday’s Republican primary. The forces that took down Lugar are working to ensure that any attempt at bipartisanship – even an effort to listen to the other side – will be met with severe political consequences.
        
    Lugar will continue to make substantial contributions to economic and security policy and international relations. Maybe he’ll even find that leaving the Senate is liberating. The Senate, however, will find Lugar’s departure a major setback. Tuesday was a sad day for U.S. governance.
        
    I’m not sure where Congress will turn now to find leaders who can rise above the partisan fray and get something accomplished for the good of the country.
        
    Profound legislative achievements always require the participation of both parties. Lugar proved that by teaming up with then-Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., to write and pass a measure that has dismantled thousands of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union.
        
    Lugar and Nunn worked together to overcome a strong resistance to international affairs in the early 1990s. The focus then was on the faltering economy – and Washington was riveted by a special Senate election in Pennsylvania that revolved around health care. Lugar and Nunn forged ahead, perhaps saving countless lives over the last generation in the process.
        
    On the domestic side, Lugar was at the forefront of reducing the size and scope of government 15 years before the tea party threw its first fit about government spending.  Lugar fought a lonely battle in the mid-1990s to slash the bureaucracy at the U.S. Department of Agriculture – meeting resistance even from fellow Republicans.
        
    As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, he wrote a farm bill around the same time that set U.S. agricultural policy on a glide path toward fiscal responsibility.
        
    He was waging the ag fights at a time when the economy was growing and Washington didn’t face a massive budget deficit. He wasn’t riding a popular wave of fiscal conservatism. He was creating it based on the Hoosier values that he brought to Congress every day over more than three decades.
        
    I cite these examples of Lugar’s legislative career because I was working for him at the time -- as his deputy press secretary from 1992-94 and as press secretary from 1995-97. It was a privilege to see firsthand what each Hoosier civics student should be taught about public service. Lugar is an exemplary legislator, leader and an exceptional man.
        
    I have no way of knowing whether the Lugar campaign made mistakes, but the voters of Indiana surely did on Tuesday.
        
    Somehow, they didn’t see, or chose to ignore, that the very thing they were looking for in a senator – someone who works on their behalf across partisan lines – is exactly who they had in the incumbent.
        
    Even though he was facing a tough re-election, Lugar stayed in the arena. He lost, but he stayed true to himself and true to the approach to governance that the country desperately needs at this time of overwhelming challenges.
        
    “Ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents,” Lugar said in a statement on Tuesday night. “Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.”
        
    That’s what Lugar gave to Indiana for 35 years. Whoever wins his Senate seat in November should listen to Lugar and do likewise.

    Schoeff is HPI’s Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has made a splash by jumping into the state’s hotly contested Republican Senate primary with both feet, cutting a recent television ad in which he gives a ringing endorsement of incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar.
        
    In Washington, there’s more reticence about the fierce battle between Lugar and state treasurer Richard Mourdock. The Hoosier congressional delegation is staying out of the water.
        
    The lawmakers say they don’t want to get in the way of voters.
        
    Rep. Todd Young (R-9th CD) follows what an aide calls the “Dan Quayle rule” - named after the state’s former U.S. senator and vice president.
        
    “Congressman Young thinks that as a Republican primary voter, his vote shouldn’t count as more important than anyone else’s,” said spokesman Trevor Foughty. “We have not gotten involved in any race – from the local up to the party level, including the Senate race.”
        
    In southwest Indiana, Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-8th CD) faces a primary challenge on the right from Kristi Risk. Like Bucshon, Mourdock is from the Evansville area. But their similar geography hasn’t prompted Bucshon to weigh in for Mourdock.
        
    “He’s going to stay neutral in the Senate primary,” said Bucshon spokesman Matthew Ballard. “The congressman is focusing on his own race and trusts Hoosier voters to make the right decision.”
        
    Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-4th CD) joined Lugar in introducing Rural Economic Farm and Ranch Sustainability and Hunger (REFRESH) Act last fall. The measure would save an estimated $40 billion in agriculture spending over 10 years and usher in other reforms. It is part of the mix as Congress works on a new farm bill this spring.
        
    Despite the legislative cooperation, Stutzman is not getting involved in the Senate primary.
        
    “No, I do not have plans to endorse either candidate,” Stutzman said in an email statement. “I am comfortable letting the voters decide the outcome of the election."
        
    Lugar’s Republican Senate colleague, Dan Coats, is staying on the sidelines, too.
        
    “Senator Coats has taken the position of not endorsing primary candidates and is leaving that decision to the voters of Indiana,” communications director Tara DiJulio wrote in an email.
        
    In the highest profile endorsement of the race, Daniels is trying to shape voters’ opinions. “I’m not for Dick Lugar for what he’s done but for what he can do,” Daniels says in his television ad. “Our point of view gets heard and has a better chance to win out with Dick Lugar on the job.”
        
    Lt. Gov. Becky Skillman, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a majority of Hoosier mayors and the Hamilton County GOP are among the others who have endorsed Lugar.
        
    Mourdock has been endorsed by former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, 55 Hoosier tea party groups, billionaire publisher Steve Forbes and many county chairmen.
        
    Washington lawmakers, however, don’t want to talk about the Senate primary.
        
    “I don’t have anything for you on that,” said Josh Britton, spokesman for Rep. Todd Rokita (4th CD). Rokita is not making an endorsement.

    Schoeff is HPI's Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - Freshman Republican Rep. Larry Bucshon, 8th CD, acknowledges that he and his 88 first-term GOP colleagues haven’t slashed the federal budget deficit the way they intended when they stormed into Washington in 2011.
        
    They have, however, changed the budget frame of reference, according to Bucshon.
        
    “The one thing that the people I was elected with changed in the big picture was the direction or maybe the thought process about how the federal government spends its money,” Bucshon said in a recent HPI interview in his Capitol Hill office.
        
    The conversation has now moved “away from where are we going to spend to where are we going to create efficiencies and effectiveness in the government and decrease the spending in Washington,” said Bucshon, who is a cardiothoracic surgeon.
        
    The challenge he faces as he tries to earn a second term this year is that his opponent on the right doesn’t think he’s gone far enough in cutting Washington spending while his foe on the left asserts that he’s undermining Medicare.
        
    Kristi Risk, a substitute teacher in the Spencer-Owen school system and Christian counselor who is running against Bucshon in the Republican primary, criticizes him for supporting extensions of the federal budget that prevented a government shutdown.
        
    She also says he should not have voted for a measure that averted a default of the federal debt.
        
    “He voted for every continuing resolution and the debt ceiling,” Risk said.
        
    In doing so, he missed opportunities to whack away at what she sees as overbearing government institutions, such as the Environmental Protection Agency.“The best way to curb it is to defund it,” Risk said.
        
    Bucshon doesn’t regret his votes.“You can’t let the U.S. federal government default on its debt,” Bucshon said. “It was the right thing to do for the country.”
        
    The Democratic candidate for the 8th CD seat this fall attacks Bucshon from the opposite direction. Former state Rep. Dave Crooks says that the Newburgh congressman’s votes in favor of a budget proposal last year by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would destroy Medicare.
        
    Under the Ryan plan, instead of directly paying for Medicare coverage, the government would provide subsidies for participants to buy their own insurance.
        
    Crooks said seniors “stop me on the street constantly” to express concern over Medicare vouchers.
        
    “They don’t want their Medicare dismantled,” Crooks said. “They don’t want it privatized. He’s picking oil companies making record profits and billionaires – giving them more tax breaks – over senior citizens in this district. They’re going to punish him for his choices this November.”
        
    Bucshon said in a statement that Crooks is playing fast and loose on Medicare.
        
    He maintains that the health care bill approved by the previous Democratic Congress – and which he says Crooks supports – requires nearly $600 billion in Medicare cuts.
        
    “It is a shame Dave Crooks and the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] cannot campaign on the issues and instead have resorted to attempts to scare senior citizens,” Bucshon said in a statement.  “As a physician who spent 15 years caring for Medicare patients, I am disappointed, but not surprised by this.”
        
    In his interview with HPI, Bucshon stressed that he is making a difference for the district through his work on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The five-year $260-billion highway funding measure is scheduled for a House vote this week.
        
    Bucshon wrote a provision that would allow states to take federal dollars from bike trails or beautification initiatives or any other program and redirect them toward emergencies, such as the fissures that closed the Sherman Minton Bridge between Louisville and southeast Indiana.
        
    “You shouldn’t have money sitting in an account and have an infrastructure problem and not be able to use federal dollars to fix it,” Bucshon said.
        
    He also championed a provision that would allow states to proceed with multi-state projects over the objection of metropolitan planning authorities. In Indiana, this would mean that the municipal group in Bloomington would not be able to hold up the I-69 extension over environmental concerns.
        
    “This is a common sense provision that I think is going to significantly benefit Indiana,” Bucshon said.
        
    While the candidates argue over policy, Bucshon has taken a lead in the money race. As of Dec. 31, he has raised $537,311 and has $394,368 on hand, according to the Federal Election Commission. Crooks has raised $311,824 and has $245,237 on hand. Risk has raised $23,982 and has $10,595 on hand.
        
    “We’ve communicated well with all 18 counties,” Bucshon said. “We’ve worked hard on constituent services. I go home every weekend. We’ve gotten a lot of positive feedback. I’m pretty optimistic.”
        
    Crooks also exudes confidence. The Democratic Party cleared the primary field for him, and he is included in the DCCC’s second tier of races.
        
    The district also has lost Republican-leaning areas – such as Putnam, Fountain and Warren counties – and gained Democratic territory – such as Perry, Spencer, Dubois and part of Crawford Country.
        
    Crooks, who owns radio stations in Washington, Ind., and Vincennes, said he benefits from his tenure as the voice of the Washington High School basketball program, which has produced Indiana University star Cody Zeller and won state championships.
        
    “That’s a unique advantage we have that’s beyond the bad votes Bucshon has taken,” Crooks said.
        
    Risk’s operation is not as well funded as Bucshon’s and Crooks’. But she said she has grass-roots enthusiasm that goes beyond the Tea Party. She has about 75 consistent volunteers.
        
    “We draw from all walks of life,” Risk said. “There’s political science and political art. I embrace the art of politics.”
        
    She’s also trying to take advantage of skepticism toward Washington, D.C. “There’s a real negative tone toward Congress, but it’s real positive for us,” Risk said.
        
    Bucshon will find out in the primary whether that attitude dominates southwest Indiana. 
  • WASHINGTON - Over the last 20 years, Washington politics has steadily declined into a partisan miasma. It reached its nadir this week, when House Republicans blocked a two-month extension of a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.

    The face-saving capitulation by the House on Thursday afternoon to agree to the Senate's two-month extension, which was passed with 89 votes, was too late to prevent lasting damage to House Republicans.

    President Barack Obama called the House majority’s bluff and is coming off as the reasonable man in the middle trying to help Americans struggling to get by in a sluggish economy.

    Obama didn’t need more help to get re-elected, but this week Republicans gave it to him anyway. Obama’s position among independent voters likely will strengthen over the next few months as he contrasts himself with the intransigent House GOP and a Republican presidential nominee whose bland message is simply that he’s not Obama.

    Obama promised voters in 2008 that he would transform the way Washington works. Instead, he has exacerbated the partisan divide he found when he arrived at the White House – and is stoking it to gain an election advantage.

    The first slip on the downward slope occurred when President Bill Clinton imported the War Room from his 1992 presidential campaign into the White House. Just as the election centered on “winning” each news cycle, so did policy debates.

    Republican push back against the War Room culminated in the 1994 GOP takeover of the House. The momentum from that historic victory, however, went awry and resulted in the 1995 government shutdown, which helped get Clinton reelected.

    Not long after the bitter taste of the government closure had dissipated, congressional Republicans impeached Clinton, marking another partisan low.

    President George W. Bush had a chance to mend the rift after the terrorist attacks of the Sept. 2011. He had the Congress and the country in the palm of his hand, as he responded to the tragedy. Instead of creating a quieter, more thoughtful politics in the capital, Bush sought GOP gains in the 2002 election by attacking Democrats as soft on national security.

    Democrats carried a grudge that was amplified by a close loss to Bush in the 2004 election. The political cauldron bubbled with resentment Democratic resentment of Bush until the party regained control of the House and Senate in 2007.

    Bush was still the poster boy for Democratic rage in 2008, when Obama won the White House and Democrats extended their Senate majority to a filibuster-proof 60 votes. In control of the executive and legislative branches of government in 2009, Democrats vented built-up spleen by ramming through a massive economic stimulus package and sweeping health care reform with virtually no Republican support.

    This led to the next “wave” election in 2010, when Republicans took back the House and increased their minority in the Senate to a filibuster-ensuring 47. That ballot brought the politics of grievance to the forefront, with the advent of the anti-government Tea Party.

    This year, the left got into the politics of grievance mode as the Occupy Wall Street movement entered the scene. Meanwhile, political fights over the last few months have brought the country to the brink of defaulting on its massive debt, resulted in the failure of the deficit-reduction super committee and have produced the payroll-tax debacle.

    Hoosier House Republicans were trying to cast the situation in the best light prior to the House caving on Thursday.

    “Right now, Congress needs to do something for middle class Americans and job creators alike,” U.S. Rep. Todd Young, R-9th CD, said in a statement. “As every credible source has told us, extending the payroll tax for only two months would be nearly impossible to implement and would create two more months of uncertainty for the economy.”

    None of the freshmen GOP seem to be worried about the political repercussions of opposing the payroll tax cut.

    “This is not the time for political calculations,” wrote James Wegmann, spokesman for Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-3rd CD, in an email. “The simplest calculation is the fact that, under the House-passed plan, families will keep an average of $1,000, but, under the Senate’s punt, they would receive just $167 without a year-long guarantee.”

    The Hoosier freshmen also are sanguine about Obama stealing the tax-cut issue.

    “President Obama has enacted and proposed some of the largest tax increases in history,” wrote Tim Edson, communications director for U.S. Rep. Todd Rokita, R-4th CD. “Rarely a day goes by that he isn’t talking about raising taxes, creating a bigger government and starting more programs. “

    The problem for House Republicans is that this standoff with Obama will be portrayed as the House digging in its heals and demanding that it get its way – now, not after negotiations with the Senate in February for a full-year payroll-tax-cut extension.

    It will be cast as another example of the politics of grievance – and play into Obama’s re-election.

    Schoeff is Howey Politics Indiana's Washington correspondent.
     
  • WASHINGTON - Two freshman Republicans in the Indiana congressional delegation are not ruling out supporting a package from the congressional deficit super committee if it includes provisions to increase revenues.
        
    But if the panel is able to agree to a proposal before its Nov. 23 deadline, there will be some soul searching on Capitol Hill – especially among House freshmen – about the definition of a tax increase.
        
    The group of newcomers who helped the GOP take over the House in January once again finds itself in a pivotal position in the debate over how to reduce the federal budget.
        
    One of the ideas on the table during the Super Committee’s deliberations – offered by Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa. – would include about $300 billion in revenues to go along with about $800 billion in spending cuts. It also would reduce some deductions and loopholes while making the Bush administration tax cuts permanent, a provision that draws Democratic opposition.
        
    The proposal has attracted attention because Toomey is a former president of the Club for Growth, a conservative organization that has led the charge against Republicans it deems insufficiently conservative.
        
    Rep. Todd Young, R-9th CD, said that he would entertain boosting revenue as long as a plan also addressed the restructuring of entitlement spending.
        
    “If there is a strong first step toward refocusing and making sustainable Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid and, secondarily, any new revenue projected to come into the federal coffers is a product of simplifying our tax codes or increasing the rate of economic growth in our country, I would (consider) such a proposal,” Young said.
        
    But, he added, “The real focus should be on spending cuts.”
        
    Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-3rd CD, said that he could live with a plan that included higher tax revenues but would oppose one that boosts rates.
        
    “This is about tax rates, not about revenue increasing,” Stutzman said. “I need to see what the final product is. I think Toomey is trying to get something out of nothing. If that’s what the Super Committee presents, we’d take a serious look at it.”
        
    The two other Hoosier House Republican freshmen – Reps. Todd Rokita and Larry Buschon – did not respond to interview requests.
        
    Exactly what the Super Committee is doing remains a secret. Despite pledges of transparency when it was formed in August, its negotiations have occurred behind closed doors.
        
    The bipartisan, bicameral panel consisting of six Republicans and six Democrats was created by a provision of legislation approved over the summer that lifted the U.S. debt ceiling. The group must come up with $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years by Nov. 23, and Congress must vote on the proposal by Dec. 23. Failure would result in automatic budget cuts totaling $1.2 trillion.
        
    No one – probably not even the members of the Super Committee – knows how or whether they’ll reach their target by Thanksgiving eve. In the meantime, the rumor mill is churning on Capitol Hill.
        
    “It seems like hourly I hear new rumblings of something that’s been put on the table,” Young said.
        
    Young opposes the alternative to a Super Committee deal – the $1.2 trillion sequestration, which would take an equal amount out of defense and non-defense spending. “The extent of cuts falling on defense does concern me,” Young said.
        
    If something emerges from the Super Committee, it is likely only to meet the minimum deficit-cutting goal, Stutzman predicts.
        
    “It looks like the path we’re on is something modest overall,” Stutzman said. “I’m disappointed. There is no sense of urgency in Washington to do big things and to make major reforms needed to change the way Washington currently operates.”
        
    Of course, in order to transform entitlement spending, Democrats will want Republicans to acquiesce on raising taxes on high-income individuals. Republicans are resisting that idea.
        
    Stutzman favors reforming tax deductions and loopholes in exchange for lower rates across the board.
        
    “I disagree with the premise that raising tax rates increases revenue,” Stutzman said. “A broad tax base will increase our revenue.”
        
    Of course, launching a debate over tax reform will require that the Super Committee come up with some kind of proposal. No one in Washington can handicap that prospect.
        
    “I am hopeful,” Young said. “I’m not optimistic. That would overstate my current feelings.”
        
    Young said his constituents want to see the Super Committee succeed.
        
    “They want solutions,” Young said. “They want us to search for common ground. That’s what I hope we deliver.”

    Schoeff is HPI’s Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - Waiting in the J.W. Marriott lobby for Gov. Mitch Daniels to return from a White House meeting in late February, I was confident that I would get some kind of story, or at least a viable Daily Wire brief.
        
    Daniels was back in Washington for second time that month. A few weeks earlier, the buzz about a potential Daniels presidential candidacy grew louder following a boffo speech before the Conservative Political Action Conference. At the moment, the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans were dithering toward the first of what would become several temporary continuing resolutions as they narrowly avoided a government shutdown while making modest deficit reductions.
        
    I was poised to ask Daniels a couple of questions that I thought would elicit understated zingers that have become his trademark. What I got was indeed understated - and almost completely useless until I sat down to write retrospectively about the presidential campaign that might have been.
        
    Here’s the entire transcript of my encounter with Daniels.
        
    Schoeff: Are either the Democrats or Republicans addressing budget issues in a way that will solve the deficit problem?
        
    Daniels: No.
        
    Schoeff: Have you learned anything during your visit this weekend that has brought you closer to a decision on whether to run for president?
        
    Daniels: Not really.
        
    I waited a moment to see if he would add anything. No such luck. I indicated I might have another question, so Daniels invited me to join him and an aide on the elevator.
        
    I stepped on board for what felt like an interminable trip to the 12th floor. I couldn’t think of a follow-up question because I was depending on his answers to the first two queries to catalyze a conversation. Instead I was, for the first time in memory, speechless in front of an important source who was on his way to his room to throw his clothes into his bag and then rush to the airport.
        
    I had hoped that Daniels would toss off some kind of bon mot that would illustrate which way he was leaning on a presidential bid. After all, I had given him an opening on his signature issue of fiscal rectitude. Or perhaps he would subtly slam both parties, setting himself above the fray the way a typical presidential candidate would.    
        
    Instead, he provided responses that evinced deep ambivalence about whether to launch a presidential campaign. In fact, the “not really” comment, which included a wan smile and a slight head shake, hinted that he would rather not think about the whole thing.
        
    Of course, Daniels is an astute political operative. He carefully plans his offensives and deftly plays the media when it advances his causes. He’s a master strategist.
        
    But our exchange at the J.W. Marriott didn’t feel the least bit calculated, and he wasn’t dismissing my questions. He just didn’t have much to say, a shocking reaction for a reporter who is used to Washington politicians bloviating about any issue any time a tape recorder is pointed in their direction.
        
    At that point, I thought to myself: Daniels is either genuinely conflicted about running for president or he is a world-class dissembler.
        
    A few months later, we all learned that Daniels had heartfelt doubts about a campaign. In a message to supporters last weekend, he said that his love for his wife and daughters trumped his love for his country. It was a note that defined family values in a few sentences better than so-called family-values candidates do over the course of an entire political campaign -- or career.
        
    Republicans better hope, however, that Daniels is not ending his political career when his gubernatorial term concludes in 18 months. He would make an outstanding vice presidential choice.
        
    Daniels’ presence on the ticket would allow the American electorate to test a hypothesis that will be central to the 2012 campaign: Competence is charisma.
        
    Whether the GOP nominee is Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Jon Huntsman, the addition of Daniels would add substantially to the gravitas quotient. It’s said that a nominee’s most important decision is his first. In this case, the candidate can demonstrate his commitment to restoring fiscal discipline in Washington by naming Daniels his VP and giving Daniels the budget-balancing portfolio.
        
    The two can then press President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden about why they squandered many opportunities to lead on budgetary matters. It would lead to three high-minded and, perhaps, scintillating debates.
        
    With Daniels on the ticket, the GOP nominee would be doubling down on authenticity and giving the American people a chance to endorse substance over style. He would offer a running mate who can both articulate a compelling vision for future solvency and also modestly listen to and learn from constituents, a combination that is rare among typical politicians.
        
    I was not able to cover Daniels this week when he visited Washington on Wednesday. I was in Fort Wayne, where I presented the Mark and Helen Schoeff Memorial Scholarship at Northrop High School, where my dad was the first athletic director. The $4,000 award goes to an outstanding Bruin senior who is headed to an Indiana college or trade school to continue his or her education.
        
    My parents taught me the Hoosier values that Daniels would have brought to the presidential race at the top of the GOP ticket. Perhaps he’ll be able to demonstrate them in the number two slot.

    Schoeff is HPI’s long-time Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - If Gov. Mitch Daniels’ call for a truce among Republicans on social issues is to become a reality, Indiana could be a good place to monitor whether it will become a reality.
            
    In the fierce battle over deficit and debt reduction in Washington, the GOP has held the high ground for weeks. Shortly after Daniels, in his CPAC speech in the capital in February, eloquently explained the nation’s fiscal crisis and outlined steps required to tackle it, President Barack Obama basically ignored the problem in his budget proposal.
            
    A week ago, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, offered a budget resolution for fiscal 2012 that would cut federal spending by $6.2 trillion more than Obama did in his blueprint and would reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion over the next decade compared to what Obama would do.
        
    Daniels and Ryan started a fiscal conversation that was amplified by the negotiations over the fiscal 2011 budget that concluded over the weekend with an agreement to cut current spending levels by $38 billion through the end of September.
        
    In sometimes tense talks with the White House and Senate Democrats to avoid a government shutdown, Republicans were able to cut spending by much more than Obama ever envisioned.
        
    Obama belatedly entered the budget discussion on Wednesday by laying out a plan that would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years but would leave the two biggest federal cost centers on autopilot – Medicare and Medicaid. Ryan was willing to take a political risk and address these hot-button programs.
        
    Republicans were dominating the fiscal dialogue until last Friday afternoon. For the first time in weeks, Democrats started to gain traction. They did it by refocusing the debate on social policy – zeroing in on the so-called policy riders that the House GOP was insisting be part of the fiscal 2011 agreement.
        
    The rider that caused the most controversy was one that would bar federal funding of Planned Parenthood and other health clinics under Title X. Its champion was Rep. Mike Pence (R-6th CD).
        
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asserted that Republicans and Democrats could settle their differences over spending. The problem was the social issues.
        
    “But now the Tea Party is trying to sneak through its extreme social agenda — issues that have nothing to do with funding the government,” Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor. He and other Democrats asserted that Republicans were trying to shut down the government over “women’s health.”
        
    All day, Democrats spoke to a constituency – women and independents – that likely would be turned off by Republican attempts to mix social and fiscal policy.
        
    It’s the group of voters who Daniels has suggested are crucial to bring on board if tough decisions are made to balance the budget. They are the folks who never listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
        
    In the end, the riders were mostly excised from the fiscal 2011 agreement, a move that was hailed as a victory by Democrats. Pence, however, is showing no signs of backing down.
        
    “Let me say, first off, it’s nonsense to say that Republicans were willing to shut down the government over (the Planned Parenthood rider),” Pence said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday. “What was clear here is that this administration and liberals in Congress were willing to shut the government down to continue to fund abortion providers in this country. Why would I fight for it? Let me explain. I’m pro-life. I don’t apologize for it. I also think it’s morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them) to fund abortion providers.”
        
    Pence’s Hoosier House colleagues were with him, although for them the riders were as much a means as an end. Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-3rd CD) is strongly pro-life but also wanted to ring as much savings out of the fiscal 2011 budget as possible.
        
    “You have to give us either cuts in spending or riders,” Stutzman said in an HPI interview last week.
        
    Rep. Todd Rokita (R-4th CD) emphasized that he is pro-life in every circumstance. But he acknowledged that Democrats took advantage of the social issues. “The riders have given Democrats a chance to cloud the anti-spending message,” Rokita said in an HPI interview last week. “It’s a spending bill, not an abortion bill. We’ll have plenty of time to fight those fights in a standalone bill.”
        
    Indeed, separate votes were scheduled this week on riders that were taken out of the fiscal 2011 measure.
    The GOP, however, may face another challenge in staying focused on the budget-cutting theme if Pence and his allies push again to attach riders to the debt-limit bill that is likely to come up in Congress between Memorial Day and July 4.
        
    It will be another opportunity to convince independents that Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility – as long as they don’t undermine that theme with social issues. Perhaps a truce is in order.

    Schoeff is HPI's Washington correspondent. 
  • WASHINGTON - Usually, the plum assignments for freshmen members of the U.S. House are seats on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, the Wall Street-oversight Financial Services Committee or the business-focused Energy and Commerce Committee.
        
    Although those perches remain in demand for their fundraising potential, this year’s class of newcomers is making the most of their roles on the House Budget Committee.
        
    This phenomenon can be seen in the Indiana delegation, where Reps. Todd Young (R-9th), Todd Rokita (R-4th) and Marlin Stutzman (R-3rd) were part of the tableau standing behind the budget panel chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, on Tuesday when Ryan introduced the GOP’s blueprint for fiscal 2012 federal spending.
        
    The budget resolution, entitled “The Path to Prosperity,” would cut $5.8 trillion from the current budget baseline over the next 10 years and reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion compared to the budget President Barack Obama presented in February.
        
    Overall, it would reduce spending to 2008 levels. The deficit would be fall from the current $1.6 trillion to $385 billion by 2021. By the middle of the century, the national debt would be paid off.
        
    Waving the 72-page document, Ryan asserted at the Capitol Hill unveiling that the budget resolution addressed the fundamental danger facing the country – a fiscal red-ink hemorrhage that threatens to undermine upward mobility for future generations and puts America farther behind in repaying its foreign creditors. The deficit is currently $1.6 trillion while the debt weighs in at $14.3 trillion.
        
    The earnest, wonky Wisconsin Republican, who seemed to be teaching a Budget 101 class as much as rolling out a political manifesto, dismissed the notion that members of his own party would blanch at the cuts he’s advocating because of the electoral pain they could inflict.

    “They didn’t come here for a political career,” Ryan said, referring to freshmen like Young and Stutzman. “They came here for a cause. This is not a budget. This is a cause.”
        
    Young stepped into the spotlight at the press conference to explicate an important piece of that movement – reforming Medicaid, the federal program that funds medical care for the poor.
        
    Under the Ryan resolution, Medicaid spending would be reduced by nearly $800 billion over the next 10 years. It also would be converted to a block grant to states.

    “We want (Medicaid) to be sustainable,” Young said. “Unfortunately, under the current financing model, it is unsustainable. We give governors the flexibility to target aid to the neediest citizens.”
        
    Young’s choice of words reflected an attempt by Republicans not to seem draconian while slashing the budget. They argued that they were not trying to destroy the social safety net but rather trying to make it more effective and efficient.
            
    “These are bold reforms, but they’re reasonable reforms – the sorts of things many of us campaigned on before we came to Washington,” Young said.
            
    Casting the GOP budget-cutting effort in such measured terms may become more important as the debate goes on. Democrats are portraying the party as intent on eliminating benefits for seniors, children and other vulnerable constituencies while protecting tax breaks for the wealthy and guaranteeing subsidies for oil companies.
            
    One of the most telling Democratic reactions to the Ryan plan came from Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who voted in favor of the proposal by the president’s deficit commission that would stanch federal red ink through difficult policies choices.
        
    But Durbin was part of the united Democratic front against Ryan.
        
    “The Ryan Republican budget has three pillars: reduce Medicare benefits by more than half; reduce Medicaid benefits for seniors in nursing homes; and reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans,” Durbin said in a statement. “America can resolve its budget crisis without punishing the elderly and poor while rewarding the very rich.”
        
    Perhaps cognizant of the fact that independent voters are not necessarily as fervent as the Tea Party in demanding that Washington halt all other activity and slash spending, Young stopped short of calling for a government shutdown this week.
        
    If the House, Senate and White House can’t reach an agreement by Friday at midnight on funding for the six months remaining in fiscal 2011, many government operations will cease.
        
    On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Mike Pence announced he would favor a one-week extension, saying, “While I am frustrated that liberals in the Senate continue to resist our efforts to include even modest cuts in this year’s budget, I will support a one-week Continuing Resolution because the troops come first. We cannot put fiscal battles ahead of support for those who are fighting America’s real battles.”
        
    “I never favor a government shutdown,” Young told reporters after the budget press conference on Tuesday. “I’m going to allow our leadership to continue to work with (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on that issue. We’ve voted several times to keep the government open. The Senate is sitting on its hands.”
        
    Young is approaching the question of raising the debt limit in a similar way. He’s not drawing a bright line on where he will come down. Treasury Department officials estimate that the country will hit the debt ceiling as early as May.
        
    “I don’t favor violating a debt limit,” Young said. “I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote. Much will depend on the atmospherics – how seriously this budget is taken. I’ll be less apt to support efforts to raise the debt limit if I don’t feel others share that vision.”

    Schoeff is HPI's Washington correspondent.
     
  • By MARK SCHOEFF JR.
        
    WASHINGTON - Gov. Mitch Daniels came to Washington on Wednesday to proselytize about the urgent need to cut the federal deficit and debt while suggesting that those of the opposite political faith – Democrats – are more favorably positioned than his party to get the job done.
        
    “You’re better equipped than people who wear my uniform are to lead this drive back to solvency,” Daniels told Democrats in the audience at a dinner at the Newseum, where he was one of three recipients of the inaugural “Fiscy Awards” sponsored by Washington groups devoted to fiscal prudence.
        
    Daniels said that voters give Democrats the benefit of the doubt as the more paternalistic party, which means it has more latitude to make major changes in federal spending. But that requires, in Daniels’ view, the emergence of Democratic leaders who will abandon the party’s tendency to promote government expansion.
        
    Daniels spoke at a venue on Pennsylvania Avenue just blocks from the White House. He suggested that the current occupant, President Barack Obama, could achieve major advances in reducing the nearly $1.3 trillion federal deficit and the federal debt that’s approaching the $14.3 trillion mark that will require congressional action to raise the debt ceiling later this spring.
        
    “It may not be his view of what’s right,” Daniels said in an HPI interview after his remarks. “If he chose to, he’d be the most effective, and I’d lead the cheers.”
        
    As he usually is during visits to Washington, Daniels was coy about whether he wants to run for president himself. “I’m a long way from any such decision,” Daniels said. “I’d like to contribute (to the political discourse). I’m working on the problems of Indiana.”
        
    His success in transforming the state’s budget deficit to a surplus while reducing property taxes is the primary reason he was honored with a Fiscy by the Comeback America Initiative, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and the Concord Coalition.
        
    “This is a guy who taught us how to run a state,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin and another Fiscy recipient. Ryan was honored for outlining a plan to make structural changes in entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.
        
    The other Fiscy winner, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, also praised Daniels’ leadership of Indiana. “We need more of it in this town,” Conrad said.
        
    But the place where Conrad works, Capitol Hill, is likely to continue to be dysfunctional on fiscal issues. Conrad was part of a national deficit commission in which 11 of 18 members voted to approve in early December on a sweeping overhaul of the federal budget and tax system that would result in a $4 trillion reduction in projected deficits.
        
    It’s unclear, however, whether the new Congress, riven by partisan divisions between a Republican House and Democratic Senate, will adopt any of the commission’s ideas.
        
    While Congress struggles with fiscal matters, Daniels is not inclined to offer his own roadmap.
        
    “Nobody wants to hear a plan from me,” Daniels said. “When I’m asked questions, I give ‘for instances,’ I give examples.”
        
    He said his open to any kind of plan that reduces the deficit.  “I’m going with anything that makes the math work,” Daniels said.  Those ideas, however, did not percolate during the 2010 election, which was dominated by Tea Party activists advocating fiscal restraint.
        
    The election was “all diagnosis, no prescription,” Daniels said. Tackling Social Security and Medicare is “all work to be done.”
        
    Achieving solvency will occur only with significantly higher economic growth, according to Daniels. It also will require tax reform, but he cautioned against relying solely on increasing taxes for higher income levels, which could undermine the economy.
        
    “I am for a tax system that generates more revenue,” Daniels said. “But we better be very mindful of how we go after it. We’ve shot ourselves in the foot before – and we could do it again.”
        
    Most importantly, political leaders have to level with Americans about the challenge of fiscal rebalancing, Daniels said. It can’t be done simply by banning earmarks or eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, which “trivializes something much, much larger.”
        
    Daniels is optimistic that the country will accept sacrifices needed to achieve solvency.
        
    “I really believe…that our fellow citizens will have the courage to support the necessary actions if we have the courage to propose, advocate and explain them,” Daniels said. “I do believe we’re going to get to the point where the American people will say, ‘If that’s what it takes for my kids to grow up in a more prosperous country, let’s go.’”
     
12

The HPI iOS App is now available!




Android version
coming soon!


An image.
  • Sen. Coats says Baghdad could fall to ISIS
    “I think it could. They’re on the outskirts. And if that happens, it’s over. Then you’d have a state run by terrorists.” - U.S. Sen. Dan Coats, to Howey Politics Indiana when we asked whether ISIS could take Baghdad. Coats sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Several news agencies are reporting that ISIS is eight miles from the airport and that suicide bombers have infiltrated the Iraqi capital city. Read Brian Howey's column below and left for more perspective from Sen. Coats. 
An image.
Toll Road

Should the Indiana Toll Road revert back to the state since the bankrupt leasor is not living up to maintenance agreements?


 

An image.
An image.
An image.
Home | Login | Subscribe | About | Contact
© 2014 Howey Politics, All Rights Reserved • Software © 1998 - 2014 1up!