House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) recently laid out his plans for the House “to address the nationwide opioid epidemic.” The majority leader is to be commended for announcing in a transparent and articulate manner his blueprint for this problem. This effort at dialogue and the openness it demonstrates is welcome and courageous. While the majority leader’s goals for addressing opioid issue are laudable, it is vital that McCarthy not repeat former Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) disastrous and constitutionally dubious “Make Life Work” initiative in the process. That effort pushed progressive legislative proposals in an effort to soften the image of Republicans in the House. The result was that it blurred the distinction between Republicans and Democrats to the frustration of the former and the delight of the latter. McCarthy should take care not to head down the same path with his endeavor.
{mosads}Cantor launched his ill-fated blueprint in February 2013 with a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. There were warning signs from the start that the foundations of his plan weren’t conservative. He explained that “the House majority will pursue an agenda based on a shared vision of creating the conditions for health, happiness and prosperity for more Americans and their families. And to restrain Washington from interfering in those pursuits.” This assertion ignores the fact that the Constitution doesn’t envision a federal government that would be involved in creating these conditions. He then went on to contradict himself by stating that he would move to keep Washington from being involved in these areas. The contradiction was a natural corollary of his plan. It isn’t possible to legislate in a sort of conservative way but not really, and at the same time get some Democratic votes in the House and make the media happy. It doesn’t work that way in practice on Capitol Hill.
The contradictions continued when Cantor said that under his leadership, the House would “advance proposals aimed at producing results in areas like education, health care, innovation and job growth. Our solutions will be based on the conservative principles of self-reliance, faith in the individual, trust in the family and accountability in government.” There is no conservative way to be involved in areas that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserves to the states. That can’t be triangulated without losing ideological credibility — which is what quickly happened.
In the name of “making life work,” Cantor championed legislation that involved the federal government as a backstop for people with preexisting conditions, diluting the healthcare reimbursement plans and strengthening Obamacare. That legislation also ignored the fact that the Constitution doesn’t allow federal involvement in healthcare. The bill was unpopular among his colleagues, the plan was dubbed “CantorCare.” The bill was so bad it had to be pulled from consideration on the House floor. Cantor worked to boost funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) when he should have been working to wind it down. The NIH has no constitutional mandate, and its continued existence detracts from the private sector which can conduct medical research more efficiently and with better results. Cantor also worked to streamline and thus reinforce federal job training programs instead of taking the conservative approach and eliminating them, letting the states and the free market do this work more efficiently. As The New York Times observed, “Items that Mr. Cantor had hoped would change the Republican Party’s look, if not its priorities, have been ignored, have been greeted with yawns or have only worsened Republican divisions.”
McCarthy is looking for policy and legislative space for Republicans to claim that are traditionally owned by Democrats. That is to be commended. He should do so by moving legislation that is conservative, not a more benign form of progressive policies. The majority leader explained in his op-ed that House committees will be working on legislation to address the problems created by opioid addiction. Admittedly, the legislation is a work in progress and specific language awaits drafting and review. But what we know from what the majority leader wrote is alarming. Among other items, he is championing language to help communities suffering from the addiction epidemic, as well as “bills to improve treatment, prevention, and education efforts for those with opioid addiction.”
Again, these are laudable goals, but the Constitution leaves them to the states, the federal government is $19 trillion dollars in debt (thanks in part to McCarthy voting to raise the debt ceiling), and the inefficiencies of the federal government make it a suboptimal entity to help fight opioid addiction. The U.S. government lacks the constitutional mandate, the cash and the efficiencies to take on this fight. That is why the Founding Fathers gave the federal government very little power, and reserved the vast majority of it to the states.
The majority leader’s plan — admittedly in its early stages — is redolent of Cantor’s Make Life Work project. Take an issue of importance that has compelling personal stories, is traditionally on policy territory occupied by Democrats, and create legislation to address it that puts a purportedly conservative spin on what is, at the core, a Democratic solution. This is a deeply flawed strategy, as is demonstrated by the fact that its major proponent, Cantor, is now employed elsewhere. Conservatives, however, have the answers to address the challenges facing the Americans and their communities: trust the people and get the federal government out of the way. The Founders knew that. Some have forgotten it.
When reviewing the suite of bills that the House will take up regarding the opioid epidemic, the majority leader should ask himself the following questions before he schedules them for floor action: Do they shrink the scale and scope of the federal government, do they add to the already enormous price tag of the federal government, do they put communities and the people in charge and not Beltway bureaucrats, and do they put the federal government on a glidepath back to the plain language of the 10th Amendment?
As Majority Leader McCarthy works with his colleagues in the House to address opioid addiction, he should craft conservative solutions that return power to the states on these matters and reduce the role of the federal government. He should not follow the flawed approach of Eric Cantor and tack to the left. That approach has helped create ideological conflict in the party and has contributed to the decimation of the party’s platform. When approaching the issue of how to curb opioid addiction, McCarthy would be wise to reject the example of Cantor and instead bear in mind President Ronald Reagan’s epigram: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” The American people, their communities, and the states know how to make life work. Let’s get out of the way and let them do it.
Siefring is director of strategic initiatives for FreedomWorks. His views are his own. Follow him on Twitter @NeilSiefring.