Just a few years ago, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) would have been an unlikely example of a Republican who could make inroads with the Hispanic community. Having just won a congressional seat recently held by immigration hardliner, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, Coffman looked certain to continue in his footsteps.

But now in his third term, Coffman has been literally writing the playbook on how the Republican Party can broaden its support in an increasingly young and diverse electorate.

While it’s true there has been a marked shift in Coffman’s stance since being redistricted into a more diverse congressional district, it’s clear that his change is sincere, thoughtful and, perhaps most importantly, substantive. What’s more, Coffman is certainly not the first public elected officials to adapt in order to best represent the needs of his constituents.

In other ways, Coffman really hasn’t changed much. The former Colorado state treasurer remains pro-life, economically conservative and in favor of repealing Obamacare. In fact, according to a recent article by the Denver Post, Coffman is a “far-right Republican” based on the government-data website GovTrack.us

Perhaps Coffman’s biggest change is his commitment to learning Spanish. To do this, the Colorado lawmaker is setting aside time to learn using the popular language-learning tool, Rosetta Stone. He’s also chatting in Spanish with some of his fellow Republicans. Native Spanish speaker Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) told the Wall Street Journal that Coffman’s “verb conjugation is good.” Coffman has also hired a Spanish language tutor.

Coffman’s hard work has been paying off. Not only is he able to conduct interviews with Spanish language media, he actually debated his previous opponent entirely in Spanish. Quite a feat for someone that spoke virtually no Spanish just a few years back.

Coffman handily beat former Democratic state house Speaker Andrew Romanoff 52-42 in the 2014 congressional election.

However helpful Spanish has been to communicate with some of his new constituents, it’s clear that bilingualism only one part of a bigger strategy of making Coffman more accessible. He has also created a number of advisory councils that provide him with a way of not only communicating with constituents in his district, but also as a way of listening and learning.

“In the district I have now, there is a significant Hispanic population,” Coffman told Politico in 2013. “And meeting with those people really put a face on it.”

Coffman recently joined Curbelo to introduce the “Recognizing American Children Act” that would legalize a portion of the young adult immigrant population that is enrolled, serving in the military or gainfully employed.

In a recent campaign advertisement titled “One of Us,” the minute-long ad features a number of individuals expressing support for Coffman. Among the voices include Ethiopian, Korean and Latin American immigrants signing his praises.

“Mike is not like other Republicans,” says one of the voices in the ad.

The sentiment is shared by Paulo Sibaja, a former Republican National Committee staff member, now a resident of Colorado’s bell weather Arapahoe County. “Rep. Coffman is an exemplary leader committed to all of his constituents. He fights for the Hispanic vote and fights for our community.”

When asked why other Republicans should follow his lead, Coffman tells Opportunity Lives: “The Hispanic population is one of the fastest growing minority groups in the country. It is absolutely vital that all leaders — including local, state, and federal — embrace the growing diversity that is America.”

And with estimates that a large number of eligible Hispanic voters are registering as independents and many more are not excited about voting for Hillary Clinton, Republicans certainly have an opening to make their pitch to the fastest growing demographic.

Whether or not others follow, Coffman sounds like he has discovered a naturally conservative constituency: “The Hispanic community is aspirational and deeply cares about the ability to achieve the American dream and are willing to work very hard toward that goal.”

Israel Ortega is a Senior Writer for Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter:@IzzyOrtega.

When Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, announced his retirement from Congress last year, his fellow Minnesotans knew that the Marine Corps veteran would leave big shoes to fill. Kline, whose highly decorated service is best remembered for his role as the keeper of the “nuclear football” for President Ronald Reagan, made a name for himself during his seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives as a deeply honorable man and a strong conservative.

As the primary season heated up, Kline decided to let the public know the name of the individual he wanted to replace him: Darlene Miller.

“I believe she has the conservative values and real-world experience we need in Congress, and she’s the candidate that can win in November,” Kline explained.

Miller grew up in New Prague, Minnesota, where she was one of eight children who helped her parents work their family farm. The lessons learned in that rural community shaped her character for life.

“My upbringing instilled in my [siblings] and me a strong work ethic like most Americans have,” Miller told Opportunity Lives. “We never believed something was to be handed to us. We were expected to and had to work for what we wanted and believed.”

Miller left the family farm in 1992 to take a manufacturing job at Honeywell. Like many other Midwesterners, she wondered if there was a brighter professional future for her off the assembly line.

“My supervisor on the production line told me daily that if I didn’t move on and live up to my potential, I would be there for the rest of my career, as the job paid well and the benefits were great,” Miller said. “I took that to heart. It really motivated me to set goals and go after them.”

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., is retiring after 14 years of serving the people of Minnesota’s 2nd congressional district. | Photo: AP

Sensing an urgency to make a career change before settling into an unfulfilling job, Miller left Honeywell in 1992 to become a sales representative for Permac Industries. Miller quickly realized that Permac could be more than a typical metal parts manufacturer under her leadership. She believed it had the potential to grow into something much bigger.

After just nine months in sales, Miller purchased 45 percent of the company. She would go on to purchase the remainder within a year. She had big plans for Permac — and she couldn’t wait to take the helm.

“My goal after purchase was to grow the business and elevate our presence in the machining world, which is exactly what happened,” Miller said. “Along with all the help of great employees, I transformed Permac into a 21st century precision manufacturing company that produces parts that go into everything from motorcycles to missiles.”

Over the past two decades, Miller has been lauded as one of the top business and civic leaders in the Twin Cities and across the United States. Her achievements garnered the attention of former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.), who invited her to participate in two economic development trips on behalf of the state to China and South America.

In 2006, she won the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Small Business Person of the Year from her home state. In 2007, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce presented her with its blue ribbon award. She served as the first female president of the Precision Machined Products Association and, in 2016, she was inducted into the Minnesota Women Business Owner Hall of Fame.

The grandmother of four has never held elected office, but she thinks her experience in business and economic development — especially in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) field — makes her uniquely qualified to serve Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District in Washington.

Photo: PMPA

“When you run a business, every day you are faced with the cold hard truth of what is working and what is not. How do you meet the bottom line? You have to make decisions,” Miller said. “Government policies too often are the opposite of being results-focused. They focus on maintaining something that isn’t working. They focus on appearing to care, without making a difference. There are a lot of people hurting out there. Government isn’t helping them and that needs to change. Sometimes, that will be fixing a program. Other times, it will be by getting government out of the way.”

Miller’s says he hopes her business acumen can inspire policy changes that will improve competitiveness.

“The solution, like so many things in life, is about setting priorities, goals and then insisting on results. It’s also more complicated than any single fix,” Miller said. “Some talk about the problems in our schools, but they settle for what’s not working. We need to expand areas like charter schools that will stop teaching down and experiment with teaching and demanding the best from our students.”

Miller’s success in the manufacturing world is an outlier in an industry dominated by men. But Miller believes that with a strong work ethic and dedication, women can achieve anything they desire.

“I never focused on the barriers. I focused on the opportunities and the goals I wanted to achieve — not that it was always easy,” Miller said. “Find your mentors or people who can help you with their guidance and experience. They are… very willing to help you be successful. You only need to ask for their help. The barriers [to success] are real, but in my case, I crossed them because I stayed focused on the results that matter to my business and to me. I always believed we could be successful if we worked hard enough.”

Miller hopes that her hard work and determination will help her achieve her next dream: becoming a congresswoman. She is optimistic they’ll consider her civic contributions and professional accomplishments when selecting their candidate.

“I have always felt I needed to be a part of a solution if I was going to complain,” she said. “I saw firsthand and felt the frustration of lack of encouraging businesses to start and to grow. This prevents opportunities for generations to come.”

Miller says she was fortunate to start a fast track, credentialed training program, Right Skills Now, “with the collaboration of others and without government bureaucracy.”

“This program has expanded to eight states with a 99 percent placement rate and helped people get off of government assistance and into training that would jump start them into a middle class, good-paying career,” she said. “I have proven we can make a difference and be part of a solution. Someone needs to step up and start to fix government. We cannot rely on others — it is our responsibility to make a difference. I felt I had the ability and it was my duty to do so.”

Miller knows that if elected, she must live up to the extraordinary legacy of her predecessor. She considers it a calling.

“John Kline is one of the good ones. He is not a career politician. His real career was in the U.S. Marines. His background and mine are different in that sense,” she said. “However, we both have a determination to get results and a dislike for the petty political games so many in politics seem to value. He and I share conservative values and want to see government living up to those values. We know those values will help people’s lives.”

Ellen Carmichael is a senior writer for Opportunity Lives. Follow her on Twitter @ellencarmichael.

The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation nearly unanimously on Friday to stop opioid overdoses as the prescription pill epidemic spreads across America. Democrats initially vowed to vote against the bill, but ultimately joined with the GOP majority to approve of the package by a vote of 407 to 5.

The conference report is expected to coast through the U.S. Senate, and later, be signed into law by President Obama. The bipartisan effort is expected to be one of the biggest legislative achievements in D.C. this year, signaling that lawmakers are increasingly concerned about the threats prescription pill abuse impose upon Americans from all walks of life.

House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) called the legislation “the most serious and comprehensive effort ever undertaken by this body to tackle this problem.”

The House Committee on Appropriations also released a proposed health spending bill this week that would authorize an additional $500 million in funding to combat the prescription opioid crisis that claimed the lives of more than 165,000 Americans from 1999 to 2014.

While many were practicing law, running a business or serving in the state legislature in anticipation of running for federal office, U.S. Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) was serving as an undercover officer for the Central Intelligence Agency in the Middle East and Asia.

Since arriving in Congress in January 2015, the freshman lawmaker has been an important voice on matters related to national security and intelligence-gathering. Hurd serves as the chairman of the Information Technology Subcommittee and is a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

                                                Image: Express News

Besides having one of the coolest jobs before arriving to Congress, Hurd also has the unique responsibility of representing one of the largest congressional districts by area. Encompassing more than 48,000 square miles and nearly 825 miles between the U.S.-Mexico border, Texas’s 23rd congressional district is massive — bigger, in fact, than 29 U.S. states!

Opportunity Lives recently had a chance to sit down for a quick interview with Hurd to learn more about this first-term congressman from the Lone Star State.

1. iPhone, Galaxy or Droid?

Droid

2. Name one Democrat in the House you are friends with.

Ted Lieu from California. He and I both hold computer science degrees.

                         Image: FCW

3. Favorite beer?

I don’t always drink beer, but when I do I drink Big Bend Brewery’s Hefeweizen or Alamo Golden Ale.

4. What’s the one thing people don’t get about Texas?

The Ysleta, Socorro and San Elizabeth missions are the oldest churches in Texas.

5. Favorite spy movie

Ben Affleck’s “Argo.” It’s a famous case study that everyone who goes through CIA training learns about.

                                           Image: Youtube

6. What’s your guilty pleasure television show?

I love CBS’s “Big Brother.” I wish they would have a season with all of the former members of Congress. It would be amazing.

7. “West Wing” or “House of Cards”?

West Wing for sure. The arch when Josh got shot is some of the best TV ever.

8. What did your 10-year-old self want to be as a grown up?

I wanted to be a chemist or an engineer. I liked science and building things.

9. Favorite thing about being a member of Congress?

I get to help folks fight the government bureaucracy every day. I also speak at many schools as I can and if I’m able to get one kid to reach beyond his or her own perceived limits then I’ll be happy.

                                                                                 Image: hurd.house.gov

10. What book are you reading for fun right now?

A book about Marco Polo by Lawrence Bergreen.

Also, Hurd’s Spanish is not too shabby. Check out this short video of Hurd’s bill to rename the Tornillo Port of Entry in El Paso County after Army Private Marcelino Serna, a Mexican immigrant who was the most decorated World War I veteran from Texas.

Israel Ortega is a Senior Writer for Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter: @IzzyOrtega

(House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. / Photo: AP)

Earlier this summer, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) released “A Better Way,” the congressional Republicans’ agenda for moving Americans out of poverty and welfare dependency and into independence and success. The document was “developed with input from around the country, it looks past this president to what we can achieve in 2017 and beyond. It is our vision for a confident America, at home and abroad. It is a clear and compelling choice for our future.”

One of those whose input went into he document was Tarren Bragdon, founder and CEO of the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA). In 2015, the FGA helped to pass welfare reform in 22 states, which moved nearly 3 million people out of welfare and saved taxpayers $56 billion over the next decade. Another 32 states have committed to these changes in 2016. An additional 4.3 million people will be able to leave welfare behind, saving the taxpayers an estimated $102 billion in the same time period.  

With a proven track record in effecting meaningful welfare reform, Bragdon was invited to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee in May. It was the committee’s first hearing on welfare reform in a decade. 

“The tragedy of the failed welfare state is not how much money is being spent,” he testified. “The real tragedy is how many families are being trapped in poverty for far too long, sometimes generations.” 

The current model of welfare isn’t working. According to the American Enterprise Institute, the odds of a child born into poverty moving out of poverty has not changed in two decades. Bragdon spoke of Kansas and Maine, which have restored requirements that able-bodied, childless adults work, volunteer, or undergo job training 20 hours per week in order to maintain benefits. Both states have seen incredible results.

In Kansas, 20 percent of able-bodied adults were on food stamps in 2013, with more than 90 percent of them with incomes below the poverty lines. Since implementing these reforms, the number has dropped by 75 percent. Nearly 60 percent of food stamp recipients found employment within one year, and making an average of 127 percent more than they did on public assistance.

As 2014 drew to a close, Maine had approximately 12,000 able-bodied childless adults receiving welfare. Just months later, in March 2015, the number had plummeted to 2,680. Around 9,000 people had been freed from poverty and put on the path to prosperity.

“The work requirement in welfare is the best way to get somebody out of poverty, because it gets them back to work,” Bragdon told Opportunity Lives. “We know that a full-time job is the best way for somebody to get out of poverty. Only three percent of people working full-time are in poverty.”

After the hearing, Ryan released “A Better Way,” which includes this work requirement for welfare. In fact, the number one idea in the poverty reduction section of the document is “Reward work. If you are capable, we will expect you to work or to prepare for work.”

Amelia Hamilton is a contributor for Opportunity Lives. You can follow her on Twitter @ameliahammy.

While serving in New York state government, John Faso helped draft a new state budget that sought to close a $5 billion deficit while also cutting taxes. He helped pass Jenna’s Law, which ended parole for violent felons, over the objection of Sheldon Silver, the former New York Assembly Speaker who is currently serving time in prison on corruption charges. Faso was also one of first proponents of charter schools in New York’s 19th congressional district, where last month he clinched the Republican nomination for Congress.

Faso said the biggest problem facing his district is slow economic growth, which has resulted in population decline. He said tax and regulatory reform are the best ways to inspire more private sector economic growth.

“The top priority is definitely getting our economy back on track,” Faso told Opportunity Lives. “National debt is $19 trillion and counting, and that doesn’t account for all of the unfunded liabilities we have for healthcare and retirement security. And what I think the key here is to restrain and reform spending, but again create more economic growth in the country.”

America’s statutory corporate tax rate of 35 percent is too high, Faso said; he’d like to cut it to somewhere between 22 and 25 percent. He also wants to reduce the complexity of the corporate tax code and eliminate some deductions that would be offset by the reduced topline rate. Faso said too often small businesses are hit the most by the tax code’s complexity, unlike larger firms, which have an army of accountants. Faso also called for repatriation of corporate funds.

“I think that we should have a simpler, less complex tax system, both individually and for the corporate side,” Faso said. “We’ve got to fix this situation where U.S. multinational corporations are double taxed when they build foreign earnings at home. And I think that’s why we’ve got such a signification number of some $2.7 trillion worth of foreign earnings that are stashed abroad because it’s a unitary and not a tax system.”

Faso said Dodd-Frank financial regulations created the unintended consequence of reducing the number of community or small and medium-sized banks, which are the predominant drivers of economic development in his district.

“None of them were the systemic risk,” he said, yet these small banks are the ones unable to bear the burden of “tens of thousands of dollars or more for compliance for employees to produce reports that nobody reads.”

Faso said many small businesses have told him they aren’t going to grow above 50 employees because of the Affordable Care Act, or are shifting toward more part-time employment.

“That’s not a desirable goal, either,” Faso said. “While most of the regulation springs from good intention, much of it in practice acts as a disadvantage to economic activity.”

Faso said that New York now ranks 50th in business climate, in part due to regulations on everything from housing to automobile lending imposed by a bevy of federal agencies. He’s also concerned about executive overreach on the Affordable Care Act and immigration.

“These are examples of regulatory overreach we’ve seen this in the Obama administration,” Faso said. “It’s something that I think the Congress needs to step in and assert its prerogative. It’s unfortunate that the president has attempted to dramatically expand his authority through executive action where I don’t think he has it. Unfortunately, the wheels of justice grind slow. Whoever the next president is, I really hope the next Congress will act as co-equals and act as a check to the balance of power.”

Faso called 2016, “a unique year politically,” given the historic unpopularity of both major parties’ presidential candidates. But he doesn’t think this will hurt his chances in winning a seat in Congress.

“I think voters are able to distinguish between the office that they’ll be voting on and the candidate that they’ll be voting on,” Faso said. “I don’t see the decision for the presidential race affecting the decision for Congress in this district. I’m certainly hoping that the voters will pay attention to what I’m saying as opposed to what somebody else is saying.”

Faso said the political climate and rhetoric this presidential cycle is responding to some legitimate concerns.

“We’ve got to get more economic growth because that will resolve much of this anxieties that people are feeling,” Faso said. “What they are tapping into in terms of that anxiety is real. Now what is often not reflected in a lot of their rhetoric, or not reflected at all, just manufacturing just like agriculture, only a fraction but we produce so much more in terms of agriculture commodities and product.”

Faso said he was concerned about much of the rhetoric this presidential election cycle around the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

“We have to be really careful about that in New York,” Faso said of the anti-NAFTA sentiment. “If there are aspects that need to be addressed, we should also recognize that there are more than 600,000 jobs dependent on trade with Canada. A lot of the rhetoric we hear is focused on Mexico. It’s often ignored that Canada is our largest trading partner. We have a healthy interaction with Canada, and that means a lot of New York jobs. Because it’s a success story, by and large, it doesn’t get commented on.”

During the GOP primary, Faso won in a two-man race with 68 percent of vote. He’s also received the backing from the Conservative, Independent and Reform parties. Faso has has the endorsement of Rep. Chris Gibson, the popular incumbent congressman who is leaving after a self-imposed limit of three terms.

“Chris is a great model,” Faso said. “He shows that working across party lines we can solve the problems that this country faces. The country is polarized, and in order to get the economy going and to solve the Medicare and Medicaid crises, we have to work on a bi-partisan basis to ensure that those programs are protected for the current recipients but also that they are solvent in the future.”

Carrie Sheffield is a senior contributor for Opportunity Lives. You can follow her on Twitter @carriesheffield and on Facebook.

(U.S. Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz. / Photo: AP)

Throughout her life, Martha McSally has been a fighter.

While attending an all-girls’ Catholic high school, she received a prestigious appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy, a rather unusual distinction for a young woman in the mid-1980s. After finishing her studies at USAFA, she earned her master’s degree from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. McSally then took part in pilot training, ultimately finishing first in her class at the Air War College.

“I grew up in a house where I was told I could be anything I wanted to be. There were no limitations on me because I was a girl,” she told Opportunity Lives.

“I actually didn’t want to be a pilot,” McSally admitted. “I had motion sickness when I was a kid. I wanted to be a doctor. But because [military leadership] told me I couldn’t do it, I was very motivated to prove them wrong. I just decided I had this dream in my heart that I was going to become a fighter pilot. I was going to become the first woman fighter pilot.”

At the time, it was against the law for women to serve in that combat role. But, like many other times in McSally’s life, she wouldn’t be stopped by others’ restrictions.

“People laughed at me. But I said, ‘You know what? This is America. The law is going to change. I’m going to excel. I’m going to lean forward. I’m going to continue to grow and build my capabilities and my skills. And if the door opens, I’ll be ready to bust through it,’” McSally recalled. “I was so fortunate to be in the right place at the right time with the right qualifications when the law was finally repealed, and later on, when the Pentagon finally repealed its policies.”

It took a decade. Rising to the rank of colonel, she became the first woman ever to fly in combat in the U.S. Air Force. She served in Operation Southern Watch, Operation Allied Force and Operation Enduring Freedom, retiring after 26 years of distinguished service. From Eastern Europe to Iraq, McSally sought to demonstrate American values in the way she conducted herself in uniform and with the changes her determination could catalyze.

“The principles of this country are meritocratic. It’s about increased opportunities for people based on hard work and capabilities,” she said.

For McSally, even the sky wasn’t a limit. One day, she noticed an instructional pamphlet ordering American servicewomen to dress in traditional Muslim clothing when operating in the Middle East. She was infuriated.

The U.S. military, she believed, should maintain its own values and not diminish them in the countries where it operated. After all, the United States is the best ambassador for its own mission when it demonstrates its character, even in contentious circumstances.

“We should certainly be respectful, but we don’t have to change who we are because we’re dealing with a country stuck in the 7th century based on how they deal with women,” she said. “We have to create that discomfort instead of buckling under pressure.”

After doing some digging, McSally realized that no one was quite sure where the order originated or who was mandating it. The military bureaucracy was maddening, and no one could give her an answer as to how to change the policy.

Each time she raised questions, she hit a dead end. Worse, she often met threats of punishment for speaking out. During this time, she was forced to wear the abiya, a loose-fitting women’s robe, and headscarf, as she sat in the back seat of vehicles journeying across the Middle East.

McSally, pictured here on Capitol Hill in 2002, rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Air Force and was the first female fighter pilot in combat in American history. | Photo: AP

After years of searching, McSally determined that the policy was first written as a recommendation in a local memo by a two-star general years prior and had been inexplicably enforced across the armed forces. To her, this was simply unacceptable.

“It’s part of who I am. If I see something I think is wrong, I’m going to do what I can to find out where it came from and see what I can do to change it,” McSally explained.

So, she filed a landmark case, McSally v. Rumsfeld, arguing that American servicewomen should not be forced to accommodate host nation traditions in dress when performing duties abroad. After eight years, Congress and the Bush administration finally repealed the regulation.  

But McSally’s quest for women’s equality didn’t stop there. After witnessing the inequality facing girls and women worldwide, especially in countries where the United States has a military presence, she dedicated part of her life to advocating their cause.

“I have been deployed to countries where women are treated as property, where women are systematically abused, honor-killed. They don’t have the basic rights that we have in our country. It’s pretty egregious. That’s the real war on women,” McSally said. “They’re married off as children. They’re systematically subjected to sexual abuse and assault. They don’t have the same rights in the legal system or to own property or to divorce or to travel without the permission their husband or their father who owns them. No opportunities for education. The plight is horrendous.”

“I’ve seen it firsthand. I believe so strongly and deeply — and studies have shown — that if we provide opportunities for girls and women to get an education, to meet their full potential, it can literally transform societies,” McSally explained.

McSally says that it’s crucial for girls to get an education, to open businesses, and to contribute to the public and privates sectors in order for societies to advance. “I’ve seen it. I’ve passionately spoken about it. After I retired, I was a professor in Germany, and we would have students from all over the world coming to our courses. And I used to teach on various issues, including the importance of women to participate in the security sector and civil society,” she said.

“Giving women and girls opportunity is pivotal to stability, prosperity and security for nations around the world,” she added.

After her time in the U.S. military and academia, McSally said she knew she wanted to serve her country in a different way. After losing by fewer than 3,000 votes in a 2012 contest, the colonel became Representative McSally from Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District in January 2015.

“I consider my service in Washington, D.C., to be the new combat mode I’ve deployed to,” she laughed.

Since taking office, she has represented her district with the same devotion she did her country in wars abroad. McSally has fought for their needs on two key committees that deeply affect her constituents: the House Committee on Armed Forces and the House Committee on Homeland Security. She is also chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, filling a vital role for her border district.

Seven of McSally’s bills have passed the House, an extraordinary accomplishment for a freshman member of Congress. In fact, she is currently tied for third among all members for total number of bills making it through the chamber, exceeding peers with three or four decades in office. Her efficacy is an outlier in Washington, especially as Americans lament the lack of cooperation and productivity on Capitol Hill.

Unwilling to simply be a seat-filler, McSally has strived to make her district proud. She’s tackled a tough portfolio of legislative issues, but she’s not stopping there. She seeks to truly transform the American labor force in a way that acknowledges the gifts and talents of all people.

Recently, she launched a congressional working-group on women in the 21st century workforce. Her task force is made up of dozens of lawmakers who aim to encourage greater professional development of women by expanding opportunity, increasing flexibility, removing barriers and empowering the next generation.

For the McSally, at the heart of it all is what it’s always been: fighting for what’s right. From foreign skies to military bureaucracies to the halls of Congress, she’s put doing the right thing first, even when it became difficult or she had to stand alone.

Today, she’s standing for Arizonans in the U.S. House of Representatives. And with the depth of her conviction and the sincerity of her cause, she’s standing for all women, too — in America and around the globe.

Ellen Carmichael is a senior writer for Opportunity Lives. Follow her on Twitter @ellencarmichael.

Most Americans — even journalists — spent this July 4 with their families, enjoying the outdoors, grilling and watching fireworks displays. That’s probably why so few people heard about the rocket attack on a small camp in Iraq, housing over 1,000 Iranians. Ironically, the camp is called “Camp Liberty.”

Although the underreported attack left 50 people wounded, several key politicians took notice and have responded.

U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) condemned the attack in a statement. “Sadly, this is not the first time the residents of Camp Liberty have been the victims of horrific attacks,” McCain said. “And I remain deeply concerned about their safety. While I am pleased by the State Department’s effort to expedite the residents’ resettlement to a safe location, this latest attack demonstrates the need for the United States and Iraq to do more to ensure the security of Camp Liberty during this process.”

To understand the importance of Camp Liberty and why it faces continued threats, it would be best to look at a recent rally in Paris, France.

On July 9, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) brought together more than 100,000 people in support of a free Iran. The event focused on working toward a democratic Iran, no longer bound by the current theocratic regime. A bipartisan group of Americans spoke at the gathering including politicians, generals and activists. Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) took the stage.

NCRI is the umbrella organization for a number of anti-regime political movements from Iran. The largest and most well-known branch is the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK. The people attacked in Camp Liberty are connected to this group.

Maryam Rajavi, the President of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, speaks at the “Free Iran” annual gathering of Iranian communities in Paris, France. | Photo: AP

The MEK has a unique relationship with America. In 1997, it was added to the U.S. terror list under President Bill Clinton, allegedly at the request of the Iranian regime during negotiations. In 2012, a bipartisan group of congressmen worked to remove the group from the list, citing the MEK’s help with U.S. intelligence efforts in Iran, as well as no recent history of terrorist activities and the political motivations for placing the group on the list in the first place.

Almost every American speaking at NCRI mentioned Camp Liberty. Former White House director of public liaison Linda Chavez said, “Let’s honor and commend the bravery and dedication of Camp Liberty residents.” Francis Townsend, a former homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush, brought up the bipartisan advocacy on the part of Americans. “We’re not done with that work until the last person leaves Camp Liberty, we will not be stopped,” Townsend said.

It makes sense that Americans feel connected to what happens at Camp Liberty, since the location is a former U.S military base. The residents of the camp were evicted from their former location, Camp Ashraf, also a U.S. base.

Ashraf, a city and then a base, was established by the MEK in 1986, when their members fled persecution in Iran and began setting up a militarized presence in Iraq. The U.S. assumed control of the base after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The MEK relinquished its weapons in 2004 and received protected status under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Retired Colonel Wesley Martin was the first U.S. military official to serve as base commander in 2006. During his time at Ashraf, Martin developed a professional relationship with the MEK, and when his tour of duty ended he continued to stay in communication with the group’s leaders on behalf of the State Department and the Pentagon. But when President Obama pulled out of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq in 2009, U.S. support for camps such as Ashraf went away as well. The camp was turned over to Iraq’s government.

Due to numerous conflicts and Iraq’s desire to close the camp, the United Nations stepped in. Attempts at mediation with Iraq failed and in 2011, Martin Kobler, head of the United Nations’ Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) took over. He altered the UN’s policy toward the MEK, leaning on their designation as terrorists. He shifted from seeking human rights assistance to a plan for relocation. This goal was much more acceptable to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

So in 2012 the residents of Ashraf were forcibly moved to Camp Liberty, which was smaller and less hospitable than the previous location. In fact, a working group of the UN Human Rights Council called the status of the MEK at both Camp Liberty and Camp Ashraf “arbitrary detention.”

Once the 3,400 members of MEK were moved to their temporary transit location, they fell under the care of the UNHCR (United National High Commissioner on Refugees).

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is leading the charge in Congress to protect and relocate the residents of Camp Liberty. | Photo: AP

Martin worked with the American side, attempting to resolve the status of the MEK. “Ambassador Daniel Fried [then Assistant Secretary of State] personally assured us… The plan was as soon as they come in we’ll process them in and go back to Iran.” Martin noted, “But they didn’t want to go back to Iran obviously.” Fortunately, the UNHCR sought a third placement country.

But Camp Liberty didn’t end up being a short-term project at all. Four years later, the camp still exists with around 1,300 residents. Martin says the plan was to move out 200 people at a time, but instead the groups have been closer to 40.

Martin places the blame on the UN. He says American politicians, all the way up to the White House, want to see the relocations completed. Martin admits he has differences with the Vice President, but added: “I know Joe Biden wants it resolved.”

About the United Nations’ failure to move forward Martin said, “The UN is a bureaucratic organization. The UN moves at the pace of a startled snail, and the other thing, in all honesty, the UN is not a pure origination, there are a lot of political motivations.”

One of the reasons the U.S. wants to see the Liberty situation resolved is because of the continued attacks against the camp. The July 4 missiles weren’t the first. Four rocket attacks occurred in 2013, the camp was blockaded in 2014 and more attacks linked to Iranian paramilitary groups happened in 2015. Many lost their lives and the remaining camp residents are still at risk.

Martin insists the United States needs to follow through with its own recommendations. “All we gotta do is put them on busses, put them on planes, get them to Albania,” he said. “And then no problems, [the Albanians] were happy to take them.”

In the meantime, Martin says the U.S. State Department should be more involved. “They should be monitoring the camp on a daily basis,” he said.

Last month’s attack and the political rally brought Camp Liberty back into international focus. The UNHCR released a report congratulating itself on the relocation work done so far. But Americans, like McCain are taking more aggressive action. The senior senator from Arizona pushed a resolution, S.Con.Res.42, to the Foreign Relations committee. It passed unanimously, and now heads to the Senate for a floor vote.

This kind of soft pressure has proved effective in the past. According to Martin, larger groups of Iranians have been transferred out of the camp in recent weeks (though he worries another attack is likely to happen). The bipartisan support of humanitarian efforts to rescue people in Camp Liberty give the U.S. an even stronger voice on the issue, one expected to end by 2017.

Katrina Jorgensen is a contributor for Opportunity Lives. You can follow her on Twitter @Veribatim. 

(Photo: AP)

As President Obama enters the final months of his presidency, don’t expect him to spend too much time talking up the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. He has little to celebrate. Conservatives rightly warned that Obamacare would result in higher premiums and fewer health care options for the majority of enrollees. These predictions have largely proven true.

But what’s more interesting is that progressives are also dissatisfied with the president’s signature legislative achievement, which was muscled through Congress with absolutely no Republican support. For proof of liberal angst, consider the scenes at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, where throngs of angry Bernie Sanders supporters voiced their frustration with the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, for being too beholden to corporate interests. She isn’t nearly progressive enough for the Left. Heated demonstrations, both inside and outside the convention center, made it difficult to present a united front for a party trying to win its third consecutive presidential election.

For progressives, the answer is more government, not less (the question doesn’t really matter). This certainly applies to health care, where a socialist utopia consists of a single-payer option, meaning the government would crowd out the private sector.

The dissatisfaction for the Affordable Care Act is palpable even among rank and file Democrats who are enthusiastically backing Clinton. Polls consistently show support for the Affordable Care Act hovering below 50 percent, despite its boosters’ insistence that support for the law would rise once the wrinkles were ironed out.

This may help explain why Clinton did not mention the Affordable Care Act during her acceptance speech the convention. For a presidential candidate effectively running for a third Obama term, excluding Obamacare was not a coincidence. Instead, this omission was a perfectly calculated political decision to distance herself from a political albatross of failed progressive promises.

Among the most revealing mea culpa is a column by Bob Kocher published in the Wall Street Journal, headlined “How I Was Wrong About Obamacare.” Kocher is a physician who served as a special assistant to Obama when the White House was fighting for Affordable Care Act in Congress.

While not completely excluding himself from the Obamacare mess, Kocher concedes that the consolidation of the healthcare system has not resulted in greater savings and quality improvement as predicted.

Kocher comes up with a pithy example to make his point:

“Large health systems deliver ‘personalized’ care in the same way that GM can sell you a car with the desired options. Yet personal relationships of the kind often found in smaller practices are the key to the practice of medicine.”

Kocher is correct, of course, and much of what he is describing forms the basis of what Republicans in Congress have been arguing for years as a better approach to expand health care. In short, true health care coverage is patient-centered and personalized. When talking about something as personal as medical care, a large one-size-fits-all approach is grossly irresponsible.

House Republican recently unveiled a series of health care policy proposals that build on a market framework, while urging greater innovation in an industry that has been slow to change.

Obamacare’s many broken promises include being able to keep your doctor, lowering health care premiums and having greater choice in the marketplace. It’s a cautionary tale of big government’s limitations when trying to accomplish something as complex as providing health care to millions of people living in a country as large and diverse as ours.

This is the legacy of the Obama presidency and one that Hillary Clinton will need to defend if she hopes to win in November.

Israel Ortega is a Senior Writer for Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter @IzzyOrtega.

(Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan. / Photo: AP)

The Republican Party may be in the midst of a long-overdue and unexpected self-correction.

Over the past two weeks, voters and key conservatives have forcefully rebuked a new and dangerous species of Washington RINOs — not “Republicans in Name Only” but “Rebels in Name Only,” fake reformers who are undermining the conservative movement from within.

The clearest example is the recent primary defeat of so-called Tea Party firebrand and conservative stalwart Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. Last week, Huelskamp lost his primary election to obstetrician and political newcomer Roger Marshall by a margin of 56.5 to 43.5 percent, a stunning 13-point defeat for a supposedly conservative incumbent serving in a conservative district.

In his short and undistinguished time in Congress, Huelskamp cultivated an image of a principled outsider and thorn in the side of leadership, but countless — and otherwise polite Kansans (my home state) — described him as an “a—hole” and an opportunistic and ineffective politician who took jackassery to a new level.

Huelskamp’s claim to fame was getting kicked off the House Agriculture Committee, which proved to be an ineffective way of making farm policy more conservative and for constituents living in his agricultural district. After his defeat, Huelskamp said he lost because he stood up to the “Washington elites” and suggested everyone but himself was to blame for his loss. Kansans conservative voters rendered a different verdict.

Truth is, Huelskamp turned out to be another politician who was all talk and no action. Huelskamp didn’t lose because he was too conservative; he lost because he wasn’t conservative enough. He was unwilling and incapable of doing the hard work of persuasion and coalition building that’s necessary to produce results that reduce the realm of government while expanding the realm of liberty.  

Rather than mourning Huelskamp’s defeat, and complaining it’s a victory for “the establishment” (which has been taken over by Donald Trump, who is no conservative and is barely a Republican), conservatives should view Huelskamp’s humiliating defeat as a cautionary tale of what happens when politicians give principled opposition and rebellion a bad name.

Conservatives would help themselves by contrasting Huelskamp’s case with the example of Tom Coburn, who served in both the House and Senate. Both men were thorns in the side of leadership and “the establishment,” but were 180 degrees different when it came to temperament, work ethic and effectiveness.

Huelskamp, like Coburn, often found fault with leadership budgets. In one episode, as reported by National Review’s Joel Gehrke: “[Paul] Ryan [then Budget Committee Chairman] went to Huelskamp and said, ‘Ok, you don’t like this budget, fine, what can I do to get you [involved in the process]?’ And Huelskamp replied, ‘That’s not my job.’”

“That’s not my job” doesn’t sell among conservatives in western Kansans.

Coburn was also taken to the leadership woodshed many times. In one meeting in 1999, then-chairman of the appropriations committee Bill Young (R-Fla.) was so exasperated with Coburn for pushing spending cuts he threw his keys on the table and said, “You run the damn committee!”

Coburn took the challenge to heart. But instead of dismissively saying, “That’s not my job,” he essentially said with defiance but humility, “That is my job, and I’m going to do it better than you.”

That’s exactly what he did. During his service in the House and Senate, Coburn made it his mission to out-work, out-think and out-maneuver leadership and the appropriators at every turn. Rather than whining about the impurity of his colleagues who were “selling out,” Coburn offered thousands of amendments, countless bills, and dozens of oversight reports to demonstrate that conservative reform was possible through creativity and hard work. He made it his mission to not open his mouth until his words were backed up by a work product that exposed the deficiencies in leadership’s approach. By the time he was done, leadership begrudgingly thanked him for it.

Huelskamp, seated, lost to Roger Marshall, left, by prioritizing loud talk over conservative action to tangibly limit government. | Photo: AP

Huelskamp’s allies in the House now have a choice. They can wallow in conspiratorial bitterness about “outside groups” and “the donors,” or they can recommit themselves to honor our founding principles by mounting principled opposition. If they want to make a difference they should out-hustle leadership. That’s the best and only way to put a check on the eternal tendency of leadership to capitulate to the corrupting tendencies of self-protection and cronyism.

The tragedy for Huelskamp is that he leaves no legacy of a “better way.” He could have used leadership’s openness for a return to regular order and an end to the omnibus era as an opening to offer specific spending cuts. He didn’t because he didn’t see it as “his job.”

Republican leadership needs principled opposition. But that opposition has to be serious and credible. Huelskamp lost because he failed to provide that kind of thoughtful opposition. There’s no guarantee Marshall will be an improvement, but he would be wise to follow the Coburn model rather than Huelskamp model.

Huelskamp’s loss — followed by Ted Cruz’s self-immolation at the Republican National Convention, which was both opportunistic and principled and a fitting penance for his unproductive push to defund Obamacare (where is Cruz’s alternative?) — suggests voters are tiring of the Rebels in Name Only caucus in Washington. This trend will be tested further on Tuesday when Paul Nehlen faces House Speaker Paul Ryan in Wisconsin.

I suspect voters will say they’re not looking for moderation per se or leaders who will give them “stuff” from the government. Instead, they’re looking for results-oriented conservatives — leaders who understand that creating the conditions for liberty and opportunity requires more than phony outrage. That’s the type of correction Washington and the GOP desperately needs.

John Hart is the Editor-in-Chief of Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter @johnhart333.

(President Bill Clinton signs the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act on Aug. 22, 1996 / Photo: AP)

It’s hard to believe in a time of hyper-partisanship, but once upon a time bipartisanship prevailed to enact one of the most important changes to our country’s welfare system. Signed by President Bill Clinton on August 22, 1996, the Welfare Reform Act took the dramatic step of tightening eligibility requirements for recipients in order to ease government dependency and encourage greater self-sufficiency.

Yet despite the law’s success, Democratic policymakers are actively trying to undo many of the basic building blocks that have done much to change the way we think about poverty reduction.

With the legislation turning 20 this week, it’s worth looking back to see what’s working, what’s not — and what may be required to build on the seminal law.

Welfare Caseloads Have Declined

At the time of the bill’s signing, critics argued that the number of families and children living in poverty would surely increase. Instead, the opposite happened. As Ron Haskins of the left-leaning Brookings Institution writes:

“Welfare caseloads began declining in the spring of 1994 and picked up steam after the federal legislation was enacted in 1996. Between 1994 and 2004, the caseload declined about 60 percent, a decline that is without precedent.”

Emphasis on Work

The most important contribution of the 1996 law was its emphasis on work and employment. Instead of seeing welfare as a way of life, supporters of the bill — including President Clinton — recognized that work was essential to break the vicious cycle of poverty and dependence.

That rationale was validated soon after the bill was enacted into law, as hundreds of thousands of single mothers soon began reentering the workforce. As the right-leaning Heritage Foundation observed 10 years after the bill was signed into law:

“… As families left welfare and single mothers transitioned into work, the child poverty rate fell, from 20.8 percent in 1995 to 17.8 percent in 2004, lifting 1.6 million children out of poverty. The declines in poverty among black children and children from single-mother families were unprecedented.”

We’re Spending Nearly a Trillion Dollars a Year Fighting Poverty, But Poverty Remains

According to Michel Tanner, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, if we tally up the amount of money we are spending nearly every year fighting poverty, the price tag tops $1 trillion a year. By Tanner’s estimate, that comes out to nearly $20,610 for every poor person, or $61,830 per poor family of three.

And yet, despite such considerable sums of money, nearly 15 percent of all Americans are living in poverty.

This suggests that money alone cannot reduce poverty. It is certainly a far cry of “ending welfare as we know it,” as Clinton declared when he signed the 1996 law.

Don’t Undo Work Requirements

As previously noted, one of the most important achievements of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act is that it prioritized work as a means of reducing poverty. President Clinton said as much saying that the bill would prove successful by “moving people from welfare to work, demanding responsibility, and doing better by children.”

Unfortunately, under President Obama’s administration, important work requirements have been weakened, opening the door to abuse. But, more importantly, the White House has moved federal policy away from temporary relief back toward to a way of life.

The Heritage Foundation describes the 2012 Obama administration changes this way:

“On July 12, 2012, the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a policy directive rewriting the successful welfare-reform law of 1996. The HHS directive strikes directly at Section 407, allowing states to waive the TANF work requirement — thereby gutting the program of its most critical reform element and savaging both the letter and the intent of the ’96 law.”

Build on Law By Recognizing that Poverty Fighting Requires Local Solutions

As policymakers reflect upon this important anniversary, it is absolutely critical that they understand that some of the most effective ways to reduce poverty will come not from Washington, D.C., but from local leaders and poverty fighters in small communities and big cities across the country.

Thankfully, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) understands this and is summoning other lawmakers to visit communities and need and meet with the folks working on the front lines that understand that there are millions of stories waiting to be told in the Americans hurting in our country.

These pages have been documenting this in the groundbreaking series, Comeback, which profiles poverty fighters engaged in this noble work. Future welfare reforms must embrace these poverty fighters in a meaningful and substantive way.

Israel Ortega is a Senior Writer for Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter:@IzzyOrtega.

This week marks the 20th anniversary of the historic welfare reform legislation passed by the Republican Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. We both worked as senior staff throughout the bill’s formation and passage. Welfare reform changed the open-ended cash welfare system to one of time limits and work requirements for able-bodied recipients and moved 2.8 million families out of poverty and into jobs. Building on this success, it appears Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is offering proposals that will resonate with struggling families. By unveiling a set of policy initiatives that help lift families out of government dependency and toward self-sufficiency, the Trump campaign could experience a much needed bounce in the polls.

The number of Americans living below the poverty line was above 14 percent, as reported in 2014 — the same level as in 1966, when many of our federal programs began assisting low-income families. The poverty rate has not been this high since 1991 and 1994. Both major political parties have been negligent in their attention to these socio-economic strata. There is potential here for the Trump campaign to benefit by laying a foundation of opportunities that allow for families reaching for the rungs on the ladder out of poverty to be successful.

Buried deep in the Republican Party platform are a number of planks that should resonate with the disenfranchised who are rejecting both parties. It would be wise for the Trump campaign to embrace and highlight what is there. In addition, there are several other good proposals that have existing right-left support, notably the recent AEI-Brookings report, “Opportunity, Responsibility and Security, A Consensus Plan for Reducing Poverty and Restoring the American Dream.”

Here are a few ideas that stand out:

1. Family stability

Research continues to show that family stability with two committed parents provides the strongest foundation and best possible outcome for a child. As the Republican platform states, “40 percent of children who now are born outside of marriage are five times more likely to live in poverty than youngsters born and raised by a mother and father in the home.” Inherent in every welfare program, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) or food stamps, there is a fiscal penalty for those who are married or would like to get married. The income of the spouse is counted toward meeting the income threshold for the program thus putting the potential recipient over the income limit and becoming ineligible. To no one’s surprise, this significantly impacts the decision making for a single mother about whether to marry or not. Putting food on the table and a roof overhead clearly makes more sense than getting married.

Phasing out the marriage penalty in each of the more than 80 federal welfare programs would make strides in helping encourage low-income couples to marry without losing their eligibility for assistance.

2. Reducing costs of raising children

In the same vein, lowering the costs of raising a child by increasing the Child Tax Credit after it has stayed the same for 13 years could relieve economic pressure in struggling households.

Last week, Trump proposed to help families by allowing them to fully deduct all child care costs from their taxes. No doubt, this proposal would help some struggling working families by putting more cash in their bank accounts. Most low-income families, however, would be ineligible for this benefit because they pay no federal income taxes.

Low-income hourly wage-workers do pay a federal tax in the form of the payroll tax. A nice complement to Trump’s deduction would be to include a reform that allows child-care expenses to be excluded from half of the low-wage workers’ payroll taxes. This would serve to increase their take home pay each week.

The campaign has also signaled its support for a tax credit for stay-at-home caregivers. This is important because it gives fiscal parity to those families who choose to have one parent stay home to raise the children versus those with two-incomes who work outside the home.

3. Education 

A good education is necessary to attain a well-paying job and the income gap continues to increase between the well-educated and less-educated. In order to close this gap, parents should have the same educational opportunities and choices for achievement no matter their income bracket. Even President Obama sent his girls to a private school in Washington, D.C., because the District has some of the worst public schools in the country.

We need to even the playing field by allowing families to choose private schools in the lowest-performing school districts. In addition, we need to expand the number of charter schools available to give parents better school options.

4. Expanding work opportunities

The 1996 welfare reform policies that moved 2.8 million families out of poverty and into jobs and self-sufficiency can be and should be replicated in other welfare programs.The 1996 reform only changed one of more than 80 federal welfare programs: the cash welfare program now known as TANF.

Time limits and work requirements for able-bodied recipients should be included in the food stamp program, housing vouchers, child-care vouchers, Medicaid and many others. By doing so, there is real potential to move several million welfare dependent families off of welfare and into the labor workforce and providing for their families.

The good news is that real policy proposals that promote a strong family structure, help close the education gap and provide opportunity for employment and income security would give the needed “bounce” that so many Americans long for to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. They also might give Donald Trump a much-needed bump up on the way to Election Day in November.

Kiki Bradley is a partner with Chartwell Policy Solutions. During President George W. Bush’s administration she ran the TANF program at the Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to that she served eight years as a domestic policy advisor to the Speaker of the House and 12 years total on Capitol Hill.

Mark Rodgers is principal at The Clapham Group and served in senior staff positions on Capitol Hill from 1991-2016, including chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and staff director of the Senate Republican Conference.

Monday marked two decades since a president signed a major piece of social legislation that’s proven durably successful and popular: the 1996 welfare-reform law. The legislation cut poverty rates (especially for children) dramatically, got millions of poor Americans to work and may have even played a role in cutting teen pregnancy.

To mark the occasion, the American Enterprise Institute, the Progressive Policy Institute, the University of Maryland’s public policy school and the Secretaries’ Innovation Group brought together some of the key men and women who made this extraordinary achievement possible (and at least one who tried to kill it).

What did key Republican congressional staff, two welfare-focused former governors, Clinton administration employees and highly experienced state welfare administrators have to say about how welfare reform got passed, how its implementation went and where we should go from here?

Let’s start with those reform-minded Republican governors: Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin and John Engler of Michigan. If you’ve never watched two middle-aged Midwesterner dads reminisce about the good old days of competing over who could do the most to fix their state welfare systems like they’re bantering about a legendary Packers-Lions game, well, you’re missing out.

One reason these two men came to care so much about an issue that often goes unloved by Republicans is that they had a political mandate for reform in their states. Which is lesson one about getting big welfare reform done:

1. It takes political momentum

Engler and Thompson had more than just a passion for caring about the poor; they also were in charge of two states with notoriously over-generous, dysfunctional welfare systems. Thompson recounted how when he was governor it appeared poor Americans from all across the country were coming to Wisconsin to settle or just collected fraudulent welfare checks — enough, supposedly, that cab drivers waited at the bus station in Madison to take people from Chicago straight to the welfare office.

Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, left, pictured with Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), changed the welfare system in his state and served as an example to the federal government. | Photo: AP

That particular phenomenon was never confirmed as a large-scale problem, but the fact that there was even a debate about it spoke to a real political issue: voters were deeply dissatisfied with a system that allowed people to remain on welfare indefinitely, collecting cash payments without working.

Since that time, with cash welfare increasingly rare in America, the issue just doesn’t have the political salience it once did, even though poverty rates have returned to pre-reform levels and participation in the food stamps program has exploded over the past eight years.

Republicans are revisiting anti-poverty programs because they see Democrats neglecting the issue or offering the same stale ideas. (And they see it as a rebranding opportunity to boot.) But that’s not what helped get big changes enacted in the ’90s; it was a crucial public priority. Politicians looking to make progress these days will need to put in steady time toward making a case for a new round of reforms, and realize the last big push involved pointing out not just that the system could serve people better, but that it was riven with waste and abuse.

2. The feds and the states both need to do their part

One of the questions moderate and conservative welfare reformers often don’t agree on is how much the federal government should force upon the states, and how much states should be left to decide on their own. Tweaks to welfare during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, for instance, often allowed states to implement work requirements if they wanted; then the 1996 law imposed tough requirements and time limits for cash welfare from the federal level.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, one of the architects of the 1996 law and a panelist, takes an especially hard line on this: states rarely take the initiative on good conservative ideas and waste huge amounts of federal money, he says. He’s certainly got a point. Moreover, he’s clashed with both House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) over proposals of theirs that would give more power to the states.

At the same time, though, conservatives know that state flexibility is important. “Conservative micromanagement isn’t any better than liberal micromanagement,” Engler argued, and states need to be able to experiment and craft local solutions.

How do we square this circle? One point of consensus is that we need to know more about what works before we impose it from the federal level. If the federal government is going to start requiring work in exchange for food stamps, for example, as many welfare reformers would like it to, we should make sure we’ve tested the idea and verified that it works.

That’s exactly how reform came about 20 years ago: federal waivers under the Reagan administration helped lay the foundation for Michigan and Wisconsin to show that requiring work could be very effective; then the Clinton-era law imposed those requirements from the federal level. Fights over state and federal prerogatives will never go away, but that’s at least one blueprint that should work going forward.

3. We need to do better at getting people to work

One of the most significant successes of the 1996 reform law is how many parents who’d previously been dependent on welfare soon found work, enabling them to support themselves rather than relying mostly on government. That kind of self-sufficiency, even if it still involves drawing on some other government programs, is a real victory against poverty.

However, it didn’t work for everyone: plenty of former welfare recipients didn’t find work, and slipped through the cracks. There are certainly many poor Americans — those who receive cash welfare and those who don’t — who could work but aren’t anywhere close to landing a job. It’s not easy for people with a spotty work history, limited skills and perhaps a criminal record to find work.

Government programs can and should help solve that problem. By and large, they haven’t. A number of the panelists involved in passing welfare reform lamented that states never started programs intended to help find work for welfare recipients (through counseling, résumé building, subsidized job offers, etc.).

Most troublingly, states use the dollars that before 1996 went to long-term cash welfare on a variety of random priorities, like child-care and tuition assistance.

Just getting vulnerable members of society engaged in full-time work has huge secondary benefits and deserves special focus. As Eloise Anderson, Wisconsin’s welfare secretary, said that helping a man find a job makes him more marriageable, for instance. Many unemployed men aren’t reachable through welfare programs only available to mothers with children, but federal and state governments can add work programs to child support and prison reentry programs in order to generate the same benefits.

States and the federal government should be requiring people to get jobs wherever it makes sense, but they should also be offering a helping hand to make it happen. The costs can be significant, but the benefits should be durable and, potentially, huge. Which is why . . .

4. We shouldn’t over-obsess about cost

Did you know that the Congressional Budget Office almost killed welfare reform?

As Robert Rector pointed out, the CBO’s models, while some of the best out there, often don’t capture things that we can be pretty sure are going to happen — for instance, that cash welfare rolls would drop significantly after the bill was passed. So the 1996 legislation also included politically controversial cuts to other programs, testing Democrats’ support and nearly sinking the whole bill. This is a controversial historical topic, but there’s no question those cuts were in the bill partly to make it look fiscally responsible — when the reforms to cash welfare itself were fiscally responsible, too, if not from the view of the CBO models.

Fiscal responsibility is essential, but so is making sure government actually works to solve some of the most intractable social problems. Former U.S. Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) recounted how in the late 1990s he turned this issue on a group of reporters who pressed him about the cost of a bill intended to revive deeply impoverished areas. The much more important question, Talent pointed out, is not what the law would cost, but whether it would actually help turn around America’s toughest neighborhoods. If it did, he said, wouldn’t it almost certainly be worth it, and probably pay for itself?

Such logic can be perverted, of course: Democrats often like to argue welfare spending — Obamacare, food stamps, whatever — partly pays for itself because it provides economic stimulus, helps improve kids’ future outcomes, and so on. But those claims aren’t what Talent is talking about: His point is that if a program can be shown to have huge benefits for society, the mere fact that some models say it raises the federal deficit shouldn’t be the end of the story.

So, to apply Talent’s point to welfare reform: conservatives could stand to worry a little less about whether welfare reform will, by government bean-counter standards, decrease what the federal government spends on welfare every year, which runs to the hundreds of billions.

They at least should be as focused on whether reform sustainably increases social welfare through encouraging work, marriage, family formation and self-sufficiency.

If we succeed in doing that — as we did with the 1996 law — the numbers should take care of themselves.

Patrick Brennan is a contributor for Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter @ptbrennan11.

As of August 31, 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was aware of approximately 17,000 cases of the mosquito-transmitted Zika virus in the U.S., including nearly 14,000 in Puerto Rico alone. But, for Senate Democrats, that’s apparently not a public health crisis worth addressing before a key political constituency is served.

On Tuesday, Democrats blocked the passage of a Senate bill that would fund the treatment and prevention of the deadly virus, vowing to stop any legislation that did not direct taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood. Current bill text does not permit the nation’s foremost abortion provider to receive money allocated for the government’s emergency Zika response.

But, Planned Parenthood already receives approximately $334.5 million in annual subsidies on top of the $1.2 billion it obtains each year from state and federal governments in the form of Medicaid payments. And Democrats, including their presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, have demanded that the Hyde Amendment, which bars taxpayer money from being used to fund abortions, be repealed.

Democrats have made clear that they intend to expand Planned Parenthood’s reach by subsidizing the organization with federal funds, even if Americans object to their tax dollars covering abortions. A July 2016 Marist poll found that 62 percent of voters disapproved of using taxpayer money to pay for abortion, compared to just 35 percent who approve.  

Still, the abortion lobby remains a powerful political interest in Democratic Party policymaking. During the 2014 campaign cycle, Planned Parenthood donated 100 percent of its nearly $1 million in federal campaign contributions to Democrats.

Learn more about how Senate Democrats have chosen Planned Parenthood over caring for Zika patients at Fox News, via the Associated Press.

From day one, Obamacare’s individual mandate – which imposes financial penalties upon people who lack health insurance – has been controversial, to say the least.

This is especially true for people who live in areas without access to alternative health insurance providers. Just imagine living in a county where there are no reputable health insurance providers, where the only option is to sign up for a single Obamacare plan without any other options, and where the failure to do will result in the government gouging your paycheck.

For many, it’s a situation straight out of the nightmare literature of Franz Kafka.

How, they argue, is Obamacare helping me, when its very implementation is a burden from which I cannot escape?

Now Republican Senators aim to stop this practice by means of a new bill that would exempt people from Obamacare’s individual mandate if they live in a county with one or no options for coverage.

The new push for fairness under Obamacare is led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who argues that it is objectively wrong to penalize people simply because of their geographical situation.

“Nearly all of Arizona’s counties are now left with either one or no options when it comes to health insurance under Obamacare,” McCain said in a statement. “This legislation would ensure that Arizonans are not forced to pay a penalty due to the failure of a health care system that was fatally flawed from conception.”

The bill is supported by McCain’s compatriot Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who called Obamacare’s current operations in the state “an unmitigated disaster” that has created a system in which “13 of the state’s 15 counties are devoid of competition because they are left with only a single insurer willing to sell coverage.”

“Instead of lowering costs, Obamacare has made things worse: insurance companies across the country are fleeing the exchange market at an alarming rate, premiums have skyrocketed, and networks have become more narrow,” added Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). “Obamacare is in a death spiral. What’s worse, Obamacare will impose a fine on countless individuals who no longer have affordable insurance options in their county.”

This newest bill is in line with Republican lawmakers’ continued opposition to the inaptly-named Affordable Care Act, evident in similar legislation introduced by McCain that would fully repeal and replace Obamacare with affordable solutions, while providing patients with more autonomy over their health care decisions.

Watch McCain’s full address to the Senate for more information.

Evan Smith is a Staff Writer for Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter @Evansmithreport.

In an attempt to show their constituents how serious they take America’s rising opioid epidemic, three Republican senators are going all out on what they call “the next big opioid bill” in Congress.

The new initiative is being led by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), along with fellow Republicans Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). The goal of this trio is simple: America must do all it can under its powers to restrict two powerful and dangerous opioids – fentanyl and carfentanil, both of which are scores of times more powerful than heroin – from entering US borders.

As The Hill reports, fentanyl specifically has been linked to thousands of recent overdose deaths in America, including that of the late music icon Prince.

Both drugs have been linked to distributors in Chin and India, according to The Hill, and the Drug Enforcement Agency has even found evidence that some traffickers are using US Mail to ship their supplies.

Both Portman, left, and Ayotte, right, have been leading voices in the Senate in the fight against opioid addiction. | Photo: AP

The new legislation, dubbed the “Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention Act” – or STOP – would “tighten standards for foreign postal services, requiring the same kinds of electronic data that private carriers like UPS and FedEx must already provide,” according to The Hill.

Ayotte, for her part, has been championing anti-opioid causes of late, given how deeply her home state of New Hampshire has been ravaged by the drugs.

“I welcome today’s announcement,” she said in a statement related to expanding community-based anti-opioid programs. “If we can teach our children early-on the dangers of substance use – including heroin and fentanyl – then we can make real change at the local level and continue working to save lives.”

Head over to The Hill for the full story.

In a political environment where civil discourse seems to be headed into the sewer, one congressman is making a difference both in his district and in Washington to fight for policies that promote upward mobility and compromise.

Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.) is not your typical congressman. He represented the 10th Congressional District of Illinois from 2010-2012, then lost in 2012 to Democrat Brad Schneider by just 3,000 votes. But in 2014, Dold was able to win a rematch against Schneider and again represents the 10th District. In his time in Congress, Dold has quickly developed a reputation for bipartisanship, compromise, and strong leadership.

“It’s absolutely critical that you lead by example,” Dold said to Opportunity Lives. He stressed the importance of visiting people and organizations in the community that are succeeding in solving social problems in order to share those best practices with other organizations.

An example Dold references often is YouthBuild in Lake County. YouthBuild provides an opportunity for as many as 100 disadvantaged young people per year to build a better future through education opportunities and job training. Even though YouthBuild estimates that 80 percent of participants were involved with gangs before the program (many were high-school dropouts), the turnaround opportunity is transformational — 78 percent of participants graduate from the program and are placed into jobs.

Dold has teamed up with poverty fighters, like Bob Woodson (far left), at the grassroots level to better help the needs of the community. | Photo: Bob Dold Twitter

“Local resources — people who have credibility within the community — they have to be part of the program, they have to be part of the turnaround agenda,” Dold said.

Another organization Dold highlights is the Former Inmates Striving Together (FIST) program that helps former inmates reintegrate to the community through job search, transportation, and housing assistance. A major key to effective criminal justice reform is reducing recidivism rates, and FIST has done that through a comprehensive 12-step ex-offender program.

On the federal level, Dold recognizes that there are things to be done to increase opportunity. He said the Every Student Succeeds Act that was recently passed does just that. Dold is also continuing to fight for an additional change to federal education policy that will remove a 36 percent tax from being imposed on Illinois schools that use federal money to hire teachers instead of buying books or iPads.

“We know a one-size fits all does not work,” said Dold. “We want to encourage those schools to continue to innovate and continue to do things that they know are working for them.”

Dold was also recently named to the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee and has been exploring ways to make the country’s retirement program solvent. “I’m not here because I want to be a politician; I’m here because we need to solve problems,” he said. He continues to push for an honest, bipartisan discussion that considers all possible solutions, both those favored by Republicans and Democrats.

Dold encourages everyone to not give up hope in civil discourse. Despite a year of tense political arguments, he has been able to find ways to achieve compromise with people on both sides. “I don’t care who you are. The chances are, if we sit down together, we can find things we agree on,” Dold said.

“If we focus on areas of agreement, we have a chance to actually get some things done.”

Daniel Huizinga is a columnist for Opportunity Lives covering business and politics. Follow him on Twitter @HuizingaDaniel.

Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her running mate, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), are making a bold promise: they’ll introduce comprehensive immigration reform in their first 100 days in office.

This is a tall order on any given year, but especially one after a highly contentious presidential election. Adding to the difficulties of delivering on this promise includes the strong possibility of needing to work with a divided Congress, barring a Democratic Party sweep in November. (Requests for comment for the story from the Clinton campaign went unanswered.)

Still, immigration reform supporters say it’s possible, but the window is small. And perhaps more importantly, Clinton would need to compromise on a number of key sticking points, including what to do with the approximately 11-12 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. The question will loom large especially in the U.S. House of Representatives, which would likely remain in Republican control.

To be sure, there is growing support for an immigration bill among Republicans. After years of inaction at the federal level, there is a growing list of states taking immigration matters into their own hands creating political land mines in their wake. As a result, some Republicans are eager to take part in an immigration overhaul — but perhaps not at the scope Democrats are proposing.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) is one of the leading House Republicans who has consistently advocated immigration reform. Diaz-Balart represents a large minority community in his South Florida district and is himself the son of Cuban refugees that fled the communist regime shortly after that country’s revolution.

Diaz-Balart is exactly the type of Republican that Clinton would need if she hopes to deliver on her reform promises. Unfortunately, Diaz-Balart is skeptical that Clinton is the right person to usher through Congress a bill fraught with peril at every turn.

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., is one of the leading Republican advocates for immigration reform, but he has his doubts on whether Clinton would actually seek legislative compromise on the issue as president. | Photo: AP

“Clinton talks a good game, but she has been absent at crucial times and shown little interest in the hard work of immigration policy,” Diaz-Balart told Opportunity Lives.

The Florida lawmaker is also concerned that Clinton may be following President Obama’s lead on immigration policy promising cooperation with Republicans only to “kill it” when it did not comport to the precise specifications championed by immigration advocates.

Despite this, Diaz-Balart remains committed to immigration reform and stands ready to work with anyone interested while acknowledging that the window to act is “likely in the first year.” Anything after that gets complicated according to the Republican lawmaker.

Among the most difficult questions facing an immigration overhaul includes what to do with the millions of undocumented workers. For some, a pathway to citizenship is a must and non-negotiable. And although a plurality of voters are supportive of legalizing the undocumented, Republicans, including Diaz-Balart are unconvinced that Congress must chart a “special” path — or fast tracking naturalization proceedings for the undocumented that immigrated to this country illegally over immigrants that arrived to this country legally.

Alfonso Aguilar, president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, an advocacy organization connecting Latinos to the conservative movement, is also dismissive of a “special pathway” for the undocumented, including “dreamers,” or students that were brought to this country illegally by their parents as minors.

“They should have a path to citizenship, but they should have to wait in line and wait until an immigration visa becomes available,” Aguilar said.

This approach differs from Clinton’s, Aguilar said. “When Clinton calls for a path to citizenship, it means cutting in line.”

Clinton, pictured with Hispanic activists in April, 2016, has promised to enact immigration reform in her first 100 days in office. But lawmakers and activists of both sides remain wary of what that reform would look like. | Photo: AP

If Democrats demonstrate greater flexibility on this issue, a compromise is possible. And for Republicans like Diaz-Balart, it’s possible to accomplish this while adhering to conservative principles grounded in the rule of law.

“There are ways to get right with the law that is responsible, humane and permanent,” the Republican congressman said.

But that may not be enough to win over some Republicans including those in the House Judiciary Committee that will have jurisdiction over any immigration legislation under consideration.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, told Opportunity Lives that the prospects of the House approving mass amnesty is “about as likely as a Democrat administration enforcing the law and deporting criminal aliens.”

For Smith, the cost of legalizing the undocumented is a major concern. Clinton’s policies, he said, “would further increase the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country. Illegal immigrants disproportionately take local, state and federal benefits paid for by the taxpayer.”

Smith is not alone in this thinking. Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has made immigration a centerpiece of his campaign and has specifically called for the elimination of welfare benefits for undocumented immigrants. A charge that is challenged by immigration advocates arguing that immigrants contribute much more to the economy than they draw from the government.

And as the public has becoming increasingly supportive of immigration and immigrant labor, it’s possible anti-immigration voices will find less support for their hardline positions than in years past.

For example, a recent Pew Research poll found that a majority of Americans agreed with the statement that immigrants “strengthen country through hard work and talents.” And perhaps most surprisingly, 72 percent of respondents agreed “undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements should have a way to stay legally.”

If Clinton can capitalize on this support from the general public, she would succeed where others have failed, including Presidents Bush and Obama.

That’s the big question according to Tamar Jacoby, president and CEO of ImmigrationWorks USA, an organization of small business owners supportive of an immigration overhaul.

“Does Clinton have a different temperament and make a different choice when it comes to working with Congress?” For Jacoby, Clinton would need to avoid what Obama did and learn from his mistakes.

Jacoby also questioned the timing of trying to deal with immigration reform right out the gate. While certainly not a given in today’s political environment, Jacoby thinks tackling infrastructure and tax reform may create the “trust” necessary between both parties before moving on to the emotional issue of immigration.

If Clinton takes on immigration first, Jacoby thinks a better approach than what has been tried and failed previously is working quietly with Republicans in the House to identify areas of mutual agreement, rather than delegating the bill drafting responsibility to a progressive firebrand like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) thus alienating Republican and conservative support.

Jacoby is convinced that Republicans want to get the immigration reform issue behind them and “a shrewd Democratic president could have some options to get this done.”

Gustavo Portelo, the president of the College Republicans, does not agree. “Let’s not forget that she’s called Republicans her enemy,” he said. And if Clinton does fall short, “that would be three straight elections where Democrats pander and don’t deliver.”

Israel Ortega is a Senior Writer for Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter:@IzzyOrtega.

South Dakota doesn’t get a lot of love these days: North Dakota has the oil, Montana has the mountains, and millions of elementary school students mispronounce the name of its capital city of Pierre every year. (It’s “Peer,” not “Pee-yair.”)

But this fall, South Dakota voters have the chance to approve a really good idea that the rest of the country should pay attention to: allowing employers to hire teenagers for less than the state’s minimum wage.

That’s the biggest problem with the ever-popular idea of raising the minimum wage: It pushes people with less-valuable labor — young people, immigrants, workers without a high school diploma — out of the workforce. Teen labor simply isn’t worth very much, but getting them into the workforce comes with big benefits. (More on that in a bit.)

By lowering the minimum wage for teenagers, we can get some of the benefits of a higher minimum wage — higher wages for people who might lack bargaining power with their employers — while avoiding one of the major downsides and making it harder for young people to find a job.

South Dakota Republicans proposed the teen minimum wage in 2015, in response to a ballot initiative that raised the state’s minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50. The teen wage was signed into law by Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, but opponents put it on hold by sending the measure to voters this fall.

Having the question on the ballot is not optimal: Voters tend to love raising the minimum wage, even in deep-red states like South Dakota. (The state’s 2014 minimum-wage increase passed as a ballot question 55-45.) Subjecting economic policy questions to a popular vote just isn’t a great idea, but it’s what we’ve got.

Thankfully, this is a different kind of battle than your typical minimum-wage fight: This isn’t about whether employers should have to pay a so-called living wage, though Democratic talking points in favor of the minimum wage on that question are well worth challenging.

Rather, it’s a more politically favorable question for the Right: whether we want to make it easier or harder for teenagers to find work.

Most parents don’t need to be convinced, but the benefits of getting teens to work are huge — and obvious. It gives them something to do after school and in the summer, boosts their skills and work discipline, and starts to build a work history and set of references.

There’s considerable evidence that these benefits are lasting: Americans who have jobs as teenagers work and earn substantially more in their 20s than they do if they didn’t hold down a job as a teen and working a moderate number of hours boosts high school graduation rates, for starters.

And the issue is more acute than ever: Teenage employment is at historically low levels (see below). It’s recovered less than half the way it dropped during the 2008 recession, and the level even before the recession was way down from where it had been up through the 1990s. (Twenty-somethings are working at historically low levels, too; it may not be a bad idea for the lower minimum wage to extend up to, say, 21.)

Source: Federal Reserve of St. Louis

So does a youth minimum wage work as promised? Yes: Studies find nations with a youth minimum wage tend to have more young people employed than the United States does, and the same goes for states.

The effects can be quite significant. Using established economic evidence of the effect of minimum wages on employment, the Manhattan Institute’s Preston Cooper recently calculated that a minimum wage of $4.25 an hour for teens would, in just a year, raise their employment levels back to about where they were before the recession.

Note that we already have evidence about whether a teen minimum wage like South Dakota’s would work at helping young people hold down jobs. In part that’s because the federal minimum wage law does allow for a lower wage for teenagers ($4.25 an hour). But it only applies for workers employed for less than 90 days, and it only applies in 15 states (including South Dakota). Other states have laws that further restrict the use of the teen minimum wage, or supersede it with higher minimum wages of their own.

So there may be room for action at the federal level: Republicans in Congress have resisted pressure over the past few years to raise the federal minimum wage, but should the situation change, an increase should include a broader federal youth minimum wage. Certainly, right-leaning states that don’t already have teen minimum wages should consider following South Dakota’s lead.

Meanwhile, a teen minimum wage is a good way to reduce some of the harm from unprecedented increases in the minimum wage now being passed by some blue states and cities, where liberals are rallying around the idea of a $15 an hour minimum wage. This aggressive movement is pitched as the best way to boost wages for working families — which, of course, it’s not.

But that leaves open the possibility that even the movement’s proponents will acknowledge most 16-year-olds might have a pretty hard time getting hired to do a $15-an-hour job. Urban teen employment, in fact is a goal shared by both liberals and conservatives. (See the efforts devoted, with limited success, to trying to create summer jobs for kids.)

Conservatives certainly should be doing their best to stop the liberal crusade to eliminate thousands of jobs with their “fight for 15.” But where we lose, a teenage minimum wage will help mitigate some of the worst effects, and liberals might well have a hard time saying no to it.

Just don’t tell them South Dakota thought of it already.

Patrick Brennan is a contributor for Opportunity Lives. You can follow him on Twitter @ptbrennan11.

Conservatives must persuade more Americans who are not conservative that our ideas have merit. Whatever happens in November, Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign has led too many people to believe that conservatism is defined by overt immorality. Not so.

Yet liberal populists are successfully characterizing conservatism as anachronistic. They would have independents believe that our ideology and modernity are mutually exclusive. Today, especially in blue or purple state cities, conservatives are expected to hide their beliefs in polite company. And while it can be fun to do the opposite, the point remains: conservatism is under siege. To break the siege, we must articulate our views more effectively. In that vein, here are five responses we should offer to liberal critiques.

Responses to Critique 1: Conservatives Don’t Care About the Poor

Opportunity Lives proves the vacuous nature of this particularly unpleasant critique. After all, the raison d’etre of this website is proposals for individual empowerment. But there are specific ways conservatives want to increase opportunities for our poorest citizens.

First, we support removing obstacles to the energy revolution. Doing so would create tens of thousands of well-paying, sustainable jobs while reducing electricity costs. Conservatives also support less-wealthy Americans in cutting their grocery bills. Conservatives are suggesting serious alternatives to Obamacare’s now-proven immorality. Conservative support for the poor is also shown by mathematical honestly towards and priority focus on entitlement reform. We want to avert the nation’s looming insolvency and protect the poorest Americans from destitution. Too many liberals pretend the debt doesn’t matter.

Responses to Critique 2: Conservatives Don’t Care About Minorities

True, in recent decades, too many conservatives deprioritized minority issues. Yet in 2016, advancing the legacy of Lincoln and Republican support for the Civil Rights Act, conservatives are behind an ideas-revolution to increase minority opportunities and improve the services minorities receive from government. Take Opportunity Lives’ landmark Comeback series. We’re also advancing criminal justice reforms, and confronting the causes of black-on-black violence in our inner cities. Broaching these topics — too often ignored for reasons of political cowardice —we’re also outlining specific proposals to strengthen police-minority relations. Finally, we’re calling out our fellow conservatives when they dishonor our fellow citizens. Conservatism is rooted in inclusiveness and we must prove it to be color-blind.

Responses to Critique 3: Conservatives Serve Special Interests

Yes, some conservatives serve special interests. As do some liberals. But when it comes to the marginal level of policy costs versus benefits, conservative ideas serve the people.

And increasingly we’re highlighting our own failings where conservative cronyism does occur. Consider the ethanol-energy and defense sectors. And we’re looking in the mirror. Facing globalization, we now recognize the need for greater efforts to help workers learn the skills they will need in a rapidly changing economy. There’s a great need for honest conservative introspection joined to leadership. In major cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco, and states such as California and Illinois, Democratic Party special interests are wreaking havoc.

Responses to Critique 4: Conservatives Don’t Compromise

Thanks to the work of committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), all 27 of the bills that passed through the Judiciary Committee did so with bipartisan support. But that’s just the start. In February, Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) led the Senate to pass an important and overwhelmingly bipartisan-supported — if somewhat technical! — customs bill. In April, under the leadership of Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the Senate passed a landmark energy bill by 85 votes to 12. In May, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) succeeded in passing a bill to restructure Puerto Rick’s debt. In July, President Obama signed into law a Republican-led effort to address the national opioid addiction crisis. Also this summer, the Senate and House unanimously passed bills to allow terrorism lawsuits against Saudi Arabia.

This is a marked departure from how the Senate operated when Democrats were in the majority, and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) controlled which legislation could be brought to a vote. We all have different views about these different bills, but they prove one thing for certain: Republicans are leading the way on congressional bipartisanship. Still, there’s more to do. Congress, for example, has untapped opportunities on oceanic-environmental issues.

Responses to Critique 5: Conservatives Don’t Care About the Young

From health care costs to the massive debt, young Americans face a challenging future. And via the misconceptions of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and the dishonesty of Labor Secretary Tom Perez, many young Americans have come to believe that conservatives are opposed to economic justice and opportunity. In response, conservatives are outlining the ways in which Democratic polices — especially from the far-left — would be catastrophic for young Americans.

More importantly, we’re offering a different path to opportunity. We’re focused on improving productivity, unleashing innovation and empowering the private sector. But conservatives are also leading the way in our philosophical defense of free speech. Challenging authoritarian tendencies towards political-correctness on college campuses and in broader public discourse, we’re explaining why free speech is non-negotiable. Of course, we must do more here, such as confronting the foolish argument that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling should be overturned.

Conservatives must be both intellectually introspective and bold in the pursuit of our beliefs. History is on our side. From Scandinavia to Venezuela, socialism ultimately hurts everyone — except the elite. Yet as the Vietnamese will attest, capitalism is the best path to better lives for all.

Tom Rogan is a foreign policy columnist for National Review, a domestic policy columnist forOpportunity Lives, a panelist on The McLaughlin Group and a senior fellow at the Steamboat Institute. Follow him on Twitter @TomRtweets.