I was raised conservative and I have spent much of my adult life advocating for conservative values, chief among them: smaller government and economic freedom. As a conservative, I’ve always thought of marriage as between a man and a woman, but I also recognize that in a free society we often disagree. Disagreement is an inherent and vital component to democratic society, along with our most essential ideal — freedom. America is a free country where people should be able to live their lives the way they choose. Allowing same-sex couples to marry is not a threat to our overall value system or our country. If two people love each other, our government has no place standing in the middle and denying them their basic rights. There are many arenas where our government exerts control but it should play no role in the lives of private, law-abiding Americans.

In March of last year I authored the piece below discussing the Wisconsin recall and how important it was. It is just as applicable today as it was then, and I am pleased that the voters of Wisconsin recognize the importance of Scott Walkers reforms and rewarded his political courage.

This was not just a minor win, but instead a major victory in what is frequently considered a blue state. ‪This is an unmistakable signal sent by the people of Wisconsin that the Obama administration’s agenda has failed, and bold, conservative reformers like Scott Walker are what this country needs.

Please read the piece below on the courage of Governor Scott Walker that was originally published on March 7, 2011 in The Daily Caller.

Courage: The Scott Walker story

By Fred V. Malek

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

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

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

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

Robert Costrell writes in the Wall Street Journal that Milwaukee teachers receive 74.2 cents on the dollar in health and retirement benefits. An employee in the private sector receives just 24.3 cents on the dollar. In some cases, the benefits package is equal to half of the total employment package. Costrell found that “the average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of financial planning for Milwaukee public schools.”

The reason for these nice gold-plated benefits packages are that in the past politicians never had the courage to stand up to unions and insist that benefits be tied to market realities.  Quite simply it was too easy to kick that political can down the road and let the next Governor or the next generation of taxpayers deal with the mess.  That is not only radically irresponsible; it is a recipe for our country’s ruin.

Charles Krauthammer writes in the Washington Post that “in the public sector, the politicians who approve any deal have none of their own money at stake. On the contrary, the more favorably they dispose of union demands, the more likely they are to be the beneficiary of union largess in the next election. It’s the perfect cozy setup.”

In light of this, Scott Walker has decided to tackle his state’s budget deficit not by raising taxes on hard working Wisconsonites in the midst of an economic downturn but by making desperately needed changes to the state’s benefit and entitlement system. The rising cost of retirement packages and insurance has been identified as a threat to not only states like Wisconsin, but also the United States as a whole.

The response to Scott Walker’s budget from Wisconsin Democrats has been to flee the state and shut down the Senate, halting all floor debate and discussion – one of the hallmarks of our American democracy. In another courageous step, I am pleased to say the The Republican Governor’s Association has wisely decided to support Scott.  For years, the RGA has been a hot bed of ideas and action for practical, conservative governance.  While it has showcased some of the great laboratories of our American democracy, its main function was to get Republican governors elected – and it’s done that quite well over the years.  In an unprecedented step, after seeing millions of union dollars and thousands of outsiders pour into Wisconsin to fight Governor Walker’s good governance, The Republican Governors Association decided that is was time to show the country and the union bosses that we have Scott Walker’s back by launching a an advertising campaign in support of his efforts on TV and online.  This is one of the most important fights of our time and it will impact the lives for generations of Wisconsinites and American to come.  Our leaders must show courage and conviction to take on the tough fights and make the right decisions – and when they do, we must show them our strong and unwavering support.

Posted: Sunday, June 3, 2012 10:00 am

Gov. McDonnell was on hand May 29 as Marymount University celebrated the formal renaming of its School of Health Professions in honor of Fred and Marlene Malek.

“There’s going to be an explosion in the need for people trained in health professions – this school is going to do its part in graduating nurses and other people in the applied science who will go on to do great things,” the governor said at the ceremony.

McDonnell noted that both Virginia and the nation are facing a shortage of health-care professionals, and the gap between the need and the ability to meet it is expected to grow in the future.

The generosity of the Maleks, residents of McLean, is an example of their “giving generously back to bless countless generations of new young Americans who will walk through these halls and learn,” said the governor, who long has been a friend and political ally of the couple.

The Malek family has a lengthy association with Marymount – Marlene Malek is a 1979 graduate of its nursing school and a member of the university’s board of trustees – and the 600-student School of Health Professions was renamed “Malek School of Health Professions” to honor their financial support and ongoing commitment to the university.

“The Maleks have given us a name that represents commitment, compassion, leadership and integrity,” said Dr. Jason Craig, an associate professor of physical therapy at the university.

Marymount president Matthew Shank noted that the Malek School becomes the first of the university’s four schools to receive the name of a benefactor.

“Having a name creates an important distinction,” Shank said. “The recognition and respect engendered by the Malek name now belong, by association, to Marymount.”

Marlene Malek is well-known among health-care philanthropists. She is president of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research, served on the board of the Duke University Cancer Center and is a member of the Cancer Leadership Council at the Mayo Clinic.

Additionally, she is a trustee of the M.D. Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center in Houston, and is a member of C-Change, formerly known as the National Dialogue on Cancer.

The endowment created by the Maleks also funds an annual Malek Lecture on health, along with a professorship.

Gov. McDonnell, Marlene Malek, Fred Malek, Matthew Shank and Lynne Shank were among those on hand during ceremonies honoring the Maleks for their work in support of the university's health-care facilities and initiatives. (Marymount photo)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wrote this piece that is featured in The Daily Caller:

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

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

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

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

Robert Costrell writes in the Wall Street Journal that Milwaukee teachers receive 74.2 cents on the dollar in health and retirement benefits. An employee in the private sector receives just 24.3 cents on the dollar. In some cases, the benefits package is equal to half of the total employment package. Costrell found that “the average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of financial planning for Milwaukee public schools.”

The reason for these nice gold-plated benefits packages are that in the past politicians never had the courage to stand up to unions and insist that benefits be tied to market realities.  Quite simply it was too easy to kick that political can down the road and let the next Governor or the next generation of taxpayers deal with the mess.  That is not only radically irresponsible; it is a recipe for our country’s ruin.

Charles Krauthammer writes in the Washington Post that “in the public sector, the politicians who approve any deal have none of their own money at stake. On the contrary, the more favorably they dispose of union demands, the more likely they are to be the beneficiary of union largess in the next election. It’s the perfect cozy setup.”

In light of this, Scott Walker has decided to tackle his state’s budget deficit not by raising taxes on hard working Wisconsonites in the midst of an economic downturn but by making desperately needed changes to the state’s benefit and entitlement system. The rising cost of retirement packages and insurance has been identified as a threat to not only states like Wisconsin, but also the United States as a whole.

The response to Scott Walker’s budget from Wisconsin Democrats has been to flee the state and shut down the Senate, halting all floor debate and discussion – one of the hallmarks of our American democracy. In another courageous step, I am pleased to say the The Republican Governor’s Association has wisely decided to support Scott.  For years, the RGA has been a hot bed of ideas and action for practical, conservative governance.  While it has showcased some of the great laboratories of our American democracy, its main function was to get Republican governors elected – and it’s done that quite well over the years.  In an unprecedented step, after seeing millions of union dollars and thousands of outsiders pour into Wisconsin to fight Governor Walker’s good governance, The Republican Governors Association decided that is was time to show the country and the union bosses that we have Scott Walker’s back by launching a an advertising campaign in support of his efforts on TV and online.  This is one of the most important fights of our time and it will impact the lives for generations of Wisconsinites and American to come.  Our leaders must show courage and conviction to take on the tough fights and make the right decisions – and when they do, we must show them our strong and unwavering support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier today I appeared on the MSNBC show “Daily Rundown” with Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie. They wanted to hear what I thought about Sarah Palin’s plans ahead, and while I do not speak for her, I offered my view of where I think she wants to go. We also talked a bit about the White House race for 2012 and what to watch for in the upcoming midterm elections. It’s about four minutes, watch it here:

This morning I had the pleasure of interviewing my old friend John McCain on CNBC’s early morning show “Squawk Box”. If you missed it this morning, you can see most of it in these clips below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would not rate his judgment so highly today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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