In the October 3 issue of the Addison Independent, Carolyn Schmidt and Gwyn Cattell summarize aspects of Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. I appreciate their work and reporting out on the many objectionable ideas outlined in that document. Below, I’ve added details and arguments, thematically organized, augmenting Schmidt and Cattell’s summary. The outline format is intentional; I want those not inclined to read the full document to read the original words, not just my interpretation.

1. The Conservative Promise shifts risk and responsibility from the federal government to individual states. This shift is philosophical, requiring states to pay their own bills and fund their own choices. This shift brings with it significant financial considerations.

Ch. 5: Department of Homeland Security: FEMA

FEMA should raise the threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. Or, apply a deductible, “… incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities.” Also, “…change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 percent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching the maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters.” (P. 153)

Comment: Currently there is a cost-sharing arrangement which can be altered by Congress or the President. (bit.ly/4eO0NhN) Project 2025 does not define “small disaster”, nor does FEMA. Considering the magnitude of hurricanes in the past few years, and given the common geographic areas of those hurricanes, the Project 2025 cost-sharing arrangement could easily cause many states to reach financial disaster annually.

Ch. 12: Dept. of Energy and Related Commissions

“Unleash private-sector energy innovation by ending government interference in energy decisions. Stop the war on oil and natural gas. Allow individuals, families, and business to use the energy resources they want to use and that will best serve their needs.” (P. 365)

Ch. 19: Department of Transportation

“If funding must be federal, … send transportation grants to each of the 50 states and allow each state to purchase the transportation services that it thinks are best.” (P. 621)

“… remove federal subsidies for transit spending, allowing states and localities to decide whether mass transit is a good investment for them.” (P. 636)

Comment: These last three examples give choices to states, but disregard impacts of those choices outside of their borders — impacts include infrastructure, environment, and financial.

2. The Conservative Promise consistently proposes individual rights — individuals being people, states, and the United States — each as sole operators. The common thread of the promises below is environmental degradation. A number of the promises below, also a consistent thread in the document, is enrichment of certain private industries at the expense of the people.

Ch. 10: Dept. of Agriculture

“Proactively defend agriculture … Remove the US from any association with the UN and any other efforts to push sustainable-development schemes connected to food production.” (P. 293)

Ch. 22, Dept. of Treasury

US should withdraw from UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. (P. 709)

Ch. 13: the Environmental Protection Agency

“The primary role in making choices about the environment belongs to the people who live in it.” (P. 420)

Comment: Clearly “… the people who live in it …” is an extremely narrow concept of environment with total disregard to our role in creating the larger environment and lack of responsibility in contributing to its health.

“… return the standard setting to Congress.” (P. 425) bit.ly/3UgGAsG

Comment: Congressional gridlock will ensure no standards are set. And even if members of Congress can collaborate and cooperate and compromise, they will need to rely on science experts to make appropriate decisions. Science protects us; politics do not.

“Revisit the designation of PFAS chemicals as ‘hazardous substances’ under CERCLA [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act].” (P. 431)

Ch. 16: Dept. of the Interior

“Reinstate Trump’s plan for opening most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development.” (P. 524)

Ch. 21: Dept. of Commerce

NOAA should be “dismantled, and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.” (P. 664) Commercialize weather technologies. (P. 674) Downsize the office of oceanic and atmospheric research. (P. 676)

Comment: NOAA is the source of much of our climate science, which is critical in preparing for disasters, as well as for future planning. Dismantling, downsizing, or privatizing is putting our heads in the sand.

3. While The Conservative Promise shifts power and money to states across social and environmental issues, it focuses on maximizing monolithic military might at the national level. The common thread throughout the document is that the United States will be a powerful island unto itself, foregoing any coordination or collaboration. This militant isolationism will endanger we, the people. The Conservative Promise talks about balancing the budget and cutting expenses across social and environmental programs, while at the same time promising to increase funding across the branches of military; The Conservative Promise also expands weapons production.

Ch. 4: Department of Defense

“The US must regain its role as the ‘Arsenal of Democracy.’” Manufacturing, selling, exporting weapons. (P. 100)

“End informal Congressional review… [it] is a hindrance to ensuring timely sales to our global partners.” (P. 101)

“Prioritize nuclear modernization…Develop sea-launched cruise missile — nuclear … Account for China’s nuclear expansion … Restore the nuclear infrastructure … Correctly orient arms control.” (P. 125)

“When such [international] institutions [like NATO, WHO] act against US interests, the United States must be prepared to take appropriate steps, up to and including withdrawal.” (P. 191)

Comment: There is a difference between deterrence and belligerence, and these policies promote belligerence.

4. The Conservative Promise policies will impoverish those most vulnerable.

Ch. 5: Dept. of Homeland Security, FEMA

“The National Flood Insurance Program should be wound down and replaced with private insurance….” (P. 153)

Comment: The links below show the rising cost of insurance is prohibitive. Shifting to private insurance will increase costs to the consumer, or price them out of the market. Not everyone has the ability to move away from risk, and risk is increasing across the United States.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/flood-insurance-cost

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maps-home-insurance-costs-state-extreme-weather-risks/

Ch. 10: Dept. of Agriculture: SNAP: “Re-implement work requirements.” (P. 299)

Ch. 14: Dept. of Health and Human Services: “Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs.” (P. 468)

Comment: Job markets are volatile, making access to work regionally difficult. Caregiving responsibilities, as well as disabilities impede ability to get or hold a job. The Conservative Promise consistently touts family values; taking food from hungry Americans is anti-family.

The Conservative Promise puts forth a number of policies which will create economic chaos; a few are listed here:

Ch. 18: Dept. of Labor and Related Agencies:

“Cap and phase down the H-2A visa program.” Low-cost workers undercut American workers. Increase American employment in the agricultural sector. “Phase out the H-2B visa for seasonal non-agricultural workers.” (P. 612)

Comment: The links below explain the visa programs and their economic benefits. There are significant labor problems within the industries that use these programs, and yet the programs supply essential labor to the agricultural sector. American workers do not apply for the available jobs.

bit.ly/3A7smn2

bit.ly/3UfzowM

Ch. 22: Dept. of Treasury

Replace government regulation of banking systems with market regulation. (P. 705)

Repeal the Corporate Transparency Act. (P. 707)

Comment: Market regulation will not make banking systems safer for individuals, as evidenced in the Savings & Loan Crisis of the 1980s, the Great Recession of 2007-2009. Repealing the Corporate Transparency Act will enable shell corporations (foreign and domestic) to mask true ownership, allowing for economic and environmental exploitation and lack of accountability.

Ch. 24: Federal Reserve

One protection against inflation is to return to the gold standard. (P. 736)

Comment: The gold standard pegs a dollar to a certain value of gold. There is a limited supply of gold in the United States, and worldwide. Pegging a dollar to a value of gold will not necessarily reduce inflation (the gold-value of a dollar can be changed, thus changing the amount of dollars needed to purchase items). The gold standard can create volatility in other markets, such as labor. The Federal Reserve currently has a “dual mandate” — stabilize the currency, and protect and support job growth. The Conservative Promise wants the Federal Reserve to focus on currency stabilization. So, while the value of the dollar may be stabilized if defined as a consistent amount of gold, economic growth and job creation will be hamstrung by the growth in the gold supply. Here are two great resources to contemplate.

bit.ly/3BReTR3

https://gold-standard.procon.org/

5. Investment in human capital, workers, is essential to a stable, productive economy. Quality public education is an essential component in creating effective, productive workers and citizens. To be sure, there are problems to address and fix, but privatizing education will exacerbate those problems. The amount of public funds available will not help every student gain access to appropriate private education.

Ch. 11: Department of Education

“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the Department of Education should be eliminated.” Public funds should move with the student to public or private school. (P. 319, 347)

“…every parent should have the option to direct his or her child’s share of education funding through an Education Savings Account (ESA), funded overwhelmingly by state and local taxpayers.” (P. 319)

“Restore revenue responsibility for Title I funding to the states over a 10-year period.” “Parents should be allowed to use their child’s Title I resources to help pay for private learning options including tutoring services and curricular materials.” (P. 326, 350)

Phase out Income-Driven Repayment plans for student loans. “There should be no loan forgiveness.” (P. 338)

Ch. 14: Dept. of Health and Human Services: Eliminate Head Start. (P. 482)

Comment: As a nation, we should want our children and citizens to be educated so they can achieve their potential; “…the Blessings of Liberty…” are predicated on having options. Head Start is an essential early support for low-income families (including nutrition, which impacts ability to learn). Higher education is exorbitant, creating a regressive burden on lower income households. Private schools don’t have to accept students with disabilities; they don’t have to educate any and every student. It is in our country’s best interest to invest in our human capital.

The policies put forth in The Conservative Promise will further impoverish rural America, foster increased division among United States residents, and exacerbate interstate inequities — all contrary to creating “…a more perfect Union…” as promised in our Constitution’s Preamble.

The choice is really clear. I hope you’ll join me in voting America forward, knowing that we can and must work together, across differences, to solve the many problems we have today. Vote for Harris and Walz.

Christina Wadsworth

Weybridge