In early January, the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report, co-authored by former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, that outlined policy solutions to the weak economic and wage growth currently in the U.S. Given CAP’s well-known ties to the Clintons—Neera Tanden, the president of CAP, is an adviser for Hillary Clinton’s campaign—the policy recommendations are widely considered to be a preview of Clinton’s domestic agenda.

“There is a need for policy to ensure that growth is broadly shared with employees, not just employers and the owners of firms,” Summers writes, citing income inequality as a key challenge facing the country. The report suggests a number of solutions, including increased infrastructure spending, universal pre-K, raising the minimum wage, and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Some of these solutions are targeted at middle class households, while others are designed to improve the lives of low-income Americans.

In a recent essay at National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru and Yuval Levin sum up the report thus:

The bad news for conservatives is that, although the progressive agenda outlined in the report is not well suited to the circumstances and challenges of contemporary American life, it is designed for political appeal and may well have some. The good news is that, by applying their principles to the core problems Americans now face, conservatives could readily outline an agenda that would both do more to strengthen economic growth and opportunity in America and be more attractive to the public.

Their counter-proposal, one that they believe "satisfies both the public’s desire for smaller government and its interest in a higher middle-class standard of living," begins with tax reform—specifically, expanding the tax credit for children. That idea is supported by just one Republican presidential candidate— Senator Marco Rubio—and has been widely criticized by the rest of the party. For their part, the Democrats want to support parents through the tax code; Obama has proposed expanding a tax credit for child care for instance. Ponnuru and Levin also support expanding the EITC and giving workers a share in company earnings, as Democrats do, and want to "take on the higher-education cartel" by promoting new ways for students to finance college and allowing states to experiment with new accreditation systems.

That's Ponnuru and Levin's article in a nutshell: a litany of Reformocon ideas that the GOP "could" adopt, but many of which will be ignored, if not outright opposed, by a party that remains straightjacketed by extreme conservatism. The authors themselves seem to recognize this: