8/10/2011 GOV. GARY JOHNSON FOR PRESIDENT, BLOGGER CONFERENCE CALL
"Gov. Gary Johnson's Plan for Restoring America's AAA Credit Rating"
TRANSCRIPT
Participants:
David Baucom, Charlatan Magazine
Alan Brooks, Young Americans for Liberty blog
Andrew Griffin, Red Dirt Report
Claudio Ibarra, freelance blogger
Ben Johnson, The Right's Writer
Luke Johnson, New Mexico Independent
Robin Jones, OnTilt Radio
Lotus, StonerCulture.com
John Mehaffey, PokerAddict.net
Caterina Platt, freelance blogger
Morgan Parmet, NBC Universal
Craig Schlesinger, SpatialOrientation.com
Steven Scotten, Monochromatic Outlook
Danny Yadron, Wall Street Journal
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: As you all know, the topic for today's conference call is a very important one: Gov. Johnson's plan for restoring America's AAA credit rating. So, I'll let Gov. Johnson give a short opening statement, and then we'll go right to questions.
GARY JOHNSON: Thank you all for getting on here. Very simply, I think that this downgrade was something that I've been predicting for 18 months. I just saw it in the cards. I didn't see it avoidable in any—of course, avoidable would have been to actually slash spending, but I didn't see that happening. At this point, right now, I see—I believe further downgrades are in the offing, and of course, we have heard that already. So the solution, very simply, is to actually slash spending. I would not have raised the debt ceiling. I think that for all the problems that would have been associated with not raising the debt ceiling, I think that they're going to be pale in comparison to what I view as a monetary collapse in the not too distant future. And that in my opinion precipitates itself when no one has an appetite for US Treasuries, and the Treasury itself prints all the money to buy up our own debt, making that a closed loop. I also couple economics—the plan for getting us on track—with balancing the budget. So I'm promising as President to submit a balanced budget in the year 2013. I am also advocating the FairTax. If you haven't checked out the FairTax, getting online: FairTax.org really explains it pretty well. But by all free market economists' reckoning, the issue that we have right now with taxes is that some people pay taxes, some people don't, and the FairTax gets everyone paying a one-time—what would be the only federal tax—which would be a one-time consumption tax on goods and services—new goods and services. Of course, "services" would qualify as "new," I think, every time rendered. But that is proposed as being 23%. That would be revenue neutral, so that does not preclude having to cut spending by 43%, but it is just what it says it is: it's a fair tax. Everybody ends up paying, there's no avoiding it, and it promotes savings. It does away with the income tax, it does away with all federal withholdings. So it does away with FICA, FUTA, Medicare, and, again, replaces it with just a one-time federal consumption tax. It also issues a prebate check to everyone in the country, of about $200 a month. Everyone gets a $200 a month check in the mail, and that covers everyone up to the point of poverty, so that addresses the concern that this would be a regressive tax for the poorest—that this would be a tax that would be unaffordable. Well, the prebate covers everyone in the country up to the point of the poverty level. There's also an estimate that, embedded in all goods and services right now is about 20% tax, so the long-term/short-term effect of implementing the FairTax is, that over a five year period, or thereabouts, that that 20% embedded tax would bleed itself from the cost of goods and services so that it would end up being, really—costs would be about the same as what they are now, even with the 23% added. And I threw out five year number—that is a figure that I heard second hand, so I wouldn't take that figure to the bank, meaning that it may be a different number other than five years on the projected amount of time that it would take for embedded taxes to bleed themselves out. So, I think that might do for an opener.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: All right, great, and right before we go to questions, did we have anyone else come onto the line in the past few minutes?
DANNY ADRON, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Is my line muted?
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: No, nobody is muted this time.
DANNY ADRON: Oh, Danny Adron of the Wall Street Journal.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Hey Danny, good to have you here.
DANNY ADRON: Thank you.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: All right, well actually that puts you at the top of the line, Danny, since we're going in order of alphabetical order of last name, so if you want to go ahead with a question for Gov. Johnson?
DANNY ADRON: Actually, I got on late, so I wasn't sure if you said anything in particular in the beginning that I missed, but you're saying that further downgrades are unavoidable it sounds like, or are likely?
GARY JOHNSON: That's my opinion. I just don't see any ability for us to repay 14 trillion dollars in debt when it's due to increase by 11 trillion over the next eight and a half year. I just see a monetary collapse due to the fact that there won't be any buyers for US Treasuries, and at that point, of course, the Treasury will step in and print all of the money used to buy up our debt. And in my opinion, at that point is when the Dollar really loses steam—really devalues itself—and that we end up, all of us end up, with our savings being worth a whole lot less, if not completely going away.
DANNY ADRON: When do you think that that's going to happen, though? I mean, people are buying Treasuries right now with everything going on in the markets.
GARY JOHNSON: Sure. You know, of course, if I was able to predict that, I'd do it and make a fortune doing that, but I go back 18 months ago now out on the road talking about what I saw in the future, and 18 months ago, to me, it was inevitable that we would have a downgrade in the debt, and, to me, it's inevitable that we're going to have a monetary collapse, given the amount of debt that we have, in lieu of the deficits that we're carrying. It would be one thing if we had no deficits. It would be one thing if we were just borrowing money, as opposed to printing money, but I do believe that there's a price to be paid for continuing to spend more money than we take in. And I've felt that way my entire life, and on reasons for voting for candidates, if I go back to the first election that I ever voted in, that was perhaps my main consideration, was: what are these guys spending? And if I go back to my own voting record—for Congress, and the Senate, and President—it's always first and foremost been about: I'm going to try and elect the guy that's going to spend the least amount of money.
DANNY ADRON: Thank you.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Great question. David Baucom, from Charlatan Magazine?
DAVID BAUCOM, CHARLATAN MAGAZINE: Yes, hi, Gov. Johnson. I have a broader question about Republican policy. It seems that Republicans, for over half a century, have defined themselves so much with regard to their orientation to Democrats, and that's been a problem. Republicans were once against an income tax, and then accepted it, and we got higher and higher rates. They were against Social Security, but then they accepted and raised that. They were against Medicare, but then they accepted that. And then they were against welfare, but they've accepted most of that. So, they traditionally stand for less taxes and more freedom, but it's always in relation to the current status of Democratic politicians, which is overwhelmingly socialistic. So, how much has that slow Republican slide played in leading to the fiscal crisis we've been in? How much are they to blame? And, as a follow-up…
GARY JOHNSON: Oh, I-
DAVID BAUCOM: As a follow-up question… Sorry, go ahead.
GARY JOHNSON: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last sentence, but let me just start off by saying that I really believe both parties are to blame. I just go back to a few short years ago when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and passed a prescription health care benefit, which at that time was the largest entitlement program ever passed, and Republicans ran up record deficits, so I see Republicans as part of the cause. I have not seen them as the solution here. And then, very basically speaking, I am a Republican because I've always felt that Republicans do a better job when it comes to the checkbook, but, of late, I just see it as so status-quo on both sides that, for me, this is really a radical—what needs to happen is a radical departure from business-as-usual, and that's my candidacy for president. I realize I'm like in last place, but if you look at my resume, it might suggest that I'm the guy that would actually stick to my guns when it comes to the radical change that needs to take place. And that radical change starts with not spending more money than what you take in. I am promising to submit a balanced budget in the year 2013. You might say rightly that, "Well, they'll just override your veto." And I use that as in vetoing any expenditures that exceed what I consider to be "balanced," but you could argue that they'll just override that veto. Well, you know, they probably will, but I would have been elected President promising to submit that balanced budget, but I submit to you that I think that balanced budget—that those expenditures will come a lot closer to being balanced with a scenario of a President that's not going to accept any expenses or expenditures that aren't balanced, as opposed to electing a President that is going to do this over a 15-20 year period, because "that's the only prudent way to go about this". To me, that's just the end, to me. I think the day of reckoning is here. I really believe that. And that it has to be addressed. And that we can actually do it. And now I'm back to my own resume: I found good government easy—I didn't find it difficult. It was easy to stick by your principles, and that, by sticking by your principles, you could really make a difference. That's why I'm in this, and ultimately, I think that's why I'll get heard at some point.
DAVID BAUCOM: All right, I appreciate that. Thank you.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Excellent question. Alan Brooks, with Young Americans for Liberty?
ALAN BROOKS, YOUNG AMERICANS FOR LIBERTY BLOG: Yes, good afternoon, Governor. My question is: You already talked a little bit about taxes and about balancing the budget, but a lot of Democrats right now, and a lot of Americans, feel that the answer to our problems is to significantly raise taxes on the richer people in America—could you explain, in your own words, why you don't think that's the right solution?
GARY JOHNSON: Well, I don't think it's the right solution—I don't think raising taxes is the right solution at all—but I am advocating the FairTax, so, really, when everybody starts talking about tax reform, this is the tax reform that's needed. It's throwing out the entire existing system and replacing it with a one-time federal consumption tax that, by all free market economists' reckoning, is fair. Everybody's going to pay. There's no loopholes. We're doing away with the income tax, we're doing away with the IRS, we're doing away with corporate tax, we're doing away with business-to-business tax and the corporate tax, so, on that basis, why would you, as a business owner, start up/grow/nurture your business anywhere in the world, other than the US, if the US was offering the best competitive environment to do that? I just think implementation of the FairTax sets the stage for tens of millions of jobs here in this country that currently are residing elsewhere. Or the new jobs that would go along with startup businesses here, as opposed to anywhere else.
ALAN BROOKS: Okay, thank you.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Okay, how about Ben Johnson, with The Right's Writer?
BEN JOHNSON, THE RIGHT'S WRITER: Yes. It seems like the third rail in Republican politics right now, particularly in debates, is defense spending. Certainly any attempt to balance the budget will require entitlement reform as well as discretionary spending reform, but defense spending in itself is the elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to address. Would reducing American intervention abroad, particularly in places like West Germany and Western Europe, reduce our outlays, and will Gary Johnson be the candidate to raise the issue?
GARY JOHNSON: Well, yeah, and Ben, I've been raising the issue. And I appreciate the fact that I'm in last place. I mean, I'm reality-based here: I'm in last place. But, for 18 months now, I've been talking about balancing the budget—about submitting a balanced budget for the year 2013. Well, that means cutting spending by 43%. That's the amount of money we're currently printing and borrowing to meet that 43 cents. So, I'm advocating a 43% reduction in military spending. That starts with the question of, "Can we provide a strong national defense for our country and still reduce military spending by 43%?" I say, "Yes, we can." The operative word being "defense," as opposed to offense. And then, the notion that we would stop nation-building. I was opposed to Iraq from the very start. I thought that there was no military threat from Iraq. I know there was talk of weapons of mass destruction, but I thought we had the military surveillance capability to see Iraq roll out any weapons of mass destruction, and that, if they were to have done that, we could have gone in and dealt with that militarily. I thought that if we went into Iraq, we would have found ourselves in a civil war to which there would be no end. Afghanistan, initially, I thought that was totally warranted—I thought that was why we have a military. We were attacked, we attacked back, we attacked al Qaeda, and having been in Afghanistan for six months, we'd effectively wiped out al Qaeda. That was 10 years ago. We're building roads, bridges, schools, highways and hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the world, and we have those same needs here, and we're borrowing 43 cents out of every Dollar to do this? I think that's crazy. I have been advocating getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow. And for all of the debate and the discussion we would have about the calamity that will ensue as a result of doing that, I would say that that would be a warranted discussion. I would say that concerns would be warranted on all sides. I just suggest to you that we'll have that same debate 25 years from now, if that's when we finally decide to get out. And Libya—I put a paper out right away on Libya—on Libya, I'm opposed to Libya A through Z. Starting with: Where's the military threat? Where in the Constitution does it say that because we don't like a foreign leader, we should go in and topple that foreign leader? No congressional authorization? Haven't we injected ourselves in a civil war there, that, right now, that same intervention might be warranted in five other countries right now? We have 100,000 troops on the ground in Europe. I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that 57,000 might cut it. That would be a 43% reduction. Seems to me, there could be fewer than that, but I don't want to misspeak here. I just want to speak from the context that we're spending more money on military spending than all the other countries in the world combined, and we're five percent of the world's population. I think other countries need to take up the slack that we haven't even allowed them to take up, and I'm speaking now, as an example, of Japan, where the Prime Minister of Japan ran on a campaign of getting the US out of Japan, not from an adversarial standpoint, but just from the standpoint that, "Hey, we can do this, you don't need to do this anymore," and we refuse to get out, and because he ran his campaign on that, he ended up resigning. So, 30,000 troops on the ground in Japan, 30,000 troops on the ground in South Korea—I just think that there's a lot of unintended consequence that goes along with our military policies that perhaps find us with more enemies than if we were to not be spending all this money and really concentrate on what I consider to be a real threat from terrorism, but that ought to be the focus, and I think we've just lost that focus, and we've lost it for a long, long time.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Great question. Did we just have one more person come on the line?
CRAIG SCHLESINGER, SPATIALORIENTATION.COM: Yes, this is Craig Schlesinger. Sorry I was late, I didn't have the phone number.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Hey, no problem, Craig. I'm glad you could make it.
GARY JOHNSON: No worries.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Thanks, Governor.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: All right, if we want to go to Robin Jones, with OnTilt Radio.
ROBIN JONES, ONTILT RADIO: Hey, how are you doing, sir?
GARY JOHNSON: Good, thank you.
ROBIN JONES: I was just kind of researching back to last year. I'm kind of like lost on all this good government stuff, but it goes back to when Colorado passed a House bill—you can research it, it's 10-1193, and that was done in March of last year—and basically I guess the bill highlights concerning the collection of sales and use taxes on sales made by out-of-state retailers. Basically, what this came down to was Amazon.com and affiliates. I guess what the state wants to do is go after the Internet corporations that solicit affiliates to help promote their business, so Amazon basically said that, instead of dealing with our government, they were just going to pull the business out of the state and not offer—and they basically closed down every affiliate account from Colorado, so basically, due to this bill, they just stopped doing business with Colorado because of it. Maybe you can explain how the fair use taxes from states on out-of-state retailers should be conducted, as far as these businesses that offer affiliates?
GARY JOHNSON: Well, the FairTax is going to affect Internet sales. I mean, that's—you're not going to be able to escape it. That's—and now you're back to the fundamental notion of the FairTax, which is that it is just that—it's fair. Everybody's going to have to pay it, and there's no escaping it, and as a result of that, like I say, no more IRS, no more income tax, no more loopholes. The more money you make, the more money you consume, the more money you're going to pay in FairTax. So it kind of does away with all of these issues that end up being discriminatory. They end up being unfair. Some corporations don't pay a penny? That isn't right—and yet they're just taking advantage of loopholes that exist and who can really begrudge any individual or corporation for doing that if that is something that can be done? So, get rid of all that.
ROBIN JONES: So basically, if an Internet business sells a product on the Internet, and, say, somebody from Colorado buys their product, then they need to pay their state sales tax then, correct?
GARY JOHNSON: Well, all I'm talking about is a one-time federal consumption tax. From a state standpoint, state taxes would still exist, and I would not be advocating a state sales tax. In eight years, having been Governor of New Mexico, not one penny of tax went up. I'm in the camp that believes that we just continue to spend more money, and that spending is what's out of control, and that taxes—raising revenue—usually is always in response to a shortfall of some sort, and revenue gets raised to meet the shortfall, and at some point, the shortfall becomes largesse, and we never seem to roll back the tax, but we just seem to take on new spending because we have all these newfound "needs" that "have to be met". And I'm saying that facetiously. Government has never, really, in my lifetime, engaged in a rollback of spending, and I believe we're at that point right now, and that we can do this, and that it wouldn't be difficult, but it's going to take the political resolve to do it, and it's going to take a President that would actually pursue this in everything that he or she were engaged in. I'm arguing that there's nothing in my resume—nothing in my resume—to suggest that I'm not going to pursue what it is that I'm talking to you all about right now.
ROBIN JONES: Thank you.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Great question. Did we just have a couple more people come on the line?
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Maybe some people deserted you, Governor. [chuckles]
GARY JOHNSON: [chuckles] Maybe that's the case.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: [laughs] I heard two people come on the line? We'll move on to the next question by-
CATERINA PLATT, FREELANCE BLOGGER: Are we all on mute?
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: No, no. No mute this time.
CATERINA PLATT: Oh my goodness. Oh, okay, I'm Caterina Platt from Los Lunas, New Mexico.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Hi, Caterina.
GARY JOHNSON: Hi, Caterina.
CATERINA PLATT: Nice to talk to you. Just joined in, hoping I'm not duplicating anything. I'm in the real estate industry, and my focus has been lately with Dodd-Frank and the run-up and everything that got us here to the crescendo, I guess, of our problems, which have technically been building for eight or ten decades, but, there's been no accountability, and to see folks like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd allegedly writing the quote-unquote "reforms" that are supposed to "fix" everything, when they were key players in everything that went wrong, what can we do about bringing some of these folks that have caused the problems, to accountability? There's only been one guy that's been sentenced to anything: Farkas, from Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, has been the only one that's been brought up on charges. Angelo Mozilo from Countrywide? Still walking around. Is there anything that we can do here to get some fire under righting some of these wrongs?
GARY JOHNSON: Well, you know Caterina, my focus here is going forward, and we can talk about the past: I did not support any of the bailouts, and I think that if we would have had a fire sale, that if mortgages were to have been allowed to free fall, that there would have been a market bottom that would have been established. It would have been established very quickly, in my opinion. And that right now we would be in a recovery phase, and it would be real, as opposed to we've never had the fire sale, and something that you're very aware of is that banks are still carrying huge inventories of repossessed homes that they do not have all of those repossessed homes on the market, because if they did that, then they would end up being insolvent, so they're bleeding off these properties. We never had the fire sale, and so, continue the uncertainty. We continue the uncertainty and as a result of that, nobody's really wanting to step up and buy real estate, because really, it might just go lower. And I'm just pointing out the obvious-
CATERINA PLATT: Well, and that would just be the free market.
GARY JOHNSON: Well, that would be free market. And that is-
CATERINA PLATT: And I'm fully in support of that.
GARY JOHNSON: Yeah, we pass legislation that has unintended consequence. You know, your having lived in New Mexico… if you had lived in New Mexico in the time that I was Governor, I think that you were inundated with news reports about all the vetoes that I would have rendered, and how catastrophe was going to reign, as a result of my not passing all these kinds of rules and regulations and laws, and just the opposite happened. You know, a report was issued here three weeks ago on all the presidential candidates and their jobs report. How did they stack up when it came to jobs being created in their states? Well, I was number one in that analysis, and my response to it three weeks ago, which was the same when I was Governor of New Mexico, was "I didn't create one single job as Governor of New Mexico." But because I vetoed legislation that was adverse to business, I think business went to bed at night knowing that things weren't going to get worse, and because I actually ran all the state agencies, actually the rules and regulations got a whole lot better on a daily basis. And I say that with the backdrop that, as Governor of New Mexico, I really saw some bad actors out there. I saw some bad actors when it came to individuals, when it came to business, when it came to corporations, when it came to businesses that polluted. And if it wasn't for government, with their regulations, with their rules, with their laws, you know what? Maybe we would still have polluters around to this day, without any accountability at all. So, I say all of this believing that government does have a role in this. I just think that, in the notion of doing what's right, government steps over the line in a really big way with some really big unintended consequences that go along with that.
CATERINA PLATT: I couldn't agree with you more. We voted for you twice, and cheered for you when you were going up against Manny and Ray [editorial note: Manny Aragon and Raymond Sanchez were the Democratic leaders of the New Mexico Senate and House, respectively] at that time, and it was ugly, but you did the right thing. And we've sent off the emails to FOX, and are really trying to get you in on the Iowa debate, but that's just one more step. There's New Hampshire and there's plenty of other opportunities.
GARY JOHNSON: Well, I do believe that, and thank you. I'm thankful for the job, and they came out with a poll I guess just this morning that has me at two percent, and I realize—I'll just tell you what I think about the polls right now. What I think about the polls right now is that polls are overwhelmingly saying there's no frontrunner.
CATERINA PLATT: Exactly.
GARY JOHNSON: And if you're Newt Gingrich, and you're known by a hundred percent of Republicans, and you're at one or two percent of the vote, I would seriously consider my future, going forward. Statistically, I'm the least known Republican candidate, and, you know, you can look at the money spent right now by all of the candidates running for President, and I'm spending less money than anyone else running for President, so I'm looking at this from the standpoint of "per Dollar spent," maybe I'm further along than anybody else. And I'm really believing in the system, and I'm really believing that people aren't paying attention and a point, they will. And we'll see how it all plays out.
CATERINA PLATT: We're behind you, and we will be.
GARY JOHNSON: Thanks.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Governor, this is Craig Schlesinger, with SpatialOrientation.com. Thanks for having this call. I'm not sure how much I missed in the first twelve minutes. Had you covered the Drug War, yet?
GARY JOHNSON: No, I hadn't.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Okay, I had a specific question about it.
GARY JOHNSON: Yes.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: I've been following you for a long time, and I'll disclose I'm pretty much in the tank for you [chuckles], but you've been advocating legalization of marijuana, and decriminalizing hard drugs, correct?
GARY JOHNSON: Well, I'm advocating legalizing marijuana and that's the only drug that I'm advocating legalizing.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Are you-
GARY JOHNSON: I think that if we legalize marijuana, I think we take giant steps forward when it comes to rational drug policy. And so, with regard to all the other drugs, I'm advocating harm reduction strategies, which are the things that we really care about: reducing death, disease-
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Right, my question-
GARY JOHNSON: Yes?
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: I'm sorry. Not to cut you off-
GARY JOHNSON: No, no.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: But my specific question was: With decriminalization for the others, or "harm reduction strategies," are you worried about the civil liberties abuses, the perpetual SWAT raids on manufacturers and producers and sellers of drugs, instead of having a policy of full legalization that potentially wipes away the DEA budget, the militarized police units, the aggressive tactics they employ? Are you worried that in the absence of legalizing all drugs, it could still happen? And also, the drug cartels—since they don't have to worry about their customers going to jail, they'll still be able to operate with impunity, if we don't legalize everything.
GARY JOHNSON: No…
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: I'm just curious about your thoughts on that.
GARY JOHNSON: Craig, I think you're right on, with your analysis. And that's why I advocate legalizing marijuana as opposed to decriminalizing marijuana. Because, in a decriminalized environment, it's still illegal to sell marijuana. Well, that's not going to cut it, and as a matter of fact, it's going to make it worse on sellers, because law enforcement just redoubles—puts the same resources into those selling drugs as opposed to possessing them. I get back to my earlier premise. I think we legalize marijuana, and in a very short amount of time, this country realizes that things are better, not worse, and all of a sudden now-
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Would it be safe to say that you think it's a "gateway," [chuckles] that it's a "gateway" to legalizing everything else? Like, once everyone sees the net positive results?
GARY JOHNSON: Well, and not to… I'm running for President of the United States here, so I just want to make it really clear. I think this is really going back to 1999, I advocated legalizing marijuana. I get back to this notion that the gateway here is the gateway to rational drug policy.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Right.
GARY JOHNSON: And that starts with looking at the drug problem first as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. And, starting by legalizing marijuana, I want to up-play the notion that this would really be a grass fire, if you will, when it comes to "Oh, the world's not going to fall down! Oh, Portugal decriminalized all drug use ten years ago, because of a heroin epidemic, and they've documented a 50% reduction in heroin reduce? Gosh, the opposite consequence of what you would think!"
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Last I heard, their country's still functioning pretty well.
GARY JOHNSON: Exactly. So, this to me is what marijuana legalization brings right front and center in a positive way.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Definitely. I was wondering if I could ask you a couple other quick questions?
GARY JOHNSON: Yes.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: One is on capital punishment. As a classical liberal, I was wondering your view on the state's authority to kill its citizens, and also the costs of death penalties versus the cost of life imprisonment? We've seen that the cost of life sentencing is actually less than the cost of the death penalty, because of the perpetual appeals process, and how all that money goes to the court system and the like. I was wondering if you had any comment on that?
GARY JOHNSON: I do. As Governor of New Mexico, this was an issue that I very publically changed my mind on. But first, let me just say that I believe in an eye for an eye. So, I supported the death penalty, but as Governor, I came to recognize just those things that you talk about, which is: it costs less to imprison a person for the rest of their lives than opposed to having them on death row, and the reason for that is all the appeals that go along with having attorneys to keep them in the appeal process. But then you come to find out that someone gets, not only off of death row, but let out of prison because they're absolutely innocent. Well, what value do put on that then? From an attorney's fee standpoint, well, it's priceless. So, as public policy, this is very well documented—me being Governor of New Mexico—from a public policy perspective, I think the death penalty is bad public policy. I do not want to put one innocent person to death to put 99 that are guilty to death. It's flawed public policy. Let's lock a person up for the rest of their lives, and we won't make a mistake when it comes to putting a person to death.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Absolutely. One more quick question, if I might?
GARY JOHNSON: Yes.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Your thoughts on… this is a foreign policy one. Sorry to keep shifting gears. I don't know if you touched on this, but there's been a lot made of Iran as a threat, and I think we all know that's a little bit farfetched, because they have a tiny fraction of our military budget, yet people are still kind of rattling the saber. I know you've taken strong positions on our intervention in Afghanistan, Libya, and Somalia, which I agree with. I was wondering if you could just give us some of your thoughts on the Iran situation, please?
GARY JOHNSON: Well, when we went into Iraq, Iraq was the check when it came to Iran. Iran had one, real military foe, and they were completely consumed with thwarting that military foe, and that was Iraq. You take out Saddam Hussein-
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: I'm sorry, Governor? More specifically-
GARY JOHNSON: Well, we-
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: I apologize. More specifically-
GARY JOHNSON: Yeah?
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Do you think it's dangerous that we rattle the saber about Iran, while their population—their under-35 population—are very pro-Western, culturally? You know, they like their iPods, they like their designer jeans, but the minute that we do something aggressive towards Iran, whether it's militarily or with sanctions or the like, that they have a propensity to rally around a regime that they're otherwise desirous to be free of? Any thoughts on that?
GARY JOHNSON: You know what? I don't know if that's the case. I don't. But it makes sense. We have—like I say—we just continue with this string of unintended consequences with the actions that we take. Iran is rearing its head right now because it doesn't have to worry about Iraq. And, to me, there is no military threat from Iran. But we should be vigilant to that military threat, but I don't see it.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Thanks. And I also just wanted to add that I don't think I've ever heard anyone else before you call yourself a classical liberal out in the open on T.V. as a presidential candidate, and I think that's a great thing, and I will now shut up and let some other people ask some questions.
GARY JOHNSON: Thank you. [laughs]
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Great questions, Craig.
GARY JOHNSON: Not for "shutting up," but for your comments. [laughs]
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Thank you, Governor.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Did we have one more person come on the line in the last few minutes?
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: If not, I'll keep talking. I don't mind. [chuckles]
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: If not, I actually have a couple questions from some bloggers who couldn't make it onto the call, but they wanted to get an answer. John Hawkins with Townhall wants to know, Gov. Johnson, if he could get a statement as to why Latino voters should vote for you.
GARY JOHNSON: Well, as Governor of New Mexico—New Mexico has the largest Hispanic population, on a per capita basis, of all the states. And I'm asked quite often, "What did you do to attract the Hispanic vote?" And my response was "Nothing." Everything that I had to say was based on this notion that government needs to provide a level playing field for everybody, that everybody might take advantage of the American dream, as opposed to government picking winners and losers, and I don't want government picking winners and losers when it comes to race. I don't want government picking winners and losers that, because you're Hispanic, somehow you're going to have an advantage over someone else, but government shouldn't be creating any disincentive or any disadvantage either. So, what I did to attract the Hispanic vote, which obviously I had to have, to get elected Governor of New Mexico, was "nothing."
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Great, and John Board from To The Drawing Board, has the question: If the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction comes back and recommends the passage of a balanced budget amendment, would you accept this deal if you were President?
GARY JOHNSON: Well, it's one thing to accept a… So, "balanced budget amendment" sounds terrific. I don't know what the time frame on it is, but let me guess. I'm going to guess that the time frame on it is in the plus ten year category, if not plus fifteen year category. No, I don't want to support that. If there's a balanced budget that lays something out in three or four years? You bet, you bet. I can compromise on that, as opposed to making that balanced budget happen in the year 2013. But what I've seen my entire life are, quote, "balanced budget amendments" that do anything but balance the budget. What they do is they just push the problem off to the future so that those presently involved in a role to address it, don't have to address it. And now I'm talking about Congresspersons, Senators, and the President.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Great. Is there anyone on the line who has not yet gotten the chance to ask Gov. Johnson a question?
CLAUDIO IBARRA, FREELANCE BLOGGER: I haven't. This is Claudio Ibarra from Southwest Virginia.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Go ahead with your question.
CLAUDIO IBARRA: I wanted to ask… I'm sure you've heard the expression about how getting politicians to work together is like herding cats, and I wanted to know, when you propose your balanced budget for 2013, I can predict that all of Congress will oppose it, and what I feel is the best outcome is that nothing will happen. And I was wondering, what tools are in your toolbox to wake the Congress up? That a plus ten year budget is not the right way, because the next administration will just change it? What tools do you have, to get action, instead of inaction, as the best possible outcome?
GARY JOHNSON: So Claudio, I would argue that for me to be in that position, I would have had to have been elected President of the United States on the basis of promising to submit a balanced budget. So, I'm going to submit a balanced budget. That means talking about a reform that needs to go along with Medicaid, Medicare, military spending. Those being the big three when it comes to reform. That's why I got elected—my promise to do that. I'm going to argue that Congress is going to come closer to reducing expenditures to get to that balanced budget on their own, without any cajoling on my part, other than being President of the United States and here's what I'm demanding. You—I think what you're pointing out is what I very much recognize—and that is, they can simply override my veto of those expenditures. Well, then it comes down to the American people making a determination of do we hang with the President that we just elected, or do we overturn Congress? And I just—based on my experience as Governor of New Mexico—don't underestimate the power of saying "no" and not accepting a product that doesn't fix the problem. I think you advance the ball tremendously with the former situation where, look, you're not going to accept anything that doesn't balance the budget. Doing it in a 15 year time frame is unacceptable, because that means it's never going to happen. I just think that—like I say—I just argue that we get closer to fixing it with a scenario of holding firm for balancing the budget.
CLAUDIO IBARRA: Thank you very much.
GARY JOHNSON: Thank you.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Anyone else who has not yet asked a question?
ANDREW GRIFFIN, RED DIRT REPORT: Yes, this is Andrew Griffin in Oklahoma City, with Red Dirt Report?
GARY JOHNSON: Yeah.
ANDREW GRIFFIN: Governor Johnson, a reader of my site, actually from Albuquerque, wanted me to ask you, what are you doing to get more press time, as your candidacy progresses?
GARY JOHNSON: Well that's our constant engagement. We certainly recognize that that's very important. It's very important for me to be on this call right now with all of you, which I thank you for. It's a "keep on plugging" kind of a situation. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think that, number one, I could do a good job and I'm really talking about the things that need to be done, and I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't have a resume that—there's nothing in my resume to suggest that the things I'm talking about, I'm going to shy away from. My entire life has been about doing the things that I've said I'm going to do. So, I'm putting all my chips on the table in New Hampshire. I'm hoping for a good showing in New Hampshire, and at this point right now, that primary's going to be somewhere around the first of February, and the dynamics of doing well in that first primary—and I realize Iowa may have a primary that's earlier, but it is a caucus state as opposed to individual voters, and there just are fundamental differences—but anyway, I'm hoping that come the first of February of next year, when I come to Oklahoma, it'll be a must-have ticket to hear what Johnson has to say, because here's how he did in New Hampshire. And back to media, boy, there's this concentration on our part to be in front of the media, as much as possible, saying the things that need to be said.
ANDREW GRIFFIN: Thank you, Governor.
GARY JOHNSON: Thanks.
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Great. Anyone else who has not yet asked a question? If not, I think we've got time for one more question, so if anybody just wants to jump in and sort of fight over this question.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: May I, Governor? Craig again?
GARY JOHNSON: Yeah, go ahead.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: I know that Jeff Miron was with you at Reason, when you launched the Our America Initiative. I'm a big fan of his work as well. I was wondering if you're in a position to confirm if he's currently the economic advisor for your campaign?
GARY JOHNSON: Yeah, he is, he is. No, he's been terrific. So, when I talk about the FairTax, and the fact that free market economists think that this really is a fair tax, that's—I'm quoting Jeff by saying that.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Right, of course, of course. No, I'm—and I kind of already knew that—I just hadn't seen it confirmed anywhere that I looked. And so, if elected, he would be your first selection to be your chief economics advisor, I would imagine?
GARY JOHNSON: Yeah, I think that's fair to say. Now whether, [laughs] whether or not he would have any interest in that or not, I have no idea. This is no "quid pro quo" on his part. Right now, it's the notion that I am saying what needs to be said, and that he has a spokesperson in me that he might not otherwise have.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Right. So he's just currently involved.
GARY JOHNSON: Yes, yes.
UNKNOWN CALLER: I'm sorry, who was that? Jeff…?
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Jeff Miron. He's an economist at Harvard.
UNKNOWN CALLER: Jeff Miron.
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Yes. He's done numerous cost benefit analyses on the Drug War, on a consumption tax—or the FairTax, whatever you want to call it—and he currently, as the Governor said, Jeff Miron is currently the economic advisor for his campaign.
GARY JOHNSON: Which is a good thing. [laughs]
CRAIG SCHLESINGER: Yes. For both of you. [laughs]
JOSIAH SCHMIDT: Great. Thank you everybody for coming, and thank you for the excellent questions.
For any questions or issues, please email Josiah Schmidt at Blogs@GaryJohnson2012.com.
GaryJohnson2012.com
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment