Atlas Forum Primaries: Republican NH Debate

[bullmoose88]

Good Evening Mr. Modu, fellow Republican colleagues, people of New Hampshire, and my fellow Americans watching this debate. Thank you for allowing me to participate tonight.

(Introduction)

I entered this campaign with one simple request to my fellow Republicans…to choose freedom. In an era with an increasing focus on security by the current administration, equality by the other party, I believe that it is imperative to give liberty its proper due. 

An Arage administration’s main objective would be to restore power back to the people by empowering state and local governments. I believe that those closest to a problem are generally the best equipped and most knowledgeable about solving problems. Rather than one “know it all” federal government making local decisions on the national level, I would invest power in individuals and communities. The words “invest” and “empower” are crucial vocabulary terms to me and to my administration, should I be allowed to govern. The Federal Government cannot be all things to all people. Our country must think long and hard about its spending, and its tax policies. It is not prudent to end up in the red year after year. This does not mean, however, that our government cannot invest in our country’s future nor does it prevent us from empowering everyday citizens to achieve our goals. My administration would foster liberty and empower the people.

Therefore, I can find no more appropriate place than here in New Hampshire, where the creed is “Live Free or Die” to ask you once again to “choose freedom” and vote for me.


(Q1)

I do not agree with setting spending limits for political campaigns. Philosophically I view money and spending as a vehicle for speech. I believe that setting a spending limit is a restriction of the speech of a candidate or a political group. Such a restriction, in my view, is a violation of a candidate’s first amendment rights. Pragmatically, it seems (to me at least) that our measures to place small donor on similar footing with big donors have been ineffective at the very least. Certainly we must ensure that small donors do not get overlooked, but it seems campaign regulation has done very little, if anything to achieve this noble goal.

As for public funding of campaigns, I am opposed to this measure. The possible merits of putting campaigns on equal footing with each other in order to create a level playing field for ideas to battle it out aside; I do not support this form of public spending. I oppose this measure because I seek to generally reduce the size and scope of government.

(Q2) 

I do not support enfranchising residents of the District of Columbia for United States Congress under commonly proposed proposals. Our founders desired a neutral territory for our federal capital and by turning DC into a congressional voting unit would undermine this principle. I do support proposals to cede residential areas to the State of Maryland, should she want these areas, as was done with Arlington with Virginia.

DC residents do enjoy some benefits that state residents do not. DC residents automatically qualify for instate tuition at any public college or university in the United States. Any plan to enfranchise DC residents must include removal of these benefits to garner my consideration.

In the absence of enfranchisement, I do support these perks for living in the federal neutral zone and would encourage congress to enact more benefits for DC residents to compensate for their lack of voting rights.


(Q3)

As for Burundi’s political struggles, the United States must keep a watchful eye on the country. This said, I believe that our great country should not always take the role of leading negotiator in every situation. This is a situation where the United States should support institutions like the African Union and the United Nations. Allowing these two institutions, especially the AU, to gain credibility in the region as effective dispute negotiators can only help the United States in the future by giving us more resources to tackle any given problem in the area.

I am a firm believer in the use of foreign development aid to help poor countries. That said, the form of our aid will depend upon our budgetary circumstances. When aid, either in the form of grants or special loans, is coupled with conditions (conditions which can aid in building liberal democratic regimes) for its use, the results can be quite promising.


(Q4) 

This embarrasses me to mention this, but while I attended Syracuse University law school….many many years ago, I was without health insurance. It was through God’s good grace that I survived (laughs).

Philosophically, I do not believe it is the Federal Government’s role to provide health care. Practically speaking, I’m personally skeptical at the government’s ability to outperform the private sector’s ability to provide health services at comparable prices. Certainly if called upon, government (like those seen in European systems) can provide adequate health care but with long waits and higher taxes. This does not mean I necessarily support pulling the federal government out of healthcare, at least initially.

As for the high cost of prescription drugs, I think the culprit is that our prescription drug market is protected allowing for high domestic prices compared to those faced by consumers in, for example, Canada. I believe we should allow the importation of drugs in to the United States from Canada in order to allow consumers to take advantage of lower (true) market prices.

(Q5) 

Without addressing the factors which lead thousands of Mexicans to illegally cross our borders each year, an Arage administration would be inclined to boost border patrols either with more National Guard troops or providing more funding to police units in the affected states.

I do wish to caution the viewers at home, this is a very specific answer to a very specific question. I would much rather prefer to first try and tackle the issues which encourage so many to seek America illegally. If you, Mr. Modu wish to ask a follow up question regarding this issue, I would gladly answer it, or revise my remarks.

(Question from Mr. Modu)  In your speech in Iowa and in your latest television ad, you talk about returning power back to the people.  Please provide an example of a power currently held by the federal government which you would allocate back to the people, and why would that transfer of power be beneficial to both the individual and to the nation as a whole.

Well Mr. Modu, I’ll address your question first in a more general, philosophical way and then move to a specific issue.  In general, I generally think private institutions and local/state government are more suited to providing services that the federal government provides. Private institutions face competition and by nature are more efficient. Local (even community organizations) and State Governments are more suited to targeting resources towards the needs of their own states/localities. Intuitively it makes sense that New Hampshire is more knowledgeable about the needs of its residents than the Federal Government.

For instance, I am supportive toward proposals to allow each individual worker to invest their earnings into private accounts for retirement. Many, if not most Americans agree that Social Security reform is necessary, but oppose any sort of privatization, even gradual for younger workers. I feel that there are two problems with this stance. First, while polls showed that younger workers supported more personal control over their retirement savings (with the ability to include higher-risk options with high potential returns), the plan was blocked by support from older workers (and retirees) who would not have seen a significant change to their benefits. The other issue I see with not privatizing Social Security is that it says to me, at least, “the Federal Government knows what is best for you.” I think we need to trust people, and give them the freedom to do what they see fit. I think under a private system we can allow for a smaller government managed system for those who feel that they would be more comfortable without market risk.


Question from Rep. Wallace  To be asked.

Question to Sec. Vandervoot: Secretary Vandervoot, it appears to me that you support a significant amount of economic freedom for American citizens, why is it that you appear to be more hesitant to support similar levels of social freedom?