Orlando, FL, Miami, FL & Washington, D.C. (PRWEB) January 22, 2012— The office of Digger Cartwright, mystery novelist and industrialist, released the transcripts of a question and answer session from Thinking Outside the Boxe’s Annual Symposium held in Orlando on December 30, 2011. Mr. Cartwright participated in the symposium question and answer session via telephone. The symposium focused on topics such as recent economic conditions and the outlook for the coming year, geopolitical events, domestic politics, etc.
Mr. Cartwright’s opening statement was as follows:
"Thank you very much for the invitation to participate in this symposium once again. I have great respect for Thinking Outside the Boxe and its efforts to promote an independent, intelligent exchange of ideas and solutions to problems and issue that are of current debate. I am honored that I have once again been asked to provide my insights and analysis for everyone’s consideration.
“America desperately needs solutions to some very real and serious problems that threaten our future financial and political stability. I am sure that you are all as frustrated as I am with the lack of bipartisanship in the Congress and the ongoing battle between ideologues from both parties. The lack of any progress in getting America back on track is disappointing, and I am sure that you will join with me in encouraging the Congress to set aside personal differences and work together to make America strong once again.
“We cannot continue in this divided manner, all the while seeking only to take as much as we can from the federal government and by extension the taxpayers. Nor can we continue to spend beyond our means. Individually, we cannot spend more than we earn. We must remind our leaders that collectively we cannot spend beyond our means and mortgage our futures. We must remind them that we are not giving them a blank check and that the money they spend belongs to each and every American taxpayer. We must make them accountable and remind them that they all serve at the pleasure of the taxpayers and with our right to vote we can return them to the obscurity from which they came.
“Our elected leaders continually revert to policies that history has shown to fail. Bigger government leads only to an erosion of our individual freedoms and the concentration of power in the hands of a few. Our nation is great in that the government is given its rights by the people. Our government wasn’t created to delineate to us our rights. More centralized government is not the solution to our problems—it is part of the problem itself.
“America has always been bold in addressing its challenges and our history is rich with big thinkers and visionaries—namely, the people of our great nation. As the Congress and the Administration are apparently void of any new ideas in our current times of trouble, it is incumbent upon us to utilize our collective wisdom to provide various options and ideas on how to solve these problems and provide for a sound and stable future for ourselves and future generations. By working together to find solutions that benefit America and the taxpayers, we can reaffirm our commitment to that which makes our nation great and show that as one nation, under God, there is no challenge that we cannot meet and no problem that we cannot solve.
“Once again, thank you for having me here today. I look forward to your questions and to a lively discussion on how best to address today’s challenges. I’m sure that together we will live up to Thinking Outside the Boxe’s mission of providing thought provoking perspectives and analysis with an occasional controversial idea.”
1) Do you have a plan to reform Social Security, Medicare and Welfare? How do you feel about extended unemployment benefits?
I’ve read the previous proposals by Thinking Outside the Boxe, and I wholeheartedly support those proposals. I, however, am of a more hard line approach. Our founding fathers never intended for the government to provide for seniors in old age. Back then, the family or the community or the church took care of those in need of assistance. I think we need to get away from the government taking care of people, particularly when it comes to retirement. This is an issue of personal responsibility. Now, let me be clear. We’ve made a commitment to today’s seniors and those nearing retirement, so we have to honor that.
The problem started back when companies had generous pension plans for employees. These people retired with great retirement compensation that was usually a function of their ending salary and their health care benefits. Those legacy costs ultimately bankrupted a lot of companies. But this created a moral hazard. These workers knew that there was going to be this pension package so they went out and spent what they earned, lived the good life, and didn’t really worry about planning ahead. And the Social Security system contributes to that moral hazard. Well, the government is going to take care of me, so why should I save? Why don’t I just have a good time?
It really gets me when you see these baby boomers bitching about not touching their retirement because they paid for that. Well, let’s have a reality check. You’ve been paying for your retired parents and their generation. Younger workers today are going to be paying for your retirement. But a lot of these baby boomers have done a whole hell of a lot to save and plan for their retirement. And it’s the ultimate hypocrisy that they’re not willing to make any sacrifices to save Social Security. I think it’s a very un-American attitude, but it’s an attitude that is pervasive in society nowadays.
So, how about this plan? It’s real simple. If you were born after January 1, 1995, there will be absolutely no social security for you. That’s right—no Social Security check, no Medicare, no private accounts, nothing. The people need to start saving for their own retirement. If they start at seventeen or eighteen years old, they’ll have plenty by the time they retire. Now, I know what a lot of people are thinking. These people don’t have the extra money to set aside in a retirement account. Well, I would argue differently. Perhaps they will need to make sacrifices—perhaps they don’t need the newest and most high tech cell phone every six months. Perhaps they don’t need everything they want. Novel concept isn’t it?
But let me make a few points about this plan. Existing retirees and baby boomers don’t have to worry about anything. They’re going to continue to receive their benefits, because each and every worker is going to be paying their payroll taxes just like it is now. We know how many people there are in America today. We can figure out how many were born before January 1, 1995 and who would still be eligible for the Social Security programme. So, the actuaries can use their mortality tables and do their magic to come up with the remaining estimated liability for the Social Security Trust. What we’ve in effect accomplished is cutting off the infinitely growing unfunded liabilities and turned that into a single number. We’ll know how many people will be eligible to participate in the plan, and when they’re all deceased, the plan is over. The payroll tax will gradually decrease as beneficiaries decline in numbers.
In the meantime, the younger crowd will have to start taking advantage of IRAs, 401k plans, health savings accounts, etc. We’ll also need to address fraud and waste in both the Social Security and Medicare programmes. That will help reduce the ongoing costs associated with these programmes. In addition, we need to remove the cap on Social Security taxes. Right now, you only pay Social Security on up to $106,800 in wages. Let’s remove that cap and make all wages taxable for Social Security purposes. That will bring in additional funding for the trust, and that will help keep it solvent a while longer. As the economy improves and people get back to work, obviously more funds are going into the Social Security trust and Medicare.
With regards to welfare, I think there needs to be a time limit on receiving benefits as well as mandatory drug testing. I agree that we need to take away incentives whereby you get more money if you have more kids. Let’s do the opposite. If you have another kid, you get less of a welfare check. When the first settlers came to this land, they had a simple concept—if you don’t work, you don’t eat. I think we need to get back to that basic concept. It’s tough love, you know? I’m compassionate for the infirm and the handicapped, but we’ve got a problem with generational welfare. These are people that are perfectly able to work but are just too lazy. They’d rather stick their hand out to the government and get their free money.
I had the displeasure recently of seeing a document called The Wild Wonderful Whites of West Virginia. It is a sad reflection of the fraud and waste in the entitlement programmes. Here you’ve got a bunch of drug head drunks who have, by their own admission, been on Social Security disability and welfare since they were like twelve years old. Yeah, their father got them on Social Security disability at that age and they’ve been riding the government band wagon ever since. These are people that are doing drugs, dealing drugs, and have no useful purpose in society. Hell, there was one girl that was doing lines of cocaine in the hospital room just after she had a baby. Then she wonders why social services took the baby from her. This is the type of fraud and waste that is rife in the entitlement programmes.
We need to put an end to it. Honestly, if you’re too lazy or too strung out to work or be a productive member of society, you should be cut off from every benefit that may be available. You can just starve to death or crawl in some ditch and die. The world isn’t going to miss you.
2) What reforms, if any, would you suggest be made to the Federal Reserve? Should the Fed’s dual mandate to achieve maximum employment and price stability be repealed or should there be specific targets for each?
Let’s keep the Federal Reserve but focus on making them a bank regulator and guarantor of liquidity. Ron Paul is right to be calling for a full audit of the Fed. We probably don’t want to know what they’ve got on their balance sheet. I suspect they’re now the biggest holder of toxic mortgages in the world.
But the Fed does provide an important function in the financial markets and that is to ensure a liquid and functioning banking system. Where would we be today if the Fed hadn’t been there to provide liquidity during the credit crisis back in 2008? They kept the financial system functioning properly then. They kept it functioning after 9/11. So, I think it’s a little foolish to say we should get rid of the Fed.
With regards to the dual mandate, I’m not sure the maximum sustainable employment mandate is really a good one for them to have. Price stability relates mainly to inflation and the money supply, which the Fed can directly control. I think that needs to be their focus, but I’m not for formal inflation targeting. I think we are better off to have the Fed focus on stability in the banking system as opposed to employment mandates. Obviously, the banking system wasn’t as sound as it should have been. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have had the problems with the mortgage market and had to bail out some of the banks.
3) What rates would you propose for the personal income tax, the corporate tax, capital gains & dividends? Should we abolish the death tax? Which tax credits and deductions, if any, would you keep? Do you support Obama’s proposal to extend the 2% payroll tax holiday for another year?
I too support the fair tax, so that would make the rate for personal income taxes, capital gains, etc. all 0%. That eliminates the complex tax code with loopholes, deductions, and credits. Certainly, we should do away with the estate tax. That has caused massive problems for more than one or two families. The estate tax is one of the most inequitable taxes around. It amounts to perhaps double or triple taxation in some cases. We don’t need to take even more from the dead than when they were alive.
I heard mention of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. It’s a nice idea, but I think the main problem is that now we’ve got both a consumption tax and an income tax. Ultimately, successive administration or Congresses will find a way to increase all those rates, and then the taxpayer gets shafted. I guess if we couldn’t get the fair tax through I would support some sort of flat tax. I think that’s fairly simple. If you made $50,000 and the flat tax is 10%, you owe $5,000. It doesn’t get much more simple than that.
What was the third part of the question? The 2% payroll tax holiday?...It’s an absolute travesty. The dollar amount isn’t that big and won’t have that much of an impact on the economy. But what it does do is rob the Social Security trust of funds, so we’re getting into an even bigger hole there. I think a reduction in personal income taxes would have a bigger impact. Change the withholding rates and you put money in the pockets of the workers but get it back at tax time. It’s, in essence, a zero sum game. So, no, I don’t support the proposal to extend the payroll tax holiday.
4) Even before Obamacare, the cost of healthcare had beenWhat do you feel is the cause of the high healthcare costs? If Obamacare were to be repealed, what solutions do you feel would create downward pressure on healthcare costs?
As I recall, we talked about this four or five years ago when I participated in the last symposium, well before the American people had Obamacare shoved down their throats. This just goes to show how stupid some people in Washington really are. Medicare has trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. It has the capacity to bankrupt America. Obviously, Medicare isn’t working too well. So, in their infinite wisdom, they decide to force through a massive healthcare bill for everyone else that isn’t going to work any better than Medicare. It’s disgusting and insulting to the intelligence of the American people.
I have long supported the need for more affordable health care. Premiums for consumers went up because of frivolous lawsuits that drove up malpractice insurance and the need to subsidize the costs of health care for the uninsured. If you don’t have insurance and you got to emergency room, they’re going to treat you. They won’t turn you away. If you can’t pay, however, the hospital isn’t just going to eat that. No, they’re going to find a way to pass along that cost to everyone else who has insurance or who has the capacity to pay the bill.
In addition, as was previously mentioned, we need to open up the insurance markets to competition across state lines. That will help reduce the cost of health insurance as well. There’s also massive fraud in the health care system. People don’t want to talk about how doctors are scamming the insurance companies, but it happens each and every day.
We also need to focus on preventative health care which help combat longer term and more costly needs. I think one of the biggest things is that Americans need to reassess their lifestyles. They’ve become fat and lazy. Poor diet and lack of exercise come at a cost, and that cost is usually in the form of more frequent health care needs.
I don’t think the government needs to be in the business of health care at any level. But if they want to help, let’s scrap Obamacare and the government can set up an insurer of last resort. In essence, they have various health care plans that you can purchase, in all likelihood at costs less than other insurers. All they’re doing is basically adding competition into the market. But again, you have to purchase the health care coverage. The government plan premiums can be means tested or income based. They can accept whoever they want without regard for pre-existing conditions.
There are many options that don’t necessitate an individual mandate and that don’t create a massive liability for the American tax payers. I think we should explore those options instead of letting the government make the decisions for us.
I will say that there is one thing that surprises me and disappoints me. At the last symposium I discussed a trend in several large retailers like Wal-Mart, Walgreen, and CVS to have physician assistants, nurse practitioners, or actual doctors in their in-house “clinics” offering care for minor illnesses. I think they were offering these services at very reasonable prices and as an attractive alternative to going to the hospital emergency room for treatment of colds, flu, etc. I really and truly believe that there is enormous potential for health care savings through an expansion of these in-house clinics. It’s pretty simple yet ingenious. Let’s say you get feeling bad, you may be coming down with a cold or sinus infection or something like that. You have insurance that has a $20 co-pay for a doctor’s visit and a higher deductible if you go to the hospital emergency room. If the in-house clinic is only going to charge you $20 for the consultation and you can get any medication right there, I think most people are going to opt for that as opposed to going to the hospital or their normal doctor. Honestly, I think even those who go to the hospital as their primary care could afford the $20 visit to the in-house clinic. I wholeheartedly support any expansion of these efforts to bring health care at lower costs.
Ultimately, as I said in my comments about Social Security, this is an issue of personal responsibility. I don’t think we as tax payers should be paying for someone else’s health care. Let’s make health care affordable and have options for everyone. Look, many people who are uninsured right now can’t afford the high insurance premium and don’t go to the doctor because they can’t afford the high cost of health care. Most people would be willing to pay if it weren’t so expensive. Let’s give consumers more choices, bring down the cost of insurance, and bring down the cost of actual health care services.
5) The Republican candidates for president often state that the size of government is tooThere are hundreds of departments, agencies, boards, offices, and programs. Which ones, if any, should we eliminate?
I don’t think anyone that has half a brain can say that the government isn’t too big. We’ve become a bloated bureaucracy. Talk about getting fat and lazy. The federal government is the biggest culprit of gluttony.
I think the only three departments that we actually need are the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of the Treasury. If we’re all dead because the terrorists nuke us, nothing else really matters. If we don’t have a functioning financial system and money, we’ll descend into anarchy. I support more funding for the Department of Defense and Homeland Security. We need a strong military, we need to be protecting the border, and we need to be guarding against terrorist attacks. Historically, no country has been a superpower or stayed a superpower without a strong military. That’s just a basic fact.
Everything else can basically go or be substantially reduced. I certainly agree that the Department of Education and the Department of Energy and Department of Labor could be eliminated and other departments cut to the bare bones. It’s apparent that the government’s scope has creeped into areas where it doesn’t belong and that isn’t consistent with what our founding fathers intended, so I think we need a careful examination of what we need and don’t need. It wouldn’t be easy or politically popular, but it’s something that needs to be done.
Let me give you an example of how messed up the government really is. Has anyone here ever attempted to register a trademark with the USPTO, the Patent and Trademark Office? Well, if you have, you know that this is a fine example of government bureaucracy. You fill out all the paperwork which is itself extensive and excessive and send it to Washington. Months later you get a letter informing you that you’re application has been denied. However, they can put you in touch with a law firm to help you resubmit the paperwork and get it approved. Let’s see, we’re paying people to sit in an office in Washington and reject these applications and send out the rejection letter and the information on law firms that can help. These are obviously people who couldn’t find work anywhere else in the private sector. So, they jerk you around and ultimately tell you that a law firm has to extort money from you to get the patent or trademark approved and registered.
It’s absurd! In this day with the technology we have, there’s no need for this bureaucracy. It’s nothing more than a justification of someone’s job and graft or kickbacks to law firms. Why isn’t this person at the USPTO in Washington contacting the applicant and saying this is what’s wrong with the form and this is how you fix it and then well approve it. I’d like to know how many applications that are submitted by an individual without an attorney are actually approved. I suspect the number is quite small or zero.
But here’s the reality, and I apologize for going off on that tangent. I don’t think most people realize this. All these departments that we mentioned make up the discretionary spending of the federal budget. Collectively, this discretionary spending accounts for only about 40% of the total federal budget. The remaining 60% is for mandatory spending programmes like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Unemployment, etc. So really, when we’re talking about cutting departments, they only account for a small amount of the annual federal budget. The only way we’re going to make substantial gains in cutting the size of the federal government is to reform these entitlement programmes. Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be a will in the Congress to attack these issues. Until the elected leaders get some guts to stand up and say this is what we’re going to do for the good of the country and our future, nothing is going to get accomplished. They’re a bunch of cowards who are more concerned with their re-election prospects and protecting their positions than they are with the good of the country and our future.
6) President Obama has suggested a new infrastructure stimulus as part of his jobs plan to help get the economyShould transportation continue to be a primary responsibility of the federal government, or should we devolve transportation spending to the states?
I don’t think devolution of transportation spending to the states is a good idea unless there is a way to guarantee that the funds from the gasoline taxes will go to road projects and maintenance. We don’t want that money being diverted to fill state budget gaps. I guess this sounds contradictory to my earlier statements that eliminate certain departments. I envision the Department of Transportation falling under either Defense or Homeland Security, so it would still fall under the purview of the federal government.
I think infrastructure projects are a great idea. I don’t think it’s going to solve our economic woes, however. But, we do need to have some massive infrastructure projects, and I don’t think that should be limited to roads. We need to be looking at infrastructure in terms of rail, power grids, hydroelectric power generation, wind farms, bridges, nuclear facilities, ports, oil development, and research facilities.
Let’s look at what the Chinese are doing in terms of infrastructure. They are spending billions of dollars on massive projects like those I just mentioned. They spent $900 million on the Tianhuangping hydroelectric project. They’re spending $6.3 billion on the Xiangjiaba Hydropower project, $5 billion on the Shanghai-Hangzhou maglev railway, $7 billion on the Xiludou Dam, $14 billion on the Harbin-Dalian Highspeed Railway, $18 billion on the Jiuquan wind farm, $33 billion on the Beijing Shanghai Highspeed Railway, and $44 billion on building highways to connect China, India, Southeast Asia, and Europe. Look at what these projects mean and look at what we’re doing here in America. We’re falling way behind.
I don’t know if you all are familiar with the I-73 project. This is a highway project that would go from Michigan to South Carolina. They’ve been talking about this for decades, and it still isn’t done. When it comes to road, we need to get on it. To hell with the environmentalists; just build the damn roads. We need a lot of road projects to make the flow of goods and people a lot easier throughout the entire United States. Let’s expand I-95, I-10, I-40, and all the major highways. If they’re six lanes now, let’s make them ten lanes. Let’s go ahead and start getting ahead of the curve. Our population is going to continue to grow, creating more strains on the ability to move goods and people easily.
Let’s get the road projects going. Have crews working twenty-four hours a day seven days a week if we have to, but let’s get them done. It wouldn’t take the Chinese decades to build a road. And while we’re on transportation, let’s work on expanding our ports. We’re going to have more and more goods coming into the United States, so let’s get ready for it.
While we’re expanding our road systems, let’s go ahead and spend money on a high speed railway that connects east and west and north and south. Not only would we be able to more efficiently move goods and people but we would alleviate congestion on our roads and in our skies. It should be a pretty easy concept; have the high speed railway follow the major highways and branch off to other markets as well. Let’s get the project build quickly. Let’s not wait years. Just do it.
When it comes to the road and rail projects, let’s work with Canada to facilitate our transportation infrastructures and make it easier for people to get back and forth.
Let’s work on some wind farms and hydroelectric power projects and on updating our power grid. Let’s work on offshore drilling, open up ANWR in Alaska, and build the Keystone Pipeline.
We need to get on these infrastructure projects now—not tomorrow, not the next day, not next year, not five years from now. We’re getting farther and farther behind. There’s a much larger public good to be served by doing all these projects. We need to have the courage to just move these projects forward and to hell with the lawsuits and the protests and the years of studies. It’s embarrassing that the world’s superpower has an antiquated infrastructure system. Makes you wonder if we really are the world’s superpower.
7) Over the past few decades the Postal Service and Amtrak have racked up billions of dollars inShould we privatize them?
With regards to Amtrak, I’ll put that in the infrastructure discussion from above. We need to modernize our railways and add high speed rails. Once that’s done, we can talk about privatization.
For the Postal Service, here’s an idea. Let’s break it up and turn it over to Wal-Mart and Target and UPS and FedEx. UPS and FedEx can handle the home delivery, and there would be an extra charge for that; you simply put extra postage on it for the home delivery service. You can drop off the mail at a local FedEx or UPS store or drop box or at Wal-Mart or Target. Wal-Mart and Target will close the post offices and relocate them into their own stores. It’s sort of like the old days when you got your mail at the general store or the drug store. They get rid of a huge amount of costs that the USPS deals with now, and it’s convenient for millions of Americans who shop at Wal-Mart and Target to get their mail when they make their trip to the store. I guarantee you that these private enterprises would make the USPS work more efficiently and make it profitable.
Here again, the Congress isn’t going to do anything. Hell, they can’t close up a few postal facilities because they’re afraid of the backlash from their constituents. Preservation of their position is more important than doing what needs to be done.
8) What role, if any, should the federal government play in education? Should we demand a repeal of No Child Left Behind?
None. Who’s better at deciding how to teach the kids—a bureaucrat in Washington or your local educators?
There are quite a few problems with our education system today. We’ve got teachers in some places who because of tenure can’t be fired and who are just riding their chairs until they retire; they’ve given up on teaching kids. We need to be able to get rid of teachers who aren’t teaching.
But let’s also be honest. We have a problem with kids wanting to learn. The majority of teachers out there are good, hardworking people who have a passion for teaching. These teachers can teach any kid who is willing to learn, but we have to have a willingness and desire on the part of the kids.
Today’s kids are lazy, lack discipline, and want everything handed to them. They want to be spoonfed. We need to make sure that there is more discipline in the schools and that our teachers are allowed to fail students who aren’t learning. Who came up with this bullshit philosophy that everyone is a winner? The world doesn’t work that way, and it’s ridiculous that the need to make our kids feel good about themselves makes it so that we can’t fail them or discipline them.
I have long favored having the military take over operations of the schools. Let me be clear, I’m not saying they should be military schools. I’m saying that the military should run the schools and that means each kid will say the pledge of allegiance each morning, they will show respect to the teachers, and they will be punished if they do not behave. It’s very simple, they will be responsible for their actions and will face consequences of those actions. That’s sorely lacking in today’s society.
Because we can’t fail kids, we’ve dumbed down the curriculum. We’re teaching to the level of the dumbest kid in the class. When I went to school, we had three classes for each course. There was the class for the advanced kids, you know, the nerds. The second one was for the average kids, and the third class was for the slowest kids. I’m not trying to be mean here, and I don’t want it to sound that way. The reality is that different kids learn at different speeds and different levels. We need to make sure that we not just pushing through the slower kids with the more advanced students and not hindering the brightest kids by teaching at the lowest level.
People talk about failing schools and the need for charter schools. Well, charter schools are great, but I don’t think the schools are the whole problem. The schools aren’t completely failing the kids. The kids have their part in failing the schools. If we’re going to expand the charter school system, let’s make it so that people either have to pay more to send their kids there or the kids’ academic record can get them admission at no extra cost.
9) Most everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, agrees that we must control theHow do we achieve a secure border? Was the intent of the 14th amendment to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants? Should illegals receive welfare benefits or tax credits?
I think it is ridiculous that any American would want to give citizenship to a child born here to two illegal immigrants. If they were here legally and had become citizens, yes, but clearly the 14th amendment was designed for another purpose. It wasn’t instituted to protect the children of people who sneaked into this country and have been taking from the system without giving back their share.
There are a few ways we can go about this. First, we can do nothing and just let the people keep sneaking in here. If there aren’t any jobs for them, however, there’s no real incentive for them to come here. So, let’s make it tough for them to get a job. If you can’t prove that you are a United States citizen or are part of a legal guest worker programme, you can’t get a job.
Second, we load up the border with the U.S. military and shoot anyone coming across. I don’t think these drug cartels are going to have a border war with the whole U.S. military. I certainly think we use drones to assist as well.
Third, we build a wall all the way across the border. In front of the wall there is a moat filled with alligators and water moccasins. The wall has barbed wire and spikes and all kinds of deterrents. At the top of the wall, we’ve got the militia armed with machine guns. Now, if you can make it over the wall and both feet touch the ground on the U.S. side, you’re in.
Sadly, however, we’re probably not going to do anything. We’ll just keep letting them wander across the border and infiltrate America.
10) What reforms, if any, should the United States institute to its legal immigration system?
I think we should make it more difficult to get here, but the downside to that as some would argue is that it then encourages illegal immigration. Here’s where I have a problem with both legal and illegal immigration. We’ve got immigrants coming here to go to school and take jobs that American citizens should have. But the worst part is that the immigrants usually aren’t paying their burden of taxes. It would be nice if we had a national sales tax to capture something from those who don’t pay any tax. Oh, but wait a minute, usually foreigners who come here can get all their sales tax expenditure back by filling out some forms and jumping through hoops. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, does it?
I have a real problem with foreigners coming here to use our higher education system then taking what they’ve learned back to their own country. Let’s let an American citizen have their spot at the university. Let’s get our own people educated before we educate the rest of the world.
I don’t have any problem with facilitating legal immigration, so long as we know who we’re letting in here. I think we should really cut down on the number of people we allow here from countries that are hostile towards us. If you hate America and our system, stay in your own country. Don’t come here and spout off at the mouth about my country and how bad we are. I think we can eliminate a good number of people coming here if we’re selective in who we let in. For everyone else, if we can facilitate it, great, but let’s make sure they’re not coming here and getting a free ride and not paying their fair share of the tax burden.
11) There have been dozens of attempted terror attacks since 9/Most of them originated from Middle Eastern countries. Should we be profiling passengers on commercial jetliners?
Yes. The terrorists are from a certain region of the world and have a certain look. It wasn’t the Mexicans that caused 9/11. It wasn’t the little old lady in the wheelchair. It was the little kid with Mom and Dad on their way to Disney World. We should be looking closely at everyone that may be Arab or Muslim. If the shoe were on the other foot, they would be doing that to us. The safety of the American people and those flying is paramount to the possibility of offending someone because they’ve been profiled.
The ACLU needs to suck it up on this one. If one of them or their friends or family were killed on 9/11, they’d be singing a different tune. If one of them were on a flight today that were hijacked, they’d be running off at the mouth as to why we didn’t do something to stop this or protect them. Quit being hypocrites and do what needs to be done.
12) How do we prevent Iran from infiltrating the new Iraqi government now that U.S. troops have left the country and prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons?
Now that we’re gone from Iraq there is no way to stop them from infiltrating the Iraqi government. Before we left we knew that they were trying to exert influence on the new government, so it should come as no surprise when they do infiltrate Iraq.
The only way to stop the nuclear programme is to bomb their facilities. Either we do or we let Israel do it. It doesn’t matter who does it as long as it gets done and we stop their nuclear programme. It’s clear that Iran doesn’t want the programme for peaceful purposes. Otherwise, they would have accepted the offer a few years back where Russia was going to provide fuel or power or something. Clearly, they’re looking at this as a way to gain domination over the Middle East. Only a fool would believe that Iran wouldn’t use their nuclear weapons capabilities to destroy Israel and likely take over some of the neighboring countries.
But sadly the world is evidently content in letting Iran get the bomb. We’ve wasted years on talking to no avail. Sanctions have been useless and will continue to be useless. Force is really the only language these people understand. The rest of the world is just putting on a dog and pony show that they’re trying to peacefully resolve this issue when they know they can’t and won’t. Everyone is burying their head in the sand and kicking the can down the road until we wake up one morning and learn that Iran has tested a nuke. Then, it’s too late, so let’s just get used to the idea of a nuclear active Iran. It’s going to happen.
I say we just turn Israel loose in the region. They can clean up pretty quickly on their own. Most people don’t realize that the only thing holding Israel back is pressure from the United States. They’d take down Iran in a heartbeat, and they may just do that. Without U.S. intervention, Israel may just solve the problems in the Middle East for all the world. You never know, we might even end up buying oil from them.
13) Should the U.S. have policies pursuing democracy in the Middle East?
No, if these people can’t do it on their own, we shouldn’t be getting involved. In many cases it’s difficult to tell who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Honestly, I don’t really like what happened in Egypt and Libya. Mubarak wasn’t bothering anyone. He wasn’t an aggressor nation. He had things under control in Egypt. We got along well with him. Ghaddafi wasn’t bothering us. He had renounced his weapons programme. There was stability in the country and the area. We see these people rise up and overthrow the governments of their countries. They shoot Ghaddafi down like a dirty mangy dog. And now there seems to be some chaos and infighting within both Egypt and Libya.
Don’t get me wrong, but I’m not defending these dictators; I’m not saying that they were good people. They misappropriated billions of dollars that should have been used for the betterment of their country and their peoples. But they kept things stable there. Now, we don’t really know who’s going to come out on top. I suspect that we’re going to see a strong influence of either al-Qaeda or some group with ties to terrorism. Oh, it won’t be an overt influence at first. It’ll be more subtle and behind the scenes, but the people that end up in charge may just not be allies of the United States and may have sympathies for terrorist networks.
These people have been ruled by dictators for much of known history in many instances. To suddenly thrust “freedom” upon them can be dangerous as well. Some people culturally need that stability brought about by the dictatorships. It’s awful to think about it, but the reality is that some people just can’t handle freedom.
14) What’s your assessment of the United Nations. Should we cut off funding? Is the creation of a Palestinian state in the best interests of U.S. security concerns?
I’ve long said we should cut off funding from the United Nations or withdrawal all together. It hasn’t done much good, and the U.S. is pretty much the one that has had to make the decisions, clean up the messes, and bear the financial burden. It was a good idea at the time, but it’s highly inefficient and ineffective. There’s a fundamental problem when Donald Trump tell the United Nations that he can save them $1 billion on the renovation of the headquarters project and the UN tells the Donald that it’s not interested in his help or in saving the money. I think it’s high time for them to get the hell out of New York and go to Switzerland or somewhere neutral.
With regards to the Palestinian question, let’s not forget that prior to 1948, Israel wasn’t a country. It was actually Palestine. This is just history. When Israel was founded in 1948, the troubled started. The Palestinians feel they’ve been shafted. Whether or not you or I individually agree with that, that’s just the way it is. They’re not going to be happy until they get their state back. Our support for Israel does a lot to fuel hostility in the Arab world. Do you really think the Arabs would hate us as much as they do if we didn’t support Israel?
No plan or resolution to the situation is going to be perfect. Neither side is going to get all that they want and there’s going to be a lot of people unhappy on both sides with any compromise. I think the best hope for resolution is the Partition Plan that was first proposed back in 1947. As a matter of fact, as I recall this plan was proposed by the United Nations—probably one of the few constructive things to come out of its existence. Too bad it didn’t get implemented. In its simplest form, the plan divided up the area into a Palestine and Israel with Jerusalem to be a neutral zone under the control of the United Nations. Well, you can see the problem with this. If you’re Jewish and living in what will be Palestine, you’re in a bit of a bind—you either move or live in hostile territory and vice versa. Nonetheless, I think this is a good compromise, particularly if the United Nations is going to keep peacekeeping troops in the area to ensure that Jerusalem remain neutral. Here’s a novel idea—let the United Nations relocate their headquarters from New York City to Jerusalem. That would certainly be incentive to keep the peace in the city.
15) Should the U.S. continue pursuing the six-party talks with North Korea? If not, what policy would be more effective?
Unlike Iran whose leaders are religious fanatics, I think North Korea is engaging in economic extortion. It doesn’t hurt to keep talking to them and giving a little of what they want each time if it keeps them contained and keeps their programme in check. However, if Kim Jong-un is going to be aggressive with the nuclear arms or take a different approach than his father, I think we would have to reassess the benefits of the talks.
I’m all for preemptive strikes. There are those who fear it will spark a war, but that’s not likely to happen, and if it does we’re well prepared for it. Look China isn’t going to do anything about the situation. They don’t like to get involved. If we strike, they’ll grumble about it and act all pissed off, but they’ll be glad we did do something. No one wants to be the bad guy, so that falls upon us. The reality is that China won’t care as long as we keep buying stuff from them. They need us to keep consuming so that their factories keep going and their economy keeps going, so I wouldn’t worry too much about the fall out. North Korea knows that if they go it alone in an attack on South Korea that they can’t count on China to back them up, so they’d get a beatdown put on them by the U.S.
They’re not stupid, but they are greedy and self serving. Kim Jong-un, like his father, is probably just interested in keeping power, self preservation. I doubt he’s going to do anything to jeopardize that. As long as he can keep everyone at the table and get what he wants by making a few concessions here and there, he’s going to keep playing the game.
16) Is China a strategic partner, a strategic competitor, or an enemy of the United States? Are they an economic threat or a military threat?
I don’t have a problem with the Chinese. They’re actually some of the best capitalists around right now. I know that sounds funny, but it’s the reality. I’ve done business with companies in China. Let me tell you; they are producing higher quality goods in many cases and a much lower cost. We can’t compete with them when it comes to manufacturing. And, they’re making some major advances in technology. If we’re not careful, they may take the lead from us.
They need us as much as we need them. Their factories keep cranking out products that we buy. We need them to buy our debt to fund the deficit spending right now. If the politicians don’t like that, they need to eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt, so we don’t have to rely on the Chinese for funding our government. Then, if they want to get in a trade war, have at it. I think that would be an economically destructive move, but some politicians are hell-bent on that.
What is of concern is the Chinese acquisition of resources. They’ve pretty much locked up all the resources on the African continent over the last few years. They’re making major infrastructure investments there to access the natural resources. I think someone made mention of that or alluded to it.
Just last year, Costa Rica opened its new, 35,000 seat national stadium. It cost something like $100 million to build and it only took two years. And guess what. It was a ‘gift’ from the Chinese government. You might wonder why they would do this. And you may also wonder why China would spend about $1 billion to upgrade a Costa Rican oil refinery. They just announced this earlier this month. Oh, they’re building a nice cozy relationship with countries all throughout the world, some of them close to home, and it all boils down to natural resources. What do you want to bet that the Chinese gifts in Costa Rica are all about oil rights?
17) Should English be made the official language of the United States?
Yes. If you come here, best plan on speaking English. I don’t feel that we Americans should have to accommodate everyone else who comes here and doesn’t speak English. If you can’t speak our language, either get a personal interpreter or go back where you came from.
18) Should employers have the right to require employees to speak English on the job?
Yes, no doubt about it.
19) Should the U.S. grant amnesty to illegal aliens without requiring specific steps for them to learn English as a prerequisite for legalization?
First, there should be no amnesty for any illegal aliens. I don’t support mass deportation, but certainly the criminals should be rounded up and deported. For the rest, there should be a path to citizenship and in the meantime they are on guest worker status. I think the best path to citizenship is through military service, as was already mentioned. Now, that’s not going to be for everyone, but there are other ways to serve.
And, of course, I’m always for making financial obligations for the illegals whether it is in the form of fines, penalties, payment of back taxes, large fees for the path to citizenship, or whatever. I mean, let’s make some money off of this. These people probably haven’t been paying taxes but they’ve been getting our public services. Let’s recoup some of that. Guest workers should be paying at least the same amount of taxes, if not more, than everyone else.
I wrote an article about ten ways to deal with illegal immigration that outlines what we need to do. I’ve mentioned some of the proposals in that plan, and some of them have been mentioned by others here at the symposium. I guess you guys have read my article already?
20) Should Puerto Rico be required to make Englishonly official language if it becomes the 51st state?
I don’t think we should accept Puerto Rico as the 51st state, so I don’t really care what language they speak. Puerto Rico as the 51st state would be more problems than it is worth, and it will only cost the taxpayers money. Talk about a redistribution of wealth from taxpayers here. I think Puerto Rico would constitute the poorest state in the Union if it were admitted. Unless there’s a way for the United States to make money off of Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state and not have additional liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc., I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of them becoming a state. Simple fact is they need us and we don’t need them, so that makes it a pretty bad deal for the rest of us.
21) We are currently over $15 trillion in debt as a nation. What changes should be made to restore fiscal responsibility and direct the country towards a balanced budget?
First off, we need to cut spending not just the rate of growth in spending. We talked about what departments we could eliminate, and while that may be a nice idea, it probably won’t happen right away. Let’s tell each department with the exception of Defense and Homeland Security that they’re going to have to provide a plan that reduces their budget by 20% next year. We immediately end foreign aid in whatever form that may take whether it be direct foreign investment, loans, fighting malaria in Africa, feeding the Ethiopians, or whatever.
We need to tell our elected officials to grow a set and quick jerking the public around. There’s absolutely no reason it will take a decade to reduce the deficit. The Congress needs to have the guts to send a balanced budget and one that includes massive spending cuts to the President, whoever that may be next year. The President needs to sign it, and if he doesn’t, the Congress needs to have the courage to shut the government down.
Look, we’re not talking about shutting down the military or stopping Social Security checks or shutting down Homeland Security. No, it’s going to be the people at the Department of Education and Labor and Energy and so on that are going to have to stay at home. The national parks and museums will be closed and so forth. Hell, the government isn’t working as it is, so shut the nonessential stuff down for a while and save the money. We can either be tough on saving our nation financially or we can be a bunch of cowards.
Of course, we shouldn’t have to do this every year. Let’s get a balanced budget amendment or give the President a line item veto for the budget. There are pros and cons to both, but it’s better than having nothing.
22) Should the U.S. have a continued presence of military around the world?
No, the world is much different now. The European theatre isn’t of much concern. You don’t have any real superpowers there that pose much of a threat. We could be back there in a heartbeat if any of those nations were to start a massive military build-up. Eastern Europe doesn’t seem to be under threat of an invasion from Russia, so all we’re doing is subsidizing certain economies in Europe. Let’s face it, we don’t need Army bases in Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, and Kosovo, a Marine base in Germany, Naval bases in Spain, Italy, and Greece, and Air Force bases in Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and the UK. Let’s pick one or two to keep there strategically and close the rest.
The only place that is cause for concern is the Korean peninsula. If we were to leave South Korea, it might embolden Kim Jong-un to become aggressive in the region. Strategically, I might keep the bases in South Korea and Japan.
The only other place is the Middle East. I do think we need some sort of presence there. Let’s keep our facilities in Israel and perhaps we keep a presence in Afghanistan and maybe Kuwait. If nothing else, this keeps Iran in check to some degree. We could certainly close bases in Europe and relocate some of the troops to these more strategic locations.
Otherwise, I think we bring our troops back home and protect our borders.
23) Should we repeal the federal income tax? If we were to do so, how would we fund the federal government?
Let’s scrap the entire tax code and go with a consumption tax. We’ve talked about the fair tax extensively. It’s a great, bold plan that I think would be absolutely positive for the economy and job creation. You remove a huge incentive for businesses to keep profits overseas, so once the tax code is replaced with a consumption tax, you’ll see a repatriation of hundreds of billions of dollars. Think that will get the economy going?
You know, the Democrats want to talk about certain people paying their fair share, so how can they argue against the fair tax? The more you spend, the more you pay. If you save your money, all the better; you don’t pay anything on what you earn and save. Of course, the fair tax includes exclusions for certain necessities that even people who don’t currently pay taxes need. People have to eat, so groceries are excluded. But, if you need a new, state-of-the-art cell phone, you’re going to pay taxes. Seems pretty fair to me. Doesn’t matter who you are, you can’t avoid taxes on what you consume.
As an added bonus, the fair tax would bring in billions of dollars in tax revenue currently being lost in the underground economy or people not paying income taxes either because they’re just not filing or because they’re illegal.
If you can’t see that this is the way we need to go or if you think the existing tax code is better than the fair tax or some variation of the fair tax, you probably don’t have a brain.
24) Should the Congress pass a federal ballot access law which eases the requirements for placing a minor party and/or independent candidate on the ballot for Congress and President? If so, what is the ideal ballot access requirement?
I didn’t know that we had a problem with getting people on the ballot. Last time I voted for President, there were about two pages of people running for President from several different parties. Let’s see, you’ve got the two main parties then you got the Green party, Libertarian, Constitution, Reform, Independence, and so on. Obviously, there isn’t a problem for these people getting on the ballot. What more do we need?
I do agree with a comment that was made earlier. We need to ensure that these other parties have an opportunity to participate in the debates. To exclude them is quite un-American, in my opinion. Isn’t it totally elitist for the organizers of the debates to say that we don’t think you have a chance, so we’re not going to include you in the debate. The reality is that the two main parties don’t want anyone else in the debate lest they draw support away from Democrats or Republicans. It’s the whole self preservation argument again.
I mean, it certainly feels like the American people are being set up at each election. We’re given the illusion of the right to vote for all these parties and people, but isn’t the system rigged to keep one of the two main parties in power? The only independents we have in the Senate are ones who were formerly with one of the two parties and switched for self preservation or political purposes. None of the other parties have elected officials in the House or the Senate. If we truly had free and open elections, we’d have a lot of different people from different parties in the Congress and have presidential debates that include at least the three or four other parties with the largest bases—Constitution, Libertarian, Green, and Reform.
25) Many South and Central American countries have either exhibited hostility towards the U.S. or opened alliances with our enemies in the Middle East, most notably,How does the U.S. deal with this?
Isolate them like they’ve got the plague. Don’t buy anything they may have to sell us and don’t sell anything they may want to buy from us to start. Sanctions only work, however, if everyone gets together and agrees to stick with the sanctions. If Iran and other Middle East nations are getting cozy with the countries in Central and South America, the sanctions will ultimately fail. They’ll provide their new friends with what they need, to some degree, and vice versa.
The reality is that the United States can make life really difficult for these smaller nations in Latin America. Travel restrictions and trade restrictions can complicate life for these people. In the end, however, we really won’t be able to stop it. If the leaders of these countries are really that misguided that they fall in with a bad crowd, that’s their own stupidity. Like I said, cut ties with them in every way. It’s not really our concern if the people there suffer. But, if these countries throw in with countries that are hostile towards us and things don’t work out, we need to make sure we turn our backs on them when they come crawling back or when they need something or when their friends toss them to the trash heap of history.
26) What is your outlook for the economy and interest rates? What do you perceive to be the biggest threat to the U.S. economy---inflation, interest rates, oil prices, etc.?
We’re in a particularly unique time. I think the economy is going to start to recover at a slow pace, but it’s going to be a jobless recovery. Businesses have learned to do more with less, so a lot of the jobs lost over the last few years probably aren’t coming back. If you have a job, you’re probably doing okay. If you are unemployed, it’s a very challenging time. A lot of people are struggling like that.
There are a few of things holding back demand and businesses from spending.
First, as we’ve talked about earlier and over the last year or so, Obamacare is a huge, looming uncertainty that places a tremendous burden on businesses. It’s sad when a lot of small businesses, mom and pop establishments, are considering whether it will be worth staying in business or not if they have to foot the health care coverage for employees. If we can remove that uncertainty, and I don’t think we’ll be able to do that, it will start to boost business confidence and investment.
Second, we need to get the federal government’s finances in order. That alone is creating uncertainty regarding future tax rates and the impact on the economy. The extension of the Bush era tax cuts is set to expire, creating a huge tax increase for taxpayers. The tax rates will revert to their higher levels, so in effect the taxpayers will be paying more money in taxes. This creates a degree of uncertainty.
Third, the housing crisis is still weighing heavily on the economy. The banks haven’t even begun to work through the foreclosures and underwater mortgages. I’m not convinced that we’ve seen the worst of the financial and banking situation. Housing markets are going to get worse before they get better.
Fourth, businesses and investors seem to be in a wait-and-see mode, a holding pattern, due to the presidential election in 2012. I think we’re going to see people holding off on a lot of things until after the election next November.
But overall I think we’re going to see some signs of improvement, though I think that is a false sense of security. Look, if nearly 400,000 people sought unemployment benefits for the first time last week, we’re talking about 1.6 million new people going to get unemployment each month. That’s nearly 20 million people annually. Couple this with the people who are counted as unemployed then add in those who have exhausted their benefits and we’re still well over the 10% unemployment level. The headline numbers are just deceiving and subject to manipulation. This is a real problem. And what happens when the troops come home from Iraq and we don’t need them anymore? How many of those are going to end up unemployed? I suspect there may be an uptick in the headline unemployment numbers.
There are some risk takers out there who are using this period of slow growth to find opportunities that truly do exist. There are a lot of goods deals out there, and there are a lot of opportunities for entrepreneurs to buy businesses at depressed valuations, invest in their own enterprises, and so on.
27) What is your outlook for the 2012 presidential election? Any frontrunners in the Republican party?
The Republicans have a couple of good candidates. I’m not a fan of Mitt Romney either, and I will not support him in this presidential election. I haven’t decided who exactly I am going to endorse at this point, though it certainly won’t be Romney. I like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum. Newt Gingrich is always the smartest man in the room, and I think it would be a great debate between him and the President. Ron Paul has some good ideas and a really good grass roots organization, but he’s not going to win.
I think that whoever gets the nomination is going to have a tough time beating Obama. The President has a well oiled machine with something like a billion dollars to spend on the campaign. He’ll simply outspend the Republicans. Second, there doesn’t really seem to be any enthusiasm for any of the Republican candidates. They each have their supporters, but there’s no one who is really energizing the electorate. That, to me, is very dangerous and sets Obama up very well for re-election. I certainly don’t think he should be re-elected; he’s failed this nation miserably, but he’s the sitting president, and it is tough to unseat them. Besides, a lot can happen between now and next November, so don’t be surprised if he gets re-elected. Over half of the electorate was brain dead and voted for him back in 2008; that doesn’t say much about the voters and their judgment, but it does give him some room to maneuver.
I really think the Republicans candidates need to hammer home how Obama’s policies have failed to get America back on a sound economic track. Rather than attacking each other, let’s focus on the issues and how each one compares to the President and how they would be better as commander in chief than the incumbent. The Republicans have a good opportunity to pick up some swing voters, which may just be enough to tilt the election, but they’ve got to be smart about how they court those voters. They need a bold, clear, and credible message with specific plans not broad ideas.
There is a good possibility according to the prediction markets that the Republicans will retain the House of Representatives and take a majority in the Senate. Sadly, the same prediction markets indicate Obama has a better than 50% chance at being re-elected. This may not be a bad thing, however. If the Republicans control the entire Congress, they can pretty well force some things upon the president or create enough gridlock that nothing gets done for four years.
Look, Obama certainly hasn’t done anything to earn re-election. The failures far outweigh any victories. He makes Jimmy Carter look like the Ronald Reagan of the Democratic Party, which is pretty sad.
28) Is more economic stimulus needed and what form must it take to get the economy back on track?
We’ve wasted trillions of dollars over the last few years on economic stimulus that has shown no real results. Economies need to undergo periods of retraction. It’s unreasonable to expect an economy to continually grow without some periods of retrenchment. The economy is growing right now, just not very much, so I wouldn’t favor any additional spending in trying to stimulate the economy. Obviously, if interest rates at historic lows aren’t helping to stimulate the economy, throwing additional money at the problem is unlikely to help. I think we need to address the issues mentioned in the last question to remove uncertainty for businesses, who are the job creators. The problems that we’re facing are pretty big, and it’s going to take time to work through them. The housing situation isn’t going to be resolved overnight. The uncertainty over health care and tax rates can only be addressed by the Congress, and it’s sitting on its hands doing nothing.
Our lack of competitiveness compared to the Chinese is something that will not be resolved, so we need to fundamentally shift our workforce from a manufacturing base to a technology and related services base. All manufacturing isn’t dead in this country. We’re stilling going to produce some things here but it’s going to be very small compared to our historic manufacturing capabilities. If the federal government does want more economic stimulus, I think it would be better to subsidize manufacturing. For example, there are plenty of textile mills in North Carolina that have closed in the last decade because they couldn’t compete with low wage countries. Let’s say they can be competitive with wages of two dollars an hour. Minimum wage is roughly $8, so spend the stimulus money on making up the difference in wages. Give the manufacturer major tax breaks for creating the jobs and perhaps eliminate the employer payroll tax. This puts people back to work. They’re making money and spending money. They’re paying taxes again, contributing to the Social Security and Medicare trusts. But to be sure there would have to be major oversight and auditing of these companies, and we couldn’t afford to subsidize them forever, so ultimately we’d be back in the same boat. It’s a nice thought, but since the end result is the same, I’m not sure it’s worth the effort. As I said, I don’t think we need any additional stimulus, but the Administration wants to do something to preserve their chances at re-election and that something involves throwing more taxpayer money or borrowed funds at the economy in homes of creating more jobs and creating more growth. In the end, it’s a waste of money.
