How you would go about creating new jobs?
Government doesn't create jobs; people do. Small businesses in particular create huge numbers of jobs – especially young startups. Moreover, if you can't find a job, you need to be able to go into business for yourself and earn some income, because you have to pay the rent and put food on the table. There are more opportunities than ever before to work for yourself – and quite possibly work from home – but the process of starting a business is far more complicated than it needs to be, and once you have your business up and running, it can be hard to connect with customers. That's where government comes in.
As President, I pledge to ruthlessly simplify the process of starting and running your own business. It should take no more than a few hours to handle the paperwork and figure out the taxes; you should be able to start the process in the morning and be making money by afternoon. And you shouldn't need to hire an accountant to do your taxes or spend endless hours filing forms yourself.
I will also promote and assist existing venues for customers to find the services they need, and for small businesses to find customers; and where such venues don't exist, I'll create them. This isn't particularly hard to do, and in some places it's been done very effectively, but in other places it hasn't. My staff has studied the most successful such programs, from websites to job centers, and drawn up plans to replicate them nationwide.
But what if your skills are out of date? The economy has changed rapidly in recent years, and it isn't always possible to predict what's coming or what skills you'll need to be successful. I pledge to provide education and job training to anyone who needs it. No one should be left behind simply because they can't foresee the future.
I'll anticipate Mr. Lehrer's next question: How will we pay for all this? Quite simply, it will pay for itself – as the very best programs often do. People who receive training will get part of that training on the job, learning practical skills and doing constructive work in return. Depending on the cost of their education, they may also be asked to work a certain number of unpaid hours after graduation. Alternately, they can repay the remaining cost over a period of time – or they can combine these methods.
How would you go about tackling the deficit problem in this country?
The deficit, and the national debt, were caused partly by mismanagement, partly by structural problems in the economy – such as the lack of true competition – and partly by lack of will on the part of politicians – and let's be honest, on the part of the voters, too. Eliminating the deficit will take more than a few cuts to programs the Republicans or the Democrats don't like. It will take fundamental structural reforms, and a President with the will and expertise to bring costs under control.
Politicians always promise to cut waste and eliminate nonessential programs, but how many actually do it? How many are genuinely committed to reform, rather than just to getting elected – or paying back contributers? Too often, “wasteful programs” are those which aren't providing kickbacks to the right politicians – the way the Postal Service provides kickbacks to every single Member of Congress in the form of free mailing privileges. If you want to identify a genuine reformer, ask if they're prepared to buy their own stamps.
What is your position on entitlements and Social Security?
Entitlements are programs to which the recipients are entitled simply because they meet certain criteria. They don't have to do anything in return for their welfare benefits, for example; they're entitled. Such programs shouldn't exist. No one should be at risk of starving or being forced to live in the street, but anyone who needs money should be prepared to work for it.
Social Security is a retirement program, not an entitlement; contributors receive benefits in return for the payments they've made their entire career. In theory, this should work just like an annuity, and retirees should be confident that their money is safe. In fact, the government can raid the Social Security Trust Fund whenever it wants, and often does. This must change. Each contributor's benefits should be paid into an account with a third-party financial institution which the government cannot touch. These accounts will be federally guaranteed, just like savings accounts, so that there is no chance of loss – or theft. We can't do this immediately, because we'll have to fix the economy and eliminate the deficit before we can afford it. But we need to do it as soon as we can, or one day the government will borrow from your retirement and forget to pay it back.
What is your view about the level of federal regulation of the economy right now? Is there too much? Should there be more?
The question is what sort of regulation is needed, not how much. Regulation should be skillfully designed and precisely targeted to accomplish its goals. Instead, it is frequently designed and implemented with all the finesse of a bull in a china shop.
Price controls are a good example. They don't work. Almost everyone realizes this is true, and yet they're still used simply because they're easy. It's very satisfying for politicians to stand up and say they won't allow big businesses to take advantage of their customers, and pass a law dictating how much they can charge. It also makes for a good sound bite. If we want to solve problems instead of thumping our chest, however, we need to use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.
Consider recent price controls on electricity. If power companies must sell electricity below their cost, they lose money. The more they sell, the more they lose. Thus, their incentive is to sell as little as possible. Furthermore, if supply is low and prices are also low, customers will use too much electricity, resulting in blackouts. The solution is to increase supply. Doing so is not particularly difficult, but it does require honest and competent leadership, something which has been sadly lacking.
Do you want Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, repealed?
Obamacare is irrelevant. The politicians involved simply tinkered with the health care system a bit. They went to considerable trouble to avoid solving problems or making difficult decisions. If we want to address the real issues, the entire system, not just one law, needs to be thrown out and redesigned from scratch.
The problem with health care is that it's absurdly expensive. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to care. After all, a portion of the money spent on medical care goes to them in the form of campaign contributions from the health care industry. Why should they reduce the amount of money we're spending? If the pot of gold gets smaller, so does their own slush fund.
Of course, both parties talk about reducing costs, but somehow they never seem to do it. And the costs they're proposing to target are only the low-hanging fruit, the obvious measures that can be implemented relatively quickly and easily: Free preventive care and wellness checks, exercise and nutrition programs, malpractice reform, placing doctors on salary rather than paying them on a fee-for-service basis, electronic medical records, and similar reforms that have been proposed many times in the past. Certainly these should be implemented, but they're not enough. Costs will remain high, and will continue to increase far faster than inflation, as long as we ignore the elephant in the room: Patents.
Health care is expensive because there is no real competition in the industry. Against every principle of capitalism, the government grants monopolies to the incumbents and allows them to block new entrants. Potential competitors, including nonprofit research institutes trying to find new cures to save lives, must work under the constant threat of lawsuits if they infringe vague patents that the holders may not intend to ever use.
Patents must be abolished and replaced with a rewards pool. Patent laws are unconstitutional and should never have been passed. They remain in force only because so much patent money is funneled to an eager Congress.
How do you view the mission of the federal government?
The primary role of government is to defend the nation and protect the American people. These missions are ably performed by the United States Armed Forces, intelligence agencies, federal, state, and local law enforcement, and first responders. The very survival of our country is in their hands. This is why it's critical that these agencies be fully funded and that all of their personnel work for the American people. We should not place our lives in the hands of mercenaries.
In addition, the federal government serves as a neutral referee for the free market, guaranteeing a level playing field and vigilantly preserving – or, when necessary, creating – competition. This includes breaking up monopolies, building and then selling infrastructure such as a truly nationwide cell phone network, and encouraging industry trade groups to establish interoperability standards for such things as cell phones, so that any phone works on any network – just as with landlines.
Does the federal government have a responsibility to improve the quality of public education in America?
Yes. A modern economy can't function without a skilled workforce. When people find themselves unemployed, the government can help them get back into the workforce by providing education and job training. This raises the question, however, of why educational institutions – including government-run schools and colleges – failed to perform their basic functions and educate their students. We can hardly ignore the fact that we're spending massive amounts on the educational system without getting a skilled workforce in return.
It's the government's responsibility to ensure that tax money is spent wisely, including federal financial aid. Clearly, financial aid should go only to institutions that provide a high-quality education. Those lagging behind should be given an opportunity to improve. If they fail to do so, they should not receive further government funding. It is never wise to throw good money after bad; and at the end of the day, our focus should be on saving students, not schools.
Given that focus, we should also ensure that everyone who wants to go to college is financially able to do so. We should expand the Federal Work-Study Program as much as needed, awarding work which is actually productive, and thus self-funding.
Many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis as a result of partisan gridlock. What would you do about that?
The first requirement for a functioning government is a willingness to negotiate in good faith. In a democracy, we don't always get what we want. Compromise is not a bad word; it's how we solve problems in a way that everyone can live with.
And yet gridlock has become standard fare in Washington, and in many state capitals as well. This is not a result of division among the American people, or a sign that they're unwilling to compromise. Rather, it's because everyone isn't represented at the table. And that's because of the flawed system we use to choose our elected representatives – a system designed specifically to exclude third parties and guarantee a duopoly to the established parties; a system increasingly vulnerable to being hijacked by extremists on either side.
To end gridlock and return to the pragmatism the Founders showed in writing the Constitution and building this great nation, we must end the two-party system and eliminate the influence of money in politics. As is so often the case, the states are leading the way. Louisiana, California, and Washington now have “top two” primaries – essentially runoffs – which ensure the winner has majority support and give third parties a real chance of winning. Twelve states have taken control of redistricting away from the legislatures and the political parties that control them. These and similar measures, such as reforms to demonstrate the accuracy of election results for all to see, can sharply reduce partisanship and bring Americans' willingness to cooperate to Congress.
That brings us to closing statements. You have a closing two minutes, Senator.
Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank everyone watching today for taking the time to participate in the democratic process. Your participation is the only thing that keeps democracy alive.
(Hays looks directly into the camera.)
And in that vein, I want to ask each of you individually to continue taking part, and to ask your friends and neighbors to take part as well. We all believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people; but for that to work, the people must stand up and choose their government. Only a little more than a hundred years ago, it wasn't unusual to see nearly 80% of voters turning out for elections. Today we're lucky to approach 60%. Our adversaries see this as evidence of the decline of America and the failure of democracy. Let's stand together and show them they're wrong. I call on every citizen to read the news, watch the debates, meet the candidates, and go out and vote on Election Day – regardless of whether you vote for me or for one of my opponents. I pledge to work to increase turnout and help every qualified person to vote, without focusing my efforts on my supporters or even considering which way they'll vote, and I call on my Opponents to do the same. At the end of the day we're all Americans, and if we're going to solve our problems we're going to have to do it together – and the first step is to sit down at the table together. Please, come to the voting booth and join us.
Thank you. Good night and God bless.
