Atlas Forum Primaries: Republican NH Debate

[MODU]

Welcome gentlemen to the Republican New Hampshire debates.  These debates will last through Sunday evening and cover a variety of topics.  The format for the debate will be as follows:

1)  Introductory statement:  In this statement, you will take just a few moments to introduce yourself, welcome your fellow candidates, and share a single thought of your own choosing which is relevant to your campaign.

2)  General questions for all candidates to answer:  I will ask five questions on different topics which each candidate will answer. 

3)  A question for each individual candidate to answer:  I will give each candidate their own question to respond to.  This question will come from one of your prior speeches, initial candidate announcement, or another issue which I would like you to address.

4)  One question between the candidates:  This is a chance for you to ask one of your fellow candidates a question regarding one of their answers from these debates or from one of their political speeches or ads.  In order to ensure that no one candidate is asked more than one question, I decided to assign candidates a person which they can address their question to.  The match-ups are as follows:

Gov. Richard Arage will ask a question to Sec. Govert Vandervoot
Sec. Govert Vandervoot will ask a question to Gov. Justin Coleman
Gov. Justin Coleman will ask a question to Sen. Colin Wixted
Sen. Colin Wixted will ask a question to Mr. Ernest Calhoun
Mr. Ernest Calhoun will ask a question to Gov. Andrew Cereal
Gov. Andrew Cereal will ask a question to Rep. Chris Soult
Rep. Chris Soult will ask a question to Rep. James Wallace
Rep. James Wallace will ask a question to Gov. Richard Arage

You are requested to place all your answers in a single thread in order to consolidate the number of posts and to reduce confusion between the candidates and the moderator.  I recommend that those who reply early check back periodically to view/answer the question from your fellow candidate in part for of these debates.  If you have any questions regarding the debates, please feel free to ask.  I hope I have explained the format clearly enough for everyone.  The questions will be posted soon.

Thank you,

MODU

[MODU]

General questions for all candidates to answer:

1)  Campaign finance reform:  Do you support setting spending limits for political campaigns and providing a set amount of public funding for all candidates who agree to take no private contributions? Explain.

2)  Equal representation:  What measures would you support, if any, to enfranchise American citizens living in the District of Columbia who currently do not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress?

3)  Foreign relations:  Burundi is one of the poorest nations in the world, and is just now exiting a civil war between political factions.  A cease-fire went into place last year while discussions between the two parties take place.  What would your foreign policy be, if any, to help end the civil war once and for all and/or improve the nation’s current economic condition?

4)  Health care:  What should the federal government do, if anything, to ensure that every American has health coverage?  What should be done at the federal level, if anything, to combat the high cost of prescription drugs?

5)  National security:  What is your recommendation for policing/securing our Southern border with Mexico (please keep your answer focused on the border itself)?


Individual questions:

Gov. Richard Arage:  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.

Mr. Ernest Calhoun:  In one of your campaign speeches, you spent some time discussing Ethanol and Bio-diesel.  Explain how the production (not the consumption) of these fuel sources impact our environment, and what policy measures would you put in place to protect the environment from the increase demands we would place on the Earth in order to produce enough renewable fuels to replace petroleum.

Gov. Andrew Cereal:  In your speech on abortion, you advocate that the unborn have the same rights as the rest of us.  Many pro-life supporters feel that adoption is the proper alternative to abortion.  If abortion became illegal, and pregnancy rates stay the same as they are today, the likelihood that children offered up to adoption will increase.  What would be your recommendation, if any, to provide for these children as well as help finding them a loving home?

Gov. Justin Coleman:  Since you have yet to make any public speeches, I would like to ask you a question on one of your decisions as governor.  You state that you vetoed legislation that would have reinstated Oklahoma's ban on sodomy.  Would you please explain your reasoning behind this veto and what your thought process was in coming to this decision?

Rep. Chris Soult:  In one of your recent speeches, you discuss the important of family values.  Some argue that the ideal family has one parent who is the provider and one parent who stays home to take care of the children and household.  Some families, like you stated in your speech, have two working parents who have to work out their schedules in order to meet the needs of the family.  Unfortunately, we have too many single-parent households in the US where children are left alone for extended periods of time without supervision, and some speculate that the lack of parental exposure is what leads to lawlessness in these youths.  What is your policy to address these situations, and how will that bring traditional family values into their homes?

Sec. Govert Vandervoot:  Since you have yet to make a public speech, I would like to ask you a question on your prior financial experience.  It is often discussed that US citizens save less than they should, while generating large sums of personal credit card debt.  What would your policy be, if any, to help change this spending mindset of Americans so they can improve their personal financial positions?

Rep. James Wallace:  Since you have not made any public speeches yet, I would like to ask you a question on your view of illegal immigration reform.  You have taken a position that is different from many in your party regarding amnesty for illegal immigrants within our borders.  Please explain how you attempt to convince those that disagree with you that amnesty is the right course of action.

Sen. Colin Wixted:  In your speech on fiscal responsibility, you talk about reducing pork spending as a means to balance the budget.  Reducing enough of these unimportant expenditures will help you meet your goal, but it does not necessarily reduce spending increases over the long-term while tax revenues increase.  What program, if any, would you move to reduce/eliminate which has constantly increased in expenses each year (for example, social security, Medicare, etc) in order to reverse the trend of growing governmental spending?

Ok gentlemen, you have your questions.  Please remember to be responsible and respectful in your replies.  The eyes of American are upon you.

[12th Doctor]

Introduction

First off, I would like to thank Modu for hosting this debate.  I would also like to thank my fellow candidates for being here tonight, and allowing the voters to hear what the people they will be voting for have to say about the issues.  I hope that we can give the people of New Hampshire, and the American voters, the answers that they deserve over the next 10 months.  My friends, I know that you have heard alot of candidates in this race talk about what they have done in the past.  I'm not here to talk about me.  I'm hear to talk about how we can improve America.  I'm hear to talk about how we can improve our health care system and make it accessible and affordable to all families.  I'm here to talk about how we can build on our current education system to prepare our children for the challenges of the future.  I'm here to talk about how we can preserve American values, while not holding our society back from moving forward.  I am here to talk about how we can improve security on our boarders, without shutting millions of people out of the American dream.  I am here to talk about a strategic vision for the future security and prosperity for the world.  And finally, I am here to talk about how we can make this land of ours a land of safety and security, a land where we can raise our children to live up to the hopes and dreams that we have for them, and that they have for themselves and I am here to talk about how we can work together to build a new American century.

question #1

No.  I do not.  I also see the history of campaign finance reform as being a history of one failed boondoggle after another.  When we started down this road, 30 years ago, it was thought that anything would be better than having unreported suitcases of money being left on candidates porches.  So, PAC's were invented to allow organizations to donate small amounts of money to candidates.  These PAC's then manipulated the laws to branch out and donate millions to candidates, and exercise their influence over elected officials.  So, people got tired of that, and now we have a new wave of campaign finance reform.  And, the big donors have just found another way around it by forming "non-profit" 527 groups that act completely out of any government regulations.  The fact is, no amount of regulation is ever gonna totally block out big donors, so long as there is a 1st Amendment, and some "solutions" only worsen the problem.

I think that, in the age we live in, it has become easy enough for groups of concerned citizens to track and report on the fundraising activities of individual candidates.  And if the people don't like what they see, the best thing they can do is make their voice heard on election day.

Question #2

While I certainly sympathize with the plight and lack of representation of those living in the District of Columbia, we have to remember that the whole reason for creating a Federal District was so that it could be free of all the trappings of the state.  That being said, the founders had never truly intended for Washington to become the splendid city that it has become... a city of over 500,000 people.  While I think that Senate representation might be a bit much, I do not believe I would be opposed to a reasonable proposal that would grant D.C. a voting representative in the U.S. Congress.

Question #3

Burundi is just one of the examples that we have of a country that has been, over the past 50 years, quite simply cursed by geography.  There are many nations out there today, particularly in Africa, that are facing pressures from rising populations, lack of resources, and the rampant spread of diseases, such as HIV.  I’m sure that a number of other people in this race are going to tell you that foreign aide is the problem, because, like welfare, it brings people into a cycle of dependence.  I think that this stance ignores the relative of the situation.  While I would certainly ask any American to do their part in helping out other people of the world, for the pure simple reason of helping your fellow man, foreign aide is as much about self interest than it is about helping.  When we enact cuts in foreign aid, we not only cause economic collapse in countries, and cause misery for millions, but we also decrease potential markets for American produces.  When we refuse to support friendly, democratic governments, we open the doors for anti-American extremists, and practically force kids to attend Madras’s for any education.  When we refuse to help treat diseases in foreign countries, we risk them gaining victims and spreading here.

We need to open up free trade, and free markets with these countries while offering a helping hand.  We can give them a chance to develop, and that will ultimately benefit us.  Much of what happens on this planet in the next century is going to be determined by what happens in these places like Africa and the Middle East, which we have ignored for the last half century.  My global strategy as President will reflect that.

[12th Doctor]

Question #4

Well, first, I would like to mention that, as Chairman of the Education, Health and Welfare Committee, I fought vigorously to lower Health Care costs for families all over the country, and I intend to continue doing that.  The first thing I would like to say is that we really don’t have Health Care in this country.  We have Sick Care.  We take care of people once they have become ill, without realizing that we could lower our costs and head a lot of this off by instilling healthy habits in our citizens early on.  I think that we should do more to expand primary and secondary school nutrition programs, so that we can teach kids how to make the right choices in life, so they can lead healthier lives.  I think that we should expand prenatal care and make it available to all women who need it, so that way healthier mothers can give their babies a healthier start to life. I’m not a doctor, but I am happy to say that I am married to one.  And so I know what a disaster the current health care and insurance system is in this country.  I admit I have had top quality health care for all my married life, first on my wife’s plan from the hospital, then on my plan as a U.S. Congressman.  But, back when I was growing up, my family was counted among the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance.  I’m sure you won’t be surprised by me saying this, but doctors and prescription drug companies are not the problem.  Trail lawyers, who sue doctors for outrageous amounts are the problem with health insurance and while it is true that each pill that you pay for only costs $0.10 to make, it is also true that the first pill cost $100 million in research and development.  There are no easy answers, but I think tort reform and better nutrition education are a solid start.

Question #5

My plan here is quite simple.  First, I would act immediately to guard the boarder to stop the flow of illegal immigration, while making sure that those who do try to cross are not mistreated, or fall under some misfortune during the process.  Second, I would set up a program to seek out and catalog illegals already in the country.  Next, they would have a chance to sign up for documentation, and, provided that they currently work, or have a work history, they would be allowed to stay in the country on closely monitored, work visas.  Finally, I believe that America is a land of opportunity and I believe that our current process for allowing people in the country, legally, is far to strict.  I would loosen it to allow more hard working people to come here and make a new life for themselves to live and contribute to the American Dream.

Individual Question

Well, first off, I would like to say that Kate and I have work some odd hours in our careers and our lives together.  Neither of us has ever held what you would call a regular 9-5 job in our lives.  In some ways, that has made things more difficult, and in some ways it has helped us.  I think that the question might have missed the point of my statements, however, as my over-ridding answer is quite simply that each family needs to work those things out for themselves.  That’s the beautiful thing about a solid family… it is a bunch of individuals, working and helping and living together for the common good of each other.  No one should ever be ashamed about how they choose to set up their family, as long as it works and as long as they are living up to their responsibilities.  That goes whether the husband works and the wife stays home, or the mother works and dad stays home, or both parents work, or there is only one parent in the home.

Now, I can tell you what I think we should do to make those choices easier.  Better funding for after-school and community-building programs, so that parents who don’t want their kids to go home alone will have some place to send them that they can trust will be in a safe and ethical environment, would be a start.

My Question to Rep. Wallace

Represenative Wallace, you are a good man.  I have served with you on a few committees.  We disagree on somethings, btu I know you have good intentions.  But you seem to have said as little as possible about the specifics of anything that you want to do for America, or what you think about the issues.  So, I'm gonna make this easy on you.  What do you think is the most important issue for Americans, and what do you intend to do about it as President?

Question from Gov. Cereal

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you asked me three different questions here, and with the moderators permission, I'll try to answer all of them.

First, when I refer to a broader based strategy, I'm not specifically talking about terrorism, but rather about all US interests aroudn the world.  I can't sit here for you right now and give you every single detail of it, but I can tell you that it woudl include things such as building stronger alliances in key areas of the world, with countries that are supportive of Democratic government, or at least, open to reform.  It would include putting resources into renewable enegy, so that we are not at the mercy of foreign oil companies.  It would include opening up free trade between nations, in the interests of stregthening alliances and promoting democratic governments and reforms.  It includes using trade networks between democratic nations to improve the economy of flagging democratic governments in order to prevent them from collapsing into tyranny.  It includes expanding economic opportunity into countries that tend to be hotbeds of terrorism, so that we can undercut the root causes.  And finally, it includes working with European and Asian allies to defeat terroism networks that sprout up in those countries and, if we must, the use of force to protect our allies and freedom.

As for the cost, well, as I supporter of free trade, I hope you would agree governor, that the economic benefits of my plan would go a long way towards paying for the costs.  But, I am kinda shocked that anyone on this stage, running for President, is seriosuly willing to sit here and put a cost on the security of the free world.

Finally, I assume that by "Middle-Eastern" you mean "Iraqi", and I must say that I know that things are not easy for the peopel over there, but I think that, in the end, the final result will be better for them, and better for the world as a whole.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thank you Mr. Modu:

(Intro)
   I'm son of an iron miner, born and raised in Chisholm, Minnesota.  I got my start in business delivering papers in elementary school.  I had the good fortune to have Nobel laureate George Stigler as my thesis adviser at the University of Chicago.  I brought a troubled company, 3M, back to prosperity by refocusing it on its legacy of innovation and excellence.
   Despite my lack of political experience compared to the other gentleman on this stage, I have a record of public service.  I was an Eagle Scout as a young man and spent two rewarding years as a Peace Corps volunteer in Tanzania before getting my M.B.A.  As an adult, I've been active in my church and in scouting.
   Perhaps the most potent reason I can give for people to vote for me is that I can afford to be courageous politically in ways that career politicans cannot.  I've had a full and satisfying life in business, so I'm not seeking the Presidency to mark the final box on a career checklist, nor do I need to worry about saying something that might keep me from going back to my old job.  The voters need not worry that I'm saying something because I think they want to hear it rather than because I believe it.  That worry is something the voters will always have with those who have spent their career in politics.

(Q1) No.  The problem with campaign finance is not that there is too much money.  The problem is that there are too many ways for people who want to hide what they are spending to do so and too few for those who wish to be honest about such things.  We need to eliminate the provisions that allow political spending to be hidden through the use of 501(c)(3)'s and 527's while at the same time allow as much political spending and contributions as people want to make, so long as they make timely and honest disclosures so that people can judge for themselves where the money come from.  When Coke and Pepsi spend more money on advertising each quarter on something as inconsequential as soft drinks than all of us here on stage will be spending this year to convince people to vote for us; when an average campaign for Congress spends less than is spent for a 30 second Super Bowl ad, I just don't see where people can honestly say that political spending is too high.  The problem isn't the amount of spending, it's the secrecy and skulduggery that accompanies it under the current process that harms our democracy.

(Q2)  The District of Columbia is not and never should become a State.  As such, I am opposed to the District electing Senators of its own.  However, in the House of Representatives, I would not be opposed to a constitutional amendment that would allow the citizens of the District to elect a Representatives instead of the non-voting Delegate they now elect.  I would also be willing to entertain proposals that would allow the District to participate in elections to the House and Senate as if it were a part of Maryland, either by a constitutional amendment or by retroceding residential portions of the District back to Maryland, as was done for Arlington before the Civil War.

(Q3) Both Burundi and Rwanda have been unfortunate examples of what racial hatred and intolerance can bring.  Their misfortune has been compounded by the Congolese Civil Wars.  Any lasting solution for peace in the African Great Lakes depends foremost upon a lasting peace for the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  While we can provide assistance and conditions that will enable economic conditions to improve once peace returns, and hopefully encourage them to make that peace, how long it will take the region to come to the consensus that peace is better than war is something that they will have to determine themselves.

(Q4)  That's two questions, Mr. Modu.

(Q4a)

I don't believe that it should be the Federal government's role to provide health care in general.  However, that does not mean that there are not steps that cannot be taken to alleviate the burdens placed on the uninsured.  One of the harshest burdens is caused by the current differential price structure that can cause the cost for some medical procedures charged to the uninsured to be double, triple or even more than that of what an insurance company pays for the same service.  Legislation that limits that differential, so that insurance companies don't make their profits by forcing the uninsured into bankruptcy would be a reasonable use of Federal authority.

(Q4b)

As for prescription drugs, the main problem that the Federal government can address is that the current system encourages the drug companies to fund their research and development costs on the backs of the American consumer.  We need to make this issue a point to be resolved in future trade talks with developed countries that can afford to pay for a share of the R&D costs, but have national health care systems that refuse to so pay, counting on others to pay for the research that benefits them as well.

(Q5)  All that fences will do is redirect the flow of smuggled people and goods to other avenues, since the root causes will remain.  Still, to the extent that they do redirect that flow away from areas ill-suited to handle the effects of being smuggling routes they serve a useful purpose.

(Question from Mr. Modu)  In one of your campaign speeches, you spent some time discussing ethanol and biodiesel.  Explain how the production (not the consumption) of these fuel sources impact our environment, and what policy measures would you put in place to protect the environment from the increased demands we would place on the Earth in order to produce enough renewable fuels to replace petroleum.

Those impacts are why I feel biofuels will be only a short term bridge to help see us past the era of the internal combustion engine.  While there are potential breakthroughs that should allow us to generate more biofuel per acre planted, we simply do not have enough arable land to engage in a total replacement of petroleum at our current level of consumption.  We can reduce the environmental demands caused by their production by shifting from the use of fossil fuels to the use of electricity generated from non fossil-fuel sources to provide the energy used in the production of fertilizers and other agrichemicals; a shift that would reduce the environmental impact of all agriculture, not just the portion that produces biofuels.

Question from Senator Wixted  Do you believe that your lack of experience in the political arena will hurt you as President? Do you believe that your lack of experience in Washington will make it harder for you to either deal with the Congress or to move your agenda through the vast confines of the political process?

A President has many jobs, of which Legislator-in-Chief is but one.  His main task is as Executive-in-Chief, to run the departments smoothly and efficiently, and to propose policy changes to the Congress.  If he can't do that, then all political adroitness gains him, is the ability to implement bad policy with a minimum of review.  However, except for scale, dealing with Congress will not be that dissimilar to my experiences dealing with 3M's Board of Directors this past decade.  Still, it is an area that will require me to have competent advice, just as any other President needs.  I expect to choose a running mate with Congressional experience as well as others who have worked on the Hill to help me work with Congress to move my agenda through that body.

Question to Governor Cereal: You've indicated while campaigning that you are opposed to the anti-terrorist wiretapping program, but haven't made clear the nature of your opposition.  Is it a total opposition to the use of warrantless wiretaps no matter the circumstances or an approach such as mine that balances the needs to combat terrorism and to protect civil liberties by calling for Congressional authorization and external oversight of such surveillance instead of a unilateral grab for power on the part of the executive?

[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?

[MaC]

   Introduction
   Hello everyone and thank you MODU for hosting this debate.  Not everyone here has heard my story, so I think it would be rude of me not to introduce myself.  I was born to your average middle class family and lived with them in Sterling Heights, Michigan.  My father an auto-worker and my mother a teacher.   I've since gone to school at Michigan State University with a Masters Degree in Economics and Psychology.  I became a better speaker through Toastmasters International.  I tried accounting, and was elected at a young age to be state senator of Michigan.  At the middle of my second term I ran for governor. 
   In the senate I worked in the transportation comittee tried passing bills that would increase individual liberty and saving taxpayers money.  I've voted against laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets.  I figure that it's a waste of police effort to enforce such an action-and helmets are a personal choice.  I've also tried contracting roadworkers who will repair roads and extra layers of asphalt so that roads need fixing much less frequently. 
   As governor I've encouraged congress to cut out programs that were unused.  I've line-item vetoed bills that would cut into too much spending and resent instructions that would structure spending better.  I've vetoed laws that were unconstituional.  In turn, I've been given a second term in office and helped create a good environment for business and lowered the unemployement rate.
   I'm a fairly young man-43 years old.  My wife Julie would say I'm attractive. (chuckles from audience).  I'm also father of one son Andrew A. Cereal-and we have a dog, Baxter.
  I'm running as a solid libertarian conservative.  I believe in downsizing government so individuals have more liberty.  As the times go on, more and more people see the size of government as a problem. Ronald Reagan put it simply when he said "government is the problem". I think certain issues need to be challenged and D.C. politicans are too afraid to do that.

Question 1
  No.  There's simply not a better answer.  We're elected 'of and by the people' and not 'of and by the political machine with kickbacks'.  Individuals can contribute what they wish to candidates.  I thank those who've donated to me.  It's a bad idea for goverment to 'tax and spend' on candidates.  How do they decide how much money each candidate gets?  By who makes the bigger promises?  By those who have a higher position?  Another reason is that a taxpayer may be supporting a candidate he doesn't want to win.  Say a Richard Arage supporter paid money in taxes and it went to me.  Now how fair would that be? (chuckle from audience)

Question 2
   Well, I do not endorse a Washington DC statehood.  The founding fathers specifically did not make Washington a state.  They asked Maryland and Virginia to donate a part of their land so that it would be a separate soveirgn city.  The representation is an issue.  Because DC has no senators I find it odd, personally that they have three electors.  Bottom line is that DC was never meant to be a state.  The people that live there know that living their means giving up representation and in turn living in a specially sovereign area.

Question 3
   Foreign relations are a tough issue.  When we don't intervene we look like we're heartless.  When we do intervene, people criticise our actions.  I believe the former is more important, as a general rule for our country.  Now I wouldn't discourage individual efforts and charity groups to help Burundi-I admire the efforts of individuals getting together for a cause they believe in.  Foreign intervention on America's part however, (even with the best intentions) leads to more intervention.  At one point it looks as if America is policing the world.  People may criticise non-interventionism.  I see it as the only real means for peace.

Question 4
   There's really no way we can make sure that every American has health insurance.  I have to ask though is could people do without insurance if the costs were lower?  And the solution to both affordable health care, and affordable insurance is less government.  These days, medical insuarnce covers a lot more than it used to.  In turn, this drives the price of insurance up.  The problem here is that everyone buying insurance for services they may never need makes the plans more costly.  Health insurance used to only cover catastophic instances-and when it did health care was cheaper.  But what made health care expensive in the first place?  Regulations.
   The price of medication has skyrocketed because of excessive 'red tape' in the FDA.  If there's an experimental drug that I am consenting to try out, well knowing the risks that might be involved I shouldn't have to wait 5-7 years until it's deemed 'safe' by the market.  I could be dead by then.  I should be able to see any doctor I wish-even if it's a witch doctor that uses magic to heal me.  But the amount of protectionism provided to the pharmaceutical companies who then pay back the politicians in re-election money keeps the common folk from getting the medical coverage they need.
  No, it's not government's responsibilty to make sure you're healthy.  But it should stay out of the health business to make it cheaper so that each individual is able to afford insurance and health services easily.

Question 5
   Well, there's not a whole lot we can do about the border problem.  If we built a wall that covered the whole distance from south of San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas and it was 50 feet high, they'd still find a way into the United States.  A wall seems to be a rather authoritarian way to deal with such a problem.  All we can do is our best-which sometime requires individual effort-such as the Arizona minutemen.

Question from MODU
   There are better ways than adoption.  First I want to strongly encourage contraception.  I think that it would be 'puritanical' and 'old world' to suggest that without encouraging couples to use condoms the desire to have sex would be reduced.  There's no stopping some couples-so encouraging abstinence is a waste of breath in many cases-however I commend those who practice it as they don't have to worry about this issue.  There are many of contraceptives on the market if one doesn't like condoms. 
  There are also advantages to adoption.  I support pro-life groups that want to make it easier to adopt and give assistance to children and families.  Besides the obvious, that the fetus doesn't die-there are many opportunities for families who want to adopt. Some couples have fertility problems.  Some gay couples would make perfectly fine parents of these children.  I will veto any bill that comes to my office that would restrict adoptions by a couple or single parent.

Question from Ernest Calhoun
Well, I've read through the primaries thread and not found your wiretapping comments, so I'm not sure what your position is.  My main concern is the contstitutionality of the searches.  The fourth amendment never mentions the word 'privacy', yet privacy is what it's about-to an extent.  The police must have probable cause and a warrant.  They must also be searching for what they are stated to have been looking for.  My main fear is that in the fear of terrorism, warrentless wiretaps can be done by the government for the sake of 'fighting terror' if there are no leads.  This is downright intrusive.  I don't believe in 'you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide' because I don't think that government should be pry that deeply into it's citizens lives.

Question to Chris Soult
How is the broader based-strategy effective for preventing terrorism and ensuring democracy.  I mean how is it fiscally possible and how is it strategically possible.  Also, how are the middle-eastern citizens dealing with the changes made to their country on a day-to-day basis?

Thank you MODU, supporters, voters, and New Hampshire for holding this debate.  Vote for liberty! Vote for Cereal!

[Colin]

Introduction:

I would first like to take some of my time to thank Mr. MODU for hosting this debate and to the other candidates for running an excellent and spirited campaign for the Republican Party nomination.

For decades now the political atmosphere in America has become increasingly hostile and less based on fact-based solutions and more on partisan politics. Moderation and good governance has given way to infighting and intrigue. In my 10 years in the Senate I have always made myself to be a bulwark against that sort of intense partisanship and implemented policies based in reality, not in partisan ideology. What America needs in this time of immense crisis is a President who can see past the innane bickerings of those intrenched in power; one who can actually lead this nation and unite it against the enemies who wish to destroy us and the economic problems that cripple us. I feel that I am that candidate and as the Republican nominee for President I swear that I will stand by my convictions and my belief in the ideal that the President should be above the partisan politics of Washington.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. MODU, I do not support spending limits on political campaigns nor do I support public funding for candidates. I believe that any more limits set on the funding of campaigns beyond the McCain-Feingold Bill would not be healthy for American democracy, I actually believe that it would be nearly unconstitutional. People or groups should have the right to donate however much they want into the coffers of politicians. Do not get me wrong, I loath the way money is used to control politics in Washington today, I loath the use of loopholes like 527s to get around the limits set in the McCain-Feingold law, but further restriction upon this would constitute a limiting of peoples rights to political expression and their right to appeal to their representatives. While the ouright bribery and graft that has been shown to have infected the Republican Party should be prosecuted to the fullest degree as should all other forms of corruption we should not try to limit the political rights of citizens in order to do it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fully believe that so-called "taxation without representation" is wrong. As citizens of the District of Columbia are now taxed as residents of a normal state in the union without being allowed representation is a horrible violation of the principal of American democracy. What I would support would be a semi-statehood where the District's one representative is impowered with voting rights and is treated as a normal member of the House but that it is not given any Senatorial representation since the District of Columbia should not be a state. I believe this would solve the grievances over representation without drastically redifining the District of Columbia's legal status.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I would first like to appauld Burundian leaders for agreeing to peace terms after many years of wars. I would first, along with like minded sectors of the international community especially the African Union, support continued democracy in Burundi and for more open and responsible government. I would also continue with aid and call on greater help from domestic and international charities in both America and Burundi. I would also be open to such options as debt relief and interest free loans if the government of President Nkurunziza shows itself to be a free, fair and committed to democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On healthcare the government should try and empower the Medicaid program by allowing more lower income Americans to apply for medical help from the government. However in order to ensure that we aren't diverting funds that we do not have into programs like Medicaid I strongly believe that we need to make the Medicare system needs based as well. Many elderly people need help to pay for rising costs of health care and medicine however there are a large number that would be able to pay for these services without the help of the government. An ex-CEO should not get free medical care from the government while a grandmother in the inner-city living off Social Security can barely pay for her bills. What we need to do is have the Medicare system be needs based not just age-related.

On the costs of perscription pills I believe that the American government should promote the use of cheaper generic drugs by reducing the time that a generic drug is kept off the market by the drug companies. If we can get perscription drugs into either over the counter or generic forms quicker and incent doctors to perscribe these drugs this will significantly lower drug costs for all Americans. What the government must also control, with in the Medicaid and Medicare systems, is the perscribing of unnecessary drugs to patients by doctors. America is one of the most medicated countries in the world yet we really have no health problems that are that vastly different from other first-world nations. The government should put an end to overmedication in government health care programs and incent private providers to do the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that the heightened border patrols that President Bush put in place are a step in the right direction but these border patrol should not be arresting every Mexican who comes across the border, many just to try and find better lives in the United States, they must hunt down and arrest those crossing the border who they believe to be criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists. We must detain those who are suspicious or who we can tell have criminal records. We must hunt down those who wish to harm America not those who are seeking to come to this nation for a better life and new opportunities for them and their families.

We must also not forget about our border to the North. After the recent capture of a terrorist cell in Toronto we must not neglect our Northern border. We must step up border security and be vigilant in keeping terrorists and enemies of this nation from coming here and doing the American people harm.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well the answer that is most apparent to me is the Medicare Drug Benefit. This massive government program is the greatest extension of the American welfare state since Lyndon Johnson and it has greatly increased our budget deficit. The ten-year projected cost of this bureaucratic behemoth is $534 billion. That is $534 billion dollars towards reducing our deficit, strengthening our military and ending the consolidation of America's debt in foreign hands. As well as being horribly expensive it has increased the bureaucratic nature of the Medicare system so much that most seniors cannot even figure out how to aquire the benefits given to them by the government. Not only has this new drug benefit burdened America with an even higher deficit and the economic problems that come from that it has shown that the current administration, in terms of economics, has strayed away from the grand ideal of small government and fiscal responsibility that this party was founded on. Reducing wasteful spending and getting rid of the Medicare Drug Benefit might not completely rid America of its financial woes but it will put us on the path back towards fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.

Question from Gov. Justin Coleman: Yet to be asked.

Question to Mr. Ernest Calhoun: Do you believe that your lack of experience in the political arena will hurt you as President? Do you believe that your lack of experience in Washington will make it harder for you to either deal with the Congress or to move your agenda through the vast confines of the political process?

[Joe Republic]

Excellent work, guys.  A 'transcript' of this debate has been copied over to the overview thread.

Thank you to MODU for his incredible work organizing this.  It was truly stellar.