I have the opportunity to answer some additional questions from a reporter at the Daily Tar Heel in preparation for their upcoming voter’s guide. In the interest of transparency, here goes:
1) How does he plan to push his 4 bills- rather uncommon ones- as a new face in Washington without the political clout of a veteran congressman?
Even with the political clout of a veteran congressman, pushing bills through Congress is no easy task. For example, according to GovTrack.us, Rep. David Price has sponsored 47 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 44 haven’t made it out of committee and only one (H.R. 2638: Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009) was successfully enacted.
So in the past decade in Congress, Rep. Price enacted one piece of legislation — an appropriations bill — that was signed into law just one month ago.
Apologies to Rep. Price if GovTrack missed something here, and he’s certainly signed on to co-sponsor numerous bills led by others, but his track record for advancing legislative progress over the past eleven years is modest at best.
My initial goal as our representative is to educate folks about the desperate need for the four mentioned “good government” reforms. It is only with education that change can occur, and that change must be pushed not by a single legislator, but by a coalition of principled leaders responding to people who insist on good government.
2) Congressman Price says Lawson’s “laissez-faire economic policies” are similar to ones that brought about the current economic crisis- what is BJ’s response to that?
Rep. Price has radically distorted my views on economics and banking. I oppose a financial system that preys on working Americans with high interest rates and endless fees for lending money that it creates out of nothing. I oppose taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street. I oppose deregulation of the banking system, since our banking system enjoys a legislated monopoly over our money and credit.
In brief, the current crisis is the expected outcome from deregulating a legislated monopoly over money and credit.
The banking industry has a monopoly over our supply of money and credit thanks to the Federal Reserve Act and gradual consolidation of power over the past 95 years. As we’ve seen, that monopoly must be regulated aggressively, or else moral hazard and the race for short term profits puts the entire system at risk. I am decidedly not “laissez-faire” with respect to the banking system.
David Price, however, has a voting record that embraces deregulation of the banking industry. In 1999, he voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall regulations barring financial institutions from performing both commercial and investment banking, as well as a combination of other services. The financial sector lobbied very hard for this legislation. Many analysts have cited this particular action as a contributor to the current financial crisis, as a wave of merger and acquisition activity ensued in its aftermath and allowed massive leveraging of portfolios to the point where many institutions became “too big to fail.”
Additionally, he further shifted the balance of power from individuals to banks by voting for 2005’s “Bankruptcy Reform” legislation, which made it harder for individuals and families to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and instead pushed them to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Under Chapter 7, most or all debts are forgiven, easing the burden on debtors (albeit while damaging their credit ratings) while requiring lenders to accept the cost of default. It is the risk of nonpayment, or default, that restrains lenders and encourages healthy diligence before lending money. Under Chapter 13 bankruptcy, repayment of debt under a court-set plan with wage garnishments is mandatory, making life harder for debtors.
David Price’s voting record on this topic is not surprising, as he has received over $600,000 in PAC contributions from the financial industry over his career.
3.) Why does BJ place such strong emphasis on strict Constitutionalism? Price says that it is idiosyncratic and not the right way to approach the Constitution. How does BJ defend himself on this ground?
The Constitution represents our founders’ best attempts, as flawed human beings, to create a government that lives up to the ideals of our Declaration of Independence: “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
By studying the debate surrounding the framing and ratifying of our Constitution, it is apparent that our founders intended a government that protected the rights of the American individual — understanding that the individual is the ultimate minority — instead of corporate interests.
Please understand that we’ve never lived up to this ideal, and throughout our history efforts to advance a government that respects individual human rights has been under assault. One example of challenges over the last century are Supreme Court decisions that set dangerous precedents and took our government in a direction of empowering corporations over individuals. Specifically, debates have ensued over the concept of corporate personhood, and limited liability for corporations.
I do not feel a need to defend my studied, rational conclusion that the Constitution is intended to set forth a government that serves the people, derives its power from the consent of the governed, and ultimately seeks to protect individual liberties. Numerous constitutional scholars including Bruce Fein, Kevin Gutzman, and Roger Pilon share this perspective… along with Jefferson, Madison and other founders. Pilon’s thoughts provide helpful perspective:
In 1776, America’s Founders gathered in Philadelphia to draft the Declaration of Independence, which dissolved the political ties that had bound the American people to Great Britain. A new nation was thus born, free and independent, the United States of America. Eleven years later, in 1787, after American patriots had won our independence on the battlefield, many of the men who had met earlier in Philadelphia, plus others, met there again to draft a plan for governing the new nation, the Constitution of the United States. In 1789, after the plan had been ratified, the new government was established. Together, the Declaration and the Constitution are America’s founding documents.
As amended over the years, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the nation’s fundamental law. But the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration. To better understand and appreciate the form of government we have, therefore, it is important to look first to the Declaration, where the Founders outlined their moral vision and the government it implied.
Addressing “a candid World,” the Founders’ immediate aim in the Declaration was to justify their decision to declare independence. Toward that end they set forth a theory of legitimate government, then demonstrated how far British rule had strayed from that ideal. But their argument served not simply to discredit British rule; in addition, it set the course for future American government. Indeed, for more than two centuries the ringing phrases of the Declaration have inspired countless millions around the world.
Appealing to all mankind, the Declaration’s seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident.” Grounded in reason, “self- evident” truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a “higher law” of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system.
But if reason is the foundation of the Founders’ vision—the method by which we justify our political order—liberty is its aim. Thus, the cardinal moral truths are these:
that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government—indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from “the Consent of the Governed.” And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish—to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights—provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract—its principles rooted in “right reason”—the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.
Only then did they turn to government. We institute government, the Declaration says, to secure our rights—our natural rights and the rights we create as we live our lives. But the powers government may need to do that must be derived from our consent if they are to be just. Government is thus twice limited: by its end, which any of us would have a right to pursue were there no government; and by its means, which require our consent.
I’d suggest that Rep. Price defend his idiosyncratic view that the Constitution is a document that is open to wide interpretation based upon which lobbyist is asking for special treatment from the federal government. Even more concerning is is our recent tendency to ignore the Constitution entirely with the recent decline in our civil liberties and expansion of power within the Executive Branch.
4.) Price says Lawson wants to eliminate the federal reserve, progressive taxation, social security, medicare and fed support of research and education- is this true? How is eliminating those things a good thing for the people? What will he do to compensate for the loss of that safety net?
One thing at a time. The Federal Reserve:
I don’t believe we need to “eliminate” the Federal Reserve — if economic history is any guide, its actions will eventually result in its own self-destruction. Instead, I simply advocate for choice — we need monetary freedom to encourage local, sustainable economic growth:
http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/rising-prices/
http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/09/21/taking-the-pulse-small-is-possible/
Progressive Taxation:
I believe it’s time to look at the sustainability of our taxation policy as a whole, based upon where we want to go as a country. If we want more jobs and income, why should we tax jobs and income? Like Al Gore said, why not tax what we burn, instead of what we earn?
http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/taxation/
Social Security and Medicare:
I have never said that we should eliminate safety nets like Social Security and Medicare. Over time, however, we need to transition to safety nets that are as local and accountable as possible. Medicare and Social Security must be reformed — in the short term I favor immediate redirection of funds from our irrational foreign policy to shoring up our domestic finances. But over the longer term, Medicare and Social Security have provided for our national insolvency. Don’t believe me, listen to David Walker:
http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/08/22/iousanswers/
Finally, I would never advocate privatizing social security with our current money and banking system. Why should we hand retirement savings from vulnerable individuals to a financial services industry that is capable of turning a 401k into a 201k in a matter of weeks?
Federal Support for Research and Education:
Look what happens with the federal government tries to make higher education “affordable”:
The above chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of college tuition inflation versus overall Consumer Price Index since 1978 says it all.
So much for the government helping give us an “affordable education” — the government’s well-meaning efforts to “help” have just thrown money at higher education. Cheap money and cheap debt have driven up tuition so we start minting newly-graduated debt slaves who have no choice except working for The Man instead of trying to change the world.
Here’s the upshot regarding the Department of Education… involving the federal government takes money AWAY from our students and teachers here in North Carolina:
http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/education/
Regarding research — I’m not in a huge hurry to cut research dollars. There are much better places to cut, like the cost of our trillion-dollar foreign policy. But over time, individuals investing their OWN money are better and more disciplined investors than government bueaucrats spending other peoples’ money.
I sit on a board of a local startup incubator that helps take companies out of the laboratory through pre-commercial development, and hopefully to their first fundraising. It is MUCH more difficult to work with the opaque box of federal SBIR grants funded by folks with political connections than it is to fund a great idea and a great team with a motivated investor who knows the space and the technology.
To the extent that we take money away from individuals who might be able to make their own investments in future technologies, we handicap job growth because we become dependent on a highly politicized system of seeking funds for good ideas.
That’s been my experience as an entrepreneur, and as an investor… not saying that federal grants don’t get the job done in some cases, but over time we’ll be much better off if our people have more of their OWN money to invest.
How do we compensate for loss of safety nets?
The goal of a constitutional federal government is not to eliminate safety nets. It is to empower creation of safety nets at the state and local level that are as accountable and responsive to local needs as possible. Safety nets should exist, but we’ve been trying relentlessly to “outsource” safety nets to the federal government for the past century and haven’t liked the results. Isn’t it time for a change?
5.) Does BJ have a fundamental problem with libertarianism? Why does he seek to distance himself from this school of thought when many of his policies reflect similar trains of thought or ideals?
I do not have a fundamental problem with libertarianism. I have a fundamental problem with philosophical labels being used to define our political debate. We need to engage based upon the issues, not based upon labels that serve only to divide us into groups, prejudice discussion, and prevent reaching new levels of understanding across philosophical backgrounds.
One should not mistake a respect for a constitutional federal government as a universal belief that government at the state and local level should be so strictly limited. Indeed, that is where diversity in our states and communities is helpful.
I believe we should seek to advance state and local governments that provide the same basic rights and protections to all and serve the people instead of corporate interests, while providing freedom and flexibility to experiment with ways local governments can best leverage local resources to reflect the will of the people.
