A few weeks back I sent out some candidate questionnaires to the 13 candidates running for Congress in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. They were lengthy and very detailed and I felt would be a great source of information on each candidate running in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.
Unfortunately, to date I have only received one back. I am disappointed in the response because I am not one to give softball questions (which may be why I only got one back) and I think these questionnaires could be used as excellent educational resources for those of you wanting to read up on the candidates running. But, without further ado, here are the responses from Republican candidate Paul Thurmond. It’s a long read, but well worth it. If you wanted to know it, the answer is probably here.
Health care and insurance costs have been rising steadily each year. What is your opinion of the current proposal that is currently being reconciled between the House and Senate? What, if anything, would you propose differently to help bring down health care costs?
I cannot and will not support a plan, like the one offered by Congressional Democrats that is currently being considered. Should either the current House bill or Senate Bill be enacted before I am elected, I will work to repeal these bills when I get to office.
The current proposals, increase government control while doing nothing to address the biggest problem with our system- rising costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Obama Administration’s own actuaries have said that the Democrats’ plan would raise costs for American families, and raise the amount we spend on health care in general.
Instead of forcing people into plans they may not want and out of the plans they currently enjoy, we should enact real reform that decreases costs for all Americans while focusing on patients instead of government. I would support a plan that increases the number of insured Americans while decreasing the cost everyone pays. Such a plan will include reforming allowing people to buy plans across state lines, and providing states the tools necessary to lower health care costs. Unfortunately the Democrats’ plan does none of these.
Do you feel that the Federal government has an obligation to provide a public health insurance option for those who cannot obtain their own?
Long ago, our government created health care systems to provide quality care for the elderly, and the chronically poor. These long-standing commitments cannot now be broken. That said, we also must recognize the reality that currently nearly half of the funding spent on health care is spent by the federal government, and that spending is increasing at a rate much higher than the dollars being spent by the private sector.
If another government run insurance plan were created, what little health care cost containment we have now, would be completely lost and we would forever surrender 1/6th of our economy to the Federal government. What we should do, instead, is focus on lowering the cost of health insurance so that those who cannot afford it now can do so in the future.
The current Congress has come under heavy scrutiny over its spending practices. The current National Debt is over $12 trillion and the debt ceiling was recently raised to over $14 trillion. Does this concern you? Why or why not?
The current Democrat controlled Congress and White House makes the fundamental mistake of thinking that they can spend our way out of the current recession. They spent 2009 passing trillion dollar bill, after trillion dollar bill and when President Obama’s budget, the health care bill and the cap-and-trade bills are combined they have threatened to raise taxes by $3.6 trillion over the next decade.
This spending and taxation are unsustainable, we must enact across the broad cuts in spending and taxation. On the spending side, Congress needs to sunset duplicative government programs, eliminate under-performing agencies, and address the runaway spending of entitlements. On the tax side, we must create an environment where small business is allowed to expand, hire more employees and become more profitable.
For the 2009 fiscal year 62% of the Federal budget was allocated towards Social Security, Medicare, and defense, the three biggest expenditures of the Federal government by far. These percentages are increasing each year. How can the Federal government continue to fund these programs at their current rate particularly with Medicare having a projected insolvency date of 2017 and Social Security in 2037? (these figures come from a May 13, 2009 publication in the Wall Street Journal)
There is not a government program more important to the future of our nation than the Department of Defense, Social Security and Medicare are individually. One of the explicit powers of the Federal government mentioned in the Constitution is providing for the common defense and as I said previously, we have made long-term commitments to our senior citizens, and I will not allow these commitments to be broken.
However, the fact that these programs are important does not mean they are without waste, fraud and abuse. Congress must take a line-by-line review of these programs in order to eliminate these cost overruns. The savings we see from these cuts must not be used to pay for new Federal spending.
At a time when our servicemen and women are putting themselves in harm’s way in order to protect our freedom and security, we must cut carefully. Ensuring we do not repeat the mistakes of the 1990s where the Defense budget was cut to the point that we found ourselves unable to effectively protect our servicemen and women after September 11th. In fact, defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, has been falling since the 1960s.
The world has been witnessing increased aggression from nations like Iran and North Korea. Do you agree with the idea of the Monroe Doctrine that the United States has an obligation to police the world against these types of perceived threats?
As the last remaining Superpower, the United States has a responsibility to deal proactively with nations that have the potential to harm our citizens or international stability. In many corners of the world, the only appeal for peace understood by dictators is a stern call from our Secretary of State, or a United States aircraft carrier, parked off their coast.
While I am uncertain if any appeal will be heard by the current rulers of Iran and North Korea, we must use all available options to calm the threat posed by these rouge states. In doing so, military force should be the last resort, used only when international dialog, economic sanctions and all other options have been proven fruitless.
Were Israel to launch an attack against Iran over their goal of uranium enrichment capabilities, how should the U.S. respond?
Israel is the United States top ally in the Middle East and I am deeply concerned about an Iranian regime that continues to defy the United Nations and the international community by developing a nuclear weapons program. I support all international efforts to eliminate this development that poses a grave threat to Israel and to the United States. I support every option available to prevent Iran from achieving success with its nuclear weapons program and would have co-sponsored and supported the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, and the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. I support Israel’s right to determine its security needs by its own standards. I also find it unhelpful for other governments, such as Russia and China to conduct back door dealings with Iran and at the same time try to dictate when Israel should or should not use force.
South Carolina’s unemployment rate is over 12%. What can the government do to bring that number down and help put people in our state back to work?
Government should not be in the business of job creation. Government should be in the business of creating the environment where small businesses are allowed to flourish by giving them the tools to succeed. I would advocate allowing credit to be made more available to small businesses as well as encouraging small business tax credits. I would also work to defeat harmful policies such as climate taxes, cap-and-trade, card check and government run health care legislation that have frozen the level of confidence that small business have which has resulted in small businesses not hiring new employees. Also transportation and infrastructure projects would immediately help create new long lasting jobs in areas such as high speed rail and modernizing America’s bridge and highway systems.
Do you feel it is in the best interest of the United States to continue sending foreign aid to other nations despite our rising national debt?
I feel that strategic foreign aid is an investment of tax payer dollars for the national security interests of the United States. I support a strong system of transparency where the public is entitled to know where every dollar of foreign aid is spent. I strongly support former President George W. Bush’s vision for the Millennium Challenge Corporation. His criterion for foreign aid through the MCC was only to nations that demonstrated: good governance, economic freedom, and investments in their citizens were eligible for foreign aid. By using this model for partnerships it allows developing nations to be strategic allies of the United States and prevents them from becoming havens for terrorism.
Some have criticized NAFTA saying it is responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Do you agree or disagree with that sentiment and what is your overall opinion of NAFTA?
Trade pumps more than $45 billion into the South Carolina economy every year and employs more than 260,800 South Carolinians. Almost all of these dollars flow through the Port of Charleston and the Port of Georgetown from countries with which we have trade agreements. Additionally, while trade is often demonized as an American jobs killer, the facts do not support this argument, since the enactment of NAFTA, only 3 percent of job losses can be attributed to free trade.
Instead of returning to the failed protectionist policies, we must create a climate that incentivizes companies to move their manufacturing operations to South Carolina. The first step in this process is fighting against harmful policies such as a cap and trade tax, card check and government run health care legislation all of which will kill more manufacturing jobs than trade ever has.
Were you supportive of TARP, the automotive bailout, and the stimulus bill and/or do you feel they have been effective?
Washington repeatedly touts statistics which they claim prove that the Stimulus and the bailouts have worked. But even if these facts are to be trusted, the only thing they can tell us is that these bills just kick the can down the road. Avoiding tough questions to stay in office, while saddling future generations with debt, has unfortunately become the rule in Washington. Instead, these issues should be addressed head on to truly solve problems before they become unmanageable.
I do not believe these skewed statistics and judge these programs to be failures. TARP was supposed to bring back responsible lending in this country, yet homebuyers and small business owners still find it nearly impossible to secure credit. Our domestic automakers are once again turning profits but have become wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Federal Government. The Stimulus was touted as necessary to keep unemployment below 8 percent. South Carolina’s unemployment rate for the past few months has hovered above 12 percent.
Instead of government enlargement, we need to remove government from the private sector. Give the freedom to build the cars that the American people want to buy at a price they can afford back to American car companies. Jobs can be created by allowing businesses to spend more of their capital on growing their business and less spent to pay the tax man. Finally, Wall Street needs to learn that the Federal Government is not their insurance agent.
If I had been in Congress, I would have voted NO on TARP, NO on any automotive bailout, and NO on the Stimulus.
Should the Federal government raise taxes to make up for the rising Federal budget deficits?
No. Increasing taxes will only stifle innovation and economic growth. Without this growth, our tax base will shrink as businesses lay off existing workers or forgo hiring new workers, which also leads to more government expenditures due to the payout of unemployment benefits.
As a real world example of this fact, the Obama Administration’s proposal to increase the top two tax brackets from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%, respectively. According to the Administration, this tax increase will make the “rich” pay their fair share while helping to balance the Federal Budget. However, when the facts are examined, it is evident that 44% of small business owners would see a tax increase due to this proposal. As such, this targeted-at-the-rich tax increase will in fact hit those which are responsible for 80 percent of new hires.
Should the Federal government cut spending to balance the budget? If so, what specifically should it cut?
Yes. We cannot return fiscal order to our government without making cuts to the Federal budget. The first step should be ending duplication in Federal programs. While, the Federal government should help retrain workers to capture new job opportunities, it is absurd that there are 15 different Federal entities managing 165 different job-training programs, similarly there are 342 economic development programs run by the Federal government through 13 autonomous government entities. Cutting the duplication out of these programs could save billions of dollars in overhead and administrative savings alone. This is just a first step; we must also cut those Federal Departments which only serve to further their own interest. For example, of every taxpayer dollar which finds its way to the Department of Education, 30 cents never leave D.C. Instead these funds are used to pay Washington bureaucrats.
Would you be in favor of a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget by the Federal government?
Congress should be forced to live within its means, just as every local government, state government and American family already does. I applaud our Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint for leading this charge in the Senate and when elected, I promise to sponsor or cosponsor an Amendment to our Constitution requiring a balanced budget.
Do the American people have a reasonable expectation to privacy?
Our Founding Fathers wrote strong protections against government intrusion in our daily lives into the Constitution; and if elected I will place my hand upon the Bible and swear to uphold those protections. Our nation now faces an enemy which uses tactics and strategies that our national security apparatus have never encountered and were certainly never envisioned by our Founding Fathers. However, these new threats do not make our Constitution obsolete and I will spend my time in office ensuring that our government continues to maintain a responsible balance between security and privacy.
Do you agree or disagree with the TSA’s push to deploy more full body scanners at airports across the country?
TSA’s efforts to deploy more full body scanners will be another tool to increase aviation security. The current magnetometers in the Nation’s airports – which detect only metal objects – are antiquated and are a 1970s solution to the current day security challenges. While the whole body scanners may not be the silver bullet, they far surpass the abilities of the Nation’s current airport screening technologies. Whole body imagers can detect liquids, powders, gels, ceramics, small improvised explosive devices and likely would have detected the explosive on the Christmas Day Detroit terror bomber. While passengers may have legitimate privacy concerns, privacy issues are being addressed with the TSA and no passenger will ever be forced to undergo whole body scanning. Pat downs remain an option.
Should TSA engage in profiling?
TSA’s Behavior Detection program is a relatively new layer of aviation security. Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) observe passenger behavior at airport checkpoints and throughout airports in uniform and in plain clothes. Based in part on Israel’s human factors layer of security, BDOs are trained to detect certain behaviors in the stressful airport environment to determine if a passenger may have ill intent. While the BDO program would not be considered profiling, it is an important step in engaging passengers directly within the confines of U.S. law.
Should illegal immigrants in the country be given a pathway to citizenship and what can be done to stop the flow of illegal immigration? Should it be stopped?
We are a nation of immigrants. However, without the rule of law, our nation loses the vital character imbued in it by the Constitution. Rewarding those who enter our country by breaking these laws with amnesty degrades the value of citizenship and damages our country.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States….” In terms of providing for the general Welfare, what does that mean to you?
To me, government should provide for the people that which they cannot provide for themselves. Too often the Federal government is considered the first option when in fact it should be considered only when the private sector, local government and state government have proven themselves incapable of handling a problem.
What, in your opinion, is the primary role of the Federal government and have they stayed within or strayed from the constraints of that role?
The primary role of the federal government, as laid out in the Constitution, is to foster a society where all Americans are free to use their inalienable rights. What the Federal Government cannot do, though it has increasingly been attempted (resulting in outsized deficits, an unmanageable debt, and increasing dependents on government largesse), is to guarantee individual outcomes. If elected, I will fight to ensure that the Federal Government is one that promotes strong families, individual achievement, growth in the economy, and everything that makes America the exceptional country that it has been since 1776. But I will also strongly oppose government that replaces these things with bureaucracy and unaffordable government from Washington that ignores what makes this country great.
