• Home
• Meet Richard
• Upcoming Events
• Issues
• In The News
• Contribute Now

• Volunteer
• House Party
• Carter Gear
• Letter to the Editor
• Register to Vote
• Project Lead
• Email Updates

Subscribe

Second Part of Richard’s NNN Interview

Part 2 - Compare and Contrast

Read Part 1 Here

At the debate you talked about how the competition provided by the free market was responsible for the quality of some of the care you received in the public system at the VA.  How do you think this balance should apply to the health care system as a whole?  What is the proper role for the free market, and when should the government step in?

In a free market economy, the role of a government is not to compete in the free market but to regulate it.  That’s opposed to a socialist or a communist or what is known in economics as a “centrally planned” economy, where the governmnet makes all the decisions about what we produce, how we produce and who gets to consume it.  In a free market, the market decides that, so the government’s role then is to regulate it and make sure it’s operating efficiently.

So would you be opposed to the government offering a national plan as an alternative to private plans?

No, not at all… as long as it makes sense, if it’s run efficiently then that would be a great alternative which would actually help competition, and I think that’s great.  I think we need to have competition across the board.  With doctors we should look at expanding medical schools and universities and actually create more doctors, we should expand the number of hospitals that we have and get them competing… but in a healthy, safe, regulated way, that’s really the key.  Also key to understanding this, to have a free market running efficiently, you have to have what’s known as no external benefits and no external costs. In other words, you have to reap all the benefits of your decision, and you have to suffer all the costs.  This is crucial to running a business.  And what I’m afraid of happening, which government has kind of left out of the regulation part, is that businesses have been able to pass their costs off to others.  

You have to understand how insurance works. When you buy health insurance you’re betting that you’ll get sick, and the company is betting that you won’t.  Now if you do get sick they’re going to offset the costs with all they people they have that don’t get sick.  If you don’t get sick, you’re better off not having health insurance because it’s money you don’t have to spend every month.  But what we’ve seen happen, and I think this is what’s turned a lot of people off the free market approach, is that the insurance company makes this bet that you won’t get sick, and then when you do get sick they have all these exclusions where they say ‘oh, we don’t have to pay for this or we’re going to drop you because it’s too expensive’… so they’re externalizing their costs, and that’s where the government has to come in and say ‘no,no,no, you made a bet with them… they got sick, and now you’ve got to pay for them…’

The other issue that’s come up in the presidential contest is the question of individual mandates. How do you feel about that proposal?

I think we’re very fortunate that Massachusettes has taken the bold step on that and is kind of taking the experiment, so what I think we should do is wait a little bit, evaluate that system, see how it worked, and then if it worked very well then maybe we should apply that nationally.  If it doesn’t work, then we should certainly not implement it.  So I think that we’re very fortunate that they’re trying it out and we just need to watch it and observe it and see how it plays out.

What are the differences between your proposal and the Esch health care plan?

My plan is one that gets everybody health care coverage, it’s one that actually tries to lower costs.  One of the big problems is that health care costs are so high that they’re probably doubled in the last ten years, they’ve increased four times as much as people’s real wages.  I’ve tried to propose policies that would actually lower those costs through the competitive process I described, , where some of these other plans that are out there people talk about just taking that cost and having the government pay for it.  But how do we get the government to pay it when we’ve already got a 500 billion dollar deficit?I still want to insure there is a public heath care system and feel that we should increase funding for the current system. But what is very upsetting for me, is you know me and Jim talked about his plan to kind of have this national health care… the next words out of his mouth were the things he was going to reduce, and it wasn’t costs, it was the benefits you would receive.  He’d reduce the number of MRI machines, and he said that too many people are taking pills.    Well I’d like to remind him that those pills were prescribed by licensed physicians who went to medical school, not by lawyers… we don’t need Washington politicians and lawyers and bureacrats determining the care for patients, and that’s what will happen under his plan.  So that’s where we’re greatly different.

Going back to the debate, I think what Jim was saying was that one of the problems with the free market system right now is that it’s creating incentives that aren’t necessarily in the patients’ best interests.  So we’ve got these overly aggressive drug companies trying to push their new product with doctors, and we have hospitals that have an incentive to always say ‘we’ve got the newest and best equipment, so you should use our services instead,’ etc.  Do you think there are some valid points there?

No, not at all.  I want to go to the hospital that has the newest equipment, and that’s what competition is all about… I want to go to the hospital that has the latest and greatest equipment, and I want everybody else to.  Not just the rich, because I’m not the rich.  [laughs] This year I’ll make $28,000 working for Metro, you know, so I would proudly go to the hospital that has the latest and greatest equipment.Talk about removing  MRI machines, you know, there’s already a waiting period to get an MRI, so that means there’s probably a shortage.  And hospitals absolutely have to have those because people that come in with an emergency situations where doctors need to see if there’s internal bleeding or some kind of damage, brain swelling or whatever… and making them wait for those or having to transfer them across town to a hospital that has an MRI, that’s going to cost lives.   So that is absolutely something we can’t do.  I’m very concerned with that, I don’t think it’s a valid point.

And we can talk about, when it comes to regulation, looking at the drug companies and making sure that everything they’re doing is honest and legit.  We should be doing that, we shouldn’t be letting them have free reign.  But if they’re trying to sell drugs that people don’t need, then the doctors won’t prescribe them, and this notion that they’re tricking the doctors or something, you know, doctors are very smart people and I think they would see through that.  Some people get upset because maybe there’s five or six different medications to lower cholesterol, but ultimately that’s a good thing because some medicines might work better for some individuals.  The human body’s different, and what works for one person doesn’t always work for another, so it’s good to have all those different pills so the doctor can decide which one works best for your body.   I do not want to eliminate those, and what I think Jim is talking about there is another example where I just don’t think Jim understands the medical field.  He needs to talk to some doctors.

I guess the other point of distinction that our commenters have really grabbed on to is the Social Security question -

Yeah, and I really want to talk about that one because once again I think this is Jim’s lack of experience or knowledge, he just doesn’t know how Social Security works.  He said ‘I don’t know why it’s capped at $90,000, and if anybody could explain that to me, you know, I don’t think anybody can.’  And my response was: Jim, I’ll explain it to you.The reason why is that Social Security was designed to be a basic pension plan.  However, it wasn’t allowed to stay that way.  You’re not going to draw benefits over the $90,000, so if you get taxes over that $90,000 you’ll never recoup that money.  This was a plan for individuals, and so there was no need to tax over that.  Plus, there was plenty of money in the system without taxing those people, the reason why they need more money now is because the way the budget process works is that they take all the money they have and they put it in the general pot.  And then they spend out of that general pot for all their other budget proposals.

So they have the budget proposal and they say ‘yup, this is what the budget’s going to be’ and then all the revenue comes in and they just take from that.  With the exception of just three years out of the last forty, there’s been less in the pot then they’ve had for expenditures.  So all the taxes they bring in, taxes on tobacco and firearms and alcohol and gasoline and the estate tax and import taxes and things like that… those all go in the general pot.  If you would leave the money that’s being drawn out for Social Security in a separate fund, protected, there would be more than a sufficient amount to cover payouts for the program.  Because historically there’s always been more people paying in than taking out, and that’s still true today, and there would be plenty of money in there that could still be used to make the system solvent.

Jim will raise the age requirement and tax level, and that if you keep spending the social security tax revenue on other budget expenditures there will never be enough money for Social Security.  You will just have to keep raising the age and tax levels.

Thank you so much for taking the time to sit down with me today.

Absolutely, thank you.

First Part of Richard’s NNN Interview

Part 1 - The Soldier in the Classroom

Thanks for sitting down with me.  I’m just gonna launch straight into the questions: When did you first start thinking about running for public office?

Well, I’ve always been interested in politics, both at the national level as well as the local level, but I did not think I would be running for office at this point until probably Janurary… being in the military and being here and being gone for such short periods of time didn’t really give me the opportunity to be involved in the way I’d like.  So after I left the military I started going to the county party meetings, talking to some people, and telling them that I really wanted to get involved.  At that time no one had really stepped forward to challenge Terry, so people were telling me ‘you know, with your background and the issues you’re concerned with, this race would be a good fit for you.’So I launched an exploratory committee and spent about seven weeks talking to people in the party, trying to see what their response would be… talked to Jim Esch and he said he wasn’t going to run.  And I was pretty encouraged by the response I got and it looked like no one else was going to step up, and so I went ahead and announced in February.

So do you think you would be in this position if Esch had announced before Janurary?

That’s a really tough question to answer.  I’m assuming it would’ve affected my decision quite a bit had Jim been willing to run early on, before things changed which made it more favorable for him to run.  I can’t say for sure, but it certainly would’ve affected my decision.

Going back, could you tell me a bit about your time in Iraq?  How long was your tour?  Where were you stationed?

Well, in the Air Force we have a little shorter tours.  We’re limited on our flying hours: there are so many flying hours per month, and so many hours every three months.  Generally you would max out on those hours and they would bring you home, because otherwise if you’re not flying there’s not a whole lot you can do.  So generally we were there two and a half or three months, come home and then go back… I did a couple of those.  During that time I’d fly to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I did tours in 2003, 2004 and 2005.

What lessons did you learn from that experience?

A lot of lessons. I really saw a kind of transition.  In 2003 it was a much different war than it was from the latter part of 2004 until today.  In 2003 we were going against the Iraqi army, Saddam Hussein’s military, and we took them down relatively quick.  And then things started to transition slowly.  We won the war, President Bush even said so himself, and at that point we should have probably all come home, started the withdrawal then and really let the Iraqis start to stand up.But there were some very costly mistakes that were made at that time.  I observed those first hand and really disagreed with them.  But at the time  [being in the military], you weren’t really able to voice your opinion or even have an opinion that really mattered very much.  So then in 2004 things started to get more hostile, there was that first event in Fallujah where the contractors were hung off the bridge and really started to show that maybe things were gonna get more violent, and then it was just downhill from there…

So I saw some of how we mismanaged the war in Iraq, and also how the war has diverted us from Afghanistan where we’ve seen this resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban…

Your primary opponent, Jim Esch, ran for this seat in 2006.  Did you follow that race at the time?  What do you think his campaign did right last cycle, and what are some ways you think your campaign can improve upon that performance this time around?

What Jim did right was that he had the courage to get out there and work hard, which a lot of people weren’t willing to do.  I really commend him for doing that and taking that bold step.I did follow his race and I was encouraged by Jim, being relatively young at the time, being into politics… he showed that Lee Terry was very vulnerable.  However, [the question is] what are the differences there, where do you capitalize, where do you make up the difference?  Unfortunately, while Jim got what is considered to be close, he’s still a long ways away.  He got further than anyone else had, but he was still thousands of votes from winning.  Where he lost of that was in Sarpy County.  That’s an area where I have a lot of strength.  [You’ve got to be able] to appeal to such a broad base, not just Democrats in Omaha but also the Democrats in Sarpy as well as the Independents and some of the more conservative voters.  And being a veteran, having lived in Bellevue, being a teacher and working in North Omaha and being involved in that community, teaching in Elkhorn and being involved in that community… these are all communities that the Esch campaign didn’t completely reach out to.  Had he been able to carry Sarpy County, as well as the western part of Douglas County and a little bit more in North Omaha, we would’ve had a different result.  That’s something I think I can really capitalize on.

A point of distinction that Esch raised during the debate… he said he knew this district better than anyone, having been born here and having lived here all of his life.   How do you respond to that?

He did say that, and what did he say?  That he was born and lived his whole life in Omaha, and that he knew that area better than anyone.  So Jim still hasn’t gotten the message, that there’s more to this district than just Omaha: there’s the western part of Douglas County and there’s Sarpy County,  which he lost by about 20%, and that’s really what carried Lee Terry home.  So that’s how I respond to that.  ’You’re absolutely right, you’ve very fortunate to have lived here your whole life,’ however I’m the one who really knows the community, even having lived here less time than him, I’m not forgetting that there’s more to this district than just Omaha.

Moving on to some policy questions.  I read through your post yesterday on withdrawal from Iraq, and at one point you say that we should continue to encourage the sheiks to provide security in places where the Iraqi government isn’t able. Do you have any concerns that by entrusting all this power and responsibility to local tribal leaders in the short run that we might be threatening the ability of the Iraqi government to exercise domestic sovereignty in the future?

That’s always a possibility, but you have to look at what’s going to provide the most stability.  There’s always been a battle, and we see this battle in any government anywhere, between a strong local government versus a strong federal government.  It would be ideal, or at least better probably in theory, if the national government was more unified and could bring in the local governments to work them.  That’s the ideal situation.  However they’re apparently just not able or willing, I’m not really sure which but I think it’s more of the willing, to do that.  Our first goal has to be to provide for stability, and that’s why I’m calling for the locals to stand up where the national government won’t.So yeah, this could lead to some potential problems in the future with the country being unified, but it doesn’t have to be that way.  In America we have local police that provide the security, and they’re not at odds with the federal government or the state government, so they can certainly work together.  And I think that probably is the most effective way to do it, because they know their neighborhoods better than  anyone else

At the Presidential debate on Wednesday, both Democratic candidates said that they would continue to follow their timetable for withdrawal even if circumstances on the ground changed or their generals advised against it.  Do you think that’s a wise position to take?

It’s really tough to limit yourself, you never want to tie your hands or limit your options. So no, I wouldn’t limit myself if I were Commander in Chief.  I mean, you’re saying anything could change but boy I’m gonna stick to this. So what happens if all the sudden Iran and Syria join forces and invade Iraq?  No, no, I’ve got to stick to a timetable so… As a commander you never want to limit your options.

Moving on to the economy.  I noticed on your issues page, that you put ‘Fiscal Responsibility’ at the very top of your proposals to solve this mess we’re in.  But considering that we’re likely already in a recession, how can we reduce the deficit without negatively impacting our economic growth?  Can we really address both of these problems at once?

In economics there’s always that old trade-off between inflation or unemployment: in a recession you have unemployment and in the boom periods you have inflation. Well now we have both, and that’s the dreaded stagflation that we first experienced in the seventies.  And both times we’ve seen the same thing happen: it’s the oil shocks, where we have prices go up and we also have unemployment on the rise.So a lot of these issues are tied together.  The war, oil prices and the economy are all intertwined, and you can’t really completely separate them.  And that’s why you need a leader that really understands all these issues and can come up with comprehensive policies. And I feel that I’m the best candidate for that with my experiences in all three.

Now how do we get to fiscal responsibility?  To balance the budget, that means you’ve got to have the same amount of revenue coming in as you’re spending.  How do you do that?  Well, you’ve either got to increase one or decrease the other, right?   So I think the first step to reducing spend is to make sure we have full disclosure to make sure we know where the money is going… You should be able to get on your computer, go on the internet and see just what it is you’re paying for… and if there’s spending for classified projects than we’ll just say this much is going to Defense projects, so you’re not risking your security here.

When all the American people can log on and see exactly what they’re paying for and how much it’s costing them, then they can decide if they really want that.  And when they decide what they really want to spend… then we look at ‘how much money do we have?’  If we don’t have enough revenue to pay for that, then we’re going to have to raise the taxes… So that probably means we need to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% expire, so there’s that part of it.  Also, you have to look at… making sure the national income goes up.  You know, if you take a fixed percentage of a said amount, and you raise that said amount then your overall revenues going to increase.

So we’ve got to try and grow our economy.  How? By making some smart policies that allow companies to grow, correct tax incentives and correct tax cuts that are geared towards the most economic impact - which is probably the middle class - that’s going to help the economy to grow. And then we should encourage investment in infrastructure.

So when we have a stimulus package we shouldn’t put it towards consumption, which is currently what’s happening, because that just stimulates demand on the consumption side which would just lead to higher prices again… but if we invest it in creating jobs by investing in infrastructure, like building bridges or education.  Education is investment in the American workforce, invest in them and then the workforce will become more productive, so now they’re more efficient, you can produce more, supply increases and prices drop… it helps to fight inflation, that grows the economy.  And once we get the economy growing, our overall revenues will increase, and so that way our revenue can try and catch up to where our spending is at.

It’s kind of a two-sided attack that I’ve laid out.   The first side is to reduce the spending, get rid of everything you don’t need.. and then the second part is investing in infrastructure and getting the economy to grow so that the revenues will increase… It’s going to take a little bit of time, but we can do it.

Be sure to catch part 2, where we delve into some of the biggest policy distinctions between Carter and his primary opponent Jim Esch.

Richard’s Weekly Live Blog

This weeks topic is on FISA reform and a National ID card.

Click here to take part in the discussion.

Next Page »