1. What is the proper role of the federal government in the economy?
The federal government’s primary role in the economy should be enforcing competitive markets. Capitalism works best when markets are competitive, allowing inefficient mechanisms to fail, and resources to be reallocated to superior ideas. Government should intervene with anti-trust policies to prevent monopolies, but it should not pass laws to artificially protect failing industries.
There is also potential for the government to guide collective investment as a means of economic stimulation. Government funding brought us the Interstate Highway System, and the Internet; both of which spurred tremendous economic growth, and created entirely new industries. These investments greatly benefit small businesses by lowering the barrier to enter the market and compete with large, established companies. Further aiding capitalism with a constant stream of new ideas.
There is further potential for the government to enhance the positive qualities of capitalism through social policy. I consider unemployment benefits and other social safety nets a necessity for capitalism to function optimally. Entrepreneurs need to take risks, and bad ideas must fail. People are more likely to take a risk starting a business if they know they can keep their family fed and sheltered should it end in disaster. An investment in social safety nets facilitates risk and increases economic potential.
2. What is your view on abortion?
I believe that the ultimate individual liberty is the right to autonomy over one’s own body. It should be the choice of the individuals involved, and the government should not dictate acceptable medical procedures for its citizens.
Research shows that most people who have an abortion become parents later in life. So abortion merely delays parenthood until it can be done responsibly. This provides greater stability for the family unit and will positively impact the child’s development.
3. Should the federal government fund Planned Parenthood?
I think this should be broken down into two fundamental issues:
a) Should the federal government provide funding for health care and family planning services? Is there substantial government interest in securing the health and well-being of the public at-large?
The security of our nation requires a prosperous economy and a healthy population of potential military recruits. Health and family planning services aid both these efforts by allowing couples the ability to gain financial security before parenthood, and by providing medical services, including disease screenings, to people who need them. Therefore, it meets my requirements for substantial public interest, and demonstrates sufficient need for funding at a national level.
b) Should the government be allowed to deny funding to specific organizations based on tangential work?
This falls under my economic philosophy of government market intervention. If a private company provides a federally compensated service, it should receive that compensation. Singling out one specific business would allow for the politicizing of market forces, which is a much greater economic and social threat.
4. Do you support Obamacare?
I support some aspects of the Affordable Care Act, but it’s only a stepping stone to a permanent healthcare solution. The insurance industry is in need of significant reform. My brother had insurance when he was injured at work. The insurance company denied his surgery for years, and he was eventually forced to pay for the surgery out-of-pocket, and is suing to get reimbursed. He is not alone in this experience. These companies have abused their position, and are in need of regulation.
Reducing the number of uninsured Americans is good progress, but deductibles in some plans would still bankrupt a large number of people, so the primary problem hasn’t fully been solved. I support the mandate to provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions, and we must provide clear continuity of care when employer-based coverage is terminated. A straight-forward problem to fix is the wording that denies subsidies to family members if one person receives employer insurance.
5. Should the minimum wage be raised?
The push for a higher minimum wage is largely driven by concern for the growing wealth inequality our country is experiencing. I consider wealth inequality a problem for the economy and one of the primary causes of our economic stagnation. My apprehension with raising the minimum wage lies in the concern that the increased labor costs will be passed on to the average consumer, and not the shareholders. I don’t want to see everyone leveled out at the lower-middle-class while true wealth inequality goes unaddressed.
My solution would be a wealth cap to limit the liquid and appreciable assets an individual can concurrently possess. Meaning, a person would have to spend or donate any capital in excess of, let’s say, $250 Million. This would allow for lower taxes on high income earners because their money is still being redistributed, just in a manner of their choosing. Wealth redistribution is vital to a healthy economy, and this provides a free-market mechanism to achieve it.
The influx of capital would be a rising tide that lifts all boats. A limit on corporate holdings would promote employee-owned businesses. Limits on real-estate holdings would encourage individual property ownership. Wages would increase naturally and it can be accomplished without the government being involved in specific market practices.
6. Should the federal government do anything to support the value of the dollar on the world market? Should we modify any of our free trade agreements? Should we seek more free trade agreements?
The federal government should have a trade policy that primarily benefits the American worker. While free trade agreements increase the buying power of the average American, they can result in localized poverty when a town’s manufacturing sector is moved to another country. We need more thought placed into the back-end effects of trade agreements to provide a transition for the displaced workers, and to make sure the benefits are passed on to every American, not just a select few. Trade agreements are tools, and are only as good or bad as the people writing them.
