A Better America
2010-10-17 · Guest: Gary Johnson (Former Governor of New Mexico) · 49:17
Libertarian vision for a better America
Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson joins Bob Zadek to discuss a libertarian vision for a “Better America.” They cover the necessity of abolishing the federal Department of Education to return control to the states, the fiscal and social benefits of marijuana legalization via California’s Prop 19, and a pragmatic approach to immigration through work visas rather than walls. Johnson also details his record of fiscal conservatism as Governor and argues for a non-interventionist foreign policy that prioritizes national defense over global nation-building.
Topics: Education Reform, Marijuana Legalization, Prop 19, Federalism, Immigration Reform, Work Visas, Fiscal Responsibility, Veto Power, Foreign Policy, Defense Spending, Entitlement Reform
Speakers:
- Bob Zadek: Host
- Gary Johnson: Former Governor of New Mexico and Chairman of Our America Initiative
- Caller (Evan): Listener from Portland, Oregon
Introduction [00:12]
Bob Zadek: “What the hell is wrong with this country and the Republican Party that it cannot generate more pals like Gary Johnson, who is actually libertarian as opposed to playing one on TV? Is it that hard or is it off-putting to simply admit that getting the government out of the boardroom and the bedroom and the classroom is part of the same process?” Well said, Nick.
Joining me today and for the whole hour is that very same Gary Johnson, successful two-term Governor from New Mexico and chairperson of ouramericainitiative.com. Gary, thanks so much for joining. Gary, is he there?
Gary Johnson: I love that. Get the government out of the boardroom, the bedroom, and the classroom.
Bob Zadek: And the classroom. There’s a little tagline for ouramericainitiative.com, isn’t it?
Gary Johnson: It really is. It really is. You know, out talking about eliminating the federal Department of Education, I think that that might do more toward improving education than any other single act that we could possibly do. And very quickly, the federal government gives about 11 cents out of every dollar that states spend on education, but it comes with about 16 cents worth of strings attached.
Bob Zadek: And Gary, the point to mention before you continue is that 11 cents was taken from residents of the states. So that money would have gone directly to education from the citizens to the states. Instead, it makes a little visit to the federal government where they take off a little something for their trouble and then give it back with conditions. Sorry, Gary.
Gary Johnson: Well, no, no, and you got that right. And the conditions come with 16 cents worth of strings attached. So it really ends up costing the states to take federal money from education. So if you just returned education to the states—50 laboratories of innovation, the notion that states really do engage in best practices—I think that you would see some dramatic innovative improvement in a very short amount of time because states are competitive. We’re all competitive. That’s what this country is about.
Abolishing the Department of Education [03:32]
Bob Zadek: States are, of course, the incubators for ideas, quoting Justice Brandeis, who knew a thing or two about government. And the important point is, you know, Gary, when one talks about eliminating the Department of Education or the Department of Energy, it’s looked upon by mostly politicians on the left as being this radical, bizarre, off-the-charts, certifiably insane policy, as if America has always had a Department of Education. Well, that’s a very new invention and a bad one. So it’s hardly revolutionary. What was revolutionary was moving education to the federal level. That was done without much public debate, and that’s what’s revolutionary, not getting rid of it.
Gary Johnson: Right. And as you pointed out, it happened fairly recently, 1979. And again, it’s a negative. I think when people understand that, I think there’s a knee-jerk that “Holy cow, how can you not take that money?” because money equates to a better education. I think that’s the notion that everyone has, when in fact, I would argue it needs to be education on the most local of levels, and that’s the way that we’re going to improve.
Bob Zadek: And you know, we look back in this country and the golden age of public education sort of stopped somewhere around 1979. You know, I wonder if there’s a relationship there. I went to public school. I loved every day of it. I had a great education, and somehow it was all done at the local level. I loved my teachers, I loved the school, I felt safe, I had a great time, I learned a ton. It prepared me to be a grown-up in America. And it was done at the local level. And teachers were not living in fear of their jobs. It was not politicized. Everything worked just fine. All we did was we noticed the total absence of a need for federal intervention in education. We detected the total absence of a need, and then what do we do? We filled it. Well, that’s not the way to run a country.
Gary Johnson: Well, and my educational experience was that I went to public education and really at a point, I just kind of turned the volume down really low because I just felt like I was a number. And I really felt like I would have benefited from having some choices, really being challenged. I didn’t feel challenged and as a result, like I say, I just turned the volume down really low.
California’s Prop 19 and Federalism [06:15]
Bob Zadek: Gary, in California, California has an opportunity in two very exciting areas to once again lead the country in a positive way. California often has been recently leading the country in a negative way as a somewhat of a laughingstock and the poster child for failed state government. But through the miracle of propositions, we have an opportunity to lead the way in two areas. And one of them, of course, is Prop 19. Prop 19, California is seeking to be the first state to make the recreational use of marijuana legal, which will put, if it’s passed—and right now it’s polling at about 50%, so it could go either way—but the relevance is if it is passed, it will put California’s state law in direct conflict with federal law.
And we will have, according to Attorney General Holder, there will be a battle. Holder has already announced October 15th, New York Times, “U.S. will enforce marijuana laws, state vote aside.” Holder says, “I don’t care what California does, we’re coming in here with DEA and we’re going to ignore those laws.” And that, of course, ignores the fact that California’s medical marijuana laws, which were put on the books in 1996, themselves violate federal law. So what’s going on here and what’s this all about? So Gary, what’s going on here with Prop 19 and who’s got the high ground here?
Gary Johnson: Well, California has the high ground. And Bob, I’ve been out to California now probably about 14 times since the first of the year trying to promote this issue. I just think that this will bring about rational drug policy nationwide. I don’t think the federal government is going to follow through with that pledge to enforce these laws. And it’s my understanding that the end of prohibition of alcohol, the end of prohibition of alcohol was brought about by New York saying to the federal government, “We’re not going to enforce alcohol laws anymore.” And as a result of that, that was really the domino that brought an end to prohibition. I’m hoping that Prop 19 really is the domino that brings about rational drug policy nationwide.
The Benefits of Marijuana Legalization [09:01]
Gary Johnson: And when we talk about legalizing pot, it’s never going to be legal to smoke pot, become impaired, get behind the wheel of a car. It’s never going to be legal to smoke pot, become impaired, do harm to others. And there’s a real case to be made that kids are going to have a lot less access to marijuana in a legalized environment where you have to produce an ID to get the marijuana. Not that they’re not still going to have access to it, but I don’t know how use rates get much higher than what they currently are.
And let’s keep in mind, we have the highest incarceration rate in the world on a per capita basis. We have 2.3 million people in this country behind bars. I’m going to guess that half plus half of those have to do with drugs, and half of those have to do with marijuana. So bring about rational drug policy, stop criminal prosecution of persons that really victimless, non-violent crime.
Bob Zadek: Victimless, you said it exactly right. This is Bob Zadek, host of the Bob Zadek Show every Sunday at noon and 9:10 AM. I’m talking with Gary Johnson, successful two-term Governor of New Mexico, chairman of ouramericainitiative.com. We’ll be back in 90 seconds. When we come back, the civics question is: How come we needed a constitutional amendment to criminalize alcohol, but not one to criminalize marijuana? It’s the same issue. When we come back.
Federalism and the Drug War [11:59]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. I’m your host, Bob Zadek. Sunday at noon, 9:10 AM. 800-345-5639. I am honored, I am beside myself with joy at having joined me on the show today Gary Johnson, successful to say the least two-term Governor of New Mexico, chairperson of ouramericainitiative.com. Gary has been privileged to be on the national and local media for the past year or so promoting his ideas. Keep an eye on Gary Johnson. He says the right things, his heart’s in the right place, his mind’s in the right place.
Today our first topic is legalization of marijuana, California’s Prop 19. And right before the break, Gary, you mentioned the New York’s refusal to enforce the alcohol laws was one of the steps that led to the repeal of prohibition. And I think you’re quite right on the history, but that raises the whole issue. There’s the issue of marijuana is not just being allowed to smoke pot, but rather it goes beyond that. It’s also, is it a federal issue as opposed to a state issue? Why are the feds involved at all in this topic? Why not leave it to the states? The states know what’s best for their citizens. And therefore California in its Prop 19 is in effect saying to the federal government, “We know what’s best for our citizens.” Isn’t that the way the country was built?
Gary Johnson: That is the way that the country was founded. And if we can get back to that, why I just believe that all sorts of innovation for the better occurs in all sorts of areas. Just all sorts of areas. States competing with one another with regard to best practices.
Bob Zadek: What was interesting is in a recent article that I read in preparing for this show on the legalization of marijuana, there was a quote by Los Angeles County Sheriff, a guy named Lee Baca. And he was opposing Prop 19 on the grounds that he said the initiative was—can you believe this?—unconstitutional. He has it backwards. The criminalization of marijuana is unconstitutional. So whatever Lee Baca knows about law enforcement, he’s totally clueless on constitutional doctrine. So that’s the best the opposition to Prop 19 can come up with.
And there’s one other issue before we leave the legalization, Gary, is a lot of the proponents who support Prop 19 do so on the grounds that something like, “Let’s legalize it and tax the heck out of it.” And therefore California will now make money on sales and use taxes or whatever tax they impose on marijuana. And that makes me a little queasy.
Gary Johnson: It makes me a little queasy too, Bob, but I really think that it makes it sellable. That by taxing marijuana, it’s estimated nationwide that it would generate about $11 billion a year. And like I say, I think that that kind of pushes it over the line for a lot of people. I think another thing to be pointed out is that legalizing marijuana would arguably dry up about 75% of the border violence with Mexico, in that it’s estimated that 75% of the Mexican drug cartel activity revolves around marijuana. And if 28,000 deaths south of the border over the last four years don’t give us pause to connect the dots between prohibition and violence, I don’t know what will. Take the money out of marijuana and so goes the violence. It’s estimated in California that the cost of marijuana legalized will drop from $390 an ounce to $39 an ounce, and that would include taxation. That’s taking the money out of marijuana.
Bob Zadek: What I’m surprised at is I’m surprised that PG&E is not a major supporter of Prop 19 because I am told by folks who actually grow marijuana that they consume an awful lot of electric power in their indoor grow houses. So that would be good for electric consumption and PG&E ought to be all for it. But that’s a bit of an aside. Thought I’d throw that out in case we have any PG&E employees out there. Vote for Prop 19.
Immigration Reform and Work Visas [16:19]
Bob Zadek: Gary, another issue, another issue which is a big deal in California, it’s part of the gubernatorial debate, it even finds itself into the Boxer-Fiorina debate, is the issue of illegal immigration. And Gary, I have heard you speak many times on the topic of illegal immigration. And your views are so right on, Gary. I wonder if you would mind sharing it with the audience. And before we do, when the topic is raised of people will tell me they’re opposed to illegal immigration, my rejoinder to that is: Which part of it do you oppose? The illegal part or the immigrant part? And by that I’m asking them, if it was federal law that anybody who wanted to come into this country could, therefore all immigration becomes legal, would you then stop complaining because now the illegal part has been removed? Or rather is it really that you’re opposed to the immigration part? In which case just admit it and don’t hide behind “illegal.” Now with that sort of introduction, Gary, illegal immigration in California and in the country.
Gary Johnson: Well, we are a country of immigrants, so immigration is a good thing. We’re all immigrants to this country. Illegal immigration—bad thing. So I think that we need to make it as easy as possible to get a work visa for individuals that want to come into this country and work. And a work visa, a social security card so that taxes get paid, income tax, social security, Medicare. Make that easy. And there needs to be immigration reform. Immigration reform needs to address the fact that immigration is about work, that it’s not welfare. And certainly we don’t want individuals in this country that have criminal backgrounds. We don’t want that to happen.
And then I think it’s a really important distinction here to point out that when George Bush talked about amnesty for those that are here in this country illegally, I talk about a grace period for those 11 million estimated illegal immigrants that are here. When George Bush talked about amnesty, it has never meant citizenship. Ever. So when I talk about work visa, I’m not talking about citizenship. That needs to be something part of immigration reform. What is citizenship? How do you qualify for citizenship? I’m not talking about that at all. And we need to separate that from the debate of just plain immigration and individuals that want to come here and work.
So for the 11 million that are here right now, I think you need to set up a grace period by which they can get a legal work visa. And I described that earlier. And then with regard to law enforcement, after that grace period passes, make it a “one strike you’re out.” If you’re in this country working illegally, you’re going to be deported out of this country and you’ll never be allowed back to work again. The notion of building fences across the border, the notion of putting the National Guard arm-in-arm across 1,600 miles of border, in my opinion, would be a whole lot of money spent with very little, if any, benefit whatsoever. And then I talked earlier about legalizing marijuana. Legalize marijuana and arguably 75% of the border violence will dry up.
And then let’s talk for a second too about one of the criticisms that illegal immigrants, legal immigrants are taking entry-level jobs that Americans could take. You know, I’ll agree with that if Americans were taking entry-level jobs. But we have issues ourselves when it comes to our own welfare system in that Americans are not taking entry-level jobs because they can sit at home and not work and receive just about the same amount of money or maybe even the same amount of money for doing nothing. So we need to address ourselves—welfare.
Amnesty and Public Policy [20:51]
Bob Zadek: Welfare, of course, is a whole separate issue. And Gary, the point you made that really was important was the point that amnesty does not mean citizenship. Because in the hyperbole in the marketplace of ideas right now, it’s assumed that when anybody talks about amnesty, they are talking about citizenship. And by the way, I could do a whole show on citizenship because I have a plan to take away citizenship to those people who are born here if they don’t qualify as good citizens. But that’s a whole other topic.
On the subject of amnesty, amnesty is a hot-button issue for many conservatives, which I am not. And I find that to be such a false issue. Amnesty in any context is valid public policy. How often does the state offer a policy of tax amnesty? And they do so not because they have a warm place in their heart for tax cheats, but because they have concluded on a rational basis that amnesty makes the best economic sense. Let’s declare amnesty if people confess their tax cheating sins, we’ll get buckets of money, we won’t incarcerate people, we won’t fine them, but we’ll get buckets of money without the expense of enforcement. So amnesty is mainstream public policy, whether it’s against tax cheats or against illegal immigrants. So do not dismiss the policy of amnesty out of hand, especially when, as Gary points out, it doesn’t mean automatic citizenship.
This is Bob Zadek, host of the Bob Zadek Show. I’m delighted to be talking with Gary Johnson, chairman of ouramericainitiative.com. Back in 90 seconds. 800-345-5639. What a good time I’m having.
Minimum Wage and Work Visas [24:53]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. How about seeing things my way? This is Bob Zadek, host of the Bob Zadek Show. Sunday at noon, 9:10 AM. Fox News Radio in the Bay Area and around the country. The leading libertarian talk radio show in the Bay Area. Today’s guest, Gary Johnson, Governor Gary Johnson, former two-term Governor of New Mexico, termed out. Spent some time, lots of time thinking about what troubles our country. Gary is chairman of ouramericainitiative.com.
Before the break, we were talking about the subject of immigration. I had an idea that probably has stuff wrong with it, and perhaps you will disagree with me, but it’s worthy of a few seconds of discussion. Gary, I agree with all that you said. The work visas—perfect. You and I are in sync, especially in sync about tearing down the wall. Maybe we should be standing at the U.S.-Mexico border and saying to President Obama, “President Obama, tear down that wall.” Perhaps that ought to be the theme and that’s the way I feel.
But my policy on immigration would be your policy, Gary, with one additional feature. What if—and this is going to be a surprise question to Gary, I didn’t give Gary a cheat sheet of the questions in advance—but my surprise question, Gary: What if we, as part of that work visa, we changed the Wagner Act or the minimum wage statute and we exempted anybody with a work visa from minimum wage law protection? So they could lawfully be hired for any wage the employer offered to pay them and they were willing to accept. Would that help or hurt the issue of immigration? Would that help or hurt the country?
Gary Johnson: Well, I’m opposed to minimum wage legislation. In Santa Fe, Santa Fe passed a what was called a living wage. Welcome to San Francisco. And I want to say it was $9.50 an hour. And when I was asked about that, I just chimed in with, “Why stop at $9.50? Why don’t we go to $73? Let’s make Santa Fe, you know, the wealthiest city, the highest standard of living city in the United States. Just go straight to $73.” I don’t know, it didn’t go, Bob. It just didn’t work.
So, you know, we can make all the proper policy regarding immigration. We need to look at ourselves and the policies we design for ourselves that don’t really end up having the impact that we think that they do. I just wanted to mention earlier that I think that the government contributes to the fact that we have so many illegal immigrants in this country more than any other entity. Mexican citizens would stand in line if they knew a moving line, if they knew that they could get a legal work visa. They wouldn’t be crossing illegally if that were the case. And that’s not the case. You can’t get a work visa. You just can’t get one. So Mexicans that are coming across the border, they have friends, they have relatives, direct family that are in the United States working. They know that they can come in, have a place to stay, and do the same. And that’s the phenomenon.
Gary Johnson’s Gubernatorial Record [28:20]
Bob Zadek: Gary, I want to share with my audience some parts of your biography and I’ll ask you to correct me. You started a business, as I recall, as a carpenter, more or less. You were a door-to-door carpenter. When you left business to run for Governor, you had a thousand employees. None of those employees got fired when you left when you sold your business. You ran your first visit into public life was you ran in the Republican primary and beat a career politician, more or less. You ran for Governor as the Republican nominee and defeated a career politician. You were re-elected against a career politician. You vetoed, as I recall—but you can supplement this—more spending bills than the other 49 governors combined and reduced the New Mexico workforce, the public employee workforce, by 25%. Did I get that sort of right?
Gary Johnson: Sort of right. Well, when I left office, there were 1,200 fewer state employees, which I always said was a testament to state government employees. We just managed attrition, Bob. So state employees went from 12,000 to 10,800. And then I think it was just important to point out that New Mexico is two-to-one Democrat, and so having gotten elected twice as a Republican, I think spoke volumes to the fact that people really did recognize good stewardship of tax dollars. So it wasn’t just about saying no. It had to do with the discussion and the debates that followed on why we didn’t need to spend money in all these different areas that really weren’t going to end up making a difference in anyone’s lives other than those directly involved with those expenses. And I think people saw that, and I’m testament to that because I did get elected and re-elected in a state that was two-to-one Democrat.
Caller: Running Government Like a Business [30:38]
Bob Zadek: Gary, we have Evan from Portland, Oregon, who’d like to ask you a question. Evan, welcome to the show.
Caller (Evan): Oh, thanks, Bob. I wanted to say you have a great show. And also hello to Gary. I saw you when you came to Vancouver, Washington earlier this year. And I’ve got a question for you. When you first ran for Governor of New Mexico, you had no prior government experience. And how did you convince voters that you were still qualified for the job? And what recommendations would you have for inexperienced people like myself who are looking to run for public office sometime in the future?
Gary Johnson: Well, Evan, I kind of made the pitch that I would run state government like a business: best product, best service, lowest price. And of course, I got beat up on that a lot running for office the first time. The second time when I ran, I said that I was going to continue to run state government like a business, that it had happened. It was—I mean, first go-around it was theory. Second go-around, you know what? We ran state government for four years like a business. Would you like to continue to see that take place? And got re-elected. So it’s more than possible to really have a common-sense business approach to state government. And I always challenge people to give me an exception to where best product, best service, lowest price doesn’t always benefit those served.
Caller (Evan): All right. And when you were first running, did your opponents try to attack you for having no experience? And if so, how did you counter them?
Gary Johnson: Well, I ran two campaigns for Governor where I did not mention my opponent in print, radio, or television. Not even as “my opponent.” I didn’t spend any money on that.
Bob Zadek: Must have made them crazy.
Gary Johnson: I talked about issues and where I stood on the issues. And I think that’s what really concerns people. So when they attacked me, if you want to call it attacked, when they criticized me for the things that I did, you know what? I just always viewed it as kind of double advertising, if you will. If there were allegations made that weren’t true, rather than addressing the allegations as “here’s the allegations coming from my opponent,” I just would simply talk about education. I would simply spend my resources on ads that would have described my position regarding education, which by the way was advocating school choice, was bringing about competition to public education.
Bob Zadek: Evan, thanks so much for calling and good luck in whatever campaign you’re going to be adopting.
Caller (Evan): All right, sounds good.
Bob Zadek: Thanks a lot for the call, Evan. Thanks a lot, Gary.
The Veto Power and Fiscal Responsibility [33:54]
Bob Zadek: Gary, when you were running in your second term for Governor and therefore you had a bit of a record, was there one area that your opponent—I think it was the Mayor of Albuquerque who ran against you, I could be wrong about that in the second term?
Gary Johnson: Yeah, Mayor of Albuquerque.
Bob Zadek: And what was his primary line of attack? You had a four-year record, you were doing what you said you were going to do. What did he select as the method to attack you?
Gary Johnson: Well, I think more than anything, it was that basically I said no to state government spending. I mean, in a nutshell, it was kind of A through Z spending, and I vetoed everything A to Z. So it really covered the whole spectrum. And of course, that’s exactly what I did do, and I was proud of it. And without exception, I would have explained all of what I did. Every single veto that I rendered, I always wrote a veto message. And in many cases, the veto message read: “Great idea, love to sign this, I think it would make a difference, but we just don’t have the money to be able to do that.” There were quite a few vetoes in that category.
Bob Zadek: Oh, what a refreshing attitude for a chief executive in government to just say, “We can’t afford it.” And what the left does in this country is they often, as you said, Gary—and you and I are so much alike in this regard, not that I wish to bask in your reflected glory, hardly—but the issue is never to me whether or not a spending initiative on the merits will help someone. Giving my money to somebody else will for sure help the person. If you take money from Peter to rob Paul, you’re always assured of Paul’s vote, as I think it was George Bernard Shaw, I believe. So it’s always a good idea for somebody. You can point to some human who will benefit from governmental policy by ignoring all of the adverse effects of this spending. And that’s just what’s happened in Washington. So it’s easy to say this is a good idea. It’s much harder, it’s the grown-up thing to do to say, notwithstanding that it’s a good idea, we can’t afford it. That’s what requires maturity and integrity in government.
Entitlement Reform and the Debt Crisis [36:39]
Gary Johnson: And I think that’s where we’ve gotten to nationally, given the fact that 43 cents out of every dollar that we’re currently spending is borrowed. We’re bankrupt. If we don’t right the financial ship right now, I’m going to argue that we’re going to be left with nothing. And what we can be left with is the United States of America, which has always been about liberty and freedom and the personal responsibility that goes along with that. But if we don’t reform, significantly reform Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, defense spending, if we don’t radically reduce our spending, we’re not going to have a country that’s viable in the future. And by that, our currency won’t be worth anything. That’s the history of developed countries throughout civilization. They implode because they spend more money than what they have and governments collapse. And that’s where we’re at.
Bob Zadek: Gary, when we come back, you’re going to give my audience the same goosebumps you gave me when you talk about your views on foreign policy, troops in Europe, troops in Asia. Bob Zadek, host of the Bob Zadek Show, talking with Gary Johnson. 800-345-5639. Thanks for listening. Back in 90 seconds.
Foreign Policy and Defense Spending [38:30]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. Help, we need help, we need someone. We got someone. The someone is Gary Johnson, who’s joining me on the show for the entire hour today. Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. 800-345-5639. I’m joined today by Gary Johnson, former two-term Governor of New Mexico, chairman of ouramericainitiative.com. If you want to see what Gary stands for and what he thinks about policy in this country, ouramericainitiative.com. It’s all there with no fudge words.
Gary Johnson, thanks so much for staying with us for the hour. Before we left, you were rattling off all the areas we could save buckets of money—that was my phrase, not yours. And one of the areas you mentioned and I’d like you to expand upon it because you’re the only one saying this, and that is defense policy, troops in Europe. You know what I’m talking about.
Gary Johnson: Well, we’re bankrupt. So 43 cents out of every dollar that we’re spending is borrowed. We need to cut government by 43% if we’re just going to balance revenues with expenditures. And if we don’t do this, I’m going to argue we’re going to be left with no country at all because our currency’s not going to be worth anything. Do I believe in a strong national defense? Absolutely. It is an obligation that government has. Can we provide a strong national defense for this country without cutting defense? Yes, we can. But what we need to cut is defense for the rest of the world.
We’re spending more money on military spending than all the other countries in the world combined. When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re building roads, schools, bridges, highways, and hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our men and women are dying in Afghanistan. We’re nation-building all across the world when don’t we have our own nation to build? So this notion of getting smarter is a good notion. We’ve been hearing about it for decades, but the reality is that we’re not. We still have a huge army. We have standing forces in Europe. I don’t understand it. I don’t understand 100,000 troops in Europe. We’ve got, I think it’s—don’t quote me on this one, but 50,000 troops in Japan. And Japan’s Prime Minister running for office wanted the United States out of Japan, and yet we’re still there. Why wouldn’t we want out given that Japan wants us out? I don’t understand it.
The Obsolescence of NATO and Nation Building [42:06]
Bob Zadek: It’s welfare for NATO, that’s what it is. We’re making welfare payments to Western Europe and Asia. Nothing other than that. It’s welfare.
Gary Johnson: Well, and I’m opposed to foreign aid. Again, let’s get back to the basis of foreign aid. We’re giving foreign aid to countries and we’re borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar to do that. How can we do that? Why would we want to do that? I think it’s important to distinguish between foreign aid and military alliances. I think that military alliances are something that serves our interests, our security, and our safety, and that it’s important to draw a distinction between those two. But the notion that we can provide ourselves with a strong national defense without cutting any money, I think that’s totally viable. How about though cutting money when it comes to defending the rest of the world? I think that that’s very possible. This is 2010. There’s a new world reality, and that new world reality is we cannot pay to defend the rest of the world.
Bob Zadek: And they can afford to pay for themselves. And the question is, you know, Thomas Jefferson had some solid, solid views, of course. And he had some views that were marginal, but one of his most interesting views was he felt it was immoral for one generation to bind another generation to any law or to any debt. And he said every law ought to automatically sunset in 20 years and let the next generation decide for themselves whether to renew or re-adopt that law.
Now applying that to what we’re talking about this morning: If we had no troops in Germany, if we didn’t have 100,000 troops in Germany today, October 2010, would Secretary of Defense Gates decide and recommend, “Let’s send 100,000 troops to Germany because there’s a need”? Well, of course not. Of course not. So if we wouldn’t put them there ab initio, then that says take them home right now. Who in their right mind can defend that? Indeed, who can even defend being part of NATO? NATO was formed as a defense against USSR, which has gone. Let’s declare victory and go home. Even NATO can’t be defended because the enemy that NATO was formed to protect against doesn’t exist.
And Gary, one more point. And that is when the original cabinet position was formed, it was called the Department of War. That got changed, I think in the ’50s, to Department of Defense. But right now we are using that department to declare war, not for defense. If all we did was use that largest of all federal cabinet positions for purely defense and require the expenditure to be defended—we needed it to defend ourselves—that would reduce the spending enormously.
Gary Johnson: Profound, Bob. Everything that you said. Just right on. And just following through, the notion that we’re going to hand this debt over to our kids is not correct at all. We’ve got to address these issues now, today. There’s no kicking the can down the road anymore. And by the way, blame for the position that we’re in, spending more money than what we have, lies squarely with Republicans and Democrats. It lies squarely with politicians that made promises that they should have never have made. But now, right now, this has to be reckoned with. And if we don’t, we’re going to find ourselves without a country moving forward. And that’s not going to be pretty. That’s going to be decades and decades of no growth and really ugly poverty, a bit of chaos to go with all that.
Bob Zadek: And Gary, I know you don’t have calculations, but give us some idea. How much could be saved by pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq is clear, and that should be done. But the stealth troops in Germany—nobody talks about them—in Italy, in Japan as you said. Give us some sense of how much could be saved at no loss of protection. It’s just a free savings. There’s no detriment. How much could be saved if the country followed your lead on that?
Gary Johnson: Well, it’s—I mean, just the low-hanging fruit, I think, amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars. And when you’re talking about an $800 billion budget, there you’re at, you know, 25% potentially of that budget. That still doesn’t go far enough. So, and when I say it still doesn’t go far enough, if we don’t cut government by 43%, we’re not going to be balancing revenues with expenditures. We’re going to continue to grow this debt. And right now, you know, I talked about the big four: Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, defense. Number five on the list is interest on the debt. And right now interest rates are effectively at zero. That’s not going to stay that way. And when interest rates go up, which they’re going to to have to entice investors to continue to invest in our debt, in our nation’s debt, in government debt, if those interest rates go up by just a couple of percentage points, a couple hundred basis points, we’re looking at doubling that expenditure to a half a trillion dollars from its current $250 billion.
Bob Zadek: We’ll be the first country to file a Chapter 11. We’ll file a Chapter 11 at the UN probably. This is Bob Zadek. I’m speaking with Gary Johnson. Gary, thanks so much for joining me for the whole hour. Gary’s views can be found at ouramericainitiative.com. Thanks so much for joining us, Gary. This is Bob Zadek, host of the Bob Zadek Show. Be back next Sunday. God, I wish I had the rest of the afternoon to spend with Gary. But thanks so much for joining me, Gary.
Gary Johnson: Great. Thank you, Bob. Thank you very much. Bye.
Bob Zadek: So long, everybody.