The Official 2012 SDMB False Presidential Debate Thread

Politics & Elections
21

All right, let’s get this show on the road.

As agreed, all candidates MUST answer this question. They MAY respond to each other’s answers and make brief rebuttal. But long back and forth’s are not encouraged. I have the right to ask follow ups to any candidate that MUST be answered. Spectators may kibitz but the candidates are NOT required to respond or engage them in any way. Those wishing to debate the debate are encouraged to do so in this thread that is ABOUT the debate.

Question #1:

“In the current economic climate federal aid to the states has become one of the largest factors in state and local budgets. This aid often comes with requirements. Should the federal government be supplying such aid at all and if so, should it come with strings attached and what sort?”

22

Good morning, Dopers, good to see you here at what I can assure you will be an informative, if not entertaining event. Thank you Mr. Moderator for such a poignant topic to begin our little brou-ha-ha with. (May I suggest that you list the username of the Doper asking the question, or a couple of names if the question was redacted from several suggestions.

The biggest issue here to me is transparency. We have state taxes paying for federal obligations, including through so-called “unfunded mandates”, and federal taxes paying for state and local obligations through grants, federally funded education programs and a whole cornucopia of entitlements. So long as this endures, it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to figure out what he or she is getting in services from state/local vs. federal taxes paid. I’ll get into this issue in more depth when we discuss taxes, but this is my most strenuous complaint against our government as it stands: Its hard enough already for voters to figure out when their taxes are raised (and, by future obligation, when their descendants’ taxes are being raised), but our state and federal legislators currently have the added convenience that each can start a new program expecting the other to pay, each can raise taxes but the money is actually going to the other and each can lower taxes by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Its all smoke and mirrors and its not transparent, its as opaque as lead with blackout curtains hung on it. As a result, citizens go on paying more taxes, receiving less service from government and they have no idea who exactly they might choose to vote against to stop it.

There are occasions when federal aid to states or benefiting states is appropriate and necessary. A few examples that come to mind: The federal government is the insurance of last resort and its imperative that they provide comprehensive disaster relief. We should as a nation construct new and maintain existing infrastructure that is important to interstate commerce and travel. The federal government should provide education resources and see that basic standards are met while respecting local control. Strings should absolutely be attached to each and every grant or loan that goes to a state or municipality. The vast majority of the state aid that I find acceptable is, in reality, of regional or national importance and as a government we have a responsibility to see that such aid is affecting these national needs in the most direct impactful way possible. Such aid should also be strictly tied to strong federal oversight such that your tax money isn’t squandered on state or local “overhead”, endless planning processes and projects and programs that aren’t successful or otherwise not as advertised.

I am strongly against states administering federal programs. I think we need to decide as a country on a case by case basis what should be the same for every citizen everywhere and what should differ by state to suit the nuances of different populations, resources and politics. What we decide should belong to the states should be paid for and controlled solely by the states, up to and including states electing to not offer that program or service at all. What we decide to leave to the federal government should be paid for and controlled solely by them. It will be an important goal of my administration to reduce as much as possible the overlap and grey area programs and services that both states and nation must share. Education is probably one that’s not entirely severable. In cases where there must be shared responsibility, my aim would be to spell out exactly what the country must do and fund and what the states must do and fund. This not only un-mucks the financial mess of nobody knowing who really pays for what and also preserves what is perhaps the best benefit of state’s rights and states’ self governance: If you pay too much in taxes, have laws you don’t like and/or get lousy services, you can move a short distance to greener pastures and still have all the benefits and freedoms of American citizenship in another state.

Once all of the above has been resolved, there will still be federal grants available to a wide variety of states and local agencies that permit us a nation to support local work that has national importance. I intend to greatly reduce the grant dollars spent and narrow their focus to bona fide national interests. Once I have our nation on a path back to fiscal solvency (to be discussed, I’m sure), I’d support replacing a great many of existing grants with favorably termed loans to support the kind of scientific, educational and technological research and achievements that only government can. I would push mightily though for the power to make these loans and grants to lie with the appropriate federal department instead of with congress. This is an important step to get money out of politics and politicians out of earmarking grants to great swaths of their likely voters.

I’m at the point here where the red light has gone on, a gong has sounded and the moderator is actively swearing at me, so like any good aspirant to high public office, I’ll take another couple of sentences to wrap it up anyway. Folks, disentangling the funding and responsibilities of federal and state governments is imperative to making taxation and budgeting truly transparent to every citizen. We must stop of all of the waste, malfeasance and congressional pork that haze and ambiguity causes. Most importantly, we must provide basic government services to all citizens while allowing states wide berth to choose what they collect in taxes and what services they provide in return for them. This gives Americans choice in government based on which state they choose to live in, and with some basic transparency returned to the most basic value proposition of government, gives them fundamental choice to reward good stewardship of their hard-earned tax dollars with their vote, or throw the bums out!

23

Firstly, I think it’s wrong to call this ‘aid’. Disaster relief from the Federal government, like after Hurricane Katrina, would be ‘aid’. Making a deal with the states to provide some amount of money to the state if they establish a minimum wage in line with Federal desires, or to establish a particular speed limit, that’s trading horses not providing aid. More importantly, this is the Federal government offering a free trade that any state is fully capable of refusing, because the Federal government believes that policy of that sort is in the nation’s best interest. The Federal government isn’t putting in a national speed limit out of some conspiracy theory to dissolve states rights. And if a state - knowing its populace better than Washington DC does - thinks that whatever offer it is that the Federal government has made to them is bad policy for their people, then they don’t take that deal. No one’s forcing them, they’re doing as politicians are expected to do and weighing the pros and cons, and coming up with the best compromise. To me, that seems pretty fair.

snowmaster complains about how the implementation of these policies can vary from state-to-state and how that can create confusion, but that’s because the deal that the Federal government made wasn’t sufficiently detailed about implementation in those instances, not because it would be impossible for them to write a list of rules which guaranteed a clear and consistent level of application across the nation. In some cases that might be because they were being lazy, in others it might be because that’s the only way they thought they could sign on most of the states. Having states not using a minimum wage policy at all - in the eyes of the Federal government - could have been worse for the people than any confusion created by having inconsistent minimum wage policy. As President I would never let the legislative branch get lazy about coming up with a set of rules that are attached to a Federal deal to the states. If I think most of them would sign on, then I’d see to it that everything was as clear and logical as can be. The President has the one power of Veto, and I’d use that to make sure that standards are being met for something that’s going to affect the whole nation for generation upon generation.

I think it was said by Georges Bidault that, “A good compromise is one in which all parties leave dissatisfied.” And I think that’s the reality of politics. It would be nice if the lines between state and Federal were clear; it would be nice if taxes were simple; it would be nice if the embargo on Cuba wasn’t solely to make a voting block in one state happy; and so on. The reality is that the world is complex and that to get what you want takes some trading. When we ask politicians to represent us, that’s mostly what we’re doing, is asking them to make the trade-offs that we would if we had the time to study the issues and deal with other people who have other ideas or who care more about other things. Making everything a compromise creates a mess - and messes are annoying and wasteful, to be sure - but the only alternative is tyranny.

One of the key founders of the nation, Alexander Hamilton, wanted to establish a new Monarchy in the United States, because having a central, strong leader, allows you to create a land where everything is neat and tidy, and has some sort of understandable logic behind every decision. Well, everyone voted him down. Instead, we established a Republic and checks and balances. Checks and balances between the three parts of the Federal government, but also between the Federal government and the states. Our government isn’t a tyranny, it’s more like a market. Every person in the market trades things back and forth to try and get what they want. So far that’s worked for over 200 years, and I’m not sure that I’d want to be the one to start stomping down the system to make it top-down or bottom-up control.

I do like the opportunity for each state to try different things, and to tailor their policy to the region and the people. I also like that we have a way to try and bring the states together into a whole, with a consistent framework of law. With a trade system, the better of these two courses always gets to win. The important thing is making sure that the balance is equal. For the most part, I think it is.

The only real change I can think of that could be recommended, for states which want to stay more independent of the Federal government, is to return to having the state legislature elect senators, instead of using the popular vote. Like I said, the job of a politician is mostly to trade horses. The people who work with him every day are going to have a better sense of how good he is at getting what he wants, and they’re going to want to keep him on their side, fighting it out in Washington. But really, that’s up to the states, just as it is up to them to refuse deals from the central government.

24

I believe, in answer to the first part of your question, that it is essential, during this era of economic uncertainty, that the Federal government ensure that states have sufficient funds to maintain their infrastructures. In answer to the second part, I would respond largely in the negative, with one significant caveat. Federal funds designated for the emergency maintenance of a state’s infrastructure ought only be accepted on the condition that they be used for their stated purpose. That is to say, if the Federal government sends aid to a state to help maintain its medicaid facilities without cutbacks, then that’s what the money should be used for; not for vanity building projects, or paying back debt to multinationals. Other than that, I believe the funds should be given without strings. I oppose Federal overtures on the right of states to determine their own policy. I think it’s counterproductive and hubristic for Washington to decide to tell a state how to run its own schools. It’s a truism that “All politics is local”. Well, I happen to believe that the vast preponderance of political solutions are local, too. State officials, who have the power to observe local problems directly, and who have the ability to gather data directly from the point of origin, are almost always best placed to recommend solutions to local problems. If Washington gives a state a grant for maintaining, say, teacher salaries, they should have the wisdom to allow states to use those funds the way they see fit, without prescribing onorous, “One size fits all” solutions themselves. This is, of course, bearing in mind the caveat that funds allocated for teacher salaries be used for teacher salaries, and nothing else.

But why do I believe that Federal aid should be supplied in the first place? Is it the responsibility of citizens in Missouri to finance the school budgets of the state of Maine, or Massachusetts? In response, I simply ask, what is the alternative? A New York Times investigation broke down the figures for state aid from the most recent round of fiscal stimulus thusly:

$87.1 billion - Medicaid costs.
$53.6 billion - Education.
$25 billion - Job creating incentives in economically distressed areas.
$22 billion - School maintenance.
$4.2 billion - Unemployment insurance.

These services are all crucial to the maintenance of civil society. Moreover, in this current economic climate, a great many states are experiencing significant budget shortfalls which have impacted their ability to provide in these key areas. According to the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities, only 6 states, Alaska, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming, are not projected to have a significant budget shortfall in this fiscal year. I ask you, if the Federal government is not to assist the other 44 states in meeting their most fundamental obligations, what would become of the poorest and most disadvantaged citizens of those states? What would become of our fragile economic recovery, if 90% of the states started laying off teachers, police, and firefighters en masse?

In August 2010, the House approved a $26.1 billion stimulus which, it is estimated, saved the jobs of almost 140,000 teachers nationwide. This, to me, represents an excellent use of Federal aid. The last thing this country needs in these times is the addition of 140,000 professional educators to the ranks of the long-term unemployed.

It’s easy for people to look at the amount of Federal funds spent on state aid and say “It’s not my problem.”. It’s not so easy to stand in front of a low income family and tell them that their access to medicaid - to lifesaving blood pressure medication, to chemotherapy - may be compromised because state funds have been squandered trying to plug budget gaps caused by an economic crisis which has echoed on down from the highest echelons of society, and to which they contributed not one iota. Also, to tell them that their kids will lose their favourite teacher and, oh yes, if they happen to be victims of crime they should get in line and take a number because there are fewer police to help them.

I share snowmaster’s concerns about transparency and accountability. Citizens have the right to know which of their tax funded services are provided by their state, and which are provided or subsidised by the Federal government. To this end, my administration shall run an ‘Open book’ accounting process to make it as easy as possible for citizens to track just how their state and federal taxes are used.

I see the moderator signalling frantically at me, so I shall conclude by saying, in summary, that the great preponderance of Federal aid at this time is devoted to essential infrastructure support, should be given as needed, with a minimum of requirements the better to allow states to disburse the funds in a manner most in line with local priorities, but that Federal funds should always be used for their stated purposes. Beyond this cabeat, further administration should be left up to the states. And be assured that my administration will never forget the importance of accountability. Thank you.

25

The Republicans have a nominee already too. Basically the line up looks like the thread would have better have been titled false Libertarian primary debate rather than a false Presidential debate. I’m not sure how the candidates were chosen but too late to do anything about it now so have fun. But in would argue that a more varied set of opinions would have made for a more interesting debate. As it is I think only those of the small government persuasion are going to pay attention while the rest of us will tune out.

26

I have notified Tripler that he’s late. I’ll give him a bit more.

27

Every so an ATMB thread floats the idea of moderated GD threads. Moderately different, this is the first one that received any sort of approval. It will be interesting to see how it progresses and whether it leads to others like it, if it’s reserved only for elections, or whether the idea goes back to being an ATMB floater.

28

Note that the next question will be asked tomorrow morning whether all candidates have responded or not.

29

Here here. This is precisely why I advocate for state’s rights and why I feel that states should have exclusive purview over issues and programs which will vary from state to state. As such, though, I say states should exclusively fund all such programs, not receive federal tax dollars to do so.

One size does NOT fit all, but this is where we come to a disagreement: The federal government has no business augmenting or maintaining say, teacher salaries. Through the lens of my response to our Moderator’s first question, this is the height of ridiculousness. Can it really be a a good idea that one single human being, say my son’s 4th grade teacher have her salary paid part by state and part by nation. I don’t think the entanglement of federal and state responsibilities and funds could possibly be more obtuse than this example.

Let me first say I try not to toss out a great many numbers in debate. Being a firm believer in the lies, damn lies and statistics school of thought on the trustworthiness of such data, I tend to avoid casting my lot with them when they’re so quickly outdated and there’s always another guy, usually my opponent, right around the corner with some other bowtied expert-in-his-field who has some vastly different figure obtained through the use of some different measuring stick, definitions or algorithms.

As to your question: what is to become to the disadvantaged of our sad majority of states whose governments lack the common sense that God gave geese.
Outgo > Income = Problem every time and I’m baffled at states who fail to understand this or see it coming and choose to do nothing to prevent it. The disadvantaged may choose to vote with their feet and elect to live in state that can write a budget and plans for a rainy day when it might not be so easy. Montana is nice; maybe try there? Now I have made clear I’m for separation of powers, responsibilities and budgets. Picking a few from your list, Medicaid should be entirely federal and your state legislators’ stupidity should have no effect on you receiving said benefits as normal.

Education should be funded entirely by the states with oversight by the federal government. New Hampshire, for example has school funding mandated by its constitution so that the state can’t suddenly decide to not pay for an adequate education for children. That said, public sector employees must serve the needs of the public. While I favor student-teacher ratio limits and requirements for other support staff as part of federal oversight, beyond those minimums I feel states ought be free to employ and pay for additional educators as they see fit and lay them off as they see fit. Obviously, they would be wise to retain talent, experience and a track record of results when it becomes necessary to lay off educators who don’t meet those standards.

States, though, should think awfully hard about laying off teachers firefighters and police. While I believe it is their right to do so, I firmly believe that each state has a responsibility, in concert with national efforts, to recover and maintain a strong economy. As you rightly point out, several states are doing much better with others. While North Dakota’s good fortune is closely tied to a commodity boom, that’s not true everywhere. As a voter, I’ve always believed that our economy’s condition cannot be solely blamed upon the President. As President, recovering out economy will be a major goal of my administration, but each of the states must make their own luck as well. Federal handouts to states are not the path to recovery.States keeping an honest budget and better prioritizing are far more likely to be early adopters of a larger nation recovery. States that fail to do so may inger in recession for much longer.

I appreciate you agreeing with me here, but I’m concerned that if your hypothetical administration leaves all of these programs and services hopelessly intertwined between states and nation that your “open book” would run to 5 volumes and the average citizen would never read it and never understand it. I think this separation should be so stark that high schoolers would learn in a government class that your federal taxes pay for and have sole jurisdiction to administrate list X and your state taxes pay for and have sole jurisdiction to administrate list Y and (almost) never the twain shall meet.

30

Sorry–got back from a funeral yesterday, and am getting caught up. I’ll post an answer this evening.

Tripler
. . . been busy.

31

Uh. . . make that tomorrow at lunchtime. Sorry, real life’s a PITA at times.

Tripler
Been a long day. :frowning:

32

Tripler, given his issues, will be given some extra time to get his first answer in.

Meanwhile, here’s question two:

The founding fathers of the United States (i.e. Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, Franklin et al) are held in high regard by certain segments of the American public. Do you feel that this reverence is appropriate and should the founding father’s views on issues be used to guide current policy? Also, discounting slavery, what position of the founding fathers do you disagree with and why?

The candidates will have until THURSDAY morning, Eastern time, to answer this question.

33

Can it really be a good idea that one single human being, say the average Wal-mart employee, gets her salary paid by 100 different customers? That will never work!

School districts receive funding from a variety of sources - local, state, and federal. They take that money and then distribute it as necessary, within whatever guidelines and laws are imposed. But each teacher only has one employer - their local district. They only receive one paycheck, not three or four paychecks.

In other words, money is fungible.

34

[Sorry for the delay guys. I typed this without reading your responses, in the interest of fair play in the debate]

Thanks for the question, and it is a complex one at that. There’s several terms at play here I’d like to define, to reduce confusion about my position and how I’d redefine how “aid” is spent, and how it would affect state and local budgets.

To start, there’s a myriad of different revenue streams the federal government has to fund Congressional allocations—there’s the obvious income and corporate taxes, tariffs and duties, investment income (bonds and government issued securities), interest on loans outstanding to other nations/corporations, etc. I believe that personal income tax ought to be separated out from that list of revenues, because frankly, it’s the one that everyone sees as the biggest impact to their paycheck. Congress takes those revenues, commits to expenditures, and attaches “strings” to pots of money to ensure that Congressional intent is executed when that money is obligated.

I think “strings” are a necessary evil—there are too many personal/political interests vying for the same proverbial dollar, so by limiting how and where that dollar is spent, you can prevent misuse, fraud, and outright theft. For example, the Military Construction (MILCON) program requires money be spent on military construction, repair, service, and maintenance (a paraphrasing). Strings attached to one construction program ensures that the new Child Development Center gets the appropriate funding to be built to full operational status, without money being diverted to, say the Colonel’s private tennis court or a new garage for snowplows. The Department of Transportation may require that a sum of money, through “project funding”, “grants”, or “subsidies” be spent on repairing a main US highway, instead of money being wrongfully diverted to local streets which don’t get as much heavy traffic. Strings have their place, but have to be managed carefully along with the dollars that accompany them.

“Aid” is a different issue. “Aid” is a sum of money delivered to assist an economy or entity when a contingency situation occurs (like a natural disaster), or as a loan (to curtail a manmade problem). Aid goes to other nations from the federal government to foster good will and bolster economic cooperation (which in turn maintains globalization and free trade). Aid can be a tricky monster due to the politics involved—especially when the need is not clear cut.

This is why I’m against “aid” going to state and local budgets. “Aid” is a temporary measure, and it erodes the self sufficiency of communities and states. There is no guarantee that the “aid” may be available in following years, which creates an artificial dependency onto the federal government. If there is a surplus of funds that the federal government can afford to in essence subsidize state and local budgets, then the following year, the federal government needs to reduce its personal income tax rates on the population. The federal government is not, and should never be, in the business of generating profits or revenues, and if it begins to, it needs to first return those proceeds to the people, and secondarily adjust its policies to either reinvest its surplus or curtail it.

I mentioned that “aid” erodes the self sufficiency of the communities and states. I say this to answer the question as its written, but knowing full well that there are many areas in the country without capital resources—the “haves” and “have nots.” I do support the federal government “granting” or “subsidizing” certain activities to keep certain levels of services consistent across the nation; roads and bridges have to be maintained, support to keep local Departments of Education afloat, and subsidies in higher-crime areas for local police departments. All of these are important, and there is a laundry list more of other worthy investments! However, for accountability of those funds is imperative to positively affect their intended goals—that’s where the “strings” come in. Restrictions need to be loose enough to allow for proper, creative, flexible spending to solve problems in a cost-efficient manner, but need to be focused enough to prevent frivolous, unnecessary spending. If a State or Municipality applies for specific assistance through grants or subsidies, the Federal Government—if funds are available—should have the right to meet that specific request with funding and restrictions on its execution. However, in the cases of natural disasters which often come with little or no notice, the difficulties in disaster management require that “aid” be delivered, but again, it’s a temporary means, not a permanent solution, and should have certain restrictions placed on it as appropriate.
Tripler
Curveball question–wasn’t expecting that one.

35

If we all ignored each other, it wouldn’t be a debate. :slight_smile: Responding to the points the previous people made is part of the expectation, I think.

36

Yep. Go ahead and see if you can poke at the other three. I’ll be doing so as well as things move along.

37

Hey kids. Looks like I’m gonna have to bow out of this one for a little while. Got to go into hospital for a few days. Nothing serious, just something that requires my attention. Should hopefully be out in time to catch up with the later questions.

38

Thanks, Stelios, for the update.

That leaves me with a question for the other three, then.

Without impairing Stelios right of return shall I open the debate to a new candidate to even out the field? Speak now.

39

There were one or two Dopers who made some rumblings about joining in back in the original thread. How about inviting one of them?

Eta: I didn’t think right of return would come up in this debate :wink:

40

I have no complaints so long as they answer all of the questions. Hopefully there is someone less centrist who wants to join.