Pledge to donate now! Then be sure to DONATE on August 20th.

Yesterday a new scientific poll was released showing that Rand Paul trails the establishment GOP candidate by only 11 percentage points. Rand showed up with 26% to Trey Grayson’s 37%. This is a very strong showing for an anti-establishment candidate challenging a career politician. There are still 9 months to go before the May 2010 GOP primary in Kentucky. This poll proves the viability of Paul. Grayson now has to prepare himself for a dogfight. A lot can happen in 9 months.

Here is our short interview with Rand Paul from earlier this week.

LM: Starting off with a bit of a personal question, what was it like growing up in the Ron Paul household? Was he as strict with his children as he is with following the Constitution?

Rand Paul: All the kids were into sports. My older brother was a nationally ranked swimmer and my younger brother played baseball in college. I swam for a non-scholarship program at Baylor. My earliest memories are of discussing politics with my father’s friends. I always gravitated to the adult conversation.

LM: Who is your favorite Founding Father and why?

Rand Paul: Jefferson. Of all the founders, he seemed to be able to articulate the message of liberty and limited government best. Like many of us he was imperfect and I wish he had been more committed to liberty for all without regard to race. Jefferson also, was personally not so fiscally sound with his own finances. While I am repelled by Adams support for the Alien and Sedition Acts, I do admire his New England work ethic and personal frugality.

LM: Who is your favorite American President and why?

Rand Paul: same (as above)

LM: You’ve mentioned that you support term limits in recent interviews. Does this mean you support a Constitutional amendment to institute term limits or are you of the opinion that term limits should be a personal decision for each office holder? If you get elected, how many terms will you serve?

Rand Paul: I support both a Constitutional amendment and/or legislation if it could be done Constitutionally. Voluntary term limits have not worked because the good Congressmen kept the pledge and went home and the creeps broke their pledges and stayed. Also, only a very small percentage, maybe ten to fifteen, ever were elected with a voluntary pledge.

LM: Health care reform is the latest fight on Capitol Hill. Recently, the Obama administration has modified its position a bit on the “public option” by suggesting they’d be open to non-profit health insurance cooperatives. Is this compromise something you could vote for as a Senator?

Rand Paul: No

LM: Why or why not?

Rand Paul: I am opposed to the government deciding what kind of insurance policies are legal. I have a Health Savings Account, presumably this policy will not be approved by the government coop.

LM: What can you say to your potential constituents to ease their minds about the potential for Washington corrupting you as it has done to so many in the past?

Rand Paul: I am not a career politician. I will vote against pork barrel spending and happily return to my job as a physician if the electorate tires of that stance.

LM: On your web site’s issues page, you have some very strong words favoring gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Would you vote for any kind of restriction on guns such as trigger locks, waiting periods, background checks, or closing the “gun loophole”?

Rand Paul: No

LM: Are you a gun owner?

Rand Paul: Yes.

LM: Your father has signed on to a bill (HR.2267) sponsored by Barney Frank. This bill, in essence, makes online poker legal, but regulates/licenses it at the federal level. Do you support such bills? What is your view on this bill and Internet regulation in general?

Rand Paul: I am opposed to Federal regulation or taxation of the Internet.

————–

If you are a liberty-loving American supporting Rand Paul truly is a no-brainer. With the publication of this interview we at Liberty Maven officially endorse his candidacy in the 2010 Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky.

With a little luck and a lot of money (please donate to his campaign!) we hope to be endorsing him in the general election this time next year.

We rated Lawson on the Paul-O-Meter (in which we compared his policies and voting record to those of Ron Paul) and weren’t too surprised that he scored a 91 out of a possible 99 points (thus cementing his “Ron Paul Jr.” nickname).

Ron Paul himself has even campaigned for him and remarked on Lawson’s nickname by saying:

A lot of folks have begun calling B.J. Lawson the next Ron Paul. The comparison is very flattering. . . for me.

In the election BJ garnered 37% of the vote, which is quite a feat considering his district (4th) in North Carolina is strongly Democratic.

And according to the local press, BJ Lawson is planning to give it another shot.  He’ll be opposing Rep. David Price next fall.  Expect an announcement on his web site (www.lawsonforcongress.com) some time next week.

In the meantime, for more information, take a look at our interviews with BJ last year: Part 1 |Part 2 and then get ready for another money bomb.

Lawson has been called “Ron Paul Jr.” and has been enthusiastically endorsed by Ron Paul himself. Lawson faces an uphill battle in his largely Democratic district, but he is charismatic and is not your average Republican. We encourage all Liberty Maven readers to donate to his campaign. As you will see in this interview segment and the last one, B.J. Lawson is uncompromisingly dedicated to individual liberty and the U.S. Constitution.

Read the first part of Lawson’s interview here or read on for the second part.

LM: In recent political history there has been much debate about term limits for Congressmen yet not much has been done about it. What is your view on congressional term limits?

Lawson: I do not believe term limits are a panacea — they will limit the terms of good, principled representatives just as surely as they will limit corrupt and incompetent ones. Ultimately, voters need to enforce term limits.

In at least two spots, Neil perfectly sums up the stance of Ron Paul and the Revolution, paraphrasing “Look, you guys [GOP, McCain, etc.] are the ones who abandoned the party, not me.  I’m going back to what our roots are.”

If you haven’t heard of B.J. Lawson until now and you are a lover of liberty you are in for a treat. If we could cast a spell on every single person in the country to donate and help out with Lawson’s campaign we’d do it. In that vein please enjoy the first interview segment below and then head over to LawsonLibertyFund.com and pledge $5 or $300 to help out with his Ron Paul style money bomb on June 29th.

LM: What was your motivation for running for Congress? You are facing an incumbent Democrat David Price in an overly Democratic district; however back in 1994 a Republican unseated Price thanks to the “Contract With America” effort at that time. Does that previous defeat of Price give you hope for victory over him this time around?

Lawson: My motivation running for Congress is to advance a Constitutional federal government, and to question the “politics as usual” that is bankrupting our country and eviscerating our freedoms. Today’s political process is simply broken: we have legislators who don’t read bills before they vote, we have Congress delegating rule making to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists, we have legislators piling special favors into legislation that is deemed likely to pass, and few even question if proposed legislation is the Constitutional role of the federal government. These are symptoms of a political process that no longer represents the people.

While Price was defeated once with the 1994 Republican landslide, this year’s environment is much different. The Republican party is adrift, and lacks a clear platform after the past eight years. Furthermore, our district is a strongly Democratic. However, the vast majority of voters know we need change — and David Price, as a 22 year incumbent, personifies the status quo.

It’s not so much his 1994 defeat that gives me hope for victory, but more what he’s done since his 1996 re-entry into Congress: not much. Rep. Price is an Establishment candidate whose voting record reflects the party line, and shows little leadership or concern for the critical questions facing our nation: out of control inflation, unsustainable government spending and entitlements, declining civil liberties, and failed interventionism abroad.

The voters are demanding change, and this year they have a choice for principled leadership advocating a Constitutional federal government.

LM: Who is your favorite founding father and why?

Lawson: I try not to put anyone on a pedestal, as everyone has weaknesses and shortcomings. However, on the balance I consider Thomas Jefferson and Abigail Adams to be my favorite founding father and mother. Jefferson’s articulate expression of individual liberty in our Declaration of Independence provided the philosophical ideals for our nation that we are still struggling to achieve. Abigail Adams was a staunch opponent of slavery and advocate for women’s rights, and along with John Adams communicated the danger we faced by not rejecting slavery outright at our nation’s birth.

LM: Recently there’s been much debate about whether oil drilling should be permitted along America’s coastlines by the federal government. Your opponent has been critical of allowing such drilling. Where do you stand on this issue?

Lawson: As a nation, our states should be free to utilize our natural resources including oil and gas deposits off our coastlines. Federal restrictions on such drilling are not justified by our Constitution. At the same time, our federal government must not provide corporate welfare to companies who would harvest these resources. While the federal government should not prevent such drilling, it should not subsidize it either.

LM: You seem to echo Ron Paul on the issues. In fact he endorsed you in your primary race which you won quite convincingly. Are there any areas where you and Ron Paul disagree?

Lawson: I’ve not yet found any significant disagreements with Dr. Paul, but am sure with further conversation we’d find something. For example, based upon reading and discussions I am in agreement with Rep. Paul concerning the scope of the problems facing our country. However, we’ve not sat down and discussed potential solutions in enough depth to know if I’m in full agreement regarding how we might address these challenges.

LM: The recent fall from grace of Eliot Spitzer in New York has renewed the debate about so called “victim-less” crimes like prostitution. The other commonly labeled victim-less crime is drug possession. Ron Paul has called for an end to the drug war and releasing all non-violent drug offenders from prison. What are your thoughts on the war on drugs and victim-less crimes?

Lawson: The federal war on drugs is unconstitutional, and must be ended. Regulations concerning drug use and other so-called “victimless crimes” are not the domain of the federal government. The war on drugs is particularly objectionable, as it disproportionately targets the impoverished and disadvantaged and has given us the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

As a student of medicine, I find it inconceivable that we criminalize certain substances instead of recognizing nonviolent addiction as a medical problem. Today, we can’t build prisons fast enough and have prisoners who are threats to society being released without serving their full terms. We should reserve our prisons for those who are a threat to others.

As a student of history, I am encouraged that we eventually repealed alcohol prohibition since it simply did not work. It’s time to recognize that today’s drug war is simply yesterday’s prohibition.

This ends the first interview segment. Check back soon for part two. While you are waiting head on over the Lawson money bomb site, pledge, and don’t forget to donate on June 29th.

Here is part two of the Lawson interview.

The first part of the interview is available here, if you missed it.

All Liberty Maven interviews are available on the interview page.

LM: Let’s continue with one of the questions I’ve been asking the other candidates. Who is your favorite founding father and why?

Mckinley: Like most liberty-loving Virginians, Thomas Jefferson is at the top of my list. I am amazed at how many of his quotes are so timely and on-the-mark today and how prescient he was on many issues that are important to my own campaign. For example, in my discussions on our campaign website on term limits I note this gem of his: “”Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on them [offices], a rottenness begins in his conduct.” This is a timeless indictment of career politicians before the concept was even known.

Obviously the fact that Jefferson was a slave owner undermines much of what he had to say in his writings and other work, but as I believe Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute once put it, this demonstrates how long-standing the practice of politicians saying one thing in their political life while practicing something completely different in their personal life, which we see examples of to this day.

LM: On your web site issues page you mention that you are committed to a voluntary term limit of 4 terms for yourself should you unseat Congressman Wolf and win in the general election. Could you elaborate a bit more on your position on term limits? Would you support or sponsor legislation to mandate term limits? Why or why not?

Mckinley: At this point I have committed to a voluntary term limit. Interestingly enough Congressman Wolf who I am challenging in his first campaign noted that members should voluntarily retire after two or three terms and here he is in year 28 of his Congressional career. I have had some people tell me a voluntary term limit is not a good idea and I have heard some politicians I respect (for example, Congressman Flake of Arizona) who took such a pledge and have reversed course on it argue against it. But from a personal standpoint, I really do not see that I want to stay in office that long and that the best thing I can do if I am elected is mentor or recruit a limited government candidate(s) to take my place after this period.

As for a specific term limit position I think it is appropriate to Constitutionally set parameters on terms of office in Article I, Section 2. I would put a term limit here in the sense that Members would be forced out of office at a certain point, after three or four terms, but I would want them to be able to return after a “cooling off” period (one or two terms). So someone like Dr. Ron Paul who has entered Congress due to his popularity on three separate occasions after going back to the real world for a period would still be able to serve. I think this would limit the advantages of incumbency while at the same time allow those who were truly popular independent of their incumbency to continue to serve. I continue to talk to people about this issue on the campaign trail and am amazed at how excited and thoughtful people are on this topic.

LM: Your background shows you have experience with advising central banks around the world. If you had the job of advising Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke what are some of the things you would suggest?

Mckinley: I have advised central banks around the world for much of the past eight years, although my specialty is more in the areas of central bank efficiency, legal reform and banking supervision and not in monetary policy. Like a lot of people I had some concern about Chairman Bernanke that he did not have enough hands-on experience in the economy and that he was too much of an academic. Chairman Greenspan before him had experience on Wall Street prior to his time as Fed Chairman. I think the jury is still out on how Bernanke will be judged, but as his term has unfolded, I think first of all we have to recognize that much of what has happened on his watch was “baked in the cake” and he is trying to deal with it as best he can.

As we all remember from Economics 101, monetary policy works with a lag, so the first years of his term are obviously beyond his control. I think the mortgage crisis has really been building for about 15 years as we detail in a recent campaign press release. The crazed push to increase homeownership that was started in the early Clinton years and continued in the Bush years combined with accommodative monetary policy was bound to lead to a bubble. I have been arguing for many years that public policy has put too much in the way of incentives on the side of housing investment.

That having been said, my specific advice to him would be to make clear that government policy has been too activist in encouraging housing investment and the answer is to wring out the over-investment by reducing government involvement in this sphere. Some of Chairman Bernanke’s rhetoric seems to blame private markets and argue for more government involvement which is precisely the wrong conclusion to draw.

Additionally, I would encourage him to go back to emphasize what he has said in his academic writings, such as those he has set forth in his book on inflation targeting. This approach would be one means to limit the Fed’s powers to implement discretionary monetary policy and there are other means, such as a monetary rule, that would also be appropriate.

He should also do more to encourage competition in currencies. On issues outside of monetary policy, the Fed should transition much of what it currently does to private markets, especially in the area of payment systems as I have detailed in some of my published work. Finally I would advise him to not support an increase in the Fed’s powers as has been proposed and as you have discussed on Liberty Maven. We need to trim back the dominance the Fed has over the economy, not expand it.

LM: There seems to be, among our elected officials, degrees of supporting or not supporting the Iraq war. Obama has stated he was against the war from the beginning, but when given the chance to vote for funding the war, he voted for it. Hillary Clinton voted for the war at the beginning, but now opposes it. McCain thinks we may need to be there for 100 years or more. Ron Paul was always against it and consistently votes against funding it. Where do you stand on the Iraq war? Do you support an immediate troop withdrawal?

Mckinley: I was never convinced that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. I follow the “Reagan Doctrine” which summarized is:

1) The US should not commit its forces unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

2) If we commit forces, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win.

3) Before we commit troops, there must be assurance that the cause will have the support of the American people and Congress.

4) Troops should be committed only as a last resort.

I did not see that we got past #1 in Iraq as we were not under an imminent threat to our national interest that would have justified a preemptive strike. There is an article that all Republicans should read called “Would Ronald Reagan Have Attacked Iraq?” that was in the American Spectator. I think it makes the clear case that the answer to that question is no.

As for the immediate troop withdrawal, the hands of Congress are tied to some extent as we have seen the past year since the Democrats took control. When the Congress passed up the “Constitutional option” to declare war and instead gave the President a blank check on the Iraq resolution, the commander in chief role kicked in. So the President controls the agenda for the most part including setting timelines for withdrawal.

What the Congress can do is cut off all funding, but that is not feasible to immediately go down to zero commitment. What I would do is commit to working with the next President to draw down troops. Obviously the surge has had some positive impact on security in certain areas, but as I remember the justification for the surge was that we would surge the troops which would allow the military to draw down troop levels after the surge was complete. That has not happened yet.

LM: Just about everyone agrees that our Social Security system is broken. The same people differ wildly about what to do to for a fix. If you had the power to do so, how would you fix Social Security?

Mckinley: Speaking of Reagan on the prior question, this brings up one area where Reagan’s legacy is not very good. The reform in the early 1980s would have been a prime opportunity to have introduced private accounts and the fact that the Reagan/Greenspan combination could not pull it off is disappointing.

First of all, there is a doctrine in public policy called “market failure” that says if the market does not provide a service, the government should do so. In the case of Social Security you have a clear case of “government failure.” Private investment for retirement gives you a 6 or 8 percent return. For those entering the job market in the coming years, the return on Social Security will be roughly zero even if it could be fully funded which is not a reasonable assumption to make. So we need to let people get out of Social Security if they want to and set up private accounts going forward. If people are masochistic enough to stay in the system they can take their chances on the outcome of the years between now and their retirement.

As for any further adjustments that might be necessary to put right the system, it all has to be on the spending side as far as I am concerned. Entitlements aren’t in financial trouble because there was a shortfall of revenue, but rather an excess of spending. Consistent with that I have signed the Americans for Tax Reform Pledge to not increase taxes, while Congressman Wolf has not done that. The entitlements commission that he has proposed is just a big tax increase waiting to happen.

This concludes part 2 of our interview with Vern Mckinley. Part 3 is forthcoming. If you like what you are hearing from Mckinley then consider supporting him with a campaign donation. It doesn’t matter if you live in his district, in Alaska, or any point in between, having true limited government conservatives like Ron Paul in public office benefits us all.

In case you missed the earlier interview segments here are parts one and two.

For all Liberty Maven interviews check out the interview page.

LM: What do you feel are the best steps to take to solve the rather complicated illegal immigration problem in the United States?

Singh: There is no silver bullet to solve the illegal immigration problem. I believe we need a multi-faceted approach which starts by punishing companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers. This practice is the major incentive for most illegal immigrants to come to America in the first place. There is no doubt many companies in the US need employment surges during peak seasons and with a non-existent guest worker program they often rely on migrant workers. The US needs to implement a common sense guest worker program which requires immigrants to apply in their native countries and allows them to easily maintain their families abroad while being able to help the US economy with their labor. The guest worker program will also disincentivize immigrants from bringing their families to the US which are an additiona burden on our schools and hospitals.

Securing the borders through physical and technical means will likely slow down illegal immigration but will not end it and will cost an enormous amount. A better engineered solution for the borders is to shift most of the 100,000 troops in Europe and 60,000 troops in Asia into the National Guard and Border Patrol. Currently, the US only has 11,000 border patrol agents for both the Mexican and Canadian borders combined.

LM: Many of those running for office love to preach for a strong national defense. There are several different views on how to go about having a strong national defense. What is your view?

Singh: A strong national defense starts at home. The current military footprint in Europe (100,000 troops) and Asia (60,000 troops) is simply too expensive to maintain. I believe the British, French and Germans are quite capable at current to resolve any threats on their continent. The South Koreans are more than capable of handling a North Korean attack from a crumbling army. By reducing the military operations in areas they are no longer needed, the servicemen in the Middle East will be better supported since they will have more resources.

A more efficient Intelligence Community will also help diffuse conflicts prior to them happening. There are many improvements within the IC that I know personally can be made given my intimate experience with them over the past 10 years.

When our politicians get our servicemen in involved in conflicts which do not concern America we are distracted from our goal to protect the homeland. Conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Darfur, etc. are important items to address but the US must re-evaluate if it truly wants to subsidize the world by being its policeman.

LM: The recent fall from grace of Eliot Spitzer in New York has renewed the debate about so called victim-less crimes like prostitution. The other commonly labeled victim-less crime is drug possession. What are your thoughts on these types of crimes and how they should be prosecuted, if at all?

Singh: Harmful substances like marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol should be regulated at the state level. A one-size-fits-all federal policy does not address the diverse concerns and cultures across the entire nation. Trying to regulate virtue is an honorable undertaking but unfortunately will not work and will have unintended consequences.

During Prohibition, there was an explosion of organized crime which still plagues America today. Now we have developed a gang culture feeding off the War on Drugs which has glamorized bad behavior. Allowing local populations to set rules that are appropriate for their constituents is a much more effective way to handle the drug issue.

LM: George W. Bush has been accused of allowing his religion to interfere too deeply with his politics. Mike Huckabee ran on an almost theocratic platform. Romney was thought to have been adversely affected by the fact that he is a Mormon. What role will faith and/or religion play within your own candidacy, if any?

Singh: I do not think my faith will play an overt role in this election because we strive to focus on the issues more than anything else. Traditional Christian values such as respecting one’s self, helping our neighbors, and protecting the innocent are all values I was raised with and believe in as well. Upholding these values using our guiding principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms will enable citizens to take more control of their lives and help one another while making sure everyone is safer.

LM: The Fed has been lowering interest rates due to the economic slowdown. They’ve also helped bailout banks by purchasing $200 billion of bad loans. If you could sit down with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and discuss Federal Reserve Policy what are some things you would ask him (or tell him)?

Singh: I would ask him to resign. If he refused, I would ask him to stop providing corporate welfare to rich investors while hurting the middle and lower class in the country by devaluing the dollar by repetitive interest rate cuts. Then I would ask him to resign again.

Amit certainly doesn’t mince words when it comes to Bernanke. This completes the Liberty Maven interview with Amit Singh. For more information about Amit check out his website: Amit08.com. We are happy to enthusiastically endorse him for Congress.

LM: In one of your previous answers you mentioned supporting Congressional term limits. Would you sponsor legislation to implement the limits? Do you believe it requires a Constitutional amendment to implement them?

Singh: Yes, I would sponsor legislation to implement term limits because Congress members with seniority have a disproportional affect on those who never elected them. I would probably lean towards a Constitutional amendment only because the States are not incentivized to limit their legislators terms because as they gain seniority they are better able to get earmarks and other benefits for their districts and states.

Unfortunately the nature of politics has changed with special interest money which practically guarantees incumbents to win over and over. Realistically, I am pretty sure Congress would never vote to regulate themselves but I would still try.

LM: Many of your positions are similar to Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. Are there any areas where your positions differ from Paul’s? For instance, Paul has been criticized on earmarks.

Singh: I think Ron Paul has a very strong conservative platform and I agree with many of his stances on the issues. However I would take a more aggressive stance on the environment than he does. The government does have a role in protecting public property such as the air we breathe. I understand his position on private property and the ability to sue those who pollute but their ability to sue large companies and demonstrate the specific damage done and how to get compensated for it is practically impossible.

Also, I would not allow the US to sign the Kyoto Treaty because it would further damage the planet by exporting pollution to less-efficient developing nations such as China and Mexico. I would also let individual states impose their own environmental standards. Finally, the government itself should follow the same environmental standards it enforces on the private sector and should consider going a step further by adopting more “green” policies which in turn will help create a better market for energy efficient products.

LM: During his campaign Mike Huckabee has pushed for Constitutional amendments to ban abortion and to define marriage to be between a man and a woman. Would you push for either of these as a Congressman?

Singh: I would not push for these amendments. First, a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion is not likely to pass and would require so much effort it would actually be counter-productive to the pro-life movement. I believe abortion should be handled at the state level where at least some of the states could regulate/ban abortion immediately. In a federated system, the states could learn from each other what programs work and do not work (i.e. abstinence, sex ed, etc).

I am against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I do not agree with the federal government being so intrusive in our personal lives. Relationships between consenting adults who are not harming anyone is strictly their business. Attempting to regulate virtue is a dangerous task and often backfires.

LM: With the recent school shootings at Virginia Tech and NIU some people have started pushing harder for gun control laws. Others have stated that if students were allowed to carry guns more lives would have been saved. Some, including Ron Paul, have said that airline companies should have been allowed to handle their own security and having armed employees could have prevented 9-11. What are your thoughts on gun control? Should students be allowed to carry guns on campus? Should the airlines be allowed to arm their employees?

Singh: It is often difficult to explain to gun control advocates that you can prevent “fires” with more “fires”. As far as airlines are concerned, they should absolutely be able to arm their employees. It is their private property and they provide a service. If customers feel unsafe flying an airline which allows guns either by passengers and/or employees, then they are free to fly another airline.

When it comes to universities, I believe private universities should be able to put whatever restrictions or freedoms on their private property. Public universities are more complicated. If a public university tries to restrict guns on campus then the students have the right to bring a case against them and declare it un-Constitutional.

LM: Current VA 8th District Incumbent Jim Moran has a press release on his website touting the district as being 1st (out of 435 districts) in the amount of federal government funding it gets. What are your thoughts on him bragging about this accomplishment?

Singh: As a fiscal conservative who wants to reduce the size of government, the last thing I would brag about is receiving the most federal funding out of 435 districts. Instead of apologizing and explaining how the proximity to Washington DC and hosting the Pentagon contribute to the large numbers, Moran simply knows some of his constituents will be thrilled their district is getting an unfair share of the pie.

Moran has sold his office to the highest bidder as was demonstrated by a mere $17K contribution to his campaign translating into a $37M contract from the Navy for technology they did not even want. The voters cannot have it both ways. If they want fiscal responsibility then they need to get rid of Moran.

This concludes part 2 of the interview. Check out part 3 here.

As always check out all of the Liberty Maven interviews available on the interview page.

LM: Could you elaborate more on the previous question on Congressional term limits? Wouldn’t a Constitutional amendment be necessary to institute them?

Sanders: An amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be necessary to institute term limits for congress. I am in favor of such an amendment.

LM: Talk a little bit about your campaign so far and what your future plans are with respect to your campaign. Will you actively seek endorsements, such as one from Ron Paul?

Sanders: The main focus of our campaign has been fundraising. I have learned from previous elections that in order to compete you need to have enough funds to get your message out. I think people will respond well to the message of limited government and a return to the Constitution. We just need the money to buy the air time. My campaign staff has been very small.

I’ve had one part time staffer since last August and I have recently hired my campaign manager, Andrew Axsom. Andrew is the Louisiana Coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign. We met during the convention process. I haven’t sought any endorsements and that hasn’t been a top priority. Once my campaign is running on all cylinders, I may take the time to seek endorsements. In my last election I was endorsed by the Forum for Equality, a civil rights PAC. I will most likely seek their endorsement again. Overall things are looking good for the campaign and everyone should be looking forward to the next online fundraiser!

LM: What is your position on global warming? Do you believe it is still a debate and not a foregone conclusion as some suggest? What, if anything, should the federal government do about it?

Sanders: I have been keeping track of the data NASA has been collecting regarding this phenomenon and they are showing a definite decrease in polar ice caps. Which to me is a strong argument for a global warming. So yes, there is a rise in overall temperature on earth. I’m still not certain as to all the causes and whether or not the warming of the globe will be destructive or beneficial.

I’m still open to new data regarding the causes of the glacier meltdowns. There may be a combination of variables involved. With all of that being said, I don’t see more government regulation as the answer. At least, not at the federal level. I’d rather see 50 competing enviromental policies than one blanket law that is not easily enforceable and is not very effective. The current government regulations invite more corruption to Washington D.C. as companies lobby for special concessions regarding regulation.

LM: President Bush recently signed a bipartisan economic stimulus package. If you were in Congress at the time of the vote, would you have voted for the package?

Sanders: No, I couldn’t support any spending that would put us furthur into debt, even an “economic stimulus package”. I think it is irresponsible for the government to continue spending money it doesn’t have furthur indebting Americans and our future generations to come. It is this overspending and the inflation that has created the need for the stimulus package. How can you fix the problems of overspending and inflation with more spending and more inflation? You can’t.

LM: In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was signed into law as a response to the various corporate shenanigans at the time (Enron being one of them). What are your thoughts on Sarbanes-Oxley? Would you repeal it, expand it, or modify it?

Sanders: Though I do agree with the much of what the act intends to do, I don’t think I would have voted for more Federal Government regulation of corporations. I’d rather see these two entities separate and apart to prevent the need for such powerful lobbies in Washington. The policeman of the market place should be the consumers and their consumer report groups.

I believe each state has sufficient tort laws to handle any damages a person recieves due to fraud in the market and consumer confidence in a brand should be the incentive for the company to get it right the first time. I do believe there should be accounting standards, but those standards should be developed by the profession’s national association not the federal government.

This concludes part 2 of the interview with Sanders. Stay tuned for the 3rd and final part of the interview coming soon.

Amit Singh is running for Congress in Virginia’s 8th District. He was kind enough to agree to participate in an interview. As you can tell from the interview he is dedicated to a limited and more open federal government. Please help his campaign by donating at his website: Amit08.com.

This is part 1 of the interview. For all Liberty Maven interviews check out the interview page.

LM: Your website (Amit08.com) has a very good description of your professional background. Could you complement that information with information about some of your hobbies and interests outside the professional realm? Additionally, could you elaborate a bit more on why you have decided to run for Congress?

Singh: I love to listen to live music especially bands like Dave Matthews that do a lot of improvisation during their performances. I used to collect a lot of live concert recordings but it is too difficult to keep up with nowadays. I also love to play basketball. I play in a league at work and I think it’s a great team sport that has a lot of skills that transfer to other areas. A little cliche, but I love to travel. I try to visit one new country a year. Last year I went to China which was amazing. This year I was hoping to go to Turkey but I’m not sure if that will happen given the campaign!

As far as running for Congress, I have always been a doer, for example I started my own company when I got frustrated working for others. I have written Jim Moran (the current VA 8th District incumbent Democrat) dozens of times with no response. This year, inspired by the presidential election and uninspired by local candidates, I took it upon myself to spread the message of limited and transparent government. Running for office is a great way to express your views and even make a difference.

LM: Who is your favorite founding father and why?

Singh: Thomas Jefferson of course! He founded my alma mater, the University of Virginia but he also encapsulated the spirit of freedom and understood the dangers of powerful governments over the people.

LM: Corporate regulation of public companies such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act seems to be either loved or hated. What is your position on Sarbanes-Oxley and corporate regulation in general? Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed or modified?

Singh: While I like some of the concepts in SOX (i.e. CEO signing the tax returns) I do not like the government enforcing the regulations. I believe the investors in a company should demand many of the same things required by SOX. I think by forcing all companies to follow SOX they are less competitive in the global market and are more likely base their operations offshore. I would vote to repeal SOX.

LM: Over the years politicians have pushed for Congressional term limits. Do you support Congressional term limits?

Singh: I do support Congressional term limits. The reason is because Congressmen with seniority have a disproportional affect on citizens they do not represent. Much of this is due to special interests which is entirely a different topic.

LM: Today, President Bush said he believed we are not headed in to a recession as he touted the economic stimulus package. Ron Paul has said we are already in a recession. Do you feel the stimulus package will save us from a recession? What is the federal government’s role in preventing a recession?

Singh: I think the stimulus package will help a little but not enough to pull us out of the recession. With overspending abroad and bloated domestic agencies, the spending is the major problem. With even less tax revenue, we will only go further into debt.

This concludes part 1 of the interview.  Check out part 2 here.

For all Liberty Maven interviews see the interview page.

LM: President Bush and Congress recently worked out an agreement on an economic stimulus bill. If you were in Congress for the vote on this bill would you have voted for it?

Bailey: It is truly amazing how quickly Congress can act when it stimulates their reelection. Since Congress is running a deficit of one billion dollars per day, any additional spending will be offset with a further devaluation of the dollar causing a loss of buying power equal to the “rebate”. The money for the “stimulus” bill will be paid with money borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia.

Yes, I would have voted for “stimulus bill”, but not as my first preference. Furthermore, I would have cut spending to pay for it, so that the buying power of the American worker was not further eroded. I would have raised the personal exemption from $3,400.00 to $15,000.00.

LM: What is the federal government’s role in stimulating the economy?

Bailey: The federal government’s role in stimulating the economy is to do the opposite of all those things that they do and are doing to cause recession. What Congress has done to cause recession is:

• Over regulation.
• Excessive taxation.
• Budget deficits and trade deficits.
• Driven American industry overseas.
• Free trade deals that are not FAIR trade.
• Encouraged illegal immigration.
• Given away American sovereignty.
• Driven up the cost of health care and limited our choices.
• Robbed the Social Security Trust fund of every last dime and replaced it with a debt obligation of over $175,000.00 for every man, woman and child in this nation. The United States is now the largest debtor nation in the world.
• Favored special interest groups at the expense of “We the People”.

What the federal government must do to stimulate the economy is:

• Stop unconstitutional spending.
• Balance the budget by cutting spending.
• Start paying down the federal debt.
• Eliminate ear marks and pork barrel spending.
• Raise the personal exemption from $3,400.00 to $15,000.00.
• Eliminate duplicate regulatory agencies.
• Change the tax code so that we stop rewarding industry for moving overseas.
• Require that those that sell goods in this country have the same quality and regulatory standards to meet as imposed by Congress on our own industry.
• Stop paying welfare and Social Security to illegal aliens.
• End birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.
• The deregulation of the telecommunications industry by Congress serves as an example of what Congress needs to do to bring down cost and improve service in the heal care industry.
• Our foreign policy must put “We the People” of America first.
• Hold Social Security moneys collected in the Trust fund to be used ONLY for benefits to the person that paid in the taxes.
• Congress must stop putting bandaids on the challenges we face that will last just long enough to cover their term of office, and instead deal with those challenges NOW.

LM: Do you believe the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was necessary legislation? It was passed in the wake of corporate scandals like that of Enron.

Bailey: I think it was poorly written and has a lot of problems. I think we have learned a lot from hind sight regarding the regulations that caused the mortgage bubble.

LM: As a Congressman would you work to modify or abolish the regulations within Sarbanes-Oxley?

Bailey: Yes.

LM: Your foreign policy views seem to be counter to the current prevailing views within the Bush administration. Many Republicans, including the likely nominee John McCain, support a war of offense rather than defense. You seem to disagree with this as you tout a “humble foreign policy” on your web site. Could you explain how such a foreign policy makes America stronger against the threat of terrorism?

Bailey: “A more humble foreign policy”; “more judicious use of our troops”; “opposed to nation building” were all the stated policy of 2000. Our foreign aid and foreign policy have made us less safe. I am opposed to giving foreign aid to those that would seek our detriment.

This nation’s leaders gave foreign aid to Saddam Hussein and Osama Ben Laden in the past. Our leaders must understand the religious and cultural differences of those that oppose us in order to have the best results. We must define success and have a way to measure results. There are persons that are benefiting from the current placement of our troops in the oil producing parts of the world. But it is not the American people. Just look at the cost of gasoline. With 572,000 troops overseas; with over 700 bases overseas; with troops in 130 nations; we continue to step in between the Hatfields and the McCoys and end up drawing the ire of both.

I strongly support a more sensible foreign policy that is focused on protecting American personal and economic Liberty here at home.

LM: The recent campus shootings at Virginia Tech and now Northern Illinois have been used by some as examples to push for stronger gun control laws. Some have stated that if guns were allowed on campus to begin with, many lives could have been saved. Also, some believe that if the airlines were allowed to arm their pilots and flight attendants the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented or minimized. Do you believe college students should be allowed to carry guns on campus, concealed or otherwise? What about allowing the airline companies to arm their own employees in the interests of security?

Bailey: Yes. I support the Second Amendment as written.

LM: Who is your favorite founding father and why?

Bailey: Our founding fathers are for me part of the “so great a cloud of witnesses” that “we are compassed about.” I have so many that I am inspired by. Patrick Henry, George Washington, John Jay, Paul Revere, James Otis, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Tom Nelson, Robert Morris, Caesar Rodney, etc. It is a very long list for me. For each of those that I have listed there is a story that inspires me in my life today. I do not have a single favorite.

One of my favorites is Richard Stockton. He wrote a friend, Joseph Reed, in 1764 – the year before the Stamp Act – that in regard to public service, that “the public is generally unthankful, and I never will become a Servant of it, till I am convinced that by neglecting my own affairs I am doing more acceptable Service to God and Man.” Although he did not live to see the end of the American revolution, his public service after he wrote that letter is quite impressive, including signing the Declaration of Independence.

[He was:] Member of the Executive Council of New Jersey (1768-1774); member of the Provincial Supreme Court (1774-1776); associate justice of the State Supreme Court (1774-1776); member of the Continental Congress (1776); a signer of the Declaration of Independence. [Editor's note: See the Richard Stockton wikipedia page for more information on him.]

This concludes the 2nd part of the Collins Bailey Liberty Maven interview.