Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Rudy Giuliani on Government Reform

Former Mayor of New York City; Republican Candidate for 2000 Senate (NY)


President must be free to defend nation with surveillance

Q: Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

A: The President must be free to defend the nation. While the Congress has an essential constitutional role in our national defense, the Supreme Court has also recognized that the president has certain core constitutional responsibilities to ensure that our nation can defend itself and our fundamental liberties in times of emergency. Controversies on this question are as old as our Constitution, and have been faced by many of our most respected presidents, and they will not disappear even after we have succeeded in the war that terrorists have declared on our citizens and homeland. Our aim must be to strike a balance between order and liberty that addresses the challenges we face within the bounds of the Constitution.

Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

Focus on terrorism, immigration, tax cut, & small government

We can make sure that the country is secure against Islamic terrorism and on the road to winning the war against Islamic terrorists. We could end illegal immigration by beginning a BorderStat system. It might take 2 or 3 years, but we could begin it. We could do a major tax reduction to stimulate the economy. I would immediately begin to reduce the size of the federal government. I would move toward energy independence as a goal similar to putting a man on the moon, the Manhattan Project.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007

Supports tort reform like “loser pays” rule

GIULIANI: Fred was the single biggest obstacle to tort reform in the US Senate. He stood with Democrats over and over again. He voted against $250,000 caps on damages, which they have in Texas. He voted against almost anything that would make our legal system fairer: loser pays rules, things that would prevent lawsuits like that $54 million lawsuit by that guy who lost his pants--you know? That cost that family $100,000 in legal fees. I think the man should have to pay the family for the $100,000. Fred Thompson, along with very few Republicans, blocked tort reform over and over and over again.

THOMPSON: I supported tort reform with regard to securities legislation. I supported tort reform with regard to product liability legislation, things that have to do with interstate commerce. I think it appropriately passed. I supported and worked for those things. Local issues belong at the state level. Most states have passed tort reform. That’s our system. It’s not all federalized.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007

FactCheck: Thompson with GOP; not obstacle to tort reform

Giuliani and Thompson seemed to contradict each other about a pet Republican cause, changes to the civil legal system. Giuliani accused Thompson of being “the single biggest obstacle to tort reform” in the Senate, while Thompson said, “I supported tort reform” as it applied to securities and product liability lawsuits.

When Republicans use the term tort reform, they’re generally talking about making it more difficult for individuals to file lawsuits against, say, doctors, toy manufacturers or dry cleaners for alleged wrongs, or in some cases capping the monetary damages that plaintiffs are awarded.

It’s hard to see how anyone could think that Thompson was the “single biggest obstacle” to these changes in the legal system when he was in the Senate. Thompson voted with a majority of his fellow Republicans on some measures, with a large bloc of Democrats on others, but he was no crusader, nor did his vote ever prove decisive (none of the votes were that close).

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando Oct 21, 2007

Frivolous lawsuits eat up 2.2% of GDP

[We need to] do something about legal reform. It’s 2.2 percent of our GDP now is spent on all of these frivolous lawsuits. It’s double any other industrialized nation. We don’t get control of that, that’s another way in which we’re going to eat up our future.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Supports line-item veto, but Clinton’s was unconstitutional

Q: What about the line-item veto?

GIULIANI: The line-item veto is unconstitutional. I took Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court and beat him. It’s unconstitutional. What the heck can you do about that if you’re a strict constructionist?

ROMNEY: I’m in favor of the line-item veto. I had it, used it 844 times. I want to see Libby Dole’s line-item veto put in place. I’d have never gone to the Supreme Court and said it’s unconstitutional.

Q: Do you believe it is?

ROMNEY: I believe the line-item veto, if properly structured, passes constitutional muster. I’m in favor of the line-item veto to make sure that the president is able to help cut out pork and waste.

GIULIANI: You have to be honest with people. The line-item veto is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled on it. I am in favor of a line-item veto, except you have to do it legally. If I had let Pres. Clinton take $250 million away from the people of my city illegally and unconstitutionally, I wouldn’t have been much of a mayor.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

FactCheck: Frivolous lawsuits don’t eat 2.2% of GDP

Giuliani misstated a statistic when he said that “2.2% of our GDP now, is spent on all these frivolous lawsuits. It’s double any other industrialized nation.” That figure comes from a 2005 study of the costs of civil claims of negligence (called tort claims) that gives the total cost associated with all such legal disputes--but in no way attempts to distinguish between “frivolous” ones and lawsuits of merit. The lead author of that study told us that the study “looked at all torts; we don’t segregate between legitimate and illegitimate.“

Also, Giuliani is slightly off when he compares the US to other nations. That same study did find that the total costs in 2003 and 2004 amounted to 2.2% of the US’ gross domestic product, a figure that is double Germany’s 2003 costs (1.1% of GDP) but not quite twice as large as Italy’s (1.7%). The 2006 update of the study, however, found that costs as a percentage of GDP had slipped to 2.09% in the US.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn MI Oct 9, 2007

Qualification for VP is readiness for presidency, in wartime

Q: What authority would you delegate to the office of vice president? And should those authorities be more clearly defined through a constitutional amendment?

A: The vice president’s office has to be worked out with the president. And the thing that’s clearest about it, now that we’re at war, is that a vice president has to be just as capable, just as ready to take over that office, literally on a moment’s notice. And that should be the major qualification. And then it should be in the discretion of the president and the vice president to decide on what kind of responsibilities they should have.

Q: But would you like to have a vice president like Vice Pres. Cheney, with that wide range of responsibility?

A: I thought the division of responsibilities between Pres. Reagan and Vice Pres. Bush was a good one. I thought it was a really comfortable one. And I’m comfortable that you select somebody who can step in on a moment’s notice with experience, background, knowing what’s going on.

Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007

Pardoning Libby OK because sentence was excessive

Q: Should Pres. Bush pardon Lewis Scooter Libby, who was sentenced to 30 months in prison for his role in the CIA leak case?

A: The sentence was grossly excessive in a situation in which at the beginning, the prosecutor knew who the leak was, and he knew a crime wasn’t committed. I recommended over 1000 pardons to Pres. Reagan when I was associate attorney general. [The sentence] argues more in favor of a pardon because this is excessive punishment. Ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved

Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Gets credit for killing the line-item veto

Q: You get the credit for killing the line-item veto. You fought & won when it pinched New York. So how do you exercise fiscal discipline?

A: As the Club for Growth pointed out in the report they did on me, I ran one of the most fiscally conservative governments in the last 30 years. Spending actually decreased in comparison to the increase in population and inflation. Spending in NYC decreased more than just about any other state, considerably less than the federal government, while I was the mayor.

Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina May 15, 2007

Line item veto is unconstitutional; beat Clinton’s in 1990s

Q: A lot of people say the single most effective tool that a president could have to cut spending is the line-item veto.

A: Correct.

Q: And yet, when you were mayor, Pres. Clinton--when he had that power back in the mid-’90s, he used it to line-item veto what he said was excessive Medicaid spending. You not only opposed it, you took him to the Supreme Court and you got it ruled unconstitutional. So it’s because of you we don’t have the line-item veto.

A: The line-item veto is unconstitutional, and I’m a strict constructionist. If we want the line-item veto, it has to be done by constitutional amendment. The reality is it so fundamentally alters the separation of powers, it’s unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided that. I believe that. And of course, it was in the interest of my city to advocate for it. It was my job to protect the people of NYC, and I did it vigorously and strongly and we were correct in our interpretation of the Constitution. And the president was incorrect.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 “Choosing the President” interviews May 14, 2007

No city reinvention, but success on crime, colleges & budget

Though it might infuriate lionizers to hear it, his New York City administration was is many crucial ways unexceptional. True, there were successes in his eight years at City Hall. Some of them were the result of luck, like the Wall Street dot-com boom that swelled the city’s coffers with a windfall of tax revenues. Others stemmed from innovation, such as Compstat, under which the police commanders were held strictly accountable for the crime trends in their precincts. The drive to reduce commercial garbage pickup costs was successful, and admissions standards were raised at the City University over great resistance.

But as with many City Hall administrations that preceded Giuliani’s, there was also patronage, cronyism, deep debt, concessions for favored unions and companies, scandals, mismanagement, & undue secrecy. It was hardly a “government reinvented,” a slogan which proved to be mere ideological posturing. It was, beyond the bluster, much closer to business as usual than many might believe.

Source: America‘s Mayor, America‘s President?, p. xx-xxi May 2, 2007

Attempted to undo term limits to extend his mayoralty

On the eve of Yom Kippur, Rudy floated a trial balloon in an attempt to override the city’s term limits legislation and extend his final term in office for at least three months.

When Giuliani asked for 90 days after 9/11, he was pummeled, but he was right. As we are sitting here, more time has passed since 9/11 than it took to defeat the Germans and the Japanese in WWII, and other than repairing the subway and the PATH line, nothing has happened. For 90 days, he would have had the full attention of the Congress.

At the time of the mayoral runoff election, Giuliani made one last attempt to extend his mayoralty by attempting to undo term limits.

He was talking about trying to overturn term limits so he could run again. It is one thing to seek a onetime extension right after an attack--whether he was right or wrong I will leave to others--but it is quite another to use the attack to change the law permanently, which I thought was improper.

Source: Flawed or Flawless, by Deborah & Gerald Strober, p.285-288 Jan 16, 2007

Ardent supporter of campaign finance reform

Giuliani is an ardent supporter of campaign finance reform as well. As he was contemplating a run for the Senate in 2000, Giuliani told Wolf Blitzer that he was a “very, very strong supporter of Campaign Finance Reform,” adding that he’d been “a very strong supporter of McCain-Feingold for a long, long time now.”
Source: Tom Bevan, “Deconstructing Giuliani”, RealClearPolitics.com Aug 10, 2006

Applied “reinventing government” to New York City

Some of the rules and concepts in this book are entirely mine--drawn from my thoughts and life experience. Others are ideas developed by academics that had never been tested in the real world, or at least not in a laboratory as large and complicated as New York City.

The ideas about “reinventing government” found in the book of the same name by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler proved extremely useful: as much as possible, I tried to run the city as a business, using business principles to impose accountability on government. Objective, measurable indicators of success allow governments to be accountable, and I relentlessly pursued that idea.

I am not above using good ideas that originate from places on might not expect me to mine. I expanded several programs that [Democratic mayors] had implemented.

Source: Leadership, autobiography by Rudolph Giuliani, p. xiii Oct 1, 2002

Debates on campaign finance reform miss the point on honesty

Debates on campaign finance reform miss the point. I favor it, but in the final analysis money will not make an honest man dishonest or a dishonest man honest.

In politics, there is an outcry whenever an officeholder who has received campaign contributions from a particular industry supports a position perceived as favorable to that industry. The implication is that, say, the tobacco industry’s contribution “bought” the official’s support or at least bought access. I would be the last to say it never happens, but much more common is a company choosing to support those it views as sympathetic to its interests. At any given moment in my administration, someone who supported me was angry because I didn’t do what they hoped I would do. If they withdraw their support, you don’t want them around anyway. There’s no one thing you can do to establish the principle. All you can do is keep making decisions based on what you believe, and by your example, you will demonstrate your independence.

Source: Leadership, autobiography by Rudolph Giuliani, p.222-223 Oct 1, 2002

Other candidates on Government Reform: Rudy Giuliani on other issues:
Nominees:
GOP: Sen.John McCain
GOP V.P.: Gov.Sarah Palin
Democrat: Sen.Barack Obama
Dem.V.P.: Sen.Joe Biden

Third Parties:
Constitution: Chuck Baldwin
Libertarian: Rep.Bob Barr
Constitution: Amb.Alan Keyes
Liberation: Gloria La Riva
Green: Rep.Cynthia McKinney
Socialist: Brian Moore
Independent: Ralph Nader
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty

Page last updated: Feb 08, 2010