Fred Thompson on Government Reform Former Republican Senator (TN)

Focus on the budget, social policy, and bipartisanship

A: We haven’t come to terms yet with the nature of the threat that we’re facing or what we’re going to have to do to defend ourselves. We’re bankrupting the next generation and nobody even wants to talk about it, much less do anything about it. Judges are setting our social policy now in this country and that’s going to stop. I’d bring in members of Congress and say I just got a mandate. We can work and cooperate together or I’ll go over your head to the American people.

Tort reform ok for liability lawsuits; leave rest to states

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.

FactCheck: supported some tort reforms; opposed others

• In 1995, Thompson voted against an amendment to a medical malpractice bill that would have capped punitive damages at $250,000.
• But Thompson supported the Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996 as well as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which were designed to curb certain kinds of lawsuits against securities firms and manufacturers.

  Thompson also voted, in 1995, to make punishment more severe for lawyers who filed “frivolous” lawsuits.

• But Thompson opposed an amendment that same year to raise the standard of proof for plaintiffs to be awarded punitive damages in lawsuits involving interstate commerce.

2001: Published 2-volume report, “Government at the Brink”

Assisted getting John Roberts through Senate confirmation

Political expediency ignored limited federalist government

This ingenious means of governing a large and diverse nation prevailed for more than a century. But today our Constitution and the limited, federalist government it established, are considered by many to be quaint or out of touch with the world we live in, to be swept aside by political expediency. The Supreme Court and the Congress sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times.

The result has been decades of growth in the size, scope and function of national government. Today’s governance of mandates, pre-emptions, regulations, and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers intended.

Strong states work a lot better than central planning

I’ve been saying it for years, and it bears repeating: what works in Tennessee may not work in Nebraska and may be different from what succeeds in Oregon. That’s why President Ronald Reagan compared federalism to letting a thousand sparks of genius in the states & communities around this country catch fire. It’s not a perfect system, but it works a lot better than the alternative of central planning.

We need to allow local authorities to apply their own good ideas and use their own good judgment. Each state can find its own way, learning from the successes and failures of the others. There is a wealth of creativity and initiative out there in the states, and often the best ideas in Washington started out as state initiatives.

Federalization deprives us of experimentation in states

And so it goes on and on, and after awhile we end up with departments that can’t pass an audit. And yet we have a lot of people still want to federalize things that have been under the state purview for years and years. Depriving the nation of the experimentation & diversity that’s out there in the states. I think our attitude ought to be in the federal government to do what you’re supposed to do and do it competently, and then maybe we’ll give you something else to do.

1973:Revealed White House taping system in Watergate hearing

A: Howard Baker chose a lawyer for the Republicans. He chose me. I was 30 years of age.

Q: Now, what was that like? You’re 30 years of age, and you’re taking on the president of the United States.

A: Well, sometimes it’s good not to know enough to be scared. And that was the case with me. And we found ourselves in the middle of a maelstrom. I found myself on one hot July afternoon, asking “Is there a taping system in the White House,” and of course the witness answered yes.

Q: And nobody had known this before to this point?

A: No. The staff came up with that. And we revealed it there in a public hearing. And the fight over that led to the president’s resignation shortly before he probably would have been impeached. So quite a lesson for a young man of 30.

More hard money donations ok; but do away with soft money

A: Part of it was, and part of it wasn’t. The part that I came to town to change was the increasing amounts of money being given to politicians. The Clintons showed us how to use soft money in ways that people up until recently thought was against the law. And more and more large donations flowed into the parties and to the candidates. I said, “Let’s raise the hard money legitimate limits that we’ve always had from $1,000”--it was my amendment, really, that got it from $1,000 to $2,000, plus indexed for inflation, do away with the soft money. I still think that’s a good idea. I support that. Coming to a politician and giving him a bunch of money and having business before him is not a good idea.

Q: But 60 days before a general, 30 days before a primary?

A: That’s not working.

Q: You would repeal that?

A: Yes.

Passionate supporter of states rights

Thompson says, “Congress routinely passes laws and resulting regulations which are in conflict with state laws and regulations. These federal laws do not state whether or not they are intended to preempt the state regulations. Clearly, members of Congress don’t want their constituents back home asking why their state authority has been stripped. But Congress can have it both ways. They leave the legislation ambiguous, knowing that the federal courts will more often than not interpret the statute as preempting state law. I introduced a bill that essentially said, “Congress must state whether or not the federal legislation is intended to preempt the state regulation.” Period.

Term limits counter professionalization of politics

Reasonable limitations on soft money

A: I came from the outside to Congress. And it always seemed strange to me. We’ve got a situation where people could give politicians huge sums of money, which is the soft money situation at that time, and then come before those same politicians and ask them to pass legislation for them. I mean, you get thrown in jail for stuff like that in the real world. And so I always thought that there was some reasonable limitation that ought to be put on that, and you know, looking back on history, Barry Goldwater in his heyday felt the same thing. So that’s not a non-conservative position, although I agree that a lot of people have interpreted it that way.

Scooter Libby trial was a miscarriage of justice

A: That’s right.

Q: And you helped raise millions of dollars for his extraordinary legal expenses. Would Pres. Thompson pardon Libby now or would you wait until all of his legal appeals are exhausted?

A: I’d do it now. This is a trial that never would have been brought in any other part of the world. This is a miscarriage of justice. One man is bearing the brunt of a political maelstrom here that produced something that never should have come about. This Justice Dept. knew in the very beginning that the thing that was creating the controversy, who leaked Valerie Plame’s name, did not constitute a violation of the law. Mr. Armitage leaked the name. It wasn’t Scooter Libby. They spent the next year drilling in a dry well and finally got some inconsistencies or some failure to remember out of Libby and made a prosecution out of it. It’s not fair. I would do anything that I could to alleviate that.

Ludicrous waste & fraud: you wonder if anyone is even trying

In this report, I hope to illuminate some of the root causes of the mismanagement that persist in the federal government This report does not attempt to capture all of the serious management challenges that the government faces. Rather, we are focusing on four of the core problems that agencies face--workforce management, financial management, information technology management, and overlap and duplication. The only thing we really need to solve these problems is leadership. If the President and the leadership in Congress make a priority out of solving these problems, they will get solved.

Boston’s Big Dig #1 on Top Ten Worst Mismanagement

The Federal Government’s Top Ten Worst Examples of Mismanagement
1. THE BIG DIG--Boston’s Central Artery--is the most expensive federal infrastructure project in the nation’s history. Its cost continues to rise and is now estimated at $13.6 billion; an almost 525% increase from the original $2.6 billion.
2. ABUSING THE TRUST OF AMERICAN INDIANS--We do not know what happened to more than $3 billion held in trust for American Indians.
3. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
4. MEDICARE WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE--almost $12 billion every year on improper payments.
5. SECURITY VIOLATIONS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
6. IRS FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT
7. VETERANS AFFAIRS PUTS PATIENT HEALTH AT RISK
8. BILKING TAXPAYERS OUT OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID
9. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FRAUD

Federal civil service system is broken

Apart from its day-to-day problems, the basic federal civil service model--built around a cradle-to-grave career from entry level to retirement with virtually guaranteed job security--is outdated.

Government invests billions on systems that don’t work

• Report the amount wasted each year.
• Communicate and coordinate payments with other agencies. For instance, the IRS often gives tax refunds to individuals who are delinquent in paying their student loans.
• Recover the money to recoup overpayments.

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.

Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto.

Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts.