We are on a mandatory spending lockdown that is pushing us in a direction that is unsustainable. We’re spending the money of future generations and those yet to be born. That has to do with our mandatory spending problem. We have to address that.
A: I think there is no reason to believe that we’re headed for a recession. We’re enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth that started in 2001, and then further in 2003 with the tax cuts that we put in place. We’re enjoying low inflation. We’re enjoying low unemployment. The stock market seems to be doing pretty well. I see no reason to believe we’re headed for economic downturn.
Q: The Dow and the S&P 500 are at record highs, and yet, 2/3rds of the people surveyed said we are either in a recession or headed for one. Why the angst?
A: Well, I think there are pockets in the economy. Certainly they’re having difficulty. I think you always find that in a vibrant, dynamic economy. I think that not enough has been done to tell the greatest story never told, and that is that we are enjoying a period of growth right now, and we should acknowledge what got us there and continue those same policies on into the future.
A: Dangers of a weak dollar is that it will damage us internationally. We’ve got to have a strong dollar because of the creditors that we have there. It helps our exports to a certain extent now, and we’re enjoying that part of it. But any president of the United States has to stand behind a strong dollar. The whole world needs to know that we are good for our obligations.
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: Well, I think the government has to have a good reason to step in. I think it has to be something that drastically affects our economy or our national security. But I don’t think the government ought to step in and have people know that the government will step in if they walk out an create that kind of situation.
Q: Even if they say that they are at a disadvantage to foreign automakers?
A: Well, of course, they are. But that has nothing to do with the government stepping in. The government ought to relieve that disdavantage that we’ve got as far as foreign automakers are concerned, make them open up their markets and make certain markets quit devaluing their currency. That’s where the pressure needs to be applied.
A: Ultimately it will be the free market. But I think that we’re in a situation now where we’ve got to use everything that’s available to us. I think renewables and alternatives are a part of that picture. I don’t look for it to last forever. When the industry gets up and running and on its feet again, I don’t see the need for what we’re doing now.
A: Prime Minister Harper.
Q: What are relations going to be? We always ignore that relationship
A: Well, I’ve never met him, but our relationship is fine.
Q: My point is, our friends don’t get much attention.
A: Well, our friends ought to get plenty of attention. I mean, the challenges that we’re going to face internationally, especially in the future, are going to require our working better with our allies and realizing, for example, that in the global war on terror, this is the forces of civilization against the bad guys. And everybody’s got a stake in it, whether they realize it or not. So, certainly we ought to work with Canada economically. We get more oil from them, I guess, than anybody. And they have more potential oil to sell than an awful lot of people. So they’re important economically, and for our national security.
A: : The answer is yes. Dubai would own 20% of NASDAQ, but NASDAQ, under this deal, as I understand it, would gain more than 30% of the Dubai company. It all depends on national security issues. Doesn’t seem to be one there. But we should look at all these deals carefully because we have a vast infrastructure. The great portion of it is in private hands. There’s no way, frankly, we can protect it all. So we need to do everything that we can to make sure that we’re doing all that we can to protect the infrastructure we’ve got and scrutinize these deals, number one, first and foremost, from a national security standpoint.
A: Well, in a dynamic economy, there are jobs lost and there are jobs gained. And so far, there have been more jobs gained. To put up barriers and say that so-and-so cannot lose a job would be the wrong thing to do in a free-market economy that’s been so well for us. It’s made us the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.
A: I don’t have to pretend that I’m a union member because I have been a union member some time--the Screen Actors Guild still counts, doesn’t it?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: No, I believe in the rights of workers to band together for their own purposes, no question about that. I do not believe a person ought to have to be a member of the union to work. I do not believe that union bosses ought to use union dues for political purposes that their members don’t necessarily agree with, and I do not agree with them denying union members a secret ballot. But other than that, I think that they’ve done a lot of good over the years for this country and will continue to do so.
A Looking at the short-term economic situation, it’s very good news. But if you go out a little bit, you will see that we’re not going to have Social Security and Medicare as we know it into the future. Our children and our grandchildren certainly are not. We are eating our seed corn. We are spending their money. We’re pitting one generation against the next. We’ve got to do some things better than that, even though the choices are difficult.
A: Well, in the first place, I don’t buy the concept that any reduction in taxes is lost revenue to the government. The taxpayers haven’t lost it. It’s in their pocket. We shouldn’t confuse the wealth of government with the wealth of nations. As you pointed out, the AMT was designed to target the rich guy. And when the Democrats start targeting the rich guy, if you’re a middle-class guy you ought to run because you’re going to get hit. We’re going to have to look at this as part of a total picture. Generally speaking, lower tax rates grow the economy. It’s been proven in the ‘20s, it was proven during the Kennedy administration, proven during the Reagan administration and again during this administration. I would apply that same principle to the AMT. It ought to be phased out.
A: I think the policy that we’re engaged in now is the right one. Clearly, to me, we didn’t go in with enough troops and we didn’t know what to expect when we got there. But now we’re showing signs of progress. I think we got to take advantage of the opportunities that we have there, to turn around and us to stabilize that place and not to have to leave with our tail between our legs. If we did that, it would make for a more dangerous USA.
A: No, no.
Q: What do you believe?
A: No, I didn’t say that. I was just stating what was obvious, and that is that Saddam had had them prior. They used them against his own people, against the Kurds.
Q: Okay.
A: And of course, he had a nuclear reactor back in ‘81 when the Israelis bombed that. And the Iraqi Study Group reported that he had designs on reviving his nuclear program, which he had started once upon a time. So there’s not question that he had had them in times past. And in my own estimation, there’s no question that if left to his own devices, he and his son would still be running that place, attacking their neighbors and murdering their own people and developing a nuclear capability, especially in looking at what Iran is doing. And the whole place would be nuclearized.
A: Yes, [at a minimum, I’d consult Congress]. Under the War Powers Act there’s always a conflict as to the exact applicability of when an engagement lasts for a particular period of time and when the president must come before Congress. I would say that in any close call, you should go to Congress, whether it’s legally required or not, because you’re going to need the American people, and Congress will help you. If they are voting for it or they support it, or leaders, especially in the opposite party, are convinced in looking at the evidence that this is the right thing to do, that will help you with the American people. In any conflict, we’ve got to have the strong support of the American people over a protracted period of time.
|
The above quotations are from State of Michigan Politicians: Archives.
Click here for other excerpts from State of Michigan Politicians: Archives. Click here for other excerpts by Fred Thompson. Click here for a profile of Fred Thompson.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
| Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) |