President of Us: Jason Watson

Each of the two final ‘President of Us’ candidates answered a series of questions on their views.

Click here to read Buddy Crews’ responses.

Jason Watson

See the vote totals and read the candidates’ positions here

‘President of Us’ election narrowed to two

Watson’s rival: Buddy Crews

1. If we were to withdraw our military forces from Iraq before the Iraqi government is capable of supporting itself economically and militarily, isn’t there a danger that we might have to go back there again in five to 10 years?

Absolutely.  The worst possible thing that we could do would be to pull out of Iraq immediately.  While I would very much like to be able to know that the end is in sight, removing our troops before the country is stable and safe and able to function without U.S. assistance would be simply exiting Iraq, not completing the mission. 

The political and military leaders of the United States and of Iraq should establish goals for the Iraqi government, economy and military/police forces.  Once those goals are reached the U.S. should maintain its current force in Iraq for two more months.  If, at the end of those two months, the goals reached are still being maintained then the U.S. should begin a systematic withdrawal of our troops in Iraq by bringing one-twelfth of our forces home every month for one year. 
2. There is only so much the President can do to affect the economy. But within your power, what would you do to help bring us out of this tailspin?

Despite my strong wish that there was, there is no easy answer to fair and effective economic policy.  Brilliant economic minds can and do disagree on the best way to craft economic policies that will benefit the nation.  It is difficult if not impossible to craft an economic policy that both minimizes unemployment and maximizes economic freedom, for example.  It is likewise challenging to develop policies that provide economic security while also maintaining an equitable tax burden across every tax bracket.  I do not think that it is possible in the limited space available to me here to explain exactly how the economy should or could be fixed.  I also do not think that it is realistic to think that any one person is going to develop a plan to fix the economy by him- or herself.  There should be many voices brought to the table in order to develop a plan to build and maintain a strong economy.  I do, however, believe that there is an abundance of wasteful spending by the United States government that should be curtailed.  I also believe that the current tax system should be reformed and greatly simplified.  I am in favor of a line item veto for the President.  I am not in favor of a constitutional amendment requiring that the government have a balanced budget every year, but I do believe that the budget should be balanced far more often than not and that the United States must begin paying down the national debt immediately while making every effort to avoid adding to it with annual deficits.

Another change that I would make in the federal budget which would, I believe, have a positive impact on the nation’s economy would be to completely overhaul the Social Security system.  It is clear that by 2017 the payroll taxes collected will no longer cover the scheduled benefits, and that by 2040 the Social Security trust fund will be depleted.  This is not fair and it is not effective.  Unfortunately the government has not been held accountable for pillaging the Social Security trust fund for years.  I propose a very different system that would, eventually, almost completely replace the existing Social Security system.  Currently employees and employers must each contribute 6.2% of the employee’s salary up to $97,500 toward Social Security.  This money goes to pay current benefits due to Social Security recipients and anything left over is “borrowed” to help fund the federal budget.  There is no direct correlation between the amount of money paid in and the amount of benefits that will be received. 

Under my system, the employee and employer would both contribute 5% of the employee’s income to a retirement plan established by the employee, resulting in the equivalent of 10% of annual earnings going into the account.  This account would be private, not run by the government.  It would be established wherever the employee chose and with any sort of investment strategy that the employee chose.  There would have to be some sort of coding on the account that would indicate that the money was an Employee Retirement Account (ERA) and therefore could not be withdrawn prior to age 62. (Currently, the age at which full Social Security benefits may be received is being increased to 67, but this plan would enable individuals to begin drawing on their ERA at age 62).  More than likely banks and investment companies would very quickly establish all manner of ERA accounts from which people could choose, much like the existing IRA plans that are available.  Both the employee and employer would continue to contribute 1.2% of the employee’s salary to Social Security to cover remaining obligations of Social Security (see below).

Should there ever come a time when the 2.4% going into Social Security exceeded Social Security’s annual obligations, all excess funds would be placed in a trust fund which, by law, Congress could not spend except for in one circumstance-national disaster.  Should disasters occur (Hurricane Katrina, would be an example), Congress would be authorized to spend up to 50% of the trust fund to provide aid to victims of the disaster.

To start this new program, the government would make a one-time payment to all current U.S. citizens between the ages of 35 and 54 who have met the requirements to be eligible for Social Security upon reaching full retirement age.  It may be that each of those individuals would receive a payment of $50,000, or it may be that a scale is developed paying younger workers less and older workers more (for example, $40,000 to 35 year olds, increasing progressively up to $60,000 paid to 54 year olds.  And by the way, I am not yet 35, so I would not benefit from the one-time payout in this plan).  I honestly don’t know how many people that would be, but even if it was every U.S. citizen between the ages of 35 and 54 that one-time payout would cost roughly $4.36 trillion (based on U.S. census numbers estimating the 35 - 54 population at 87,217,992 people).  After this one-time payout, these individuals 35 - 54 as well as all individuals under the age of 35 would no longer pay 12.4% payroll tax into Social Security.  Instead, they would pay 10% into an ERA and 2.4% into Social Security (as outlined above).  (Individuals under age 35 would not get the benefit of the one-time $50,000 payment, but would no longer be contributing 10% to Social Security, either.  The accumulated money in the ERA would more than cover what their OASI benefits would have been even without the initial $50,000).  Social Security would continue to operate as it currently does for individuals over age 54, meaning that current benefit recipients would continue to receive their benefits and individuals over 54 who are paying 12.4% into Social Security would continue to do so until retirement and would receive Social Security benefits the same way the are scheduled to do so under the existing plan.  The only thing that would change is that the current $97,500 cap for Social Security tax would be eliminated for the 2.4% that those 54 and under would continue to pay.  The $97,500 cap would remain for the ERA contributions and for Social Security contributions for those over 54; after all, if individuals wish to contribute to another private retirement plan with their income that exceeds $97,500 they are free to do so.  But everyone would 2.4% Social Security tax on all income. 

Within 12 years after this change takes place every remaining U.S. citizen who will qualify for Social Security benefits under the current Social Security system will have qualified for benefits, meaning that, if this plan were adopted in 2008, by 2020 everyone who will ever qualify for the current OASI Social Security benefits will have done so.  Every year after 2020 the number of OASI Social Security benefit recipients will decrease until there are no more recipients remaining.  Even granting that some recipients may live to 106, there would likely be no OASI benefit recipients after 2060, and the number of recipients would have been steadily and even rapidly declining for the previous two or three decades. 

The other element of this plan is that the U.S. government must repay the roughly $1.85 trillion it has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund immediately and put the money in a “lock box,” meaning that it cannot be touched or spent on anything other than Social Security.  With this money returned, and with the monies that would be paid into Social Security (the 12.4% by working individuals 54 and older until retirement and the 2.4% by all other working individuals), I believe that Social Security should have at least $10 trillion to cover its operations until 2060, not counting any interest earned on the monies in the trust fund.  And while I do not know for sure, I believe that this amount should be sufficient in light of the fact that the number of benefits recipients will continually decline following 2020 and that benefit recipients will also continue to have the option of declining benefits in favor of a tax deduction.  Once there are no more OASI benefit recipients the 2.4% tax being paid into Social Security should be more than enough to cover annual disability and SSI payments, and likely to accumulate a reserve which may be used for disaster relief as described above.

There is, of course, one catch.  Executing this plan would add roughly $6 trillion to the national debt between the repayment of the “borrowed” trust fund monies and the one-time payments to all eligible 35 - 54 year olds.  This would result in a total national debt of approximately $15 trillion.  To deal with this debt I would institute a national sales tax of 2.25% which would be specified as a Debt Reduction Tax.  By law, this money could only be spent to pay down the national debt.  Fair Tax proponents advocating a national sales tax to replace the federal income tax use Congressional Budget Office numbers to estimate that the Fair Tax base in 2007 would have been $11.244 trillion.  This figure would be viable in calculating the income generated by a Debt Reduction Tax as well, since the premise is the same (namely, a national sales tax).  The 2.25% sales tax would generate, on a tax base of $11.244 trillion, income of $252.99 billion.  Accordingly, the debt reduction tax would completely eliminate the $15 trillion national debt in just under 60 years even if the tax base never increased (which is unlikely).  Once the debt has been eliminated, the national sales tax may be decreased or eliminated.

Now, as I stated above, I have no idea whether or not this is the best possible idea for overhauling the existing tax system, fixing the Social Security system or strengthening the economy.  It is an idea, and nothing more.  As president I would compare the merits of this plan, the Fair Tax plan, and other ideas to determine which plan has the greatest likelihood of improving the economy and fixing the Social Security system while still being fair to the taxpayers.  As I said, I do not know if the 15% tax rate on taxable income under my proposed plan would yield more or less income than the government receives now or whether it would result in most tax payers having to pay more or less in taxes.  That would be evaluated.  If it was found that it yielded more money than the government needs or that it increased the tax burden on the taxpayers than the percentage would be adjusted until the right percentage was identified.  If the 15% proved to be sufficient, it would still be subject to cuts in the future.  After all, the government expenditures for Social Security, health care, income tax compliance, and interest on the national debt should all go down under the system outlined above.  As this occurs, hopefully it will be possible to provide tax cuts.  Tax cuts would be very simple and very fair-simply decrease the percentage of tax paid on taxable income across the board. 

As unpleasant as it sounds to add $6 trillion to the national debt in one year and to add a national sales tax in addition to a federal income tax, the plan outlined above does seem to do a number of things that the government has thus far proven unable to do: provide a viable plan to fix the Social Security system and continue to provide benefits for younger generations of tax payers, and to eliminate the national debt.  Assuming adoption of these plans in 2008, the Social Security system would max out on beneficiaries in 2020, and likely exhaust the need for OASI payments by 2060.  The national debt would be completely paid off by 2068.  And just imagine the impact of over $4 trillion being pumped into the economy in one year by the creation of private ERAs.  This may all be just an idea, but I think this idea is a great place to start a discussion on how to fix the economy.

I would fill any Supreme Court vacancy by nominating the person that I thought was the most capable of effectively fulfilling the role of a Supreme Court justice.  My only so-called “litmus test” would be someone’s belief about what the role of a Supreme Court justice should be.  I wholeheartedly believe that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret the laws of the country, not to make them, so I would nominate a strict constructionist.  I believe that it was the intention of the Founding Fathers that the Supreme Court (indeed the entire judicial branch) was to serve as a check on the legislative and executive branches, but that it should also be the “weakest” of the three branches.  In Federalist #78 Alexander Hamilton wrote that “…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution…. [T]he judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power…. [and] the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.” I would nominate to the Supreme Court jurists who agree with Hamilton.
4. How would you go about plugging every American into affordable health care?

The question is, should the government make sure that everyone has health care or should it remain essentially privatized.  The answer, quite simply, is both.  The government-whether at the federal or state level-should require that everyone have health care, but the government should not provide that health care.  What the government should do is require that the playing field for health insurance providers be opened up to allow any company providing health insurance to sell it to anyone in any state.  This would make health insurance more competitive and drive premium prices down.  In essence, the health insurance issue should be treated very much like the auto insurance issue.  Government requires that all drivers have automobile insurance, but the government does not provide that insurance.  If an individual is caught without auto insurance there is a consequence.  Health insurance should be handled the same way.  Just as individuals with auto insurance can take their vehicle to be repaired at a shop and have the insurance company pay the shop directly or may have the vehicle repaired wherever they want to and have the insurance company reimburse them up to the amount of the estimate that the company provided, individuals should be able to see a health care provider approved by the insurance company and have the provider paid directly or should be able to see any provider they wish and be reimbursed, up to an approved amount, by the company. 

Insurance companies should not be able to deny health insurance to anyone, but they should have the right to adjust premiums based on health risk factors over which the individual has control.  They should not, however, be able to drive up premiums for any individual who is at risk due to family history.  Again, it should be very much like the auto insurance industry.  Whether or not one’s father or grandmother was a reckless driver or drunk driver or prone to speeding has no bearing on an individual’s ability to get auto insurance.  Whether or not the individual seeking insurance is a reckless driver or has numerous tickets for speeding or has had a problem with driving under the influence does have relevance and bearing, and rightly so.  If an individual smokes heavily or is grossly overweight then the insurance company should have a right to charge them higher premiums since they are intentionally engaging in behavior which puts their health at risk.  If an individual’s father had diabetes or grandmother died of a heart attack, however, should not be relevant. 

The health insurance industry needs to be “cleaned up” and some of the “tricky business” that exists there should be eliminated.  For example, many individuals who receive insurance through group coverage could acquire insurance directly for a much lower rate.  Some individuals in a group, however, could not get insurance at all other than through the group.  And if a business decides to eliminate health insurance benefits and instead raise employee salaries accordingly so that they may purchase their own health insurance this is considered fraud.  That makes no sense, and it must stop. 

There is no reason that in this great country there should be any individual who does not have insurance or who cannot get it.  There would be tax deductions for health insurance premiums and medical expenses paid up to $5,000 for an individual, $10,000 for a family or 50% of adjusted gross income, whichever is less.  This would encourage individuals and families to purchase the health insurance that they need.  (There will also be an additional incentive for the provision of health insurance which would enable businesses to deduct the full amount of money paid for employee health benefits up to 50% of taxable income).  Opening up the playing field for more competition should make more insurance options to more people and should decrease the cost of insurance.  And the penalty that will be associated with failure to maintain insurance should also provide a good incentive for individuals to get insurance.  How the government will track insurance will have to be decided.  Perhaps individuals will have to provide their insurance information on their tax forms.  An individual cannot purchase a new vehicle without having auto insurance, and there should be a similarly powerful check for health insurance.  Likewise, an individual cannot cancel auto insurance without providing proof that he has obtained insurance through another company.  Such should also be the case with health insurance.  And the penalty for not having it should be considerable-considerable enough to make anyone think twice about risking getting caught without it.  As tends to be the case in most other areas, opening health insurance up to increased competition should result in a better product at a better price.  But the government ought not be involved beyond requiring that everyone has insurance.
5. Are you in favor of alternative energy sources, and if so, which ones would you explore first?

With the current economic situation in our country and the high price of oil that we have been dealing with in recent months I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever not to be in favor of alternative energy sources.  As far as which ones I would explore first, I would (1) support drilling or exploration to provide as much of our own oil as possible while (2) providing an incentive-perhaps in the form of a huge financial reward-to the person, persons or company who develops an effective alternative to our current reliance on oil.  To be honest with you, I am not smart enough to know what the best alternative energy source would be, or naïve enough to think that there is only one solution.  But I have complete confidence that there are people with great ideas about alternative energy solutions, and I have a healthy respect for the power of competition and reward.  Why not let anyone with an idea pursue it, and reward the one(s) who develop an effective solution?  I don’t know what the reward would be-could be $100 million, could be $1 billion-but the benefit would far outweigh the cost in either instance, I think.
6. John McCain seems to favor a hands-off approach on taxes; Barack Obama wants to largely limit them to the more affluent. What would your tax policy be?

I will make a brief effort to outline what I would like to be the starting point for a discussion about reforming the tax code in the United States.  This is a very rough and very generic outline of what I believe a fair and effective tax system might look like, but I also will be the first to admit that far wiser minds than mine might immediately identify numerous reasons why this outline is ineffective or even ridiculous.  That is exactly why I want it to be a “starting point.”

The standard deduction for every person or family paying taxes should be the equivalent of the poverty level.  The 2006 poverty threshold for one person, according to HHS guidelines, was $10,210 for the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., $12,770 for Alaska and $11,750 for Hawaii.  I do not believe that federal taxes should change based on where one lives, so I would take the average of these three figures, which is $11,576.67 and round it down to $11,500.  For each additional person, averaging the three figures again, the increase in the threshold is $3,943.33, which I would round up to $4,000.  Therefore, an individual filing taxes would receive an automatic deduction of $11,500.  A couple filing jointly would receive a deduction of $15,500, a family of four would receive a deduction of $23,500, and so on.  It makes no sense for a government to tax income up to the poverty level since it makes no sense for a government to contribute towards the poverty of an individual or a family.  These deductions would replace the existing standard deductions and exemptions.  It would also replace child and dependent care expense credits, credits for the elderly or disabled and the child tax credit.  They would replace itemized deductions. 

Education credits would remain in place up to a maximum of 10% of adjusted gross income, and would actually be expanded to allow deductions for the amount paid for any individual to attend an eligible education institution, not just self, spouse or dependents.  This would encourage many individuals who are capable of doing so to help pay for the education of grandchildren, nieces, nephews, cousins, neighbors, or anyone else.  This, in turn, would likely decrease the amount of student loans that young people are burdened with after a college education.  The education credit would also include all educational expenditures for any level of education, preschool through graduate school.  Monies contributed to eligible college savings plans would also be deductible. 

Deductions for charitable giving would remain, up to a maximum of 20% of adjusted gross income.  There would also be deductions for health insurance premiums and medical expenses paid up to $5,000 for an individual, $10,000 for a family or 50% of adjusted gross income, whichever is less.  This would encourage individuals and families to purchase the health insurance that they need.  (There will also be an additional incentive for the provision of health insurance which would enable businesses to deduct the full amount of money paid for employee health benefits up to 50% of taxable income).  The entire tax form for every person or family filing taxes in the United States should fit on one side of one piece of paper.  The back side of the paper would be used to document education, charitable giving, and health premium credits.  Beyond that, there are no deductions.  Everyone would pay 15% tax on their taxable income.  Accordingly, almost all, if not all, of the current loopholes would be eliminated. 

Under this plan, a family of four with total income of $50,000 and maximum deductions would file a tax return that looks something like this:

TOTAL INCOME - $50,000.00
AUTOMATIC DEDUCTION - $23,500.00
ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME - $26,500.00
EDUCATION CREDIT - $2,650.00
CHARITABLE GIVING CREDIT - $5,300.00
HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT - $10,000.00
TAXABLE INCOME - $8,550.00
TAX - $1,282.50

A married couple with total income of $150,000, no dependents and maximum deductions would file a tax return that looks like this:

TOTAL INCOME - $150,000.00
AUTOMATIC DEDUCTION - $15,500.00
ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME - $134,500.00
EDUCATION CREDIT - $13,450.00
CHARITABLE GIVING CREDIT - $26,900.00
HEALTH INSURANCE CREDIT - $10,000.00
TAXABLE INCOME - $84,150.00
TAX - $12,622.50

A family of four with both parents making minimum wage would have an annual income of roughly $25,000.  Under this tax plan the first part of their tax return would look like this:

TOTAL INCOME - $25,000.00
AUTOMATIC DEDUCTION - $23,500.00
ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME - $1,500.00

If they maxed out their deductions for education, charitable giving and health insurance their remaining taxable income would be only $300.00, meaning the family would pay only $45.00 in federal taxes.

Now, I honestly do not know if this would result in a tax increase or decrease for most individuals and I do not know if it would result in more or less money being collected in taxes by the federal government.  That would have to be determined.  What I do know is that it seems to be fair.  It eliminates tax for every individual and every family on earnings up to the poverty threshold.  It encourages charitable giving, educational funding and health care provision.  Since many charitable organizations perform services which the government would otherwise provide, this would hopefully increase charitable giving and also decrease the need for government services.  This would also hopefully decrease the need for government funded health care since individuals and businesses now have the ability to deduct their premium expenditures and thus have the incentive to purchase health insurance.  It encourages individuals to work hard to earn as much money as possible, knowing full well that their first dollar earned beyond the poverty threshold and their one millionth dollar earned beyond the poverty threshold will be taxed exactly the same amount. 

To try to get an idea of how it would compare I looked at my own 2006 tax return to see if what I paid in taxes under the current system would be more or less than what I would have paid under my proposed system.  In my case, my wife and I filed jointly and we had one dependent.  With what deductions we would have had under the proposed plan our tax would have been $542.20 more than what it was under the current plan.  If, however, we had maxed out our deductions our tax would have been $782.45 less than under the current plan.  I have no problem with a tax system that encourages people to maximize deductions when those deductions are for charitable giving, educational and health care expenses, and I don’t know anyone else who would, either.
7. What countries do you feel might represent a real threat to us in the coming years?

I think it could be dangerous to pinpoint specific countries as those that could be a real threat to us, since in doing so one would surely leave off countries that may well see their absence from the list as an invitation to exploit the fact that we are not currently considering them a threat.  I think any country that seeks to threaten our freedom or our national security-in whatever forms that may appear-is a threat. 

Since I am certain that you wanted me to name specific countries, though, I do think that Iran and Pakistan might represent a threat to us in coming years, but I do not by any means consider that to be an exhaustive list.
8. What do you consider some of the most important qualities of an American President?

I believe that there are so many qualities that are important for someone to be a good president that it is difficult to choose any of them as the most important.  But if I had to pick just one that I feel embodies almost all of the other important qualities, I would say that the most important quality for a president is candor.  Candor has three possible definitions, according to Webster.  All three of them are applicable to the qualities necessary to be a good president.  The first definition is “brilliance,” and is often used in reference to a candle.  Just as the United States should be an example to the rest of the world just like a shining city upon a hill, the president should be an example to the people of the United States.  His light should shine brightly for all of the people to see.  That does not mean that everyone will necessarily agree with him or even like him, but it does mean that he should lead in such a way that he is a shining example to the people of someone who has accepted the responsibility with which he has been entrusted and is doing his best to carry out those responsibilities to the best of his ability.

The second definition of candor is “freedom from prejudice or malice.”  The president certainly should satisfy this definition as he must completely put aside any prejudice or malice he may have and seek to make every decision by reviewing the facts, the information that is available, and the input of his advisers and then acting in the best interest of the country and in accordance with its laws.  By no means does this mean that the president cannot disagree with a law, if he feels that the law is not in the best interest of the people, and it does not prohibit him from working to change such laws.  But unless and until such laws have been changed the presidents must act in accordance with the law without prejudice or malice.

Thirdly, candor means “unreserved or honest.”  The president should always be honest and forthright in word and in deed.  The president should make his positions known and he should stand by them; they should not change with the polls or with the audience.  A president who has candor respects the citizens, speaks to them honestly and stands by his convictions.  He is open, honest and real.  If I could choose only one quality for the president, it would have to be candor. 

9. How can we rebuild our image in the rest of the world? Or do we need to?

Do we need to?  Unfortunately, probably so.  I think we might make a good start by getting our own house in order, particularly our economy.

Beyond that, the United States should strive to maintain respectful and cooperative relationships with all of the “major players” on the world stage.  Indeed, the U.S. should endeavor to maintain respectful relationships with all of the countries in the world as much as possible.  The key word is respectful.  Accordingly, the U.S. should make every effort to appoint diplomats who speak the language of the country in which they will serve, who are familiar with the cultures and customs of the country in which they will serve, and will seek to represent the United States effectively while also respecting and continuing to learn about the country in which they are serving.  Respecting a country, however, does not necessarily mean agreeing with it.  The United States should attempt to maintain respectful relationships with North Korea, for example, but that does not mean that the U.S. should respect how North Korea treats its citizens.  There will come times, certainly, when the United States must take a firm stand in opposition of some countries’ policies and/or actions.  This does not mean, however, that the U.S. should be the world’s police force.  The U.S. should not get militarily involved in every country with which it does not agree.  As President I would work with my cabinet to develop a foreign policy doctrine that made very clear the position of the United States toward the world, including instances in which the United States would be compelled to become involved in the affairs of other nations, including militarily if necessary.  Much like the Monroe Doctrine and the Truman Doctrine, this doctrine would guide our foreign policy with other nations.  Just as we would not want other countries to come into our country and tell us how to run our government or how to treat our citizens, we must resist the urge to do this to other countries.

While it would be tempting to develop a foreign policy doctrine predicated on those rights with which all men have been endowed by their Creator-namely, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-there are many foreign countries whose existing governments do not operate in such a way as to guarantee those rights to all of its citizens.  Certainly the United States could use diplomatic negotiations and perhaps at times even economic incentives to entice a country to reconsider some of its policies to grant more of those rights to more of its citizens, but I do not see altering the policies of foreign governments as the responsibility of this government except in four specific instances.  For the first three we should look at the Declaration of Independence.  It states clearly and unequivocally that “we hold these truths to be self-evident,” that all men are endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And while our government cannot presume to ensure these rights to all citizens of the world-however much it may at times wish to do so-it must protect these rights for all of the citizens of the United States. 

Accordingly, my foreign policy doctrine would be quite simply that the United States will act-unilaterally if necessary-to defend these rights for its citizens wherever and whenever necessary.  Any government, military force, terrorist organization or individual who should attempt to infringe upon any or all of these rights of any American citizen will be held accountable by the full force and power of the United States government.  Part of this doctrine would likely require some clarity, since “the pursuit of happiness” can mean many things, and since, for example, I do not intend for it to mean that we should become militarily involved in another country only to protect our oil supply.  It would be more accurate, in fact, to insert Thomas Jefferson’s original word here, which was property.  I do believe that the property interests of the United States and its citizens, when properly, legally and ethically acquired, should be protected by the government. 

The fourth instance in which this government should unquestionably be proactive is when other countries completely disregard the right to life of entire people groups.  Instances like the Holocaust in World War II, the ethnic cleansing that has occurred in other nations, and the genocide currently taking place in parts of Africa should be responded to quickly and decisively.  While other countries have the right to pursue policies and governmental structures that are different than our own they do not have the right to do so by denying thousands or even millions of people their lives.  Short of these instances, the United States should not interfere in the affairs of other nations.

10. Can you think of an important issue the two mainstream candidates aren’t talking about?

Amidst all of the talking the two mainstream candidates are doing about all of the money they will spend or all of the tax cuts they will provide, I am not hearing either of them talk about eliminating deficits or paying down the national debt.  I think that these are important issues and, quite frankly, I consider our ballooning national debt a matter of national security.  As described above, I have a plan to eliminate the national debt by 2068, and I think addressing the debt is an issue any serious candidate should address.