Libertarians For Change
2010-08-01 · Guest: Gary Johnson (Former Governor of New Mexico) · 48:30
Gary Johnson on Libertarian Governance and Fiscal Policy
Bob Zadek interviews former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson about his libertarian approach to governance, focusing on fiscal responsibility, drug legalization, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Johnson discusses his transition from a small business owner to a two-term governor and his current work with the Our America Initiative to address the national debt and government overreach.
Topics: National Debt, Inflation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Job Creation, Immigration Reform, Work Visas, Drug Legalization, Marijuana, Harm Reduction, Foreign Policy, Military Spending, Private Prisons, Gulf Oil Spill, Accountability
Speakers:
- Bob Zadek: Host
- Gary Johnson: Former Governor of New Mexico
- Caller (Chad): Listener
Introduction and Guest Background [00:22]
Bob Zadek: Welcome everyone. Thank you, Tim. Thanks for the opening. This is Bob Zadek, host of the Bob Zadek Show. We’re here every Sunday at noon on 910 AM, More Stimulating Talk. And oh my god, have we got a show for you today. I have been excited all week. I haven’t been sleeping. I’ve been shaky at work, impatient for Sunday to come. This will be for me my all-time favorite show over the past 70 weeks that I’ve been on the air and beyond. Today I have, in my opinion, the guest of guests here to join me for the entire hour. I am delighted to welcome by phone Governor Gary Johnson.
Governor Gary Johnson will be here for the whole hour. Gary was a two-term governor in New Mexico. He ran for office as a non-career—yes, non-career—politician. I think this was his first run at public office in 1994. He beat the pants off another Republican in the primary. He won the general election beating an established career politician Democrat. Had a successful first term, ran for re-election, was re-elected, ran against, if I’m not mistaken, the mayor of Albuquerque and won again on the Republican line in a Democratic state. And then after two terms in office, Gary was term-limited out and has not been a career politician since. Just like General Washington handed in his sword at the end of his generalship in the Revolution, just as General Washington turned his back on a third term, Governor Johnson—although he had no choice—served as a two-term governor of New Mexico and since then has been active in public life promoting his views. Gary, welcome to the show.
Gary Johnson: Bob, thanks for having me on. I don’t know if I’m going to do any better than that going forward, but yeah, never been involved in politics before, got elected two times as a Republican in a Democrat state. Had a great run, and I do believe in term limits. I believe that as a result of term limits, politicians do things that they wouldn’t ordinarily do for the benefit of citizens.
Right now I’m involved with OurAmericaInitiative.com. I would love for those listening to get online and tell me what they think, but really trying to put a voice to the outrage that I think citizens are feeling across the country, which starts with the fact that we’re bankrupt. The fact that 43 cents out of every dollar that we’re currently spending is borrowed, and that’s going to manifest itself in a much weaker dollar and inflation. It’s on the horizon and it’s coming.
Fiscal Policy and Cost-Benefit Analysis [03:18]
Bob Zadek: There’s no doubt about it. Gary, you were a two-term governor in New Mexico. In your own opinion, what were the bullet points on what you were most proud of accomplishing during your eight years as governor in a Democratic state?
Gary Johnson: Well, my promise and what I—my promise to get elected was everything was going to be a cost-benefit analysis. Everything. Everything was going to be about best product, best service at the lowest price. And I would like to think that I got re-elected on the basis of way over-delivering on that first promise. So for me, everything is a cost-benefit analysis.
So when I see promises made over the last—in my lifetime, but last several decades when it comes to politicians making promises that should have never been made. I’m talking about pension funds. I’m talking about the fact now that you’ve got—we have about 50 states underwater when it comes to state pension funds. Federal government has been making promises that they can’t deliver on for that same amount of time, but the difference is, of course, the federal government’s able to print money and the ramifications of that: a weaker dollar, inflation.
Bob Zadek: If you have questions for Gary, this is your chance: 800-345-5639 or bob@bobzadek.com. Gary would love to answer all of your questions on his view of where America is and where it ought to be going. Gary, one of the issues that of course everyone is talking about is of course—and you have alluded to it—the debt problem, the overhang, the fact that America is clearly—has a deficit that it cannot overcome. You’re right, it can print money. But printing money, of course, as I hope people realize, by printing money, all the government is doing is devaluing assets that people own: your houses, your cars, your salary, by causing inflation. So printing money is not—it’s just a tax on everybody. It just sucks value from every person.
Now, on the twin problems, because they’re related, of the debt crisis and unemployment, which Obama and the Democrats in Congress seem either not to care about or powerless to fix. What are they doing wrong? And what, as you see it, what should they be doing that they’re not doing?
Gary Johnson: Well, as governor of New Mexico, I never laid claim to creating one single job in the state of New Mexico because government doesn’t create jobs. But what government can do, and what it’s not doing currently, is it can create a level of confidence. And in this case, a level of confidence would be slashing spending, getting spending under control, and then when it comes to taxes, actually looking at lowering taxes. Raising taxes is completely unacceptable because what happens when politicians raise taxes is, for the most part, those raised taxes address problems or issues of the day, but then tomorrow those taxes become largesse at a point, and politicians always spend that largesse in a way that commits us to future spending in the future. And that’s what’s always happened.
So keep in mind that when taxes get raised, it’s always a percentage. So we have these raised taxes in effect, in essence, right now. And why we can’t make do with the fact that we’ve continued to raise taxes through all of this, I don’t have an answer. I do have an answer: it’s politicians unable to not spend money. It’s just—it’s the way that they have to operate. It’s a narcotic. So the government could go a long way, politicians could go a long way to instilling confidence in the economy for people. People buy things as a result of people buying things, businesses that provide goods and services are going to hire more people to meet that demand when it comes to goods and services. But right now there’s this huge uncertainty, this cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the entire economy that has us in this really stagnation mode.
Business Background and Career Politicians [07:57]
Bob Zadek: Now, one point I want to mention, Gary, about your biography, if I may, and one of the reasons that I found myself so drawn to your views is you started—and we have only about 40 seconds, Gary, we may finish this after the break—you started as a door-to-door handyman. And what happened to that one-person door-to-door handyman company that you started in the ’80s?
Gary Johnson: Well, I started a one-person handyman operation in Albuquerque in 1974, and in 1994 actually had a thousand employees: electrical, mechanical, plumbing, pipefitting. Really, American Dream come true based on the simplest of concepts, you know, being on time, doing what you say you’re going to do for people, doing a little bit more than what you say you’re going to do for people. So the business grew. Bob, I sold that business in 1999. Nobody lost their job and the business is still going better than ever.
Bob Zadek: When we come back and talking to Gary Johnson, I’m going to challenge the audience to name another politician, executive or legislative, who worked for a living outside of the public sector before they took office. It’s very hard to find. This is Bob Zadek talking to Gary Johnson. I’ll be right back.
[Break]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. I’m your host, Bob Zadek, every Sunday at noon at 910 AM, More Stimulating Talk. Today I am delighted, thrilled to have on the show live with me Gary Johnson, successful two-term Republican governor of a Democratic state, New Mexico. Gary is honorary chairman of the OurAmericaInitiative.com movement. Check out their website to learn their and Gary’s views on issues from the economy to the environment to healthcare and immigration. Gary was gracious enough to spend an hour with us here today to answer your questions and mine regarding how we got in the mess we’re in and, more importantly, how we get out. Thanks so much, Gary.
Gary Johnson: Again, thank you for having me on, Bob.
Bob Zadek: So before the break, Gary and I were talking about a bit of his biography, which was he started as a door-to-door handyman, built his business to have a thousand employees, sold his business, nobody lost their job. Sort of the way it’s supposed to work. And the anger, a lot of the anger that’s out there towards politicians is that so many of them are career politicians: Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Barney Frank. They never, ever have had to deal with the financial issues that they themselves create. They live in this rarefied world.
And I’m reminded—remember that story about Bush 41? Bush senior, if I remember correctly, went into a supermarket one day and was astonished at this machine that scans barcodes. He had never been in a supermarket. Well, it’s that detachment from what it’s like that makes the policies of government so painful for us folks who feel the brunt of them. It’s just the—you know, there’s a movement, I think it’s the 27th Amendment movement, which is seeking to amend the Constitution to require that Congress individually is subject to every law they enact, and every benefit they get and every law that governs their behavior has to govern our behavior as well. Now, just imagine the success of that kind of amendment. But it’s being regular, if I can, Gary, and I mean that in the most respectful way. It’s—I crave for politicians who are just regular, who understand what it’s like to be a small business person. And it’s so crucial now because small business accounts for 70%, depends on the number you read, of jobs in this country. And nobody in Congress, whether it’s Bernanke or anybody else in Geithner, nobody has any understanding of what it’s like.
Immigration and Work Visas [13:18]
Bob Zadek: And here Gary Johnson, among his other life experiences, has started with one employee, grew it to a thousand, sold it and protected the employees. It’s that kind of core understanding that we so much need in government. Now, Gary, an issue that’s been in the press a lot, and one that when I discussed it on my show got so many calls, so people feel so strongly about it, is of course immigration. Now, New Mexico, border state, yes?
Gary Johnson: Yes.
Bob Zadek: So you had to live as governor with the issue of immigration. What is Congress, the President, perhaps Arizona—if we can talk about Arizona, sister state—what are they doing wrong, doing right? And forgive me for suggesting this, but if you happened to be President one day, how would things be different in immigration policy?
Gary Johnson: Well, first, it needs to be—there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis. So can we secure the borders? Yeah, we can secure the borders. But at what cost? At what cost to put the National Guard arm-in-arm across 1,600 miles of border? And I’m just now talking about the border with Mexico, because if we get that secure, then I guess we’re going to have to turn our attentions to the, and I’m just guessing, 3,000 miles…
Bob Zadek: 2,500 mile border with Canada.
Gary Johnson: All right, so what’s the cost then? Billions and billions and billions of dollars to secure the border. I really think the issue is the notion of illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants bad, legal immigrants good. So let’s make it as easy as possible for individuals that want to come into this country to work to obtain work visas. Work visa means Social Security card, pay taxes, Medicare, Social Security, income tax. And it should not be about receiving welfare benefit in any way whatsoever. It’s about work.
And let’s shift this law enforcement over to the notion that when there is an illegal immigrant in this country, that that individual gets deported. Now, for those 15 million illegal—and this is the estimate—for those 15 million illegal immigrants that are here right now, there has to be a grace period that exists for them to get a work visa. And let’s also understand there’s really three phases here: there’s the work visa, then there’s the green card, and then there’s this—and then there’s citizenship. I mean, really kind of three steps. But all we’re talking about is the first step: individuals getting a work visa. But there needs to be a grace period that we can get those individuals that are here in this country illegally signed up, getting a work visa, which will allow them then to pay, and not allow them, but require them to pay taxes into this country.
Bob Zadek: I couldn’t agree more. And I find, Gary, when people complain about illegal immigrants—and that’s of course the phrase, illegal immigrants—the question I like to pose to them: which part of those two words are you focusing on? The illegal part or the immigrant part? Are you angry because they’re immigrants or angry because they’re illegal? If you’re angry because they’re illegal, then what if they became legal? Would you then not be angry anymore because they’re legal, which is, Gary, what you’re proposing? And I say people are required, in my opinion, you have to dig into your soul and ask yourself: are you just angry because you don’t like Spanish music and Spanish culture and you have this view of American culture, or are you angry because they’re illegal? And if you’re angry because they’re illegal, think of how angry you would be during Prohibition when everybody was drinking. They were all committing felonies, but people didn’t walk around angry at patrons of speakeasies. The law was silly. And isn’t that the same analysis today?
Gary Johnson: Oh, I agree. And let me add a couple of things. So employers then become—so really, employers determine whether or not there are jobs. And if individuals are here as legal immigrants holding work visas and there aren’t any jobs, they’re going to go back to where they came from. That’s just the way that it’s going to work. And then what we need to recognize is that so much of the violence, if not all of the violence around the border, is drug-related.
Drug Legalization and Harm Reduction [17:45]
Gary Johnson: So I espouse the legalization of marijuana. I think we should control it, regulate it, tax it. Right now it’s estimated that about 70% of the border violence is marijuana-related. And a task force set up in Phoenix to determine why Phoenix was the kidnapping capital of the world came up with the conclusion, a 100% conclusion, 100% of the kidnappings in Phoenix were drug-related, legal/illegal immigrants that had ties to drug cartels from Mexico that were coming—that the cartels were coming into Phoenix and plucking these individuals back to Mexico. So let’s understand that also.
So I espouse the legalization of marijuana. I think that 90% of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use-related. And so when it comes to the border, what we have here are disputes that are being played out with guns rather than in the courts.
Bob Zadek: I perked up when Gary—when I read Gary’s website, or Our America Initiative website, Gary is the honorary chairman, and I noticed the legalization of marijuana. In my own mind, I say the issue of legalization of marijuana, there are two issues. Number one, does that mean anybody encourages drug use? And the answer is of course not. Just like we have alcohol is legal. If you favor the legalization of alcohol, you don’t favor people using alcohol. You simply favor not devoting resources to criminalizing it.
Gary Johnson: Well, and responsible use also.
Bob Zadek: Responsible use. So don’t—the extreme social conservatives tend to capture the issue of legalization of marijuana as being promoting marijuana use. Nothing could be farther from the truth. So this is about…
Gary Johnson: Well, and for a second, let’s look at the cost-benefit analysis. Half of law enforcement, half the courts, half the prisons deal with illegal drugs. About $70 billion a year. And to what end? We’re arresting 1.8 million people a year in this country. When I talk legalization of marijuana, I’m not talking about being able to smoke pot, become impaired, get behind the wheel of a car. That’s always going to be illegal. It’s always going to be illegal to smoke pot, become impaired, do harm to others, same as alcohol. But hey, smoking pot confined to your own home, doing no harm to anyone arguably other than yourself, should that be criminal? I would argue no.
When it comes to all the other drugs, I think that we should adopt harm reduction strategies, which is reducing death, disease, crime, corruption, the things that we really care about. And Bob, you pointed out—you pointed out something that really—we have a couple of examples: Holland and Portugal. Both these countries have effectively decriminalized all drug use, and as a result of that, they have—well, in Holland’s case, 60% the drug use as that of the United States. That’s on a per capita basis. That’s kids, that’s adults, that’s marijuana, that’s hard drugs. But it kind of flies in the face of what you would think would happen. And Portugal, since they’ve done this just a couple of years ago, has actually shown documentation that drug use—marijuana and hard drugs, kids and adults—that all drug use has actually declined in the last couple of years.
Bob Zadek: This is Bob Zadek. I’m talking with Gary Johnson, former two-term governor of New Mexico. Your questions for Gary at 800-345-5639 or email bob@bobzadek.com. Or if you wish, go to OurAmericaInitiative.com. There’s a place for you to post your questions and get replies. We’re talking with Gary Johnson for the whole hour. This is Bob Zadek, host of the Bob Zadek Show. 800-345-5639. We’ll be right back with Governor Johnson.
[Break]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. I’m your host, Bob Zadek, every Sunday at noon at 910 AM, the leading libertarian talk radio show in the Bay Area and on the web. Thanks very much for joining us. If you have a point of view you’d wish to share, 800-345-5639, bob@bobzadek.com. My guest for the hour is Governor Gary Johnson, successful two-term governor of New Mexico, now honorary chairman of OurAmericaInitiative.com. Gary, thanks for joining me.
Gary Johnson: Well, again, thanks for having me on, Bob.
Foreign Policy and Military Spending [23:31]
Bob Zadek: Oh, Gary, it’s a pleasure, Gary, it truly is. The—any conversation about issues in America, you can’t avoid, nor should you avoid, the issue of our defense policy. Now, to tee up the issue, Gary, there was a time that that cabinet-level position was called the Department of War. I think up through World War II, it was the Department of War. Then some PR person decided that was a little too bombastic, I suspect, and they changed it to the Department of Defense, which frankly is more in keeping with the view of the army that the founders had.
However, of late, the Department of Defense has become in effect, in my opinion, come back to being a Department of War. That is, the defense establishment has been used for what appear to me to be aggressive, not defensive purposes. We have hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany and around Europe, even though the European economy is collectively a larger economy than the US economy, perhaps. And yet we are supporting Europe. We are giving them a free ride. So again, Gary, cost-benefit analysis as well as pure political philosophy dictates that one examine ab initio our relationship and our—to and our use of the military.
Gary Johnson: Well, and I think you’ve teed it up really well, Bob. Out of the dollar that’s being spent worldwide on military expenditures, 50 cents of that dollar is being spent by the United States, and we’re 5% of the world’s population. China is spending 8 cents out of the dollar that’s being spent worldwide right now.
Bob Zadek: Well, of course, Gary, why should the other countries spend any money since we’re doing it for free? Talk about a free ride.
Gary Johnson: You hit it on the head. And I would suggest that the one thing—there are several things that the government needs to provide. One is to protect you and I against any individual that’s going to do us harm, whether that be from a property standpoint or whether that be physical harm. The government also needs to provide that protection for our country from countries that would raise arms, or terrorists that would raise arms against the United States. I would just argue that our security is not being threatened in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
I would have been on record prior to us going into Iraq believing that we had the surveillance—military surveillance capability to see Iraq roll out any weapons of mass destruction and that we could have gone in and annihilated that situation militarily within minutes. But I felt like if we went into Iraq, we would find ourselves mired in a civil war to which there would be no end. I thought that our initial foray into Afghanistan was completely warranted. That was about getting Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but they’re not there anymore. We’re building roads, schools, bridges, highways in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don’t we have those same needs here? And given the fact that we’re borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar that we’re spending, what good are we to the world bankrupt? What good are we to our citizens? What good are we to ourselves if we’re bankrupt? And that’s where we’ve put ourselves. That’s what I’m so outraged about.
Bob Zadek: Gary, the one issue I would comment on is you said, “What good are we to the world?” And I say, who cares? We’re not here as a service bureau for the world. The only question is what good are we to our citizens if we are bankrupt? Fair question, and we know the answer.
Gary Johnson: Well, and the purpose of the Constitution, the founding of this country, the notion was that this country leads by example. This country has always stood up, I think, to the bully, to the bully on the block, and we’ve lost that. We’ve become the aggressor in the name of—and I just again, I think we’ve overstepped our bounds. The notion that we’re bankrupt, the notion that again, 50 cents out of the dollar being spent worldwide is being spent by the United States and we’re 5% of the world’s population. And as you rightfully point out, why are we the policeman of the world? And given the fact that we’ve taken this role, why should anybody else even want to spend any money in that regard? So there needs to be a shift. And again, I would just argue that constitutionally, this country has an obligation to provide for a strong national defense. I would not shy away from that in any way whatsoever, but I just think that we’ve gone out of bounds when it comes to us outside of our own country.
Bob Zadek: We should not be—now, the harder question for me, Gary, is—but I know the answer, but it’s a hard answer for me to reach—is when there are genocides: Bosnia, Darfur, the Sudan. Do we as a country—should it be as a matter of our foreign policy to intercede in those horrific acts by other leaders towards their population? My answer is, with a heavy heart, absolutely not. Maybe as private citizens we should give money to causes that will to some tiny degree ease the discomfort, but it flunks the test of national defense. And therefore, as a country, we have no business in making the world, the world, a better place. It’s a full-time job making the US a better place and not the rest of the world unless it’s in our direct national interest, national defense to do so.
Gary Johnson: Well, I would hate to see us stand by and actually witness a genocide taking place and not participate in seeing that come to an end. But I think that what you also point out is also a fact: that so often we get involved in situations where that—it’s under the banner of stopping a genocide and we get involved and actually we don’t make it better, it becomes worse. So I don’t know what the situation is, but I’d like to leave that one open from the standpoint that I would hate to see us stand by genuinely witnessing a worldwide atrocity.
Bob Zadek: Should the troops be pulled out of, so far as you know—now there may be issues or there may be facts I’m not aware of—should all our troops be pulled out of Western Europe, out of Germany, out of Spain, out of even South Korea?
Gary Johnson: Well, and let’s just try and simplify this a little bit too, from the standpoint that right now we’re borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar that we’re spending. So what does government need to be cut just to balance expenditures with revenues? Well, 43%. So let’s just simplify this and say that the military should take its part of this and be cut by 43% also. And where does that take place? Well, it seems to me that—I think the number, Bob, is like 100,000-plus troops in Europe. Gee, maybe it’s not 100,000 troops, maybe it ought to be 57,000 troops. And would that be a 43% reduction? Again, there’s going to have to be a shared pain, if you will, across the board when it comes to this country getting its fiscal house in order, and defense has to be part of that.
Bob Zadek: My vote would be one troop running the PX, that’s all. But that’s my own point of view.
Gary Johnson: Well, my point of view is that we’re overextended. My point of view is that we’re overextended, we’re bankrupt. I don’t have a sense of where these cuts come from. I will tell you though that I am involved in trying to find out to the best of my ability how this might happen.
Vetoes and Political Technique [32:53]
Bob Zadek: Gary, when you were the governor of New Mexico, you had, I presume, a democratically controlled state legislature?
Gary Johnson: Yes, two to one.
Bob Zadek: How were you able to accomplish so much when the legislature was of the opposite party?
Gary Johnson: Well, what I ended up doing is I ended up vetoing 750 pieces of legislation. On top of vetoing 750 pieces of legislation, I had line-item veto, which I took to a new art form. I vetoed thousands of pieces of legislation. And really it was saying no to spending, it was saying no to special interests, whether they were individuals or whether they were corporations. And I think people saw that. I think people saw that what I was about was this notion of equality for all, that let’s level the playing field. So I would have dried up funding for neighborhood pavement projects in lieu of statewide funding projects. And it kind of goes on and on and on. But in a state that was two-to-one Democrat, having vetoed that many pieces of legislation, you would think that I would have sailed out of office. But I was re-elected. So I think this notion of fairness, this notion of what government should be, really resonated with people. Now, that’s my opinion, and again, it was put to the test with my having gotten re-elected.
Bob Zadek: Was your technique, your political technique, to, as they say, go above the legislature and appeal directly to the people? Something which Reagan did and Schwarzenegger was unsuccessful in doing. Was that your secret weapon in your toolbox?
Gary Johnson: Well, whether or not that was my strategy or not, I think people saw it. I think people understood the notion of cost-benefit. People understood the notion of best product, best service at the lowest price. And if they saw that happening all the time. And you talked earlier about having run your own business. I’ve run my own business. I know what it is to make a payroll. So that I also know what it is to turn out the lights at the end of the day. I also know what it is to buy a commercial airline ticket as opposed to flying on the state airplane because it’s cheaper. I know what it is to not do anything first class because it costs more money than we would pay for ourselves. At least I’ve never paid for myself to do anything first class. I’d much rather just be there. So I think people saw that. I stood in line as governor of New Mexico. Now, that didn’t always hold true because sometimes I was actually the reason why people were there and you know, I came in and I went to the head of the line. But when it came to going out to dinner or a movie or whatever, a sporting event, I stood in line. And I think that…
Bob Zadek: That’s because Gary, that’s because you’re not a lawyer. Lawyers don’t stand in lines, but contractors do. This is Bob Zadek. I’m speaking with Gary Johnson, former two-term governor of New Mexico. Your questions at 800-345-5639. I’ll be right back.
[Break]
Caller Segment: Drug Policy and Prisons [37:09]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back. I’m talking to Gary Johnson, former successful two-term governor of New Mexico. This is Bob Zadek, host of the Bob Zadek Show. 800-345-5639. Gary, thanks for coming back.
Gary Johnson: Well, again, thank you for having me on.
Bob Zadek: Gary, we have a caller. We have Chad. Good afternoon, Chad.
Caller (Chad): Hi, is this Bob?
Bob Zadek: It is Bob. What’s on your mind, Chad?
Caller (Chad): I just had a couple of quick questions. I’m actually a Democrat. I never thought in my wildest dreams that I would ever vote for a Republican, but Gary, I agree with you on just about every single thing you’ve said. I just wanted clarification on a couple of issues. As far as you speak of legalizing marijuana, which I fully agree with, but you speak—you mention harm reduction with respect to the other drugs that are out there. And I know it’s probably a dance that needs to be done because people are fearful of legalizing those other drugs. I personally think that that’s what ultimately needs to happen as well. The same arguments would apply to those as well: reduction of crime, less deaths, etc., clean needles, that type of thing. So if you could expand on what exactly you mean by harm reduction.
And then my second question real quick was with respect to privatizing prisons. I know Gary, you said you had a good experience with that in New Mexico. I think it was from a cost perspective. But I tend to think that there’s an inherent conflict of interest when you privatize prisons and have corporations running them. I think they tend to have obviously an incentive to make a profit because they’re private. And then, you know, in order to do that, I think they need to put more people in prison to accomplish that objective: profit. But you did speak of if you did legalize marijuana and non-violent offenders were released, the first thing you would do would be to close the private prisons.
Bob Zadek: Not to close the private prisons, but Gary’s website and Gary in New Mexico was successful in privatizing the prisons. Gary, could you answer Chad’s questions?
Gary Johnson: Yeah, starting with the privatizing of prisons. In New Mexico, we had about 600 prisoners housed out of state, which we were paying for. And the prison system in New Mexico was run by the courts; we were under consent decree. So privatizing the prisons, it was the legislature that didn’t want to appropriate any money to building new prisons, which is something that we needed to do. So I basically privatized the prisons. And on an apples-to-apples basis, the private prisons cost two-thirds that of the public prisons. Now, I say apples-to-apples because we were under consent decree and the federal courts were running New Mexico’s prisons. So this was a great example of apples-to-apples that it was two-thirds the cost.
You know, Chad, it kind of flies in the face of logic. You would think that the private prisons would have this huge vested interest in keeping people in jail and that they would have this gigantic lobby. I found just the opposite. I found none of that occurring. And what I said was if we would actually adopt reasonable drug policies in this country and get people out of jail, that that would be a great thing. Shutting down prisons, getting people out of prison would be a great thing. And from my own experience, a whole lot easier to shut down the private prisons as opposed to the public prisons. That’s my own experience and I don’t know why it wouldn’t be the same anywhere else.
And then talking quickly about harm reduction strategies. If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, the world would be a better place. You can apply the same argument from marijuana to the other drugs. The only drug I am espousing legalization on is marijuana. I think that if we would look at the other drugs first as a health problem rather than a criminal justice problem, that we can go a long way toward rational drug policy. I think we legalize marijuana, I think people will begin to understand this notion of personal responsibility and the notion that 90% of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not use-related. And that is in no way to condone drug use. I am not condoning drug use here. I don’t drink, I don’t smoke marijuana, do drugs. But I have. I have. And from my own experience, marijuana much safer than alcohol. I choose not to do any of those today, but again, my own experience.
Bob Zadek: Chad, thank you so much for your call. We appreciate it.
Caller (Chad): Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Take care.
Gulf Oil Spill and Accountability [42:02]
Bob Zadek: Thanks a lot, Gary. Gary, the issue that’s really very much in the news, and I find to be while it’s painful to watch the videos, but it raises intriguing government/capitalism type questions, is the Gulf oil spill. And my question is not how do you feel about BP? What a silly question. You know, how do you feel about Birnbaum who got fired or resigned? But Gary, we have only about four or five minutes left. For you as somebody who is intellectually involved in policy, what are the headline lessons that the tragedy in the Gulf teaches us about the relationship between Americans, business, and government, especially the relationship between business and government? What do we learn from this?
Gary Johnson: You know, I’m a little bit disappointed right now. And the government could take over this role tomorrow still, and that would be just to be an information clearinghouse, just to provide the best information possible. And as an example, Bobby Jindal is calling for a sand barrier to be built on beaches. Why aren’t we doing that? I don’t know. But those answers might be provided. I was wondering myself personally, why aren’t there barges out there at sea pumping up the oil and the water and then separate it at a point? To me, it just seemed like from a cost-benefit standpoint that that would make sense. I don’t have the answer to that, but I did see an oil executive on television the other day talking about the same thing.
But the government hasn’t really stepped up and just provided some leadership here. Here’s what’s happening, here’s what we intend to do. We invite the best and brightest to submit ideas and then air those ideas. Let people know what the pending ideas are. And obviously this relief valve failed. If there’s any lesson to be taken away from this, government does have a responsibility. Government does have a role, and in this case, it has a role, I think, to pass legislation that really makes it impossible for something like this to happen again where you would have a shut-off valve that doesn’t shut off. I realize there’ll be future environmental atrocities, but it shouldn’t be the same issue repeating itself. And the government in conjunction with business, you know, goes without saying, the person, the entity that’s going to suffer the most as a result of this is going to be BP. I mean, they’re going to pay for this, and we’re all going to pay for this from the environmental damage that is created from it.
Bob Zadek: Is this an indictment, is this a black eye for a free market capitalist economy? Is there—is that lesson a takeaway or not? I believe, Gary, that BP in the marketplace will pay through the nose. It will pay billions and billions. Its stockholders will pay. The market is a very cruel place and the market will punish BP and has punished BP instantly. So BP is paying for its error. But if culpability lies at least to some degree with government, there’s no accountability at the government level. So what I’m troubled by is government messed up also, but BP is receiving all the punishment, as it should. But where does government take the hit and step up? How are they punished from an accountability standpoint? And that’s what I can’t work out in my head, Gary.
Gary Johnson: You know, I don’t have the answer to that either. And you hit it right on the head. I mean, the market value of BP has decreased $70 billion. There is no entity that has suffered or will suffer as much as BP for—and they will for the rest of their existence. They may have to change the name of their company in the future, I think. Where’s government culpability? You know, at the moment, I think maybe we ought to push that off into the future at some point. But right now the government could be, again, this notion of confidence, if you will, going forward that everything that can be done is being done.
Closing Remarks [47:42]
Bob Zadek: Gary, we’ve only scratched the surface on the issues that we have to deal with today in America. I’m going to ask you to make a public promise to come back again on the show so we can cover the rest and we can solve the rest of America’s problems. We need much more than an hour. So I’ll ask you to publicly…
Gary Johnson: I would love to come back on your show, Bob. That is a promise.
Bob Zadek: Thanks a lot. This is Bob Zadek, host of the Bob Zadek Show, every Sunday at noon at 910 AM, More Stimulating Talk. I’ve had a wonderful hour talking with Governor Gary Johnson, successful two-term governor of New Mexico. I’ll be back next week. Thanks for listening.