Straight Talk with Gary Johnson
2011-04-30 · Guest: Gary Johnson (Former Governor of New Mexico) · 53:34
Libertarian policy positions and federal budget reform
In this episode, Bob Zadek interviews former New Mexico Governor and 2012 presidential candidate Gary Johnson. They discuss a wide range of libertarian policy positions, including the illegitimacy of the U.S. intervention in Libya, the necessity of cutting the “Big Four” budget items (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense) to prevent financial collapse, and the unintended consequences of government interference in the housing market and agriculture. Governor Johnson also shares his views on public employee unions, the Davis-Bacon Act, and the role of government as a provider of information rather than a coercive force.
Topics: Libya intervention, foreign policy, federal budget deficit, entitlement reform, defense spending, ethanol subsidies, housing crisis, public employee unions, Davis-Bacon Act, constitutional war powers
Speakers:
- Bob Zadek: Host
- Gary Johnson: Former Governor of New Mexico and Honorary Chairman of the OUR America Initiative
- Caller (Clay): Listener from San Francisco
- Caller (Colleen): Listener from Sebastopol
- Caller (John): Listener
Introduction and Guest Background [00:00]
Bob Zadek: Welcome everyone. Welcome to The Bob Zadek Show every Sunday at noon on 910 AM Fox News Radio. Thanks so much for listening to this most special edition of The Bob Zadek Show. I’m your host, Bob Zadek. Write down this phone number: 800-345-5639. It is the number you should use if you have questions or comments for my most special guest for the entire hour, Gary Johnson.
Gary is a two-term Governor of New Mexico and is chairperson of ouramericainitiative.com. And before I formally turn over the microphone to Gary, a word of introduction. Why is Gary Johnson on my show again? About two years ago, I knew the name Gary Johnson, but not much else. And I was invited to attend a dinner, a very informal dinner sponsored by, I believe it was the Reason Foundation, up in Napa or Sonoma County on a Sunday night. And I happily went—a chance to spend an evening with another 50 or 60 libertarians, especially Reason Foundation libertarians, is always a delight.
And I went there, and I was told in the invitation that Gary Johnson was going to be the speaker. And I thought that would be sort of interesting, might be a nice evening. And I went there and I heard Gary speak, and I met Governor Johnson for the first time. And I sat there for 40 minutes wishing the 40 minutes was 40 hours. I loved every syllable of what Gary had said. He spoke the truth as I understood it. His integrity, his honesty, his point of view was, for the first time that I could remember, the same point of view that I held. And he spoke with an integrity and an honesty from the heart and from the mind that I don’t recall ever hearing in a public figure, perhaps in my life. And I became committed, and I have followed Gary, Gary’s career and Gary’s public life, and watched him speak whenever I could on television and on radio.
And Gary now, as chairperson of ouramericainitiative.com, OUR America Initiative, is now speaking out on his view of what’s right and wrong with America. And with that somewhat gushing introduction, Gary, thanks so much for joining me on the show. I hope I didn’t embarrass you, Gary.
Gary Johnson: I think I need to quit while I’m ahead, Bob. But thank you. It’s great to be on here with you.
Foreign Intervention: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya [03:59]
Bob Zadek: Thanks so much. And Gary, there’s so much—we could be on the air for the rest of the afternoon. We don’t have the time. I invite callers to put you to the test and to see if they feel towards you the way I do. 800-345-5639. We’ll try to respond to emails. We’re live with emails at bob@bobzadek.com if you want to communicate by email.
But Gary, there’s in the news quite a bit is, of course, the subject of Libya. And our stated policy goal that we spent $600 or $700 million in Libya for humanitarian purposes to save the lives from an alleged Gaddafi bloodbath. And if we wouldn’t have intervened, he would have been killing a lot of rebels—whatever “rebels” even means. And I wonder if you had a point of view on the American military excursion into Libya, whether we should have been there, whether we did it the right way, and what’s going on.
Gary Johnson: Well, Bob, giving you a little background and everybody listening a little background on my feelings on Iraq to start with. I was opposed to our involvement in Iraq. I thought that we had the military surveillance capability to see Iraq roll out any weapons of mass destruction. If they would have done that, I felt like we could have gone in, we could have militarily, surgically addressed that situation. I thought if we went into Iraq, we would find ourselves in a civil war to which there would be no end.
Afghanistan, initially, I was totally supportive of. I think that that is what our military is about, is providing response if we are attacked. And we were attacked by Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. And I think we are at war with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and should remain vigilant to the terrorist threat. But when we went into Afghanistan, I thought that that was totally warranted. And that after about six months of being in Afghanistan, we had done Al-Qaeda a number. We had effectively eliminated them from Afghanistan. That was 10 years ago.
I think the fact that we’re building roads, schools, bridges, highways, and hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we’re borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar to do that, is crazy. I think the fact that more men and women, more men and service women are going to end up losing their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan is wrong. I would advocate getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow. And for all the debate and the discussion that we would have about the problems that we would face or that those areas would face as a result of us pulling out tomorrow, I think we would have those same conversations 25 years from now if that’s when we decided to get out.
So regarding Libya, I’m opposed to what we’re doing in Libya A through Z. Where was the congressional authorization to go into Libya? Where in the Constitution does it say because we don’t like a foreign leader that we should go in and topple that foreign leader? And why are we going into Libya? Where was the threat to national security six weeks ago? I don’t think it existed. And aren’t there five other countries right now in the Middle East that warrant the same kind of military action that we have now brought about in Libya?
Under the umbrella of a no-fly zone, did not Saddam Hussein reign in Iraq? Under the umbrella of a no-fly zone, were not the atrocities of Bosnia committed? Aren’t we injecting ourselves in a civil war? Who are the rebels that we’re supporting, and what are the unintended consequences of going in and toppling a leader that we don’t happen to agree with? If you just look at Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was Iran’s biggest enemy. They were holding Iran in check in the Middle East. Because we’ve taken out Saddam Hussein, we’ve really created a situation now where Iran becomes a threat that wasn’t before because Saddam Hussein was providing that check against Iran.
Bob Zadek: Hussein was the enemy of our enemy and therefore, presumably, our friend. And what’s interesting is we are allegedly supporting the “rebels” in Libya. Now, two observations in the one minute we have before we go to break, and we’ll take some callers when we come back. But an observation about this helping the rebels: America had rebels, the Confederate Army in 1861. Would it have been part of the Obama doctrine for France, England, and Spain to support the rebels in the South? And what about the rebels known as the American Revolutionaries in 1776? Were the rebels good guys or bad guys? So the word “rebels” is not very helpful. And if we’re doing it to save Gaddafi from killing 10,000 rebels, what will we do when the rebels start killing Gaddafi loyalists after Gaddafi is gone and they kill more than 10,000 people? The approach in Libya is chaotic and intellectually dishonest.
Caller: Gary Johnson for President? [11:59]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back. The Bob Zadek Show. 800-345-5639. I am honored and delighted to share the microphone today with Gary Johnson, chairperson of ouramericainitiative.com. Gary is on the phone from Denver, Colorado. Gary will be with me for the whole hour. Clay, thanks for calling. Clay, what’s on your mind?
Caller (Clay): Howdy. Two things, but you really hammered the snot out of the first one. Actually, we met at a cocktail event, a Cato event for Milton and Rose Friedman back quite a while ago in San Francisco.
Bob Zadek: Yes, I remember.
Caller (Clay): Yeah, it was a very cool—I was very impressed with you then as well. And you really—I called to ask how you would reconcile not being a protectionist along with a humanitarian interaction angle argument for those that would claim that your perspective is protectionist in the military projection standpoint, that is. But you answered most of that. So my question is, why aren’t you running for President? Because we need somebody in the Tea Party arena that really represents common sense and logic. And really, having met with you and talked with you, I really agree that you’ve just got it all dialed in—right perspective. Are you considering getting involved in federal politics?
Gary Johnson: Well, Clay, I’m right now the honorary chairman of OUR America Initiative. There’s a lot of conjecture over my running for President, but for 15 months now, I’ve gotten to raise money and speak out on the issues of the day. And as part of my legal status with that 501(c)(4) OUR America Initiative, I can’t be talking about running for political office. So I hate for the dodge here, but I haven’t gotten crossways at this point with the Federal Elections Commission and won’t get crossways with them going forward. I know there’s a lot of conjecture about my running for the office, but I can’t talk about it.
Bob Zadek: Clay, Gary sooner or later, I hope, will listen to you and I and millions of others. Gary, you with us?
Gary Johnson: I am.
Bob Zadek: We dropped Clay. Okay. Clay, thanks so much for calling. I hope that Gary will listen to the Clays and the Bobs of the world. But Gary has his own timetable.
Humanitarian Aid vs. Military Spending [14:42]
Bob Zadek: So, you know, the issue on humanitarian—just one thought. If we have spent, Gary, I guess about $600 or $700 million by some counts, a billion dollars on the Libyan adventure up to now, and we’ve done so—the cover, the political cover has been humanitarian grounds, and it’s not even a military conflict according to the administration. But I dare say $600 or $700 million of purely humanitarian aid, not Tomahawk missiles, could save a lot more than 10,000 lives if it were spent for hospitals or whatever in the third world. So if we’re talking about saving lives for humanitarian purposes, there’s a better use of $700 million than Tomahawk missiles.
Gary Johnson: Well, I’m in the category, Bob, of not supporting foreign aid. I think that it’s crazy to be providing any foreign aid when we’re borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar that we’re spending to do that. I think that we’ve bankrupted ourselves and that we need to get control of this. We can do this. We landed on the moon. We can balance the federal budget.
I’m of the belief that we’re on the verge of a financial collapse because we just cannot pay back $14 trillion worth of debt. We’re not good for the $100 trillion of unfunded entitlement liability going forward. And because our Federal Reserve is buying up our own Treasuries—we’re buying up our own debt—that is eliminating the short-term reality of an actual financial collapse. But at a point, that has to stop, and it will stop.
And in the meantime, what can government do? I’m believing government needs to balance the federal deficit. And so that would not be cutting $60 billion a year from this year’s budget. It wouldn’t mean $200 billion from next year’s fiscal budget. It would mean $1.6 trillion from the federal budget. And it’s very doable. It’s not impossible at all. And it’s got to start with a discussion about Medicaid and Medicare. It has to start with a discussion about reforming Social Security—it’s really not cutting Social Security, it’s just making it a viable system that takes in more money than what it pays out. And we talked earlier about Defense—cutting by 43%. Those being the big four ticket items.
Bob Zadek: And Gary, you’re the only one with public figure with the courage to touch all of these alleged “third rails,” to dare to utter the concept of cutting Defense. No one could defend the Defense budget today as being “this is the perfect number, and if you cut a dollar, we become unsafe.” It’s absurd to think all of a sudden spend $10 less for Defense and right away we have third-world submarines at our borders. So there’s no sweet spot today. And cutting or readjusting Social Security and Medicare—that’s to say that what we spend this moment is the perfect amount, and if you spent anything less, it is less than perfect. You’re the only one who has the courage, and I will say the honesty, to speak truth to these subjects and to say, “Yes, these are and must be cuttable together with everything else.”
Caller: A Progressive Perspective on Non-Intervention [19:05]
Bob Zadek: Now, Gary, we have Colleen from Sebastopol. Colleen, how are you?
Caller (Colleen): I’m just fine, thank you. Well, you know, I’m not your average listener. I am a super progressive. As a matter of fact, in 2006, I challenged Dianne Feinstein in the Democratic primary to end Public Law 107-243, which was giving a blank check to go to war anywhere, anytime, for any amount of money. And I am the proud daughter of a Lieutenant Colonel who served in the Air Force in Vietnam, who’s no longer with us because we used Agent Orange. I care about our troops. And I’m here to help with the holy alliance between the right and the left to make sure no President of any party can use our military for any purpose but defense. That is where our strength lies, and it’s time for America care, not unconstitutional warfare. And so I’m hoping that we can all get on the same page of the Constitution, no matter what our differences on other aspects. This is the one that matters most, and we must end it now.
Bob Zadek: Colleen, we’re siblings under the skin. I couldn’t agree more. And I’ve observed that originally, when the country was founded, we had something called a cabinet post called the Department of War. 1947, during the Truman administration, it became the Department of Defense. Today, it has become by its activities again a Department of War. And to me—and we’ll hear from Gary, of course, in a moment because Gary’s views are really quite important—but you’re exactly right. We have morphed back into a Department of War. And if all we did was defend, we’d all be a lot better off. Gary?
Gary Johnson: Well, I’ll just join in the chorus here. We’re spending more money on Defense—and I use that word “Defense,” it’s really not Defense, it’s War—we’re spending more money on Defense/War than all the other countries in the world combined, and we’re 5% of the world’s population. If we were to cut Defense spending by 43%, we would still be outspending China by triple the amount of money that China is currently spending. There’s not a significant threat to our security. Other nations need to be sharing in this vigil against terrorism.
You know, a lot of talk has been given over the years to the vaunted public transportation projects in Europe. A lot of talk has been given about the vaunted healthcare programs in Europe. I think that we need to understand that they’ve been able to spend their money doing that because we’ve picked up the tab when it comes to Defense. Other countries in the world need to share in what is needed to be a unified front against this war on terror, not just the United States.
And then back to the whole Libyan excursion, our affairs right now—is this a result of a national security threat from Libya? It’s not. It’s injecting ourselves into what is arguably a civil war that also qualifies in five other countries right now in the Middle East. There’s no end to our military involvement. The criteria ought to be threats against the United States, and I just don’t see it in Afghanistan, Iraq, or in Libya.
Bob Zadek: And what’s interesting, Gary, is I have learned from you about all the money we are spending by having troops in Western Europe, in Korea. And even if it’s defense-related, I would say, Gary, defense of who? Department of Defense doesn’t mean defense of Western Europe; it means defense of the United States. And we are spending money for the defense of other countries when they should be spending their own money for their own defense. So not only should we be a Department of Defense, not a Department of War, but it should be a Department of U.S. Defense, not of World Defense.
Gary Johnson: Like I say, I’m liking the music that you’re playing. I wish we’d get all on that same page when it comes to music.
Bob Zadek: And Colleen’s call was quite interesting because what people are discovering is points of view such as yours, Gary—the libertarian point of view—it’s an area where very progressive Democrats, or progressives period without the hyphen-dash-Democrat, progressives and conservatives meet. They meet in a unity of purpose at most aspects of a libertarian philosophy. So Colleen can find a home, as can many conservatives, in a point of view presented by Gary Johnson and others in public life.
The Environment, Ethanol, and the Nanny State [27:19]
Bob Zadek: Gary, one of the many, many, many areas that you and I have in common is your personal biography includes one of entrepreneurship. You started a business with one employee—you. You sold that business with a thousand employees. When you sold the business, nobody lost their job. Entrepreneurship is, to me—it gets me teary-eyed. In my professional life, I’m an attorney, and my contact is 100% with entrepreneurs. I couldn’t be happier spending the 12 hours of day doing my law because I deal with entrepreneurs all day as borrowers and as lenders.
Now, there’s been a lot—the environment is a lot in the news. In discussing the environment, we have the federal government picking economic winners and losers based upon some silly “save the planet” standards, especially including the government spending—wasting—so much money promoting things like ethanol. Now, Gary, there may be a time in your future that you spend some time in Iowa. And Iowa, I am told, grows corn, which is used to make ethanol. Bearing that in mind, the corporate welfare of giving money to Archer Daniels Midland and other large corporations to promote the uneconomic use of corn for fuel—the government’s role in ethanol and in the environment. You happen to have a point of view?
Gary Johnson: Well, starting off, Bob—and I know I’m getting no disagreement here from you—we all want a clean, healthy environment. That’s not anything I think that’s debatable at all. How do you get there, though? I think that good economies lead to clean environments. We certainly have a much cleaner environment today than we had 50 years ago. And 50 years from now, we’re going to have far less carbon emission 50 years from now than we do today because it’s what we’re all wanting to see happen. It will happen.
The fact that government interjects itself and is going to tax carbon emission, in my opinion, it’s going to be a whole lot of money raised that’s going to come at a cost to you and I, and it’s not going to make any difference at all when it comes to the environment. So I would be opposed to cap-and-trade legislation.
The unintended consequence of government—to all of my understanding, ethanol is a product that takes more energy to produce than it actually produces. So when it comes to farm subsidies, you’re touching on a couple of issues here. Basically, right now, I would advocate very simply from the notion of fairness that farm subsidies be cut by 43% and that ethanol not be subsidized, given that my understanding of ethanol is that it takes more energy to produce than what it produces.
And then you look at farm subsidies also from another standpoint, which is: what is perhaps the leading cause of obesity in America today? Is it the fact that we subsidize corn and that we’ve invented a million different ways to consume corn, one of them being putting corn sweetener in everything it is that we eat, so that everything we eat has a taste that’s so good that we just can’t stop eating whatever it is that’s sweetened with corn?
Bob Zadek: It is, of course, the Nanny State writ large, where government gets to decide what we eat and what are the additives in food. And they do so by subsidies. And the five biggest crops that the government subsidizes today—corn and soybeans and wheat—there are five major crops that get almost all the subsidy. Each one of those five contribute to obesity. So we have the Agriculture Department contributing to obesity, and then we have Michelle Obama banning cupcakes and trying to combat its own—or the government’s own—Department of Agriculture.
Gary Johnson: I think Michelle Obama’s dialogue on diet is just right on. We are consuming too many calories and we should be looking at what we’re eating. And that’s really an important dialogue. When it comes to government, government providing information to all of us—cigarette smoking. Look, cigarette smoke is a bad situation. We’ve not made it illegal to smoke cigarettes, but if you smoke cigarettes, you’re going to significantly shorten your life. Look, government shouldn’t step in and ban cupcake sales, but government should say, “You know what? Here’s the amount of healthy calories that you should—here’s the amount of calories that you should consume every day, and that they should be made up of whole, healthy foods, not carbohydrate-laden, but that they should be made up of whole, wholesome foods—proteins, carbohydrates, fats. Here are the good fats, here are the bad fats.” And as a result of that, change eating habits in the country for the better.
Bob Zadek: You’re exactly right. Government is very good, in my opinion—now you’re probably dying to know how I’m going to finish this sentence—government is very good and can be very good at providing information to help people make decisions. Government is very bad at coercion and forcing people to make the right decision. And you have just said it perfectly. The role of government is to provide for the integrity of the information we are given. Labeling on the back of a cereal box is the proper use of government. But compelling you…
Gary Johnson: I completely agree. I think that there is the role of government: providing that information and then allowing you and I as consumers and as smart, healthy, forward-looking individuals to make the best choices based on the information that we have available to us.
Bob Zadek: It’s the inherent trust of Americans to make the right decisions for themselves once they are given the information, versus the total lack of trust in Americans that they’re going to make the right decision and therefore the need to make decisions for them.
The Housing Crisis and Government Policy [35:23]
Bob Zadek: Gary, a difficult issue because it involves everyday humans, is the issue with the foreclosures—millions of houses in foreclosure. How they got there is, of course, the subject of debate—whose fault it was. But today, starting with today, if you were in charge of things, does the government have any role? Is there any “should” at all for the government in looking at, as we are today, with houses in foreclosure, people losing their homes? Bearing in mind that somebody’s housing loss is somebody’s housing acquisition. If somebody loses their house to foreclosure, somebody else who did nothing wrong gets to buy that house and live in that house. So Gary, any role for government at all? If so, what?
Gary Johnson: You know, I think it is important, Bob, to look at the root cause of the housing crisis in America today. And I think that root cause lies in money being made so available for homeownership because the government politically decided that homeownership was the best possible thing that they could provide. So money was made readily available to the extent that lenders were not looking at buyers from their ability to actually repay the loans. As a result of that, housing got inflated beyond what would have been charged in a true free-market system for housing.
And if housing were not to have been bailed out, if the government were not to have involved themselves in a bailout of these lending institutions, I think that what we might have seen would have been a very, very sharp downturn in the housing market. But that there would have been people that would have stepped up and bought homes that yesterday were $100,000 and today were $8,000, and would have bought up those homes and given them an opportunity to have something that they wouldn’t have normally had. And if that were to have been allowed to have happened, that as a result of that, I think that we might arguably be in a housing market today that would be much higher and much more stable, as opposed to one that’s being still propped up by banking institutions that have not yet come to grips with the losses that they’ve taken.
Bob Zadek: Now, Gary, you said something so interesting a second ago, and it was almost inadvertent, but it was so true. You said the government “decided”—that’s not your exact words, but you said the government decided that housing ownership was a good thing. Where in the world does government get the chutzpah, the temerity to decide owning a house is better than renting? That’s not for the government to decide; it’s for humans to decide based upon the highest and best use of their money. And so government “decides,” Gary, your words, that housing is good, and therefore it sets about to create a hyperactive market, to stimulate housing ownership because it decided it was a good thing. And thereby, as I said earlier, the government’s role is to provide good information, not to be a cheerleader and to encourage people to make meaningful economic decisions that may not be good for them. So you hit the nail on the head when you said government decided that homeownership is good. That’s exactly what happened.
Gary Johnson: Well, and maybe the message of homeownership is really a good message, but they backed that up with very, very low-interest money that really then led to the consequence of the housing crisis. So they not only communicated what I think was probably and is a good message—that homeownership is a great way to invest the money that you have—but they stimulated that with interest that was way, way lower than what it should have been and without the qualification to go along with being able to borrow that kind of money. Hence the result we have: the unintended consequences of government.
Public Employee Unions and Education [43:58]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back. The Bob Zadek Show. 800-345-5639. Gary was a two-term Governor of New Mexico, term-limited out after two very successful terms. Gary, in the news these days is an awful lot of discussion concerning the relationship of public employee unions to state government—the incestuous relationship of the negotiations between state government (the governor and the legislature) on the one hand and the public employee unions on the other, and especially unions such as the teachers’ union. So what have you learned from your experience as Governor in New Mexico about the federal role for education, the role of the teachers’ unions, and the extent to which public employee unions and their pensions are contributing to the problem the states have with balancing their books?
Gary Johnson: Well, as for—let’s just start off by saying what’s inherently wrong with collective bargaining? I would just say probably nothing from the standpoint that if I’m representing taxpayers at a table when it comes to negotiating wages and benefits with public employee unions, you know what? Taxpayers are going to fare well. Certainly, the public wants to be fair with those individuals that are working within our systems to aid in our daily life. Public employee unions—employees have chosen to belong to unions, fine. Teachers want to belong to the teacher union, fine. If I’m at the table negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers, that’s a process that turns out okay.
When it’s not a process when it turns out okay is if I happen to be bought and paid for by the union sitting on the other side of the table. And that’s what so often happens. As a result of that, maybe benefits and wages aren’t fairly negotiated at all; perhaps it really becomes a giveaway.
And the only real problem that I have with a union—and I say this kind of tongue-in-cheek—is that the union supposes that two employees, one of them happens to be the best employee that you could possibly employ, the other one happens to be the worst employee that you could possibly employ—the union assumes that both of them are equal and should be paid the same amount of money when the reality is the one that does a better job should get paid more, and the one that does the worst job should find something else to work at because for whatever reason, it’s not working out. They’re such a poor employee, they need something else to do.
Bob Zadek: And what is the—does the federal government have a role, or is this simply your observations in your experience as Governor? But is there—if you were to have a federal role, is there a federal role in this entire process? And specifically, what about Right to Work laws? Should there be a federal Right to Work law, or is that left to the states?
Gary Johnson: Well, I think it’s every right of an employee to be able to unionize. I think that that’s a right, and if that’s the choice, so be it. But when it comes to government, I don’t think that we should be providing the union as a protected class. And so Right to Work—I very much support Right to Work. And I also support the notion that when it comes to government construction projects, whether that be federal projects or whether that be state projects, that prevailing wage laws—Davis-Bacon—should not exist, but that the marketplace would determine how individuals would get paid in a true free-market environment for those projects.
Bob Zadek: Gary, let me just interrupt you. Folks in the audience might not be aware of statutes called Davis-Bacon, which is the federal law, and Little Davis-Bacon, which are state laws. California and New York have Little Davis-Bacon laws. Davis-Bacon is a statute which basically, historically, was anti-black. And Davis-Bacon laws have been around since the 1930s. And in a word, it requires that if the federal government hires contractors to do government contracting to build government projects, the contractors must pay their workers the prevailing wage, which is the union wage, which means you can’t have non-union labor competing on price. And those were passed originally because blacks were willing to work for less than whites, and the way to prevent blacks from being hired for less was to require everybody get paid the same—sort of like a big minimum wage law. So Davis-Bacon laws have an ugly past, and they are still federal law, and that’s what Gary is referring to. Sorry, Gary.
Gary Johnson: Well, and in a nutshell, as a result of Little Davis-Bacon legislation, we’re building three schools instead of four schools. We’re laying down three-quarters of a mile of asphalt on the highway as opposed to one mile. And this is our taxpayer dollars that, if subject to free market, we would be spending less money and getting more for the dollars that we spend.
Caller: Commander-in-Chief and War Powers [51:18]
Bob Zadek: Gary, we have a chance to hear from one more caller, I think, before regretfully our time together will end. John, welcome to the show.
Caller (John): Hi, how are you? I want to remind you that we do not have a Commander-in-Chief. We the people have never had a Commander-in-Chief since World War II. The Commander-in-Chief is called into actual service under Section 2 of Article II in the Constitution, and the call comes from a declaration of war. Declaration of war is actually foreign policy created by both houses of Congress. It’s the only foreign policy created by both houses. To go on foreign soil for a specific defense function and then get out. And of course, we haven’t had a declaration of war because we want to invade and occupy. They are police actions, and they’re totally unconstitutional, totally unlawful. And the country is now paying to fund these things, and it’s very simply a problem of getting Congress, not the President, getting Congress—every member of Congress—to honor their oaths and their public employment contracts to support and defend the Constitution and all its provisions without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
Gary Johnson: John, couldn’t have said it better. Thanks, John.
Bob Zadek: John, thanks so much for your call. This is Bob Zadek. I want to thank Governor Gary Johnson for spending an hour with me and with us on the show. Gary is chairperson of ouramericainitiative.com. Gary is getting lots of airtime happily on mainstream media, if there is such a thing anymore. So Gary, we wish you the very best of luck. I remind you of our caller Clay’s hope that you have, shall I say, a more active national role. And in my closing seconds, in thanking Gary, I want to also remind you April 15th, besides being income tax day, it is the grand opening of Atlas Shrugged in theaters around the country. More about that next week. So thanks again, Gary, and the very, very best of luck to you.
Gary Johnson: Great, Bob. Thank you so much. Look forward to being on in the future.
Bob Zadek: Oh, I hope you will, Gary. Thank you so much. Thank you. This is Bob Zadek, thanking Gary Johnson for joining me for the whole hour. You will find Gary’s points of view on OUR America Initiative, and as Colleen has observed—Colleen was a caller earlier today, a self-identified progressive—she found lots of common ground as most voters will in Gary’s point of view. Thank you so much for listening. I’ll be back in a week. Speak to you then.