August 12, 2011 Rep. Thaddeus McCotter at the Des Moines Register Soapbox

McCotter spoke for a relatively brief six minutes and twenty seconds and then took eight questions covering autism, qualifications for a politician, the super committee, the Clean Air Act, threats to sovereignty, the Second Amendment, recapitalizing banks, and health care.

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
Des Moines Register Soapbox
Iowa State Fair
Des Moines, Iowa
August 12, 2011
[DEMOCRACY IN ACTION TRANSCRIPT/IRH video]

It's great to be here at the State Fair. I'm very excited today, because after I'm done meeting with you, discussing some issues I will have the opportunity to see the 100th butter cow. Coming from Detroit that's not an opportunity we get every day. It is also a great opportunity to see how agriculture is doing in the United States. Because coming from Detroit, coming from a manufacturing background it is heartening not only to see farmers producing, but to see they type of manufacturing that was done in this country when we were producing wealth, when we were selling cars, when we were growing crops to feed the world and provide the arsenal for democracy and an engine for prosperity.

Today we wonder if we can still do that. Today we wonder if our institutions, be they the large big government in Washington or the failed financial institutions on Wall Street are indifferent to us, the sovereign American people. We hear talk of forsaken Americans, we hear talk of the endangering of the American Dream, and we hear many Americans wonder if they matter any more.

My response, and the response of the American people is simply this: You matter more than ever.

Throughout the history of this country you've been faced with great challenges. And in every period of time no matter how difficult, the American people have transcended them and bequeathed to their children a better country, a conserved and improved experiment in liberty and self-government. We will do no less.

In terms of getting this economy moving, we need action and we need action now. And unfortunately what we saw from the Administration, and in fairness in the debate last night, was a failure to comprehend the nature of our economic challenge that is hurting so many Americans and getting them to question what their pursuit of prosperity will be in the 21st century. Will it be a better road, or will it be a dead end of American decline? We are in a deflationary period, a great contraction. What has happened is the failed Wall Street banks that were bailed out are showing the greatest contraction of credit since the Great Depression.

Now we can talk about tax relief, which I support. We can talk about regulatory relief, which I support. We can talk about all of the above energy strategies, which I support. But if we do not address the failure of the large banks to be restructured, to recapitalize without taxpayer money, to get credit flowing down to the entrepreneurs and the workers and the innovators who will not only grow the economy in the near term but will grow and shape this economy for the 21st century, we will be trapped with a doomed generation who economically will mirror what happened in Japan in the 1990s.

I appreciate that this is not the easiest talking point to be putting across, but as always I believe the wisdom of the American people exceeds that of their elected leaders, myself included. And from hearing and meeting with people, we understand that the inability to access that credit has not only impaired the promotion of prosperity; it has impaired the hopes of individuals for their own future pursuits and that of more importantly of their children.

Amidst this stagnation we also have to face the reality that we are a country at war, with brave men and women in the field. And that the United States, as it has always done in the past, has met this unsought struggle, not merely as a matter of victory and defeat or conquest over territory, but we have also understood what Lincoln taught us long ago, that in seeking to defend our own liberty we extend liberty to the oppressed and enslaved. And that is why precipitous withdraw in Iraq or Afghanistan will not only injure the security and hopes for liberty of the people of those lands, it will also impair our own because America will have broken her promise to those peoples. And the individuals who will fill the vacuum if we leave prematurely will butcher and kill their way back into power, and the problems that they create will not be left anywhere but on our doorstep.

These are the challenges we face, and again it is a difficult time, but as always the solution will not be to take your decisions, to take your money, to take your dreams and put them in a highly centralized bureaucratic Washington. It will be to do what we see throughout the world happening what we see throughout our homes happening. In the 21st century the future is not big government, it is self government. It is the empowerment of the individual, it is the empowerment of you. And once we can get the government to realize that it must mirror the changes that are occurring in every families lives and every business's lives, and that it must become citizen driven and more horizontal and democratized, we will ensure that this nation will get through this hard road to better days, and in the future other generations will look back at you and thank you for your wisdom and for your courage to meet the challenges that we face.

With that, remembering that I do not represent Washington to my constituents—I represent them to Washington as their servant—I'll take a couple of questions. [applause]

MAN: My question for you is right now the autism rate in this country is approximately one in a hundred—the autism rate in this country is now one in a hundred and in some places it's even lower than that...and it used to be one in ten thousand. What do you think needs to be done to address this epidemic?

McCOTTER: The question is about autism. First let me say is my parents were special education teachers, my brother's a special education teacher and the work that the parents and the teachers put in to work with autistic children is truly noble and inspiring.

What the federal government has to do, as I talked about with making it more horizontal, more citizen-driven, is to make sure that we stop trying to centralize education decisions in Washington, that we stop trying to put strings and attachments on block, on grants to the states because what you want to do to reduce not only the federal government's fiscal problems, but to empower parents and students at the grassroots level is to make sure that we begin to block grant to the states, to the municipalities—the school boards and educators—the money, so that they can make those determinations as how to deal with that issue. Because as we learn from Jefferson and others, that government which is closest to the people governs best. For the federal government to take the money in the first place and put it out in the federal government means money will be raked off the top for the bureaucracy that will never get down to where it is most needed, which is at the student level. And so I would think that from the federal perspective, return to making sure that money gets to go where it goes and it gets maximum effectiveness for its dollar is the way to go.

MAN: In my opinion— I've got an opinion, what is your opinion of the two top qualifications for a politician?

McCOTTER: Well the two top qualifications for a politician are good hair and make up. [laughter] But I think that the question you're asking is what is the good qualification for a public servant you can trust to vote for, unless you want to elect a politician which I don't think is currently in all the fashion right now.

MAN: I'm saying a good politician they've either got to have money or be able to get their hands on money to run for office which is wrong. But we're missing a lot of middle class people there; a lot of good ones. And number two they've got to be able to stand up in front of people and talk all day and say nothing. That's my two top qualifications. That's what I see in this country today.

McCOTTER: And I agree with you. That's why I have always said whenever asked about what type of money are you going to raise before you run, I have said the American people are very in tune with the difficulties of today, and what they want to hear is the message and the following support will come if they agree with it and unite behind it. What they do not want are people who come around with a whole big bag full of money and a bag of gas and no one cares what they say and they try to rent the Republican Party or they try to rent the presidency from you. So that's why I'm in Iowa, that's why I'm running a grassroots campaign, that's why many people ridicule my campaign because look, I understand the beauty of democracy. I'm not about the money. If you agree with my message, if you unite behind it, then I believe I can be elected president of the United States. But I do not subscribe to the theory that somehow if a bunch of people with money decide that you look good on TV that somehow that qualifies you for the highest office in the land and the leader of the free world. So I agree with you.

MAN: Thank you.

[applause]

McCOTTER: And look, prove it [shows pants pocket].

MAN: Yes, sir. How do you feel about the 12-member delegation that may very well decide the defense of this country... [inaud.]

McCOTTER: The question is about the super committee. As you know that was part of the budget deal, and I want to make it clear, first and foremost that I believe that the super committee is constitutional because it still has to meet the requirements of being submitted to the members of Congress for a majority vote and then sent to the president for his signature. In many ways you should view this more as a task force charged with trying to do something. You have a very good concern about how this would affect defense. We are a nation in a time of war and we have to make sure that we do not go to sequestration so that that does not happen across the board where in my mind the military would be unfairly cut. In terms of the individuals on this, I want to assure you, you will not be watching C-SPAN with them wearing capes and towels. It is only called a super committee because it's a handle that can be easily applied to it. Again, what you do not want is a bunch of the leadership people in a back room making a deal. This will be a fair process. I know two of my Michigan colleagues have been appointed from the House on the Republican side. You'll be able to view it and it will go through the regular process of having to have votes and be approved.

[pointing to person wearing For Clean Air shirt] For clean air.

WOMAN: [inaud.] Ed. the questioner was Hannah Garden-Monheit of Des Moines, who asked roughly this question "You talked about your support for kids. The Clean Air Act prevents 120,000 cases of childhood asthma every year. As President will you support or even expand the Clean Air Act?"

McCOTTER: The question's about the Clean Air Act. My question in return is I want to see every type of administrative rule put forward by this administration or any piece of legislation that deals with regulation on the productive capacities of the United States applied to a scientific test. And I want to see how it's going to be applied to the economy because my son George is in college, my son Timothy is in high school at Catholic Central and our daughter Amelia is going to Mercy High School in the Fall. And I want to make sure that the spot reserved for them in the Obama Administration's economy is not their parents' basement. I want to make sure that the productive capacities of the United States—be they farmers, be they manufacturers, be they people trying to start small businesses—do not have the crushing weight of big government put on them through some bureaucratic fiat that makes no sense to anybody except those who have a special interest in the outcome. So that is my belief. If you can bring me a bill that will improve the environment and help conserve the resources of the United States that will not put people out of work arbitrarily or unfairly then I will consider supporting it. But if I see legislation come forward, as we've heard from this administration before, that somehow the employment and the economy is not a consideration in the passage of their rule-making authority under the EPA or others I would veto it. I would oppose it. I would rein them back in so they work for you. [applause]

[pointing] You with the nice hair...

MAN: What's the biggest threat to American sovereignty and state sovereignty?

McCOTTER: The biggest threat to anybody is the continuation of the big government welfare state model. Look we are a compassionate country; we're a generous country. We believe in a social safety net to help those who cannot help themselves as Lincoln taught us. We understand that there are those who in the economic upheavals, especially of the globalized marketplace in which we find ourselves, will need temporary assistance as they struggle to regain the dignity of their self reliance, but that is not what the welfare state and big government are about.

Big government and the welfare state try to take people who can and are self-reliant and independent and instead make them dependent upon government. This is not sustainable in the 21st century. Everything around you, if you think about it again— in a Blackberry you can communicate around the world; at your laptop computer you can find sources of information anywhere you want, you can order an ottoman from Australia in the stroke of a key, and yet your big government states that it must control your health care decisions. That is backwards.

And the one thing that I would like to make clear to you is that we must match a citizen-driven government with a consumer-driven economy so that we can have an innovative American century where we continue to lead the world by unleashing your virtuous genius and industriousness. It will not come from Washington; it will not come from a non-sustainable model of having a big, highly-centralized, bureaucratic state in Washington trying to sit on top of a democratized, entrepreneurial, self-governing economy that will not happen. So that's what we need to do. [applause]

[pointing] Young man with the Royals hat...

MAN: [inaud.]

McCOTTER: I believe that we have a Second Amendment which is part of the rights we inherit from God, that the Constitution recognizes that. We do not get our rights from man; we get them from a higher transcendent order. That means that no person or no entity with 51-percent can take them from us. That is why we are a free republic, that is why we are a sovereign citizenry, that's why we establish government to protect and defend our rights, not to grant them to us; which means they could also take them away. [applause]

Alright Barone, I'll give you one, and then I'll go— How much time do I have?

MICHAEL BARONE: [inaud.]...about the need to recapitalize the banks... What policies—how would you go about doing that?

McCOTTER: The policies that we should pursue that are being put out there, the first one would come from former Secretary of State James A. Baker, which we talked about at the time, people like myself and in fairness my colleagues Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul were opposing the Wall Street bailout, is to do a true stress test on the banks on Wall Street and see which ones are solvent and which ones aren't. And if they are not solvent, what you have to do is segregate their accounts, break them up, put them in a resolution trust corp. I would add that you would then make those assets subject to no capital gains for the investors willing to put capital back into the system because of the danger of the investment it would be toxic to begin with.

Secondly what you have to do is you have to make sure that you can do debt for equity swaps. One of the biggest problems that we have both in Europe and the United States is the concept that if one of these big banks fails the non-deposit investors get bailed out by the taxpayers. That not only creates continued problems that we have in our financial markets with debt overhangs on the bank books, it also causes problems fiscally for the governments that try to do that. This is the type of debt overload that is causing the stagnation and problems and the failure of the credit to get down to the economy.

I would also make sure that the limits on leverage— I would let people make however much they want, but you will never again leverage yourself to the point where if you collapse on the sovereign American people you can come begging for their money when it was no fault of their own; it was the fault of your own greed and misfeasance.

Those are three steps right off the bat that can be done. Again, it has to be done. I understand these are very powerful entities. I understand that, as your question pointed out, there's a whole lot of money to be made being their friends. But never again in this country can we go through a period of stagnation that was brought on us by the failure of large individuals that thought they were more important than you. Because in my mind and the mind and the philosophy of a free republic in which we live there is nothing bigger than you. You are the sovereign American people; these institutions are your servants. And when your fellow Americans make mistakes they will have to bear the brunt of that; they will not have to come to you and pretend that they're more important. [applause]

How are we doing on time?

I've got two minutes.

[pointing]

WOMAN: Health care away from employment.

McCOTTER: We need— Yeah the question's about health care away from employment. What we need to have in this country in terms of health care is not the bureaucratic government model that we saw imposed on us in the last majority of this administration. What we need to go through is patient-centered wellness and free-market supplies.

The problem with Obamacare is two-fold. One is the concept of comparative effectiveness research where a government bureaucrat gets to determine whether or not you get treatment based upon the life years you will get out of it. That is not something you want to let somebody in Washington decide for you.

But fundamentally as a matter of economics, they believe that if government controls the supply of health care that they will squeeze out costs. If government controls the supply of something, it constrains it. And in a time of rising demand when supply is stagnant or decreasing and demand increases, what happens? Costs shoot through the roof. This is why it is doomed to failure as an economic proposition.

What we need to do is make it easier for entrepreneurs to bring medical technologies to the marketplace, we need to let doctors stop being bureaucrats and let them go again back to treating patients. We need to make sure that patients are empowered to make their choices with their doctors, without interference from third parties, because if you allow the supply to increase to demand in a market-based system with informed consumers and patients what you're going to see is the natural market forces bring those costs down. If you expand health savings accounts, you also give people portability within those, you allow them to be able to become true consumers, they watch their own money, they become very good at squeezing costs out of the system through the thousands and millions of individual choices that will be made. That is the way to go. I would allow for the competition between the big insurance companies. Again, in a period of time when you can communication around the world in the stroke of a pen, you should be able to buy health insurance across state lines. This would help lead to market-based reforms that would get us to where we need to go with health care.

We also need to focus on prevention in this country, and incentivize it. Have employers offer incentives for people, not, I would argue, punitive measures because you remain a free people. But incentivize prevention so we can get billions of dollars out of the system which come because of people with unnecessary injuries that could be prevented.

And now I'm getting the hook like "The Gong Show." Thank you Iowa, I'm off to see the butter cow. [applause]

###