Bill Randall (right) visits with US Rep. Howard Coble and conservative activist Isabella Adkins at Bur-Mil Park in Greensboro in June.
Bill Randall, the Republican nominee challenging incumbent Democrat Brad Miller for the US House seat representing North Carolina’s 13th District, says the Obama administration and Democratic Congress’ effort to create jobs through stimulus spending and repealing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is exactly the wrong approach.
“We need to reduce burdensome taxes and regulation,” he says. “We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the free world behind Japan. We’re looking at the tax rate going up to 20 percent. That’s $200,000 for a business making a million dollars. You know what they could do with that? They could hire five employees at $40,000 with $200,000.”
The candidate calls for a reduction of “extensive regulation” on business, with the caveat that he’s not opposed to all regulation. Asked to provide specifics, he said some “unwarranted EPA regulation” should be reviewed, and reporting requirements should be streamlined so that industries report to one rather than five agencies. He adds that health and safety issues in industries ranging from poultry to offshore oil drilling are more tied to poor enforcement than inadequate regulation, characterizing the safety record of offshore oil drilling as “impeccable,” notwithstanding the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Randall opposes Democratic efforts to phase out the Bush-era tax cuts for people in the highest income brackets, characterizing them as unfair and impractical.
“Why are you going to discriminate with concern to tax cuts?” he asked. “Why are you going to deny tax cuts to the so-called wealthy? The individuals in the upper income brackets are the ones who are going to invest it. If you were to seize all of the wealth of the rich today — individuals who comprise the upper part of our economy — you would only pay for a small fraction of the national debt. It’s not that taking money from the rich is going to make a substantive difference. I believe tax cuts ought to be extended to all risk takers. You need to have the tax breaks. The odds are against you. Eighty percent of all businesses fail in the first year. Ninety-six percent of all businesses fail in the first five years. The reward for risk is profit. As long as someone is not doing a ponzi scheme or defrauding someone else, they should be able to make money. We need to stop this class warfare of saying only tax cuts for the middle class.”
The healthcare reform legislation passed by the Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama remains a galvanizing issue for Randall, who traded on his tea party-movement bona fides to defeat a more moderate opponent in the Republican runoff election in June. “Abominable” and “detestable” are a few of the words he uses to describe the Affordable Care Act, which prevents health insurance companies from dropping subscribers based on preexisting conditions, allows young people to stay on their parents’ plans up to the age of 26, and reduces the cost of healthcare, according to Miller and many of his fellow Democrats.
Randall opposes the legislation on several levels, and disputes the notion that it will bend the cost curve.
“We were promised it was going to reduce healthcare costs,” he said. “The Congressional Budget Office is going to crunch the numbers based on what Congress gives them. The numbers weren’t based on reality; they were based on fantasy. Health costs are going to skyrocket. We were given false promises. It turns out to be a Pandora’s box with a nightmare unveiled every week. How in the world can you increase the number of people who are covered and not increase the cost?”
The Congressional Budget Office, whose mandate is to provide Congress with objective and nonpartisan analysis, estimates that healthcare reform will reduce federal deficits by $143 billion over the next decade.
Among Randall’s concerns is a provision he says was snuck into the bill that requires businesses to fill out a 1099 form every time they make a transaction of $600 or more. He said the provision is likely to have the unintended consequence of encouraging large companies with multiple vendors to consolidate accounts with the result that some of the vendors go out of business.
The candidate predicted that the reform legislation is likely to make parts of the business of providing healthcare so unprofitable that hospitals will have difficulty filling the positions, with the result that they will be forced to ration services.
Instead, Randall would like to see insurance companies be allowed to compete across state lines so that consumers can shop for the lowest price. He wants to “get government out of mandating” coverage, offering that preexisting conditions are to health insurance more or less what a record of DWIs or accidents are to auto insurance. Expanding the market for health insurance across state lines would reduce the cost of health insurance sufficiently to compensate for the rate increases imposed on people with preexisting conditions, he said.
Randall also favors tort reform to reduce the amount of money doctors and hospitals have to pay out to successful plaintiffs for medical malpractice, calling the current levels “ridiculous.”
A retired Navy command master chief, Randall differs with his opponent on the United States’ military commitment in Afghanistan. While Miller does not support an unending deployment in Afghanistan, Randall faults President Obama for setting a timetable for a drawdown of troops.
“I think the current policy needs to be revamped to allow our military to have the rules of engagement necessary to do their job,” he said. “Our military has had their hands tied with what they’ve been able to do and not been able to do.”
Randall also extends more credit to Afghan President Hamid Karzai than does Miller.
“A lot of criticism has been given to President Karzai,” the candidate said, “for the fact that he is pushing relations with the Taliban. I think a lot of that has to do with the uncertainty of the Americans. Karzai is no fool. If our president is talking in terms of, ‘We’re going to be leaving possibly next year,’ Karzai is looking at being strung up to the nearest tree.
“If we’re not clearly spelling out that we’re going to be there until victory is achieved, we are selling ourselves short and we’re not going to see the victory,” he added. “If we spelled out our mission clearly in an unambiguous manner, I think you would see that he would drive a hard bargain with the Taliban and al-Qaida.”
No comments:
Post a Comment