Home Upcoming Events About VNH Donate to VNH Coming Soon...

Email page to a friend

Printer-friendly version

Steve Forbes - The Victory NH Interview
Part II
 

We could think of no better way to kick off our Business Leader Solution Series than with the man who arguably brought the current series of proposed free-market reforms to the forefront of the national debate. Please join us once again in welcoming Steve Forbes...

VNH: Last time we focused on the flat tax, but I think a lot of people have forgotten that when you ran for President, you championed a number of free-market reforms - the kind of business-oriented approaches to public policy that began to bloom under President Reagan. His thinking was influenced by publications like National Review and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Who were the greatest influences on you?

Forbes: I’d have to start with great figures like Milton Freedman and Ronald Reagan, who demonstrated that you can go into the public square with ideas and eventually bring people around to them if you stick to it. What Bob Bartley and others did with The Wall Street Journal demonstrates that sensible editorials can have an influence and can change the course of history.

VNH: In addition, of course, to Flat Tax Revolution, what other books on public policy would you recommend?

Forbes: People should consider reading Flat Tax (from which I got the idea) – by Alvin Rabushka and Robert Hall of the Hoover Institution. And then there’s a book called The Way the World Works - by Jude Wanniski, who just recently passed away. In the field of economics, the man was a genius – in other areas he was off the wall.  In this area he had it right. And that book details, as well as any other book does, how taxes have affected our history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2005 Bill Fish Photography

VNH: I think it’s fair to say, that of all the free-market reforms that you brought to the forefront, the one that is clearly on center stage these days is Social Security reform. As with tax reform, it’s been greeted with all kinds of distortions and misrepresentations. What do you suggest we do to make personal savings accounts a reality?

Forbes: Well, I think what went wrong this past year, to be blunt, was the failure of the White House, the President, to come up with a specific proposal right from the beginning.  He knew the other side was going to attack his proposal and understood that in the course of debate it would change enormously. Had there been something specific out there, right off the bat, people would have seen what it was and what it was not. If the Administration had come out with a specific proposal, people would have realized that if you’re above the age of 50 or 55, the new system would not concern you. The money is there for you in the current system. This is for people who are in their 20s and 30s. People would have seen right away that with the new approach, benefits would not be slashed and no one was going to rip up Grandma’s Social Security check. I think this was a missed opportunity - to take away the chance of the demagogues painting all sorts of lurid pictures about what would happen.

"Those folks are retiring today with benefits 50% to 200% higher than they would have had with Social Security."

And if we base the personal savings accounts on the model of a, say, Federal Thrift Savings Plan (which works for millions of people now), people would see that they’re not going to be dumped into an Enron-like situation. You’re not going to be able to invest your money in gold mines in Thailand. There will be a handful of diversified, well-regulated (for safety) funds. This will not be mad-money time; you could just go into government bonds or federal-guaranteed CDs.

Frankly, I could never figure out why President Bush, who comes from Texas, didn’t cite Galveston as an example.
In Galveston, three counties pulled out of the Social Security system more than 20 years ago and put their money not in the stock market but in interest-guaranteed insurance contracts - bank CD’s and the like. And guess what? Those folks are retiring today with benefits 50% to 200% higher than they would have had with Social Security. So this is a real-life example. This kind of plan works.

And again, people need to have a choice. If you want to take your chances with the old system, go do so. Jose Pinera, who brought this system to Chile in the early 1980s said, “You’ve got to give people a choice so they don’t feel something is going to be taken away from them. And when they feel they have a choice, they’re going to be much more open to change or considering change.”

VNH: Speaking of choice, another issue you campaigned on was education reform. This is a big issue in New Hampshire, and we have groups such as The New Hampshire Center for School Reform and the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy fighting to open up our system. But, as you know, opposition runs very deep. It has now been 50 years since Milton Freedman introduced school vouchers – 50 years! What has to happen to break the Teacher’s Union monopoly?

"'If we’re not happy with what’s happening to our child in a certain school, we want the opportunity to try to find another school.' What could be more American than that?"

 

Forbes: I think what has to happen is more of what we’re doing now. That is, making clear to people that reform is about accountability and choice; it’s not about taking anything away from anyone. It’s about allowing us as a free people to say, “If we’re not happy with what’s happening to our child in a certain school, we want the opportunity to try to find another school.” What could be more American than that?

What you see in states that have charter schools is that those schools are being starved of the funding they need to be successful. We have to ask ourselves this question: We’ve had 20 years of ever-increasing spending on public education, and we’re still not getting the results we want; isn’t it time that we gave some other approaches a chance?

Not every kid is the same. So one kid may thrive in one kind of school, another kid may have to go to a different kind of school to get on track. We’re not all the same, just as we’re not all the same size. We don’t all develop the same. As the father of five daughters, I can tell you they are all very different! (laughter)

VNH: One of the things I remember most from your campaigns were the Medical Savings Accounts that you put in place at Forbes Magazine. What was particularly appealing was that you weren’t just talking about some abstract idea. This was something that your company had used successfully. How do Medical Savings Accounts work?

 

© 2005 Bill Fish Photography

Forbes: Each year you get $2,000, and that $2,000 comes before your deductible. So if in the course of the year you don’t spend the $2,000, you get to roll the remainder over. It belongs to you. If you want to spend your $2,000 on a big gold tooth from the dentist, go right ahead. I don’t care, it’s yours. If you go above $2,000 in your expenses, then the insurance deductible, based on the size of your salary, must be met. Having a “one deductible fits all” system is ridiculous. The deductible for somebody earning $20,000 should be different from somebody earning $500,000. But if you go above the deductible in your expenses, then the insurance kicks in.

"If it doesn’t belong to you, you’re less likely to take responsibility for it. As Newt Gingrich likes to point out, “You don’t wash rented cars."

The key is, if you want a functioning health care system, you have to let people control the resources. Our experience has been that Forbes’ health care premium costs - even though we give a lot of money upfront - have gone up less than those of our peers, because our people have a stake in how their money is spent. It’s very basic: If it doesn’t belong to you, you’re less likely to take responsibility for it. As Newt Gingrich likes to point out, “You don’t wash rented cars.”

When people control the dollars, most people will try to get value for those dollars. For example, in the last 10 years, the cost of laser surgery for eyes has gone down by two-thirds. In other words, it costs you about a third of what it did 10 or 15 years ago. Why? Because in most cases, it’s not covered by insurance. You have to pay for it. So providers have an incentive to try to make this procedure more affordable. With the current system of “somebody else is paying for it,” the tendency is to have a cost-plus mentality; therefore, expenses rocket out of control. What we want is for people to control their health care dollars so they can bring the kind of pressure to bear that occurs in every other part of the economy - the end result will be that everyone gets more value for their money.

" Now the cynics will say that people won’t take care of themselves, won’t get necessary medical treatments. But that’s like saying if you allow people to buy their own food they’ll starve themselves. No. Most people take care of themselves."

Now this may sound counter-intuitive, but we’ve found it cheaper at our company to buy a high-deductible insurance policy and give the person who works here the bulk of that deductible, or even more than a normal deductible would be. We give you most of that deductible up front or during the course of the year. By taking this approach, our overall insurance costs less, even though we’re giving each employee $2,000. And people, as with everything else they buy, will be sure to get the best value they can for that money. Now the cynics will say that people won’t take care of themselves, won’t get necessary medical treatments. But that’s like saying if you allow people to buy their own food they’ll starve themselves. No. Most people take care of themselves.

VNH: Another pocketbook issue is the rapid rise in gas prices. You recently made a rather bold prediction about oil prices. Tell us what you think will happen and why.

Forbes: I think the real bubble today is not the one that’s been discussed, at least until recently — the so-called housing bubble. In a free market, when housing costs get out of line, you know they will eventually taper off. The real bubble is in the price of oil. Part of the responsibility for this occurring lies with the Federal Reserve.  It printed too much money. But I think what’s happened is that speculators have taken over and run this thing up far beyond what it should be. If you look at supply and demand and at inflation, oil should be running $35 to $40 a barrel. Three years ago, it was $20 to $25 a barrel. Going up 50% to 75% is a big jump, and to have the per-barrel price at $60 to $70 is absolute pure froth and speculation. The President should go beyond what he is already doing, allowing companies to borrow from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to make up for the short falls from the wells that were damaged by Hurricane Katrina. He should be actively selling from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That would flush out the speculators. I think you’d see prices go down $15 to $20 a barrel.

"He should be actively selling from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That would flush out the speculators. I think you’d see prices go down $15 to $20 a barrel."

VNH: There seems to be a renewed wave of protectionist sentiment coming from certain quarters of our society. With your experience in global markets, what does America need to do to remain competitive?

Forbes: We will not remain competitive if we isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. We should remember, as painful as it is, that we’re not going to stop change. Look at agriculture, for example. In the last 60 to 70 years, millions of farming jobs have disappeared. They didn’t go to China, they didn’t go to India; they just disappeared. Whether a job just disappears or goes overseas, it is part of the life cycle.  The key is, what do we do to create new jobs, more opportunities? That’s why the current tax code is a hindrance, a real drain, a real burden. It gets in the way of the American dream by putting huge, unnecessary burdens on people and wasting incalculable amounts of brain power that should be applied to innovation and the starting of new businesses. On top of that, we have the highest (except for Japan) corporate tax rate of the industrialized nations. Even Germany and France have lower corporate tax rates. We’re penalizing businesses unnecessarily and we’re burdening people unnecessarily. So we’re like a baseball player – we’re doing very well; we’re batting about 300, but we’re capable of hitting 380.

VNH: In terms of corporate taxes, what about American companies with foreign subsidiaries?

Forbes: We should tax the way countries like Ireland and most other countries do tax companies on what they earn here, but don’t tax them on what they earn in other parts of the world. Otherwise, you end up creating an incentive for companies to leave their profits overseas so they don’t get double-taxed.

This is an amazing thing: About a year ago, Washington finally figured out that there was about $600 billion in unrepatriated profits overseas. If companies don’t bring the money home, they don’t pay U.S. income tax on it. Naturally, they’ve been leaving it overseas. Last year, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, instituted a one-year amnesty – instead of paying 35% federal tax, if you repatriate profits, you pay, I think, 5.5% tax. And guess what? Companies are planning to bring back a couple hundred billion dollars, and that money will now be invested here. Which brings us to the question:  Why make it just a one-year program?

VNH: Two final issues that are clearly going to have an effect on the 2006 and the 2008 election cycles: immigration and the War on Terror. Let’s start with immigration. Obviously, we have to do more to secure our borders. But there’s the flip side to that coin, which you’ve talked about in your Fact and Comment column that high-tech companies, for instance, need to be able to bring more skilled labor (legal immigrants) into this country. How do you balance these very difficult issues?

"My grandfather came over here as a legal immigrant - penniless, as were most other immigrants. They had drive and ambition and a desire to make something of their lives. That’s the kind of energy we want in this country. "

Forbes: Well, I think in terms of immigration, it sounds simple, but we do have to make the distinction between illegal and legal immigration. My grandfather came over here as a legal immigrant - penniless, as were most other immigrants. They had drive and ambition and a desire to make something of their lives. That’s the kind of energy we want in this country.

In terms of illegal immigration (I know this is highly controversial), I think it’s got to be part of a comprehensive approach. First, we’ve got to reform the INS. Bill O’Reilly, I think, was right in saying that the next big bomb waiting to go off after Katrina and our lack of fast response there is our lack of control at the borders. Somebody bad is going to get in because we can’t control the borders. The INS, you would think (especially after 9/11) would have developed software that would enable them to know who should be allowed into this country and who shouldn’t. They don’t know today. Laws need to be streamlined for legal people who are trying to get in here legally. If you try to go through the INS procedures, it’s one frustration after another. We punish you for trying to go by the rules and by the book. We must replace this broken bureaucracy with a department built on solid management practices.

"So, let’s just stop playing pretend. If we have a need, let’s deal with it. But let’s find out who should be here and who shouldn’t. We have the technology do to that."

Second, if we conclude that there are certain parts of the economy that need people from Mexico and elsewhere to work in them, why not have a program wherein they come here to  work for a certain period of time, as long as we know who’s here. And if someone overstays his time, we send him back home. Right now, we have millions of people living in our country for whom we have no means of identification and no way to know where they came from. We know after 9/11 that this is just begging for trouble. So, let’s just stop playing pretend. If we have a need, let’s deal with it. But let’s find out who should be here and who shouldn’t. We have the technology to do that.

Now on the high-tech side, sadly, we’re not turning out enough scientists and engineers. You look at Silicon Valley or even across the country about one-fourth to one-half of the students in our advanced programs in math or the sciences are from overseas. Rather than sending those folks home, since they’ve gotten their education here, we should be tapping into that brain power.  We shouldn’t be letting China or India get it. George Gilder, and I don’t think he’s being totally facetious, said that graduates in physics from, say, MIT should have a green card imbedded in their diplomas that say: “Apply your brain power here. We could use it.”

I was just in Australia, and a lot of universities there are now recruiting kids from Asia, saying, “You’re going to have a hard time getting into the U.S. with all the immigration hassles. Come over here. If we find that you’re clean, you’re not going to be hassled.” Those kids should be coming here and staying here to work, then we would all benefit.

VNH: Finally, that brings us to the issue upon which Victory New Hampshire was founded - the War on Terror. Let’s wrap things up with your thoughts on America’s efforts to date, and how you see us winning this war.

"Trying to create an environment that has some semblance of representative government in the Middle East is profoundly positive. Now, we can point to mistakes that were made, the long-term planning that was not done; but the basic thrust of the mission, I think, is absolutely important and critical. If America doesn’t
lead the fight on terror, the world is going to lose.
"

Forbes: I think that the approach of denying the terrorists sanctuary in Afghanistan and Iraq is absolutely of fundamental importance. Trying to create an environment that has some semblance of representative government in the Middle East is profoundly positive. Now, we can point to mistakes that were made, the long-term planning that was not done; but the basic thrust of the mission, I think, is absolutely important and critical. If America doesn’t lead the fight on terror, the world is going to lose. We’re the only ones who can lead.

I think one thing that we have to keep in mind is that we’ve been fighting this war for almost 90 years. If you look at the ideology of Al Qaeda, the Bath Party and other fanatical groups, they didn’t just pop out of the Koran, or a perversion of the Koran, or out of the sands of the Middle East. A lot of the ideology is the same as that which came out of Europe after World War I - totalitarian ideology. And if you look at these ideologies today, they’re a pastiche - a lethal brew of Marxism, Nietche-like Nihilism and Nazism. It’s not new stuff. We tend to think that when we beat the Nazis in World War II and when we broke the back of Soviet Communism with the fall of the Berlin Wall that we had finally buried these totalitarian ideologies once and for all. No. Islamic fanaticism is the latest mutant of this virus that began almost 90 years ago. We’ve been fighting the same virus on various fronts. World War II was a huge event. The Cold War was different from World War II. This phase, against Islamic fanaticism, is different from the Cold War, but it’s part of a continuum of battling hideous ideologies in which we’ve been engaged for almost nine decades.

VNH: We’ve covered a wide range of issues. Is there anything you’d like to leave our readers with?

Forbes: Very basically - we live in a free country. And while free people in a free country make mistakes, our virtue is that we learn from mistakes. We pursue opportunities.  That’s why we ultimately go from strength to strength, overcoming the limitations of human nature.

 

 

Click here to read Part 1 of our exclusive interview with Steve Forbes…

And if you're not receiving our activist alert emails, click here to sign up, today!

Home | Upcoming Events | About Us | Donate | Coming Soon

Victory NH — 497 Hooksett Road, #162, Manchester, NH 03104 — 603-624-8253 — VictoryNewHampshire@VictoryNH.com
Copyright © 2008 by Victory New Hampshire