The D-Day Interview: Bill Richardson

Bill Richardson certainly has the qualifications to be President: a Western-state governor, former Congressman, UN Ambassador, Secretary of Energy. He's a superior diplomat, having negotiated with the likes of Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il, as well as in Darfur. But his positions on issues, particularly by accepting a Republican frame on taxes always being bad, and by saying his model Supreme Court Justice would be the anti-Roe, anti-Miranda Whizzer White, have caused him some problems in the netroots. It was under this backdrop that I and my friends at Calitics sat down with Gov. Richardson for a 15-minute interview before his speech to the California Democratic Party convention. The Governor talked about the US Attorney scandal, a Western strategy for Democrats, energy, health care, Iraq and more. And yes, I used my question to try and pin him down on taxes. Here's a rough rundown of the Q&A.

Q: Talk about the US Attorneys scandal, particularly the firing of David Iglesias from your state of New Mexico.

A: I finally called for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. I gave him a chance to explain himself to the Senate first, but he didn't say that he wouldn't politicize the DoJ. The Attorney General should not be a crony, and he should not take instructions on political issues. I would appoint an AG with law enforcement experience, and also with civil liberties experience; perhaps a distinguished judge. As for Iglesias, I support ethics investigations into Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson. This story is resonating in New Mexico, and I think they'll have a tough time getting re-elected.

Q: Talk about Democratic efforts to win back the West, and why we have a chance.

A: The West is veering Democratic; we used to have 7 Republican governors in the region, now 5 out of 7 Democrats. What has helped? The rise of environmentalism. Sportsmen and hunters are disgusted with the "drill anything" energy policy of the Bush Administration. Smart growth and land use policy (you don't hear about this a lot from a Presidential candidate). Obviously immigration policy and the influx of new Americans has liberalized the West to an extent. There's a tradition of individualism and libertarianism in the West, and the Republican Party has increasingly walked away from those priorities.

Richardson then segued into his energy policies. New Mexico abides by the Kyoto protocols, the only state to do so. He would call for renewable energy standards as mandates and not goals. This can be done through cap-and-trade policies and through tax credits for renewable energy and R&D. "I'm an economic growth Democrat," he said, and he distanced himself from the "politics of redistribution" that he thinks represents the past. He would call for tax cuts for corporations that pay above a prevailing wage. He would implement a 3-year tax abatement for hi-tech companies.

Clearly, Richardson wants to set himself apart from the "tax and spend liberal" image. But I think that's an unnecessary frame. I'm going to go to hekebolos' transcript of my question to the Governor on that subject:

DDay: taxes. We had a PPIC poll in California that said that at least 65% said they would pay higher taxes if it meant they could get healthcare. I want to know how you respond to liberal Democrats who think that the rhetoric about taxation needs to change, about how America is worth paying for and taxes are the price you pay for a free society, instead of the rhetoric about taxes that the Republicans have been successful with.

Richardson: I think that kind of thinking has gotten us in trouble. I would replace the Bush tax cuts with cuts for the middle class and companies that create more jobs. I believe in tax cuts for the country to become green, and I'm for an Apollo program to reduce our dependence on foreign oils There's a huge job market for America in this. And I would ask Americans to sacrifice. I have a fuel-efficient vehicle. I'd double fuel efficiency in ten years. I've got the strongest policy on climate change. There needs to be aggressive mandates. I'd have a cap-and-trade system. On health care I believe you can have a universal plan and I think it can be financed through the existing inefficiencies in the system. 34% goes into bureaucracy and no electronic records. Then I'd do existing reforms, like allow every American to purchase a Congressional healthcare plan. Second, the war in Iraq. I'd shift lots of that to healthcare. I'd also have what Massachussetts and Cali are starting to do-everyone pays their fair share on healthcare, and those that can't, you give them a little subsidy and incentive. Not a tax cut, just hold down insurance costs. More personal responsibility. Taxing the rich to pay for everything won't help.

DDay: would you repeal the AMT?

Richardson: yes, I would fix that.

He made sure to say that "that kind of thinking" gets Democrats in trouble first. As I pointed out in my question, I think the great tax revolt is over. People are willing to fund government in exchange for a government that works. Richardson is, to me, fighting the last war on this.

The next question was about how so many in this country are falling behind economically and how they can be helped. As a side note, Richardson called for a passenger bill of rights, when he talked about a story from a recent plane flight, where a woman said to him, "I'm middle class, and I feel like the rich are taking from me, and the poor are taking from me, and I've got nothing." To me, this is the typical fallacy of "everyone's doing better than I am," but clearly there's a middle-class squeeze going on in the country. Here's the rest of Richardson's answer:

A: I believe in tax equity and tax fairness. The key to everything is education; I propose a minimum wage of $40K/year for teachers, I would extend the school day and the school year, institute universal pre-school and full-day kindergarten. How do you pay for all this, and health care, and energy, and cut taxes? I want a Balanced Budget Amendment and a line-item veto so I can eliminate pork and earmarks. I would deal with corporate welfare, and stop tax breaks for putting jobs overseas. I would mandate PAYGO rules, so you have to come up with revenue offsets for any spending. I would restructure the Bush tax cuts to reorder priorities.

Q: CA is not getting its fair share returned to us from the taxes we pay out.

A: Certainly true in homeland security. California gets the same amount of money as Wyoming. That's wrong; there are more targets here.

Q: What should be done by the Congress on Iraq after the expected veto?

A: Once the veto happens, I would propose legislation to de-authorize the war. It would start a fight with the War Powers Act that would go all the way to the Supreme Court, but we have to go big. There is no electoral downside to this. I would get out this calendar year, but with diplomacy. And I would have no residual troops in Iraq; maybe in the region but not in Iraq. (What about contractors, I asked. "Out!" he said.)

His answer on Iraq was tremendous, and it propelled him to a good reception at the convention. He was also the only candidate to talk specifically about immigration in his speech, and him saying "Tear down the wall" between the US and Mexico was an important thing to say. As a Hispanic, he had a connection on that issue, speaking in Spanish and repeating "Si se puede." But I just think his frame on taxes is flat-wrong and unrealistic. We should be calling for shared sacrifice at some point, to end this fallacy that we can be selfish as a virtue.

Also, most of his team in California is the Jane Harman team. Take that any way you want.

Finally, I want to contrast this blog post with Karen Tumulty's "why aren't you doing better, Bill" horse-race piece. And you wonder why people are looking beyond the traditional media.