My Positions
Every six years, Nebraskans have the opportunity to conduct a job interview for the position of US Senator. The person selected will have the task of improving life for all Nebraskans both now and in the foreseeable future. Given the weight of responsibility, it is incumbent on every candidate to explain in detail his or her vision for creating a more perfect union.
Before one can chart a path forward, it is necessary to assess our current state of affairs, and we Americans are in BIG trouble!
Our economy is failing to deliver prosperity for the vast majority. Our deficit continues to rise to alarming levels with the interest on our national debt surpassing our expenditure on national defense. The Congressional Budget Office repeatedly states that our deficit is NOT sustainable. Healthcare costs continue to rise pushing up the cost of Medicaid and Medicare.
Our foreign policy has alienated our traditional allies, destroyed our agricultural markets, and, ironically, strengthened China – our main foe, who would like nothing better than to see the West in decline.
Our children are addicted to cell phones. Misinformation is spewed out to the masses by Big Tech companies that hide behind Section 230, while raking in billions.
What is to be done? Although it has been said that 80% of success is just showing up, the same cannot be said of solving our nation’s problems. Just showing up in Washington, DC is not enough, our representatives must propose real solutions for our really big problems.
Economy: Deficit Reduction is the Way Forward
The question is not whether we can continue to grow our deficit as a percentage of our gross domestic product, the question is how dire the situation will get before we are forced to take action. To quote the economist Herbert Stein, “Something that cannot go on forever will not”. The sooner we take action to get our financial house in order the less pain we will be forced to endure later.
There is plenty of waste in the federal government, but hiring college graduates with little or no life experience is not the way to identify and eliminate significant governmental waste. A better approach would be to retain private sector consultants who would be paid a modest “success fee” – a percentage of any cost savings they are able to identify and obtain bi-partisan support to eliminate. A similar program could be enacted to reward federal employees who facilitate waste reduction.
Getting a Grip on Entitlement Programs
Three entitlement programs comprise approximately 43% of federal spending. We spend 22% on social security, 12% on Medicare, and 9% on Medicaid.
Since 1970, the United States has seen a seven-fold increase in healthcare spending after adjusting for inflation. As can be expected, this massive increase in healthcare spending is reflected in the high cost of Medicare and Medicaid.
What many Americans do not appreciate is that America is in the middle of a metabolic health crisis driving by our ever-increasing consumption of ultra processed food – food that has been stripped of fiber and made with added sugar.
Approximately 75% of our healthcare expense goes to the treatment of diseases that have some nexus to metabolic health such as type-2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, fatty liver disease, etc. Now for the shocking part, in 1970, Americans had approximately 75% few cases of these diseases. If we could get our health back to 1970 levels, we would see around a 55% reduction in our healthcare costs, which is equivalent to $2.7 trillion dollars annually.
Given that 98% of those on the Supplemental Assistance Program (SNAP) are also on Medicaid, we need to structure this program to incentivize recipients to move away from the purchase of ultra-processed food toward real food. Americans need to eat like grandma or great grandma so that we can have the health benefits held by earlier generations of Americans.
Our dietary recommendations and food packaging requirements need to be made by experts that have not been compromised as a result of funding from the food industry. Furthermore, no federal food or nutrition research grants should be awarded to any scientist who has received funding from the food industry in the prior 20 years.
Changes in food consumption from ultra-processed food to real food will give rise to improved health and decreased healthcare costs in a matter of years and not decades thereby reducing the cost of Medicaid. While the impact of Medicare will take longer given the demographics of this group, improved metabolic health will also help reduce the cost of this program.
The Social Security combined trust funds are projected to have insufficient funds to pay full benefits sometime between 2032 and 2034, at which time there would be funds to cover only 77% to 80% of current benefits. To ensure the viability of the program, there are only three options – (i) extend the age at which benefits may be claimed, (ii) lower the level benefits – either across the board or for recipients within certain income brackets, or (iii) raise payroll taxes.
Of these three options, by far the worst option would be to raise payroll taxes. Raising payroll taxes would place an added burden on both employees and employers. Given that most Americans are struggling in the current economy, especially young Americans trying to start families, the worst thing we could do would be to take more of their hard-earned income. Therefore, I would favor some modest combination of the first two options to address the projected Social Security shortfall.
Time to Take on Big Tech
I am a believer in free and fair markets. Despite our economic challenges, the problem does not stem from the millions of businesses that deliver, day after day, a breathtaking variety of goods and services.
It is not enough, however, that markets are free. They must also be fair. Over a hundred years ago, Theodor Roosevelt understood the need to take on the monopolies of his day. Today, we need a modern-day approach to address the growing concentration of Big Tech, which will only be further exasperated by AI.
Our free enterprise system combines labor, capital, land, and entrepreneurial ability to produce all the wonderful goods and services we enjoy. To incentivize owners to part with these inputs, it is only right that the owners of these inputs receive a fair return.
Once in a while, however, a business is able to achieve a long-term return that is above and beyond that which represents a fair return on labor, capital, land and entrepreneurial ability, and when this happens, we experience a market failure. The return that is above that which represents a fair return on the four inputs for a sustained period of time is known as “economic profit” and is earned by companies with a high degree of market concentration whether they be a monopoly, duopoly or oligopoly.
One common characteristic of such companies is that their very nature involves some type of network. This is true of nearly all Big Tech companies (Facebook is a social network, Google is a search engine that networks a vast group of users and websites, Microsoft’s operating system enables a network of software developers and computer users, etc.).
Current anti-trust legislation seeks to prevent such market failures by disallowing mergers or acquisitions that result in a high degree of market concentration or by breaking up companies that have achieved a high degree of market concentration. Historically, other solutions have involved public ownership (e.g. Norris Public Power), or regulations (e.g. the setting of prices that may be charged by private utilities).
Unfortunately, none of the traditional remedies can easily be applied to Big Tech. How would one break up Google’s search engine into many companies? By breaking an enterprise characterized by a network, one would destroy the essence of the product. For this reason, I would propose an “oligopoly tax” that would double corporate income tax rates for corporations with a market capitalization in excess of $500 billion that have achieved a market concentration in at least one area of 40% or more.
Economic Policy: Tariffs are Not the Solution
Our rising debt not only requires us to pay ever increasing interest payments (25% to 30% of which is paid to foreign debt holders), it also exacerbates our trade deficit by enabling exporting countries to use their earnings not to buy US products and services but rather to purchase US debt. Therefore, getting our financial house in order will also facilitate the export of American products, including agricultural products thereby increasing agricultural revenue.
Tariffs not only constrain trade but, as can be seen with the US soybean export market, often disrupt trading relationships that have taken years to develop.
Foreign Policy: Peace Through Strength
Renatus’ fourth century advice – “if you want peace, prepare for war” – is as true to today as ever. Therefore, I support a strong military that stays current with the changing nature of warfare.
Since WWII, NATO has significantly enhanced the security of Europe and the world. Therefore, I strongly support our continued support and membership in NATO.
Over the past decades, Europe should have spent more on its own defense and part of the blame for this can be placed at the feet of both Republican and Democratic administrations. Nevertheless, Europe is now rapidly increasing its defense spending, and we should work with them as they work to take responsibility for their own defense.
Since coming to power in the late 1990s, Putin’s Russia has become increasingly a malignant force in the world culminating in the invasion of Ukraine and the bombing of civilians and the kidnapping and forced relocation of Ukrainian children. It is naïve to think that America will not be impacted should the Ukrainian conflict spread to Poland, the Baltics and beyond. The time is now to increase military assistance and tighten economic sanctions.
The China Challenge
We Cannot Go It Alone
China presents a unique challenge to both our economic prosperity and global stability. Economically, China is an anomaly with massive government ownership of the means of production (e.g. the Chinese bank sector is largely state owned or controlled) combined with some characteristics of a market economy.
The labor market consists of what has been described as an “apartheid system”, which exerts considerable control over the workforce through the household registration system known as “hukou”. Consequently, international organizations, such as the WTO, have been ineffective in creating a level playing field for international trade.
China also consistently steals intellectual property from our leading companies and provides long-term subsidies to selected industries.
From a foreign policy perspective, China would like nothing more than to reduce the role of the West while expanding its sphere of influence to all of southeast Asia. Do we want to move back in time when “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”, to quote Thucydides. Or do we want to adhere to a rules-based international order that has served the West well?
To take on China both economically and geopolitically, we cannot go it alone. China will succeed only if it manages to divide the West. The combined power of the US, Europe, Japan and Australia far exceeds the economic and military power of China both now and for the foreseeable future. We can preserve the Western way of life but only through unity against our common adversary.
Section 230
No event has been more damaging to the fabric of our nation than the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996, which granted immunity to online service providers for any liability arising from user-generated content. The result has been to put traditional media companies (i.e. newspapers, radio, TV) at a tremendous disadvantage to providers of user generated content like Facebook and YouTube, while enabling these Big Tech companies to make money from content that is both untrue and often fraudulent.
As reported in the Wall Street Journal, foreign entities (often based in Southeast Asia) regularly take out fraudulent advertisements on Facebook that solicit payments for goods that will never be shipped by using the identity of legitimate companies. Despite the fact that such fraudulent activity has been conducted using the Facebook platform, Facebook has refused to take any action and has not faced any liability as a result of Section 230.
Therefore, I would favor the immediate repeal of Section 230. Such a repeal would not eliminate podcasts, online forums and the like; however, it would make them subject to the same rules that have applied to other media companies. I would favor an exception for peer-to-peer communication over a social media site where one could share information with up to a limited number of “friends” (e.g. 5,000).
However, even here, the service provider would be obligated to investigate reported fraud and take reasonable action to eliminate it. Once an online service provider facilitates communication with large numbers of individuals, it is no longer facilitating communication among “friends” but is a media company and should be subject to the same rules that apply to other media companies and have served our nation well since its founding.
Parental Controls on Cell Phone Internet Data Provided to Minors
There is now no doubt that the use of cell phones by minors has been harmful to their metal health and social development.
While the repeal of Section 230 would go a long way in cleaning up the social media cesspool, even with its repeal, parents should be given ability to control how their children access the internet. Therefore, I would require all mobile phone providers to grant parents and guardians the ability to turn off internet data to any mobile phone used by their minor child. This would allow the child to use the phone to call or text a parent or guardian as needed without allowing them to engage for hours on end with harmful social media.
Education: Public Elementary and Secondary Education School Choice
Despite considerable spending on elementary and secondary education, (only Luxembourg, Norway, Austria and South Korea spend more), we rank 9th in reading, 13th in science and 28th in math among our other OECD countries. School choice through charter schools should continue to be implemented and techniques that have help states such as Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama improve should be implemented.
Education: Post Secondary
The most important objective of any public college or university is to provide high quality, affordable education to its students. Unfortunately, the federal student loan program has enabled university administrators to increase the cost of tuition, housing and other college expenses by more than the rate of inflation, year after year. Consequently, it is now nearly impossible for a student with a demanding major to graduate with a reasonable level of student debt without outside financial assistance.
Instead of serving as a means for social mobility, universities are now a tool for preserving the status of the elite.
The instructional initiatives of public universities fall broadly into two categories – the provisions of an education that provides a student with (i) knowledge and skills that will enable him or her to provide a valuable service to society or (ii) an understanding of goodness, truth or beauty. Unfortunately, over the last few decades, there has been a proliferation of majors, many of which have the word “studies” in their title, that accomplish neither of these objectives, or worse, promote a political agenda.
No university should receive federally guaranteed student loans unless its students, without outside assistance, can fully repay student debt within 10 years using no more than 25% of an average graduate’s after-tax income.
Such an approach would effectively place a cap on what public universities can charge based on what a graduate earning a certain degree can realistically expect to earn, thereby restoring access to college education to everyone, not just to students from affluent families.