Transcript and more below the fold:
Will you support the Ryan budget, and if not, why?
Jerry Clarke answers that he will support it with his own statist tweeks. Rodney Davis agrees, saying "Ditto", referencing remarks earlier in the forum among the candidates about how much they all agreed.
Erika Harold, who mentioned Ryan as someone she admires in the context of a possible Speakership, said:
I support the principle of trying to reduce spending. One of the concerns I would have is that there are a lot of social service programs that were affected. My concern would be that those costs were passed down to the state. Oftentimes there is an interplay between federal and state government programs and the funding sources. And so I would want to be sure that we're not just cutting federal funding obligations, and then kicking it down to the state, because that doesn't really address the problem. Because the reality is there are people who are going to need these sorts of resources, and if we just cut it at the federal level and push it down to the states without providing proper resources,we haven't really solved anything at all.
Kathy Wassink says "Absolutely", she supports the Ryan Budget.
When is it appropriate to increase tax rates?
Davis pauses and says "Never."
Well, I certainly don't support raising taxes, but I'm not somebody who wants to make pledges that sort of would restrain my ability to, perhaps, govern effectively. If for example our nation was faced with a natural disaster, or if our military spending and budget required it, I wouldn't want to preclude the ability to raise taxes. But my inclination would always be to look to find of reducing spending, because I think that's always preferable to raising taxes, but I'm not somebody who likes to make across the board pledges, because I think it sometimes hampers your ability to operate responsibly in the future.
So Harold thinks there's a chance we're not taxed enough, and doesn't want to promise not to raise them.
I would support tort reform, but I would want to make sure that it really balanced the respect for victim's rights, because what's at issue in what we commonly call 'tort reform' is how much someone can actually recover. And so I would want to make sure we were able to have the kind of recovery that enabled people to have insurance, that didn't dissuade them from being able to practice their profession. However, I wouldn't want to limit a victim from being able to fully recover if they were actually injured.
The reality is that sometimes accidents happen. And it happens through no mistake of the doctor, where the suit is brought, and sometimes it goes to a jury. What we would want to do in those circumstances is make sure a doctor isn't penalized, and driven out of the medical profession, but we would also want to ensure that that victim is fully compensated. So I think it's really important to look at the type of tort refrom. I'm certainly in favor of it, but we need to make sure we protect victim's rights, as well.
Note that Harold wants "victims" to be compensated in cases where no one is to blame. Who compensates them? Is it insurers, with some rule where they can't raise the provider's insurance rates, or is it the government? Either way, this is not tort reform at all.
The issue is not whether victims get compensated, but to rein in the abuses. Limiting rewards for pain and suffering is not the same as denying people access to the court system for redress of wrongs they have suffered.
Cutting money from the federal budget doesn't keep states from spending the money they want to spend. If a job is a state job, then states should raise the money to do it.
Harold seems to want to sound like a fiscal conservative, but doesn't seem to understand that the reason we're in a fiscal mess is never that we have taxed too little, but always that we have spent too much.