Here & Now

Phil Anderson, U.S. Senate Candidate - Full Interview

Frederica Freyberg:

All right, well first we want to say Phil Anderson, thanks very much for doing this with us.

Phil Anderson:

It’s my pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, in the latest Marquette Law School Poll you garnered between 7% and 8%. Why did you launch this campaign?

Phil Anderson:

We launched it last October. Sort of a slow roll out. I announced that I was running and I’ve been doing a lot of social media stuff over the winter, organizing volunteers, things like that. I’ve got the endorsement of my party at our state convention and at our national convention, and really started kicking things off in earnest when it got warm out this last spring. Things have been going very, very well.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why do you want to be in the U.S. Senate?

Phil Anderson:

I think it’s time that we–there’s somebody’s dissenting from big government in the United States Senate. And not only just big government but the kind of government where it’s more or less influenced more and more by big moneyed interests, unions, corporations, et cetera. And lately, for the last at least few decades, republicans and democrats have both been growing the government more invasive, more war. And I identify as a libertarian and it’s time to step up and do something about it.

Frederica Freyberg:

I want to talk about jobs and the economy. Your approach to growing jobs and the economy is to simplify the tax code, reduce taxes and regulation. Would you eliminate federal taxes altogether?

Phil Anderson:

I would eliminate the federal income tax if I could wave a magic wand, to borrow a phrase from Gary Johnson. Income tax is basically a tax on productivity and success. So if we have to cover obligations at the federal level, whether they’re defense or paying off debt or whatever, I think those taxes should be shifted to the consumption side. That makes a lot more sense. It doesn’t penalize people’s success. It doesn’t penalize job creation, which is what income taxes and payroll taxes do now.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, I understand that you would also like to eliminate the IRS.

Phil Anderson:

Ideally, yes.

Frederica Freyberg:

If you eliminate the IRS, though who then takes in, if you want to eliminate federal income taxes, get rid of the IRS, so there’s no apparatus at all for intaking revenue?

Phil Anderson:

Well, the states do that now. They collect taxes and forwarding that to the federal government through the Department of the Treasury or something like that. Shouldn’t be a problem. It’s a basic formula at that point. And it’s not as convoluted and corrupt and coercive as the current tax code is and as the current IRS is.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now you say that communities should count on local action to solve problems. What does that mean?

Phil Anderson:

I believe, and I see because I look that people and neighborhoods and communities and families solve problems every single day. They don’t have the kind of PR that political parties do or that governments do. But that’s where the majority of the good work gets done right now. And I think that we can rely on people, especially when more of their income and more of their time is freed up to act as they already do. To act in love and help and support of their neighbors and solving problems on a local level without the coercive, expensive influence of the federal government.

Frederica Freyberg:

What kinds of problems are we talking about? Are we talking about local crime or?

Phil Anderson:

Well, crime, homelessness, poverty. Any problem that you can think of can be solved on a local level better than on the national level.

Frederica Freyberg:

And does this mean charitable help or?

Phil Anderson:

Well, charitable, like officially charitable, yes, through non-profits, churches, whatever. But also the kind of help that people self-organize and do every day. Helping in their neighborhoods, helping their families.

Frederica Freyberg:

On trade, what is your position on trade deals that have been ratified in the past and the more current Trans-Pacific Partnership deal?

Phil Anderson:

I think the TPP is a bad idea. NAFTA was a bad idea. Most trade deals that have been passed are playing favorites in some way, shape or form and are inhibiting the movement of goods and services across our borders. The best trade deals are one that require one piece of paper. Very little and that is just to maybe regulate how things come in and out of the ports in terms of inspections or something like that. But the more free trade we have and the more freedom of goods and services and people across borders who are willing to work, the better our economy does because I believe America’s competitive in a way where we can be competitive in the world market and do very, very well.

Frederica Freyberg:

So you’re saying that you like free trade but not these agreements?

Phil Anderson:

No, no, no. They’re not really strictly speaking free trade. They’re always playing winners or losers. Picking industries that are going to do better than other industries or different countries that have different trade statuses with us. The most, the best free trade, the best way to promote prosperity in terms of our trade with other countries is to have it as free as possible, as free of coercion and manipulation as possible.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now you

???

took a plank off your website on the issues and that is privacy. You say that your body is your body, your defense is your defense. Now the first one first, what does that mean? Your body is your body.

Phil Anderson:

The means that you, a person, has rights. And these rights according to natural law and according to our founding documents are that people have the right to live their life as they choose, as long as they don’t interfere with another person’s right to do the same. So the things that I do with my body, whether you know, what I eat, what I smoke, how I dress, whatever, all of those things are particular to me. And as long as I’m not harming somebody else by the choices that I make, then I have the right to do that without any government interference.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let me ask you if this means that you favor abortion rights, gay marriage and legalization of pot, for example?

Phil Anderson:

Legalization of pot, yes. That is, the whole war on drugs is just a war on people. And that’s actually a whole other question that I was hoping you’d ask me. Gay marriage, fine. The government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. There’s no interest there in deciding who should form contracts with each other and who’s loving each other. The issue of abortion I differ from our national platform on. Actually our national platform leaves it a little ambiguous. I believe that medically, logically, physiologically, that after fertilization and some point shortly thereafter that this is a human being entitled to rights. So constitutionally I think that abortion should be illegal.

Frederica Freyberg:

On the second prong of that has to do with guns obviously. Your defense is your defense. What’s your position on background checks for people buying guns at gun shows or on the Internet?

Phil Anderson:

I think that the second amendment is listed the second for a particular reason. And that is, all the rights that we are–that are recognized in the bill of rights are not good if they can’t be defended from each other, from criminal activity, from even our government. And so I understand that people should have the right, do have the right to protect themselves in whatever way they see fit. And with whatever weapon they see fit. Now in terms of checks, somebody who is a convicted felon, somebody who has a clearly diagnosed mental illness that makes them unstable, that’s where I would draw the line at. But with a caveat, and that is that once you allow exceptions for mental illness, then the government’s still defining mental illness. And at some point they could define it as a belief system or something like that that then becomes a way to discriminate against people and whether they can defend themselves.

Frederica Freyberg:

Moving on to Social Security, what’s your position on whether the Social Security program should be maintained?

Phil Anderson:

It should be maintained but phased out. We need to raise the retirement age and we need to stop making promises that we can’t keep. The government has done historically bad job of stewarding, being stewards of our income and our funds. It should be phased out. People should be allowed to opt out. And eventually we should get rid of that program altogether over the next 10 or 20 years.

Frederica Freyberg:

On health care, given your position on getting government out of the way as you say, how do you view the Affordable Care Act?

Phil Anderson:

It’s a disaster. It’s a handout to the insurance companies basically. If you equate health insurance with let’s say auto insurance. When you have auto insurance, it’s for catastrophic events. You get in a car wreck or hail damage or whatever that might be. You don’t have auto insurance to pay for your oil changes or regular maintenance. But we have health insurance that’s basically set up to do that, including the Affordable Care Act. That makes it a lot slower and lot more expensive. There are good examples in the marketplace where health care is being provided at very inexpensive rates by subscription services. For example, one called Atlas MD in Wichita. And there are many of these across the nation. Where you pay a subscription price, relatively low, might be $40 or $50 a month. And that gets you direct access to a doctor, routine care, routine labs and checks and things like that. And then you still carry health insurance for those cases that are emergencies. But you’re not going through the health insurance process and expense for things that are routine. That’s a reform that we need and that our corrupt federal government, democrats and republicans have been part of that health insurance handout for a long time.

Frederica Freyberg:

What about the people who were formerly uninsured before the ACA?

Phil Anderson:

For in the short term, now I don’t favor funding people’s health insurance in the long term. I think the market does a much better job of that. But in the short term, if we are issuing vouchers so that people can use them for the kind of subscription services that I’m talking about or to use them on the free market, I’d be in favor of that.

Frederica Freyberg:

And on national security you say that in the name of spreading liberty and democracy, the U.S. has destabilized the world. How at this juncture does the U.S. stay safe in the face of ISIS?

Phil Anderson:

Well, we need to still maintain a defensive posture in regarding ISIS. Clearly they’ve declared war on the United States. Whatever that means. But we’ve created this situation with a 100 plus years of basically imperialistic activity across the world, especially in the Middle East. In the name of oil, in the name of promoting the dollar as the reserve currency of the world, we’ve created this problem. So the challenge for any libertarian who’s running for federal office is we have a set of ideals about what our understanding of the individual and having rights and delegating those to the government. But we can’t walk away from the current situation. So for now, we need to continue to defend ourselves against ISIS and any other foreign threats. We shouldn’t have boots on the ground in the Middle East. We should try to uninvolve ourselves overseas. Not only in the Middle East but in Europe and Asia and everywhere else. It’s basically imperialistic activity that in the long run has made us a lot less safe than more safe.

Frederica Freyberg:

What’s your position on allowing Syrian refugees to enter the U.S. and how many, if any, should be allowed?

Phil Anderson:

I think we should allow as many as want to come. And we do need to screen them to a certain extent because we may have information about them actually being terrorists. And I think that’s fine. We have a responsibility to the American people to defend. That’s part of the constitutional obligation of the federal government. But beyond that, immigrants come in and they want to work generally. And as long as they’re willing to work and support themselves and be law-abiding citizens in the United States, I don’t have any problem with that at all.

Frederica Freyberg:

On immigration, do you believe in a path to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants in this country?

Phil Anderson:

Yes, I do. I think that we’re at fault to a certain extent for the ridiculously, poorly-run immigration system that we have. That there are many, many people who want to and have immigrated here successfully who provide value and good citizenship to our society and our economy. And that most of the people, the vast majority of the people that have come here illegally have done so to work out of desperation. And even though they are here technically illegally, we need to find a way to incorporate them into our economy in a legal way because they’re already working and providing value and being good citizens. Those who are not, they should leave. And I don’t have any problem with that. But there are very few of the undocumented workers, illegal immigrants, who are actually causing problems.

Frederica Freyberg:

On veterans, we’ve seen major problems as you know at the Tomah VA and the veterans’ home in King. How do you make sure that veterans are cared for within the confines of a leaner federal government?

Phil Anderson:

Well, I think we should, again, we owe them an obligation. We made a promise to them when they volunteered that we’d take care of them afterwards. Like I said, it’s an obligation that we have to honor. But the VA system is much like other departments in the federal government in that when people are confined to them, they don’t get good service. I think what we should do is issue veterans vouchers or give them opportunities to use their benefits in the market. So if they are closer to a facility that can service their health needs, they shouldn’t be riding buses all around Wisconsin like what’s going on now. People riding buses hours a day to get their care in Madison or Tomah or wherever. We need to honor those obligations but the more the market can work, the more power and money that the veterans have to spend and to make choices, the better the service they’ll get.

Frederica Freyberg:

On education there’s a lot of talk about the cost of college and student debt. Is this something that resonates with you and if so, what would be your plan to address it?

Phil Anderson:

It does and I think that, and this is an example of the federal government and maybe a lot of citizens too forgetting some of the basic ways that the economy works. And that is we’ve given students more and more money to spend on college. So predictably what happens in terms of supply and demand? The price of college has gone way, way up over the last 15 years. And not only that but you can see where that growth has come. The ratio of administrators to faculty has also gone way up. What we need to do is stop giving money to students in a way that will inflate the price of tuition. Create more opportunities for them to choose different forms of education. Whether it’s online or a combination of online and faculty-lead and not necessarily invest as we do in massive building and property acquiring and things like that, that especially state schools do at the taxpayer’s expense. And not only through taxes and what the state of Wisconsin might supply to the UW system, but also that money that students borrow ends up, you know, if they don’t pay it back, and it’s still an asset listed on the federal government, you know, in the federal government. So there’s a lot of ways that we’re paying for college other than just through tax money. And we need to understand that when we give more and more money to students and tuition gets higher and higher, that we’re just digging a hole not only for the student but for ourselves as well.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well speaking of more and more money, I did want to actually ask a follow-up on that and that student debt piece. And that is so your solution to student debt is to not allow students to borrow money or to get money to go to college?

Phil Anderson:

I think the less that the federal government spends on that, the tuition will come down commensurately. And we’ll have more of a free market system for education. We already have. And I run a taxi company. And I’ve run a couple. And there’s a lot of people that are under-employed. Not to say that higher education is only for the purpose of getting employment, but insofar as we lend money towards that, it would make sense to lend money or to give money to people who are going to be able to pay it back. And if we have a situation where there’s too many college graduates, who are not equipped to go out and earn the money that they would need to pay it back, then it’s a foolish system to begin with. It’s not really a loan at that point if you don’t know or have any idea that the money’s coming back into the system. And that costs taxpayers too.

Frederica Freyberg:

On the national debt, you’ve described this as America’s biggest security issue. How so?

Phil Anderson:

Well, it puts the dollar at risk. It puts our economy at risk. And right now, we’ve spent a lot of our foreign policy over the last decades promoting the dollar worldwide. But if that fails, if our dollar becomes worthless, if we try to manipulate the currency anymore to the point where things are unstable, and right now we’re at rock bottom interest rates through the fed, all of that comes down. And all of a sudden we’ve got an economy that then is affecting all the economies in the world. And what we see is peaceful countries are ones that tend to be prosperous and ones where people are eating and being entertained. And in any situation where our economy does poorly because of the debt, where the dollar gets devalued because we’re printing so much money to try and cover this debt and trying to keep the economy running, that once people get hungry there will be unrest all over the world.

Frederica Freyberg:

You talk about spending cuts. What kind of spending cuts would you make?

Phil Anderson:

Well, understanding that I’ll be just one vote in the Senate, I would radically decrease the military budget. Pull back on entitlements. Pretty much everything on the federal budget needs to be scaled back. In particular, I’d like to point out one and that’s military spending. While I do still favor a strong defense and I think that is constitutionally called for, there’s a lot of waste, fraud and abuse. I know that’s an easy thing to throw around but we know that there’s a lot of military contracting going on in the Middle East now that’s done on a no-bid basis and on a cost-plus basis, meaning that they charge the federal government what their costs are. And whether they’re being honest or inflating those is up for speculation. And then they automatically get a profit. And they’re not competing with anybody else for those things. Halliburton and its partner companies do that right now. They charge the federal government $99 for a bag of laundry right now. Often when vehicles break down in the Middle East, instead of getting fixed, they get replaced with brand new vehicles. And the old ones just get shipped off or left right there in the sand. This is all because the warfare that we’re engaging in now, as a result of our foreign policy, is not about spreading liberty or democracy or defending ourselves or anything. It’s about making money for people who funnel money into the federal government, democrats and republicans. And to that end, it’s been very successful. But from the taxpayers’ viewpoint, it’s a huge money drain going from our pockets, where we’re creating the wealth, to those who would influence government.

Frederica Freyberg:

On campaign finance, you say you would never be beholden to contributors. Now compared to the major party candidates you just don’t have a lot of contributors according to campaign finance reporting. So what does that say about the appeal of your candidacy?

Phil Anderson:

What it says is this. And I think it would say the same thing for any libertarian running. What we’ve talked about so far is a drastic reduction in the size, scope and influence of the federal government. I’m all for that. So if you’re somebody who gives money to democrats and republicans to have, to influence legislation, to have access to them after the fact, is a libertarian a good investment? And the answer is of course no. We’re not going to be a good investment. I could have, you know, raise tons of money to run from individual contributors, but I’m not going to have the same PAC money support that republicans and democrats do because we’re just not a very good investment. I’m proud of that. And I think in this day and age, we could run a campaign. And we have run a campaign that while we’re being outspent 2,000 to 1 by each of my opponents, they’re still not making a dent in my 8% and we expect our numbers to go up. So that says something about the situation right there.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Finally, we wanted to just ask you to choose two words to describe each of the presidential candidates.

Phil Anderson:

Two words, two words each? Or one word each?

Frederica Freyberg:

Two words each.

Phil Anderson:

Two words each.

Frederica Freyberg:

Donald Trump.

Phil Anderson:

Hmm. Donald Trump. I’m trying to decide whether to use narcissism as a noun or an adjective. But clearly that’s one of them for him. And I’d also say fearless as a compliment. I think he’s a fearless narcissist. How’s that?

Frederica Freyberg:

And Hillary Clinton.

Phil Anderson:

Hmm. I would say she is an ambitious… hmm ambitious bureaucrat.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We leave it there. Phil Anderson, thanks very much.

Phil Anderson:

Thanks for having me.