Bill Richardson Return to Candidate Profile Page »

Do you have a plan to make health care more accessible to Americans? If so, how would you do it?

Affordable and secure health coverage for every American should be our national goal. America's core values of opportunity and security demand no less. My plan revolves around the concept of choice, and it creates no new bureaucracies and raises no new taxes. It also allows Americans to keep their current plans if they're satisfied with them. My plan includes the following solutions to achieve universal health care: - Working families and small businesses will be able to purchase coverage through the same plan that members of Congress and the President have. - Americans 55 to 64 will be able to purchase coverage through Medicare. - Lower-income Americans will have a choice to obtain coverage through expanded Medicaid and SCHIP programs. - Young adult dependents up to 25 will be allowed to remain on their parents' policies regardless of student status. - Veterans will get access to the high-quality care they deserve, when they need it, without bureaucratic hassles. I would create a Heroes Health Card that provides veterans with a choice of providers so that they can get the medical care they need even if they live far from a VA facility. No one who has served in our military should have to drive 100 miles just to get care, which is too often the case. I would also strengthen the VA by guaranteeing its funding from year to year. My plan would also require insurers to provide coverage to all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions, as well as requiring all health plans to cover a standard package of proven preventive services like cancer screenings and immunizations. Finally, mental health parity would be included in all health care plans.

Do you support allowing a portion of the money currently withheld for Social Security to be put into private accounts? Why or why not?

No. I have and will continue to vigorously oppose any proposal to privatize Social Security. Our country must keep its promise-its compact with aging workers-and we will. Social Security began under Franklin Roosevelt as a means to solve the abject poverty amongst retirees in this country and all these decades later it still lifts millions of retirees above the poverty line. One problem is that George Bush has been raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, and he began doing so even before 9/11. I want to end to his fiscal fiascos. I'll restore discipline to the budget.

What specific changes would you make to the Social Security program?

The way we keep Social Security solvent is economic growth. The assumption that Social Security will be bankrupt in 2045 is based on an average of just 1.3 percent economic growth. We have to do better than that. And we will if we get back to a balanced budget, reward companies for creating hi-tech, hi-wage jobs here in America, and drastically improve education, especially in science and math. This nation should be a beacon of ingenuity and excellence - with a robust 21st century economy there is no promise we cannot keep and no problem we will not solve.

Do you support setting a deadline for either a withdrawal or a partial pullback of troops from Iraq? If so, what would be the date of that deadline?

Here's my plan: We need to remove all of our troops, as quickly as possible. We have to end this war now. The one thing the Iraqis agree on is that they want us to leave. Our troops have done everything we've asked of them and I don't want to see any more of them die. Congress needs to stand up to this President and get all of our troops out of Iraq. All of them. With no residual forces whatsoever. We must remove the troops quickly and safely. We have moved over 240,000 troops in and out of Iraq through Kuwait recently in three-month time periods. After the first Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a second route out through Turkey. As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will stop seeing us as occupiers, and start seeing us as brokers. Iraq's neighbors will have to face the reality that if they don't help stabilize the country, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse - including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war with their neighbors. We can keep forces in nearby countries, such as Kuwait or Turkey, to ensure stability in the region. I would leave troops in neighboring countries that want us to help keep the peace. But we need to hand over security of Iraq to an all Muslim peacekeeping force. We need to hold a Reconciliation Conference between the Iraqi ethnic and religious groups. To secure the region we need to work with neighboring countries like Iran and Syria. There is a way out-but it starts by standing up to this President and de-authorizing this war. If Congress can't do that, then as President-I will end this war on my first day in office.

What distinguishes your plan for Iraq from those of the other candidates?

I am the only candidate calling for a complete withdrawal: that means no residual troops. When some of the other candidates are asked how many forces they would leave behind, they change the subject. They shouldn't be allowed to: the American people deserve an answer. My colleagues, however, refuse to give an answer because while they say that they're going to end this war, they plan to leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. They want to do this because they're reflecting the inside-the-beltway conventional thinking that complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be 'irresponsible.' This is the same Washington groupthink that gave us stockpiles of WMD, yellow cake from Niger, ties to Al Qaeda, and facile notions about easy victory. We must stop basing Iraq strategy upon hunches, and start making it upon careful analysis of the facts-which I believe suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal-not a long, drawn-out one like Vietnam-is the responsible thing to do. We should stop pretending that 'everyone in our party has the same plan,' and start debating seriously our different approaches. The American people deserve precise answers from those who would be Commander in Chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of the candidates, rather than allowing them to continue to say that they are against the war... but please don't read the small print.

What would be your top three national security priorities if you were elected?

Number one: withdrawing all of our forces from Iraq, and doing so immediately. For reasons that I stated above, this is the only truly responsible course of action, despite the 'received wisdom' from inside-the-Beltway that wrongly believes a slow, deliberate, drawdown over the course of many years-with tens of thousands of residual troops-would be the best course of action. This is simply not true. Additionally, with our forces no longer stuck in Iraq, we can redeploy some of them to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and the real terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Number two: Global warming. The U.S. must lead the world in the fight against global warming, and the best way to lead is by example. This fight is the main reason why I'm running for President, and it will be a central element of my Presidency. That's why I believe we need a massive, Apollo-like program for energy independence through renewables, and that's what my energy plan will achieve. Additionally, Sierra Club President Carl Pope said that my energy plan 'raised the bar' in the fight against global warming, and is 'more aggressive than anything we've seen so far from the candidates. It is also significantly better elaborated.' The League of Conservation Voters praised my proposals as the most aggressive plan of any candidate for President, saying I 'set the highest goals for reducing global warming pollution and increasing production from renewable energy sources.' Number three: nuclear terrorism. In a world in which nuclear terrorism rather than war with Russia is the main threat, reducing all nuclear arsenals-in a careful, orderly way-makes everyone safer. Moreover, negotiations to reduce our arsenal also represent our diplomatic ace-in-the-hole. We can leverage our own proposed reductions to get the other nuclear powers to do the same-and simultaneously get the non-nuclear powers to forego both weapons and nuclear fuel enrichment, and to agree to rigorous global safeguards and verification procedures.

What types of regulations and guidelines do you plan on implementing or promoting in order to deal with climate change and to make our country less oil dependent?

We must act boldly and act now in order to make America a Clean Energy Nation. I am calling for a New American Revolution -- an energy and climate revolution. This includes: Cutting oil demand 50% by 2020. That means reducing oil imports from around 65% to 10-15%. We can do this in part by getting the 100 mile per gallon car into the marketplace. We must work to double the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, to 50 mpg by 2020. And we will set a life-cycle low-carbon fuel standard that reduces the carbon impact of our liquid fuels by 30% by 2020. Creating new efficiencies and energy sources in the electrical sector. I am calling for a national renewable portfolio standard of 30% by 2020 that will rise to 50% by 2040. This is aggressive, but necessary as we start using more electricity for automobiles. I will push for an energy productivity law requiring a 20% improvement in energy productivity by 2020. We could save customers $21 billion a year by 2020. Dramatically reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions: 20% by 2020, 80% by 2040, 90% by 2050. This is ten years faster than scientists say is necessary because we must lead the world, and we can't afford the possibility of backsliding and inaction. We will start with a market-based cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emissions to create incentives for the electric and industrial sectors to make significant reductions in their carbon emissions. We can afford to protect the climate. Given the risks of catastrophic climate change, we can't afford not to do it. Returning to the international negotiating table and support mandatory world-wide limits on global warming pollution. We will work closely with fast-growing nations. I will cooperate with the European Union, the World Bank, and other allies to help finance the incremental cost of 'doing it right.' I will create a North American Energy Council with Mexico and Canada, which supply about 20% of our oil, and make sure our relations with these neighbors are firm and friendly. As we reduce our demand for foreign oil, we should work with the Persian Gulf nations, and our partners at the UN, to create a multilateral system for protecting the Persian Gulf so that within ten years, the U.S. presence there could be sharply and safely reduced.

Should the government have a role in encouraging development of energy efficient technologies and sustainable energy resources? If yes, how would you do it?

Absolutely. In addition to the detailed proposals for government action that I laid out in the previous question, I know how we can get it done without breaking the bank. We can, for example, raise revenue from the sales of carbon permits. I will also take out the 'green scissors' to cut back on wrongly-placed tax subsidies. Over time, this program will yield huge productivity increases in our economy, as well as significant budget savings and revenues. We will create more than ten times as much value in the American economy by reducing our oil imports as we spend to make this program happen. We should also invite the oil companies to become energy companies. I know people love to hate the oil companies. They have been raking in huge profits. But I want to invite them to become energy companies, and invest in our thriving new energy economy. They are invited to the table, but they aren't going to run the table the way they have for the last six years. The bottom line is that Americans need energy to get to work; we need heat and electricity in our homes, schools and workplaces. We are hurt by unpredictable energy price cycles, and by our nation's energy policy failures. The way out of the cycle is to create competition, to support energy productivity, new technologies and alternative fuels. And everyone -- every American -- must make an effort to make us energy independent and combat global warming. Our national security and our planet depend on it. It's about creating a new energy economy here in the United States, and doing it quickly, with broad, bold strokes. It's the way to a bright, strong, prosperous future for the United States -- and for the world. I called for an energy revolution -- and now, today, I call on you to join it.

How do you think the United States should handle illegal immigrants? Do you support President Bush's immigration plan?

I am committed to both enforcing our borders and pushing for immigration reform. Despite what some critics allege, these goals are not mutually exclusive. We need tough, effective border control-and building a fence will not increase security; only more border patrol manpower will. I believe in realistic immigration reform that requires undocumented workers to earn their legal status. If they are to remain in our country, they must pay fines for illegally crossing the border, learn English, pay taxes, and obey our laws. As President, I will secure the border by hiring and training enough patrol guards to cover the entire border. We need to more than double the number of guards at the border and provide them with the best surveillance technology available. We must establish a realistic path to legalization for those who are already here. This is not amnesty, but an effort that draws out those already here by offering legal status in exchange for good behavior, learning English, payment of back taxes, and fines for illegal entry. Applicants would also pay an application fee and undergo a medical examination and background check. Those who break the law will be immediately and permanently deported. The number of guest workers allowed at any one time must be based upon the needs of the U.S. economy. The goal must be to meet demand for jobs that go unfilled by American citizens, and no more. We also must crack down on immigration fraud and illegal workers, and I also believe we must work in partnership with the Mexican government and other nations. We must develop border infrastructure to move goods through the free-trade zones along the border, revitalizing communities on both sides of the border and creating much-needed jobs. We will also work with the Secretary of the Organization of American States on Latin American initiatives that focus on economic development and immigration. We need to demonstrate to OAS member states that they have an equal responsibility to solve the immigration problem.

What are your top three priorities with regard to immigration?

Number one: securing our borders. Number two: establishing a realistic and earned path to citizenship for those who work hard, play by the rules, and want nothing more than the chance to live the American dream. Number three: crack down on immigration fraud and companies who knowingly hire undocumented workers.

Do you support affirmative action? If you do, why do you think it is a benefit to our country? If not, what do you think would be gained by changing or eliminating it?

Yes, I do. I have a long record of supporting affirmative action and ensuring that women and minority workers are given an equal shot at good jobs. We have made many strides as a nation, but unfortunately, economic inequality still exists. Affirmative action is our good faith effort to ensure that equal opportunities in school, business, and entrepreneurship are available to those who, through discrimination, have found barriers in reaching for the American Dream. It is one way we can level the playing field so that ALL can achieve the American Dream, regardless of one's background. Our tax dollars should not be used to subsidize companies, such as large government contractors, that do not provide equal opportunities for all workers. Affirmative action does not use quotas, and it is not about choosing the unqualified over the qualified. As President, I will continue to support Affirmative Action programs that are fair and that provide more opportunities for those who have endured a long history of discrimination.

Do you agree or disagree with the argument that only the wealthiest Americans are benefiting from the current economic growth? Why or why not?

I will restore this country's focus on the middle class. Families in this country are squeezed, and they need a fair shake. Over the past several years, middle class incomes have declined; although worker productivity has increased, the gains have gone into profits at the top rather than toward wages and salaries for most Americans. Real earnings, pensions and health insurance benefits are dropping, while the costs of living are rising. The next President needs to fight for higher salaries, stronger benefits, and lower costs for America's families. That's got to start with job creation and economic growth: I would roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent and keep the tax cuts for the middle class. Instead of tax cuts for the wealthy, I would propose a tax credit for companies that create jobs here in America that pay above the prevailing wage. We also need to help families with the cost side of the equation. Health care, child care, college - they all cost too much. As President, I will further focus on helping middle- and low-income families by creating a universal health care system, providing early childhood education, expanding the opportunity for every American to attend college, and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax for the Middle Class.

What are the three most important things you would do to promote economic growth and prosperity?

The nations throughout the world that are poised for success in the economy of the 21st century are those that have made three fundamental decisions, which will be my priorities as President. They are: Investing in the future rather than spending extravagantly on present-day consumption: Under President Bush, our country's national debt has skyrocketed to a record-breaking $9 trillion, with interest payments on the debt reaching $404 billion last year Investing in science and technology: If America is to retain its leadership in the global marketplace, it must renew its emphasis on science and technology and establish new incentives for innovation. As President, I will achieve this through an aggressive combination of tax credits for high-tech jobs and companies, Green Jobs programs, and the establishment of 250 Math, Science, and Innovation Academies throughout the country. Investing in their workers through education and workforce development: A highly skilled, well-paid workforce is central to sustained job growth and a healthy economy. Our country must establish a strong foundation of improved education and a workforce development system that's streamlined and targeted to the needs of the 21st century economy. We will make this happen through tax credits that offer incentives for good-paying jobs in all sectors and regions of the country, including manufacturing and rural areas. A strong economy is the engine of everything that America does and everything we want this country to be. I have the experience and the record of accomplishment to meet the economic challenges we face and to lead our country into the future.

If elected, would you balance the budget? If you answered yes, how soon would you do it?

Yes. As President, I will balance our nation's budget within five years of taking office. As I stated above, our country's national debt has skyrocketed to a record-breaking $9 trillion, with interest payments on the debt reaching $404 billion last year alone. To help solve this enormous burden on our nation's future, I support a Balanced Budget Amendment, as well as a Constitutionally-viable Line-Item Veto, because I know that the fiscal recklessness of the past twenty-five years is the result of misplaced Republican tax and spending priorities. The debt has increased from $1 trillion to $9 trillion since Ronald Reagan was inaugurated-over 80 percent of that increase took place under GOP administrations. We need this Amendment, which will have escape clauses for wars and recession, to put a straitjacket on Republican attempts to explode the deficit.

Would you roll back tax cuts that were supported by the Bush administration?

I would roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent and keep the tax cuts for the middle class. I do support tax cuts, especially for the middle class, to create good paying jobs, and to promote renewable energy. But the Bush tax cuts mostly benefit the wealthy and that doesn't do anything for the economy, nor is it fair. Instead of tax cuts for the wealthy I would: Propose a tax credit for companies that create jobs here in America that pay above the prevailing wage. Provide stronger tax incentives to promote renewable energy. Solar panels cost about $40,000 a piece for example, that's a lot of up front investment. Provide stronger tax incentives to promote Green Jobs in renewable energy, such as retrofitting homes to be energy efficient. Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax for the Middle Class. Eliminate the estate tax for the Middle Class. The very wealthiest, however, should continue to pay their fair share. Create a Manufacturing Jobs Tax Credit for new manufacturing jobs that are created. Offer a Rural Jobs Tax Credit for jobs that are created in non-metro areas. Create a federal Angel Investor Tax Cut that offers incentives for 'Angel Investors' to invest in the high-tech jobs of the future. Make permanent and doubling the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit so that companies will invest in new technologies Offer a tax rebate for employers who hire underprivileged youth in high school and college. Tax cuts and tax credits can be important stimuli to the economy, but they have to be done in an intelligent and responsible way, unlike so many of the cuts of the past few years.

Do you support the No Child Left Behind program? Why or why not?

I have a one-point plan for No Child Left Behind: scrap it. NCLB has failed. It has failed our schools, it has failed our teachers, and it has failed our children. The Bush Administration claims victories, but upon closer scrutiny it becomes clear that the White House is simply dressing up ugly data with fancy political spin. Far from leaving no child behind, President Bush seems to have left reality behind. Just look at the facts. The National Assessment of Educational Progress shows a slight narrowing of the racial achievement gap over the past three years. This narrowing, however, is due to a decline in overall reading scores, not to improvements in minority student performance. This is not progress. Review the figures, and you will see that our schools are not failing NCLB; the program is failing our schools. In some grades reading and math scores have actually declined for Hispanics, African Americans, and others. The current pass-fail rating system is worse than meaningless-it's counter-productive. If a school needs help, we should help that school. We shouldn't punish it, as NCLB mandates. We need to move beyond the empty rhetoric of No Child Left Behind. We must provide our public schools with what the National Education Association refers to as the three R's - Responsibility, Respect, and Resources. The key to this improvement is respecting teachers. As President, I will fight for a national average starting wage for teachers of at least $40,000 per year. Teacher salaries are just the beginning. Quality pre-k programs allow children to show up to first grade ready to learn. These programs must be available to all children. In addition, we must never forget that children with disabilities should not be stigmatized. I stand with the American Federation of Teachers in support of the principles of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to give every child the right to an appropriate education. Finally, we need strong academic standards aligned with the needs of today's workforce. America's schools were designed for the 20th century economy-this is no longer sufficient. Our children need to graduate ready to engage with the New Economy, not the old one. True education reform requires more than a set of unfunded mandates and a list of failing schools. It requires a vision for success, the state and federal funding to match, and the experience to bring real reform across America.

What changes, if any, would you attempt to implement in national education policy?

As stated in my previous answer, I would implement many changes, including scrapping No Child Left Behind, instituting a national average starting wage of $40,000 for new teachers, and universal pre-k for all American children. I would also change our nation's approach to college affordability by having the federal government pay off two years of debt at a public university in exchange for one year of national service. In addition, I would eliminate the FAFSA, which at 127 questions is longer than the forms for citizenship or taxes, and replace it with a postcard-sized form that will quickly and easily tell parents and students how much federal aid they are eligible for.

What is your position on the proposed constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman?

I am against this amendment. The Federal government should stay out of the marriage issue. We are a country at war, we face a 9 trillion dollar debt, our educational system is in shambles, we spend the most on health care of any industrial country but have the worst health in many categories. We have serious problems in this country and we shouldn't be wasting time with constitutional amendments about marriage.

What is your position on civil unions between same sex partners?

I support civil unions between same sex partners that provide full marriage rights. There should be no discrimination in benefits or rights.

Do you support the Roe v. Wade decision or would you like to see this decision overturned? Why or why not?

I am pro-choice, and I support Roe v. Wade. As President, I will continue to support abortion rights and medical privacy for women, and I will support full law enforcement against domestic terrorists who bomb abortion facilities. Moreover, I have gone on record saying that I will ask any potential nominees to the Supreme Court whether they consider Roe v. Wade settled law. If they say 'yes,' they have a good chance of being chosen. If they say 'no,' I will not choose them. It's as simple as that, and I encourage the other presidential candidates to make the same commitment. A woman's right to choose is under attack in this country, and we can't afford to be shy about saying where we stand on the issue, loud and clear.

Should the federal government have a role in seeking an end to poverty? What would you do, specifically, to deal with poverty?

I believe that the best anti-poverty plan is job creation and education, and I absolutely believe that the federal government has a large role to play in these areas. Beyond that, however, I also believe in other strong anti-poverty tools, such as a strong commitment to workforce development, an expanded and simplified Earned Income Tax Credit, Transitional Jobs, and career training programs, especially in conjunction with nascent Green-Collar technology jobs, such as retrofitting homes and businesses to meet newer environmental standards. Of course, universal health care must also be an essential part of this plan, and as I stated previously, I have a sensible plan that gets us there, without creating new bureaucracies or raising new taxes. Additionally, America's small, rural towns are not getting the attention they deserve from Washington. That's why I'm proposing a tax credit for jobs created in rural parts of the country. In the richest country in the world, it is a disgrace that there is still so much poverty. We simply must be doing more to combat it.

Do you think gun control has an impact on crime rates in the United States?

I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, but we must do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the seriously mentally ill. We need instant background checks and they should be required by federal law.

Do you think tighter restrictions should be in place for those buying a firearm?

I am a long-time supporter of both second amendment rights and gun safety, and I know that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens. The second amendment protects the right to bear arms, but also gives us the responsibility to institute appropriate precautions to protect against gun ownership by criminals or the seriously mentally ill. I have always supported background checks and we need to start by improving the current system of background checks so that it fully includes those who have been found to be mentally ill. We're taking steps to do that in New Mexico. And I strongly support Carolyn McCarthy's legislation, which makes background checks federal law. We need background checks that are both accurate and truly instant. They should be used to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, not to hurt gun sales.

If elected, would you keep the current ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research in place? Why or why not?

I would end the ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research. I want to pay tribute to Nancy Reagan who has taken up the fight for research to solve diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's - disorders that we will one day conquer. I admire her for standing for what is right - even though members of her party have criticized her. We don't know where the key piece of science will come from that will cure these diseases - but when I am President we will stop closing off promising areas of research just to buy a few fringe votes.

What would be your top three overall priorities if elected?

Number one: education. We have to scrap No Child Left Behind and devise an education policy in this country that respects teachers and actually works. Number two: ending the war in Iraq. This means bringing all of our troops home, as quickly as possible, with no residual forces left behind as targets. I challenge my colleagues to tell us how many troops, and for how long, they plan to leave behind. Number three: creating a New American Revolution for energy and climate. In terms of our national security, our environment, our economy, and our health, we must develop our clean, renewable energy technologies, and we must do so aggressively.

If elected, would you balance the budget? If you answered yes, how soon would you do it?

Federal spending is out of control, and we need to move quickly to get our fiscal house in order. In order to clean up the fiscal mess in Washington, D.C., I have committed to capping the growth of non-military discretionary spending at one percent lower than inflation, which will save $300 billion over the next ten years. If Congress sends me appropriations bills that exceed that amount, I will veto them. I also believe that the President needs the line item veto authority which would help cut spending. I also love cutting waste. The most effective way to cut spending is by eliminating waste, duplication and inefficiency. It exists throughout any government, and the opportunity for savings in the federal government is enormous. Frankly, I can't wait to get my hands on Washington. As president, I will personally lead a top to bottom review of government programs, agencies, procurement and spending to see what we are doing that doesn't have to be done and could be eliminated. What are the things that may be nice to have but are not needed? Where are the places where there is waste, duplication or inefficiency? I believe we have scores of agencies dealing with the very same issues, and consolidating them and saving money should be a high priority.