*Please note that this is a summary of the debate, and the panelists’ responses may be edited or slightly summarized for clarity. For a video recording of the event, please click here.
George Yates began by thanking AARO for fighting for rights of Americans living abroad – work that really needs to be done, since Americans abroad are mistreated. We are taxed, criticized, not heard, he said. He continued by reading a paragraph from the Liberty and Privacy section of the Republican platform: “The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Foreign Bank and Asset Reporting Requirements result in government’s warrantless seizure of personal financial information without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Americans overseas should enjoy the same rights as Americans residing in the United States, whose private financial information is not subject to disclosure to the government except as to interest earned. The requirement for all banks around the world to provide detailed information to the IRS about American account holders outside the United States has resulted in banks refusing service to them. Thus, FATCA not only allows “unreasonable search and seizures” but also threatens the ability of overseas Americans to lead normal lives.”
George Yates said he didn’t think he’d see the day when a major party would take this position. He noted that the people sitting in the audience probably had more to do with the GOP taking this position than Trump himself, but thinks Trump would follow through on this. He hopes it will continue to be on Republican platforms, and also hopes the Democrats will follow. The fact that Americans are taxed because of citizenship is a disaster, he said, sharing that a family member had to give up her US citizenship because of the burden. Yates said he supports AARO for the positions they’ve taken, and feels proud that the Republicans have taken up these issues.
He finished by saying he has been horrified that the election has been so much about personal issues, feeling that it has been a waste of a huge opportunity to discuss more important issues. Yates said that Clinton has a lot of experience, yet the experience is not all that good. He is disturbed by the question of her judgment, citing the examples of her email server and the Clinton foundation. Experience is a great thing, he said, but judgment is more important.
Neil Kearney began the question and answer part of the debate by first posing a question from AARO: What would your organization do to help Americans abroad?
Joe Smallhoover (JS): Democrats Abroad have been favorable to returning to residency-based taxation (RBT) and repealing citizenship-based taxation (CBT). On the issue of FATCA, he noted that if Republicans were serious about repealing this law, they would have done so. They have controlled congress for 6 years. Republicans have chosen FATCA as issue to divide American community abroad.
Was adopted to fight terrorism and illegal activity, but legislation was too broad. Dems believe we should reform FATCA to keep fighting illegal activity, while relieving the burden on AA.
Ned Wiley (NW): He stated that this is an important issue to him personally. He said it is not an issue at the top of the Libertarian agenda, but he himself signed on to the Libertarian party for this reason, to promote this sort of issue. Libertarian principles would support position of repealing FATCA and moving to RBT.
JS: The Democratic national platform does not address taxation, and calls for FATCA reform.
George Yates (GY): He polled the audience, asking who considers themselves a “fat cat”. No one raised a hand. He said this is an illustration of the problem with this law: it’s meant to reduce criminality, but only traps ordinary people into filling out forms that actual criminals do not care about.
Questions From the Audience
Q: How would your candidate handle Putin on Syria?
JS: Democrats Abroad does not speak on questions of foreign policy. This is because our foreign friends sometimes misunderstand our politics, and we do not wish to create incidents.
NW: Libertarians have not put forth specific foreign policies. But, he says, Putin is a bully. He’s in a position where he has to keep doing what he’s doing to survive politically, and Wiley is afraid he might do something weird in the last weeks of the campaign. Mistakes have been made in Syria, and now it’s too late for many of the tactics the United States have attempted. The no-fly zone failed. We could try sanctions, though a lot of people are against them. In any case, we have to find a way to make Putin back off.
GY: Putin is not to be trusted, and he is not someone to be fooled around with either. Obama has been a bit naïve about certain foreign leaders, including Putin, basing foreign policy on the principle of: if you treat people nicely, they’ll treat you nicely. Obama could have been tougher. I don’t know what will happen if either candidate is elected, but I think we have to be tough.
Q: Why do you think the political class has failed to anticipate the economic problems caused by globalization, computerization, and immigration?
GY: Globalization is inevitable. Congress can’t legislate everything, and they can’t stop globalization. It’s going to happen in any case, and I do feel for the many people who have been hurt by it. This issue has been part of this campaign, and the Republican campaign has called attention to the people who have suffered from this.
It would be costly to try to remedy the effects of these changes. It’s a disaster, but it’s a personal disaster, and this explains some of the currents we’ve seen in this election.
NW: All three of these issues are big ones. Libertarian principles involve keeping federal government out of things as much as possible. But, the federal government has to necessarily be involved in issues like immigration, which also relates to digitization. Silicon Valley has many bright Asian workers coming over, and we should protect the right of companies to hire the best. In many instances, we assign roles to the federal government where they just won’t be effective.
JS: These are extraordinarily complex issues. Clinton supports fair trade rather than free trade, taking into account the effect on local populations. Fair trade raises questions about how to deal with workers who are cut out of new parts of the economy and how to move forward. There should be some limitation on trade. Clinton supports increasing the minimum wage in US and elsewhere to prevent loss of jobs in the US, so that jobs go where the workers are best. We should also move quickly to adopt policy that enables hardworking immigrants in the US to become legal.
Q: What persuades you that Trump’s judgment is good?
GY: I know that Hillary Clinton has bad judgment and I don’t know about Donald Trump’s.
JS: Donald Trump managed to bankrupt a casino and to lose a billion dollars. He was dumb enough to say the things he said on the Billy Bush tape. This may have been pure talk, but what kind of judgment is on display when you say that kind of thing in a studio with a mic? Trump has shown bad judgement for years.
NW: Trump qualifies as a wacko. He judges everything differently from one moment to the next and is hard to pin down. We could cite his relationship with Putin as an example, but the list is endless. I don’t think this means that Hillary Clinton is an example of virtue, especially looking at issues like the TPP.
Q: How would your candidate save the planet?
NW: Gary Johnson made a famous comment that in millions of years we’ll all be burned up anyway. But more seriously, there are technological developments happening all the time. There was no commission on moving from firewood to coal. Government involvement turns things into a big mess. We need to put our focus on new technologies without government regulation on things like energy policy and the price of energy.
GY: Everybody is aware that the climate is changing and something has to be done. I agree that it’s hard to legislate this, and I think the Germans were misguided in trying to get rid of nuclear power. This is probably the least polluting type of energy we have today. Germany was upset about what happened in Japan, and the anti-nuclear policy was in reaction to the Fukushima disaster. This is what happens when legislators start to carry the ball.
JS: We couldn’t disagree more. Climate change is happening by human endeavor. We have to stop it or we will suffer consequences. Sea levels are rising, and we’ll continue to see more mega storms. Free market policies alone will not provide the solutions to these problems, and by prohibiting certain substances like fluorocarbons and by using things like tax incentives we are able to prohibit certain things and encourage others. Clinton and the Democratic Party support moving toward green energy sources. Germany has more solar plants than the US. We need solar, wind, and other sources that will help clean up the environment. This brings up the issue of individuals working in industries such as coal, and we will need to find a way to retrain to bring them into a more modern economy.
NW: Tax incentives don’t work well. To take the example of Germany, all the wind power is in the North, which is not where it’s needed most. When government starts messing with these things, it creates a mess. The solution of the federal government regulating these problems doesn’t work.
Q: Young voters seem to have lost trust in career politicians. Does honesty and transparency exist in politics? What is your candidate’s position on Citizens United?
GY: Trump has said that the American electoral system has some deep flaws, and some of it is this flood of money. Trump’s campaign has more money coming in from small donations than the Democratic campaign. The system is rotten, and something needs to be done, but it’s hard because of the free speech aspect of this issue. Americans should be able to support their candidate financially. Anyway, neither party has much interest in solving this issue.
JS: Citizens United was wrongly decided but it was decided. The solution would be a constitutional amendment that would limit the amount of money that can be given to campaigns. This has been part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign from the beginning.
NW: There is a concentration of power in the federal government, which makes it tempting to have influence. If we eliminate the ability of the federal government to have that kind of power, people will be less interested in gaining influence.
Q: Is Donald Trump a Republican?
GY: A Republican isn’t something that can be put into a fixed box. He has Republican principles, as well as some Libertarian principles.
JS: If Trump is a Republican, then the Republican party is not Republican. This is not the party of my grandfather, my husband, the George Yates I knew a few weeks ago. If Trump is Republican, it means the party is changing in fundamental ways. This may be a shift in the party system: we may see a major shuffling of the cards of the system as we know it.
GY: That may be true. But I’ve been happy to see Trump talking about issues that Republicans don’t traditionally address, such as the inner cities. They are a disaster; people get shot every day. Obama could have done more to resolve these issues. This is the first time Republicans are talking about this, and it’s a good thing. They are defending the little people. A shift in Republican politics would be a positive thing.
NW: It’s unsure. Trump has said many different things. This is why I call him a wacko. If Hillary Clinton wins, it will be a disaster for the Republicans. “Never Trumpers” will say I told you so, and Trump supporters will say that the others betrayed them. The results will certainly cause some movement.
Q: Should we get rid of the primary system?
NW: I’m not sure about the primary system, but we should probably get rid of the electoral college. We should get rid of lots of things in the federal government.
JS: What is the primary system? There is none. Every election cycle is new and different. There wasn’t a primary system until 1960, and it has evolved. It is run differently in different states. Some are open and some aren’t. But we could change the electoral system. We could rank candidates, so if no one gets majority, we could go with second choice. We could also do away with districts. There are many possibilities. But there isn’t really an official primary system to get rid of.
GY: I’ll just say this: the French eventually pick up others’ bad habits.
And should we get rid of the Electoral College?
GY: The Republicans stand by it, even though it’s not always beneficial to our party. It would be difficult to change something so fundamental. The primary system is complicated and easy to manipulate. We should think seriously about getting rid of it. But, many people have their hands on it, so it’s not simple.
Q: To what extent will Hillary Clinton implement Bernie Sanders’ ideas?
JS: A number of Sanders’ ideas were integrated into Democratic platform, such as the increase of the federal minimum wage. The party also partly adopted his views on reforming Obamacare toward a single payer system. I can also cite the examples of the environment, and partial legalization of marijuana. But Clinton won the nomination, and she will ultimately be Clinton and not Sanders.
Q: To what extent is the protest vote important for all three parties?
GY: This is an election where the majority of voters are voting against someone. It’s extraordinary. I’ve never seen an election where there is so much discontent: people voting for one candidate because they can’t stand the other. But there is lots of enthusiasm among Trump supporters, more than among Clinton supporters. Young people don’t feel they have a candidate they can be excited about.
JS: There are people who are voting against somebody. The pro-Sanders vote was partially against Clinton, but now voters are mainly voting for her because they feel she is the best choice. Some will vote for Johnson against the other two. For Democrats, this effect is not that important. Clinton has solid support among women, Latinos, Black Americans, college educated Americans, etc.
NW: I’m skeptical about claim of enthusiastic support among these groups. I wish Johnson had been on stage with other two candidates, since this would have made the debates more interesting.
Q: Any plans to revive DREAM Act?
JS: The DREAM Act had massive support among Democrats and some Republicans. If Clinton is elected, the act will be put forward once again. It’s essential for children who were brought into US outside of their control to be integrated and to have the possibility of becoming citizens.
NW: I’m not sure about the party’s specific position on this act. Libertarians are favorable toward immigration when there is a need. I think that programs to support the integration of people already successfully part of American society would have Libertarian support. I have no comment about DREAM Act specifically.
GY: I also can’t comment specifically. Personally, I feel that immigration is a very good thing, which has made the US what it is today. One of the benefits of WWII was the immigration to the US of a fantastic group of people who have helped make the country what it is. It is an enrichment.
And, I do not think we should punish children for what their parents did. Children deserve an education.
JS: To quote again from the Arizona Republic: “The challenges the United States faces domestically and internationally demand a steady hand, a cool head and the ability to think carefully before acting. Hillary Clinton understands this. Donald Trump does not. Clinton has the temperament and experience to be president. Donald Trump does not.”
NW: We have only a few days, and it feels like this election has taken an eternity. Neither candidate has covered themselves in glory. Neither has generated widespread, genuine support. This epitomizes negative stereotypes about American elections. Sometimes, you have to go down to come back up. I feel a sense of hope after joining the Libertarians. We probably won’t win, but I feel we have made a positive contribution to the political discourse.
GY: Many Americans find fault with two major candidates, which is reflected in the polls. Many people will vote against somebody. As Americans, we have to learn from this. Some modifications probably need to be made to the system. My hope is that the next cycle will be more politically interesting.