字幕列表 影片播放 列印英文字幕 As some presidential candidates continue to drop from the race ahead of the Iowa Caucuses, one non-traditional one is still in it, and still growing his followers online. We sit down with democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang on this edition of Iowa Press. Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa Public Television Foundation. The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure. I'm a dad. I am a mom. I'm a kid. I'm a kid at heart. I'm a banker. I'm an Iowa banker. No matter who you are, there is an Iowa banker who is ready to help you get where you want to go. Iowa bankers, allowing you to discover the genuine difference of Iowa banks. ♪♪ For decades Iowa Press has brought you politicians and newsmakers from across Iowa and beyond. Celebrating nearly 50 years of broadcast excellence on statewide Iowa PBS, this is the Friday, January 10 edition of Iowa Press. Here is David Yepsen. ♪♪ Yepsen: Only months since an enormous field of presidential candidates descended on the Iowa State Fair, the field has dwindled, almost a dozen candidates have left the race since August. But one unlikely contender is still in it. And this entrepreneur is still growing his following online in what he calls the "Yang Gang". Andrew Yang is pursuing the democratic nomination for President and he joins us for the first time here at the Iowa Press table. Mr. Yang, welcome to the show. Yang: It's great to be here. Thank you for having me, David. Yepsen: And I want our viewers to know that to accommodate your schedule and ours we're taping this program on January 3rd. Journalists joining us across the table today are Caroline Cummings, Reporter for Sinclair Broadcast Group and Kay Henderson, News Director at Radio Iowa. Henderson: Let's begin with this question, what is your reaction to the U.S. drone strike that killed Iran's top general? Yang: To me it was a disproportionate response and it's dangerously pushing us towards full on armed conflict with Iran, which is not the will of the American people. So to me we need to pull back, we need to deescalate tensions in the region, protect our bases and embassies in the area. But bigger picture this could have been avoided if we had stayed in the multilateral. nuclear agreement with Iran that President Trump pulled us out of, which ended up leading to this series of provocations. We need to go back to first principles. In our Constitution it says that it is an act of Congress to declare war and that has not been the case since 2001. We have been in a constant state of armed conflict since 2001 and we need to push the power to declare war back to Congress where it belongs. Henderson: If voters are undone by this, how do you argue that your experience is better in the Oval Office than someone like Vice President Joe Biden with his foreign policy portfolio, or someone like Pete Buttigieg who has a military background? Yang: As Commander in Chief I will be focused on the greatest threats of the 21st century which include state actors, like Iran yes, but also climate change, artificial intelligence, cyber security. These are issues that frankly an extra aircraft carrier may not help secure us against. To me those are the real challenges of this time and that is where I would lead us as President. Cummings: Why would you be a good wartime President? Yang: When I talk to Iowans and people around the country what they're looking for in a Commander in Chief is a sense of judgment and values and I would approach these life and death decisions with the values of the American people in mind. When I talk to Americans around the country they do not want us to be putting our brave men and women into harm's way in foreign theaters that are not core to our national interests. Cummings: You recently said on Twitter in response to this that you have signed a pledge to end "forever wars". Is there ever a time though that there is no choice? Yang: I have a three part test for when I would intervene militarily. The first is that there needs to be a vital national interest at stake or the ability to avert a clear humanitarian catastrophe. Number two, there needs to be a well-defined timeline where we can bring our troops home. And number three, we need to have partners and allies that are willing to join us in the mission. If these three conditions are satisfied then I would consider engaging our troops but it needs to be a very high threshold. I speak to veterans here in Iowa and across the country and many of them are still struggling. To me the investment has to be when you recruit men and women into the Armed Forces, but then it has to persist after they come home. Our resources right now are heading to things that are not making our people stronger or more secure. Yepsen: Let's talk about your campaign. The hallmark of your campaign is something called a universal basic income. Would you explain that to us? Yang: The freedom dividend is a policy where every American adult gets $1000 a month from the age 18 until you expire. That seems very dramatic but this is a deeply American idea that has been with us since our founding. Thomas Paine was for it, Martin Luther King was for it, Milton Friedman was for it and one state, Alaska, has had a dividend in effect for almost 40 years where now everyone in the state gets between $1000 and $2000 a year no questions asked. What oil is to the people of Alaska, technology is to the entire country. Here in Iowa this state went red in the 2016 election because we blasted away 40,000 manufacturing jobs right here in the state. And what we did to those jobs we are now doing to retail jobs throughout the state where 30% of your stores and malls are closing forever. It started on your farms and moved to your factories, now it's on your Main Streets, eventually it will hit your highways in the form of self-driving trucks. We need to have a freedom dividend in place so everyone here in Iowa actually participates in the gains of the 21st century economy instead of being sucked dry, which is what is happening to many rural areas here in Iowa and around the country. Yepsen: Why do you call it the freedom dividend? Yang: It's a dividend on our shared economic progress and it makes us more free to pursue the kind of work that we want to do every day. It also recognizes the kind of work that my wife does at home with our two boys, one of whom is autistic. That work does not get included in our economic measurements, it is not recognized by our market as having value, and we know that is the most valuable and challenging work that anyone is doing. So the freedom dividend would recognize the work we're already doing in our families and communities and it also makes us more free to pursue work that would meet our own needs and values. Cummings: You cited Alaska, or you cited it on this program and you cite it on the trail, but that is based on oil money and it's also a different model. You're talking about $1000 a month for a whole year, this is $1000 to $2000 a year. Considering that and Alaska's population is it a fair test case for a universal basic income for the country? And are there things in Alaska's economy that you can point to, to say this actually really works? Yang: If you look at the petroleum dividend first it was passed by a republican Governor in a deep red state. It is wildly popular, has created thousands of jobs, has improved children's health and nutrition and has decreased income inequality in the state. If you look up, we have a trillion dollar tech company, Amazon, that is paying literally zero in taxes, less than everyone watching this at home right now. It's not just Amazon. Many of our tech giants are paying zero or near zero in taxes and they're selling and reselling our data for tens of billions of dollars. I joke with voters on the trail, if our data is so valuable why didn't you get a data check in the mail? And then they laugh. But I tell them, the data checks are all flowing straight to Facebook and Amazon and Google. So what oil is to Alaska, technology, data, AI, software, is to the rest of the country. And the biggest winners in the 21st century economy are not actually sharing those winnings with the rest of us. That is what I'm going to change as President. Cummings: So how do you actually pay for that though? Critics of the idea like the Tax Foundation say the math just doesn't add up. Yang: Well, I love math and if you look at our system, again, if you have the biggest companies in our society paying zero in taxes then of course it's going to be hard to pay for much of anything. But if you put a mechanism in place where we get our fair share of every Amazon sale, every Google search, every Facebook ad, eventually every robot truck mile and AI work unit, it will generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue from day one. And then when this thousand dollar dividend is in the hands of every Iowan the money will go right back into your communities to car repairs you've been putting off and daycare expenses and little league signups and local non-profits and religious organizations. This is the trickle up economy from our people, families and our communities up because the money doesn't disappear, it circulates right through our Main Streets every single day. Yepsen: Talk about the taxes you would have to raise to pay for this. A value added tax? National sales tax? Talk about those elements. Yang: So if you look around the world other countries have had the same issue that we have where you have the Amazons paying zero in taxes. So what they have done is they have passed a value added tax that takes a tiny toll at the point of sale and it's impossible for these companies to escape that kind of transactional tax. So if you had that kind of tax on the Amazons of our country it ends up generating hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue very quickly. So a value added tax at even half the European level would generate more than $800 billion in new revenue with a giant up arrow attached to it because these companies are producing more value every day. Right now if artificial intelligence software comes out and replaces the 2.5 million Americans who work at call centers right now who make $14 an hour we're not going to see a dime of that value unless we have this kind of mechanism in place. Yepsen: What percentage value added tax? Yang: Half the European level would be approximately 10%. But what you can do is you can ratchet that up on things like artificial intelligence and robot trucks and then exempt things like diapers and milk. You can have the toll be higher on the things that you want to target most effectively. Yepsen: Caroline mentioned the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation says it will have to be more like 22% and you can only afford $750 a month. Yeah, it's math and all that, but there's a big difference in the cost of what this would be and also just how much Americans would get out of it. Yang: What the Tax Foundation is missing, again, is the trickle up second order benefit and impact of having this money in our hands because Iowans know this, 78% of us are living paycheck to paycheck, almost half of us can't afford an unexpected $500 bill, so if you put $1000 into our hands it will get spent in our communities and it will circulate through our communities multiple times and that will generate in itself hundreds of billions of dollars in new value and tax revenue. It will also be an almost unprecedented boon to creativity, arts, culture, entrepreneurship, new business formation, and risk taking. Right now rates of new business formation in Iowa and around the country are at multi-decade lows because people don't have the means to be able to take a risk. We have loaded our young people up with record levels of student loan debt. And if you're not starting new businesses then you're going to have a very hard time creating the growth and jobs that you need. You put this dividend in our hands and you will see the new business formation rates rise very quickly. Henderson: Other than the universal basic income sort of way to tide the economy over as it transitions because of artificial intelligence do you foresee measures that the federal government should take to regulate robotics? Yang: I do. Right now our government is 25 years behind the curve on technology and I can say that with precision because we got rid of the Office of Technology Assessment in 1995. So Congress has been flying blind on technology issues for over two decades. And if you turn on any of the D.C. programming you sense that they don't get it, they don't understand that our kids right now are addicted to smartphones, that we have some of the smartest programmers in our country turning super computers into dopamine delivery devices for our teenagers. D.C. is way behind that curve. D.C. doesn't understand what is going on with AI and robotics. So it's not just about this dividend that is distributed throughout our society to make us all beneficiaries. It's also that we need to get into the labs and partner with some of the leading technology firms to make sure they're not doing something problematic or even disastrous. Henderson: How do you do that in a capitalistic society, put limits on technology? Yang: I am friends with some of the leading technologists in our country and they have said to me that their incentives on things like artificial intelligence are all to go as fast as possible because they're competing with each other and China. And so they said look, if all of us are just racing at breakneck speed one of us is going to do something really, really problematic at some point. And they actually said to me, we could use some guardrails from government on this. So this is from the technologists themselves. Now, again, our government is so behind the curve that we can't even take them up on this request. But that would change with me in the White House. Henderson: You mentioned China. As President how would you crack down on China using technology as sort of a Big Brother? They're monitoring minority populations with technology today. Yang: Yes, what they're doing to the Uyghur population in their country is reprehensible and we need to do a number of things. Number one, we need to make sure that our technology companies remain the world leaders in artificial intelligence and right now we are in danger of being leapfrogged by the Chinese because they have more access to more data than we do and the government is subsidizing their computing infrastructure to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, more than even our richest companies. So number one, as President I would partner with our technology companies to make sure that we can match the resources that the Chinese are bringing. Number two, we need to have a world data organization analogous to the WTO to set standards for how this technology is being used and how our data is being used. Right now China has developed its own technology ecosystem that it is trying to export to other parts of the world. We have to make sure that they fail because we do not want a world where everyone is using Chinese software. And the way we make sure that they do not make inroads is you set a global standard with the EU and Japan and you let China know that they have no choice but to play ball just the same way they did with the WTO. Henderson: You mentioned privacy. California has recently enacted a law about the use of the stuff that we all do online. Should that be a federal law? Yang: It should but I would go even further than the California law. Our data should be ours regardless of whether or not we loan it to a technology company. We should know what they're doing with it, certainly if they're selling and reselling it. We should benefit directly from any revenue they're generating from our data. I would make it so that we're getting data checks in the mail. And we need to be able to turn off the data if we decide that we want to walk away. Right now it's a black box, no one knows what is going on and we just get notified when there is a breach and we're like, oh I guess my password got hacked and maybe I have to change all my passwords. That's the way we're interacting with our data privacy right now and it is not enough. We have to let the technology companies know that it's still our data and that is where the federal government has to have a very firm hand. Cummings: Julian Castro who recently departed from the race has said that Iowa and New Hampshire should no longer remain first in the primary calendar because they are overwhelmingly white. Do you agree that the calendar ought to change? Yang: I love Iowans, I love New Hampshire voters. I find everyone to be very smart and savvy and able to make decisions based on something bigger and broader than their own identity. To me Iowa elevated Barack Obama. I feel very confident that my campaign's case to rewrite the rules of the 21st century to work for us and our kids will resound loud and clear here in Iowa. I do not have a problem with our process. Cummings: But you have spent an overwhelming amount of time in New Hampshire, more than any other candidate. Is Iowa not as important in your calculus to the nomination? Yang: I've been in both states 24 times, this is my 24th trip here to Iowa. And I'm a parent with two young boys. I joke that it's like having kids where if you visit one you have to visit the other. (laughter) Yang: So certainly it's not a situation where Iowans have not had the same level of dedication and energy because history will be made right here on February 3rd. Henderson: You have been outspoken about the Democratic National Committee's rules about who can and cannot participate in the debates. Have the rules for the January 14th debates just gotten out of hand? Yang: What's fun is this will be airing on January 10th so we'll all find out what's going on. But I don't have a problem with the DNC's rules either as long as there are actually polls in the field. Right now as we're having this conversation there has not been a qualifying poll here in Iowa in almost 50 days. That is a long time in this campaign. And so as long as there are actually polls in the period I don't have a problem with the DNC's requirements. But if there aren't polls in the period then I would suggest that is not an appropriate standard to hold campaigns to because how can you actually meet a threshold if there are no polls? Yepsen: I want to talk about your own career. You're running for President of the United States. Most Presidents have had some experience in public office, most, not all. Why didn't you start a political career the way Theodore Roosevelt did, whom you say you admire? He held several public offices before he became Vice President. Why not run for the U.S. Senate? Why not some other office? Yang: I spent the last seven years helping to create several thousand jobs in the Midwest and the South primarily and I saw that we had blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs leading directly to Donald Trump becoming President and our country unfortunately was scapegoating immigrants for things that immigrants had very little to do with. If I decided to bide my time and try and climb the political ranks we would run out of time. We have five to ten years before the robot trucks hit our highways. I have been to I-80 in Davenport and it says very proudly that 5,000 people stop there every day. When you have self-driving trucks how many people will stop at I-80 and the other tens of thousands of truck stops, motels and diners that rely upon truckers getting out and having a meal? I'm running for President not because I fantasized about being President. I'm running for President because I'm a parent and a patriot, I see the future we are leaving to our children, it is not something I'm willing to accept and Iowans should not accept it either. Cummings: Mr. Yang, we'll briefly switch to some of the top issues of the campaign, health care among them, and the debate over Medicare for all. You have said that you agree with Medicare for all, the Bernie Sanders' backed plan, in "spirit". Can you explain what that means? Yang: I believe we need universal health care in this country but I would not legislate away private insurance. Many Americans negotiated for their private insurance plans with their employers and even gave up wages to do so. So the government needs to provide universal health care and then demonstrate to the American people that this is a better way to go than the private insurance plans and outcompete them over time. But our health care system is fundamentally not working because it is not designed to actually make us stronger and healthier. It is designed to make maximum revenue and profit for the drug companies, the private insurance companies and the device companies and that is what needs to change. We have to get the incentives aligned with our health and well-being and then we will actually be able to make progress on the real issues in our communities like the fact that people can't afford drugs, the fact that we have record levels of suicides and drug overdoses, the fact that our life expectancy has declined for the last three years, almost unprecedented in a developed country. We're spending 18% of our GDP on our health care system and it is not actually working for us. Henderson: The other big debate among the candidates has been about free tuition for college at a public institution. There are private colleges all over Iowa that are very worried about this. Do they have good reason? Yang: I think that free college is an appealing idea but to me is not the right approach. Now, should we be supporting public education to a higher level? Yes. Have costs become totally out of control for parents and families who are sending their kids to college? Yes. But emphasizing free college as the path forward ignores the fact that two-thirds of Americans will not graduate from a four year university and that millions of Americans instead should be heading towards vocational, trade, and apprenticeship programs that right now we're systematically underinvested in. Only 6% of American high schoolers are in technical or trade programs. In Germany that is 59%. Think about that gulf. So saying hey, we're going to make college free for everyone is sending the wrong message, is subsidizing a group of Americans that in many cases need the subsidy less than some others. Instead we should be giving everyone $1000 a month, which partially pays for your tuition if you decide to pursue that, but it also helps you go to trade school, helps you start a business, helps you care for your loved ones. This is a much more fair and even-handed investment of our society's resources rather than just saying everyone should go to college. The other thing I want to point out is that 40% to 44% of recent college graduates are doing a job that doesn't require a college degree and subsidizing college education does not change the underemployment rate for recent grads. Cummings: All of your democratic counterparts in this race agree that climate change is an imminent threat. But there are Americans who outright disbelieve that climate change is real. How do you convince the nation that this is an important issue, as important as you and others say it is? Yang: Well, to me a lot of the reason why Americans can't get unanimity or consensus on climate change is that so many of us are just living paycheck to paycheck and it's very hard if you can't pay next month's rent for someone to say hey, you need to worry about this problem that may be years away. The first thing we have to do is get the boot of scarcity off of everyone's throat, say look, your future is secure, your kids' future is secure. And then we have to put a stop to this tug of war that many Americans feel. When you say we need to fight climate change do you know what they hear? They hear my prices are going to go up, my costs are going to go up, my life is going to become more inconvenient and the jobs are going to disappear. We have to let people know, look, addressing climate change can be a huge job creator and it will not increase your costs, it actually can bring them down over time if we invest in the right way. But it begins with Americans feeling secure in their own future because if you're not secure in your own future then you're much less likely to think about very huge future oriented problems like climate change. Yepsen: We've got just a minute left and let's talk about entrepreneurship. What should Iowans watching this program do to foster a spirit of entrepreneurship in this state or in their own children? Yang: I'm a parent myself and so this is very near and dear for me. A lot of it is just preparing your kids to become more resilient and feel secure in themselves even if something does not work out. So this could be sports, this could be getting out in the neighborhood and trying to help an organization in some way, but just letting our kids know that they are sturdy and tough and that if something goes wrong they can pick themselves up and doing something that they actually care about rather than something that they think is going to be better for them in terms of the paycheck. Those are the ways that we can actually prepare our children for the next version of this economy. Yepsen: Mr. Yang, we're out of time. Thank you very much for being with us today. Yang: Thank you, David, such a pleasure. Yepsen: And we'll be back next week with another edition of Iowa Press at our regular times, Friday night at 7:30 and again at Noon on Sunday. For all of us here at Iowa PBS, I'm David Yepsen. Thanks for joining us today. ♪♪ Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa Public Television Foundation. The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure. I'm a dad. I am a mom. I'm a kid. I'm a kid at heart. I'm a banker. I'm an Iowa banker. No matter who you are, there is an Iowa banker who is ready to help you get where you want to go. Iowa bankers, allowing you to discover the genuine difference of Iowa banks.