Former Speaker of the Chamber, Shuana Lultquist, is running for President. She sat down on Friday night with Max Samhill to discuss her presidential campaign, military spending, tax cuts, and Former-President Castovia. The following is a complete transcript:
SAMHILL: Welcome back to The Tofino Times Public Broadcasting. I'm Jake Samhill.
She was a young politician whose speech to the Libertarian National Convention raised speculation that maybe he would run for president someday. That was 1993, and the next year, she became the first black Speaker of the Chamber. Since then, she’s been an activist, a businesswoman, and it turns out, she is running for president, now, for 2020.
Libertarian presidential candidate Speaker Shuana Lultquist joins me now.
Speaker Lultquist, thanks for joining us.
LULTQUIST: Good morning.
SAMHILL: For weeks now, the Liberal Party has said that President Bishop needed to open -- open the signatory, reopen the signatory, in order to then allow negotiations on education funding.
As you know, the signatory is now open. You said on Wednesday that -- quote -- "Everybody should work to keep the signatory open." How far do you think Liberals and Libertarians and Progressives should go to be willing to give President Bishop at least some money for military spending, including money for an aircraft carrier or a fighter program, as part of negotiations?
LULTQUIST: Well, as you know, Jake, the Chamber, Conservative and Liberal, Progressive, exedra, has made clear that they're willing to negotiate on investing in additional funds for security. In fact, they did that in the legislation that they passed earlier this month. I think the difference here is the focus.
What the liberals are opposed to is an unnecessary investment. There are better ways that we can ensure that we have a nation that is completely secure without adding a fourth aircraft carrier to our fleet.
And, by the way, as many people have pointed out, in many ways, our nation is more secure today than ever. But there are investments that we can make in additional personnel at the border, in technology so that we can better monitor what's coming through ports of entry. And we can better secure those ports of entry.
SAMHILL: Mm-hmm.
LULTQUIST: Blackwater said this the other day. He laid out where they're willing to negotiate.
So my hope...
SAMHILL: Right.
LULTQUIST: ... is that we're not going to get back into this situation on August 15 where you have 800,000 families that don't get a paycheck.
SAMHILL: Right.
Earlier this month, Speaker of the Chamber Sakzi said that the increase was -- quote -- "immoral." As you know, as you just stated, there are already three aircraft carriers in our fleet. Are they immoral?
LULTQUIST: Well, I don't think it represents the best of what Zamastan stands for.
I think -- I believe that if we were to build the kind of buildup that Bishop is talking about -- and, admittedly, as you know, sometimes, that's hard to figure out, because, some days, she says it's a necessity to our safety, which I commend her for her concern, but I believe, fundamentally, that if we were to build that wall, that it would change the notion of Zamastan from the idea that stands for freedom and welcomes immigrants to a country that literally walls itself off from the rest of the world.
And maybe that wouldn't make much of a difference on day one when we do that, but I believe that, as years go by, it would change how we see ourselves as Zamastanians and how others see us and have a real impact on who we are. And that's not a path that we want to go down.
So, yes, I agree that to do so would be immoral. A fourth aircraft carrier – by the way – the third one isn’t even completed yet. The ZMS Upham and ZMS Redeemer are active, and the third – the Clift – is still under construction. Let’s wait until that one is finished to put an additional ten billion dollars into a fourth.
SAMHILL: I don't want to spend the whole time talking about the navy.
But if there are already 3 aircraft carriers, why would adding another change the nation of -- notion of this nation any more than -- I mean, we already have that. Why -- why would adding any more change who we are?
LULTQUIST: You know, I would say two things, number one, that that 3 aircraft carriers were built out some time ago, and that was built out when the technology to be able to monitor what is happening overseas and it was not what it is today.
In other words, that's an old style of doing things. And we have a more effective way without that kind of barrier to do it.
The other argument that people have made that I believe is true is that we have addressed where we might -- where you might argue that, OK, you need a physical structure, a physical barrier, well, that was addressed in those 3 ships. And that's not the case for the rest.
SAMHILL: Let's move on to your presidential campaign.
You have laid out a very ambitious agenda. It includes a new climate change effective deal. It includes a brand new health care for all system. Obviously, you will need to raise revenue to fund some of these priorities.
If you were elected president, would you undo the conservative tax cut law and raise the corporate tax rate back up from 21 percent to 35 percent?
LULTQUIST: I absolutely would look at undoing several tax cuts that benefited the super wealthy and benefited corporations, but I believe in keeping some of the cuts for those who have recorded thorough and in-depth returns that show a degree of monetary gain. We also -- as you know, Jake, we are going to have to look at other things, other ways of raising revenue. But I have said very clearly that I believe that it's worth it. I believe that, in this nation, quickly on track to becoming the wealthiest nation on Earth, there is no reason that anybody should go without health care when they need it.
And I'm under no illusion that that's going to be easy. And during the course of this campaign, I look forward to putting forth a plan on how we'd pay for that, because I do think that Zamastanians deserve to know from candidates for president how they are going to do that, even though I will point out, as you all have seen, that Anya Bishop went through an entire presidential cycle, not only not releasing her tax returns until a few months ago...
SAMHILL: Yes.
LULTQUIST: ... but never telling the Zamastanian people how she was going to pay for anything or what his plans were. I think that we need to do better than that. And, during the course of this campaign, we will.
SAMHILL: You said earlier this month that you want top earners to pay more in taxes.
And you pointed to the top marginal tax rate during the Tariel War. It used to be 94 percent, the marginal tax rate. Just to clarify for people, that's not 94 percent of the income taxed. It's just the top rate, the top amount that individuals...
(CROSSTALK)
LULTQUIST: Thank you for pointing that out.
SAMHILL: Well, I just want to make sure people understand that.
LULTQUIST: Yes. I mean, you must point that out...
SAMHILL: Right.
LULTQUIST: ... because people often make that mistake.
They think, well, if somebody is making Z$5 million, suddenly -- Z$10 million or 50...
SAMHILL: Yes.
LULTQUIST: ... they are suddenly going to -- all of their income is -- you get taxed at...
SAMHILL: Right.
LULTQUIST: That's not true. That's a marginal tax rate, the top tax rate.
SAMHILL: But would you -- would you support it, raising it to the -- the top marginal tax rate to that level, more than 90 percent?
LULTQUIST: I would say this, that I support raising it. I think that we would have to negotiate on where that goes. I would not refuse raising it, but not as much as the liberal party wants. More than the conservatives, less than the liberals.
SAMHILL: In the middle?
LULTQUIST: That’s a given. (laughter) We’ll have to see, but I can guarantee it won’t be as high as Blackwater’s proposal.
I also think that it was very telling that, after Gunn mentioned the idea that perhaps the marginal tax rate could be as high as 70 percent, because it used to be -- in fact, if you think about it, Anya Bishop often says that she wants to make Zamastan better, which means we want to go backward.
I don't believe in going backward. I want to go forward. But if you did go backward, you would go right into a time where the marginal tax rate was higher. They did a poll. And 45 percent of conservatives said that they believe the idea of that kind of top marginal tax rate was a good idea. So, I believe that we should increase it. Now, where it goes to, I think that would be a subject of negotiation.
SAMHILL: Mm-hmm.
I want to ask you about Former President Castovia, who says this weekend he's seriously exploring a self-funded independent bid for president. He told The Tofino Times that he thinks both parties are engaged in what he called revenge politics and not acting in the interest of the Zamastanian people.
Do you have any concerns that a very wealthy independent, as well as a person who has already held office, with a message like Castovia’s could play spoiler in 2020?
LULTQUIST: Well, you know, first, I would say that I have tremendous respect for President Zacharias Castovia.
When I was Speaker, I had an opportunity to visit with his father, and he was obviously young at that point, but I know that, you know, he's done some impressive things in business. Obviously, if he runs, it's going to make an impression on the race.
But I do share that concern. I have a concern that, if he did run, that, essentially, it would provide Bishop with her best hope of getting reelected.
SAMHILL: You think if the former President runs, that’ll give Bishop an advantage?
LULTQUIST: Yes, because-
SAMHILL: President Bishop is polling third right now behind Speaker Sakzi and Speaker Blackwater.
LULTQUIST: Well, here’s what I mean. Just the other day, there was a fairly comprehensive poll taken that showed, essentially, right now, that the president has a ceiling of about 31 percent or 32 percent in terms of support for her, no matter which candidate they polled against Bishop.
So her only hope, if things stayed the same -- and that's a big if -- is essentially to get somebody else, a outside, non-party member, to siphon off those votes. And I don't think that that would be in the best interest of our country. We need new leadership.
And so, you know, I would suggest to Mr. Castovia to truly think about the negative impact that that might make.
The only other thing I will say about that is that we can't both-sides this to death. It's not -- yes, I agree that there are things that conservatives and liberals do need to improve upon, but there's a real difference between any of the folks who have said that they want to run on the liberal side and Anya Bishop.
I mean, that's become so clear. So, it's not all the same thing.
SAMHILL: All right, Speaker Shuana Lultquist, we hope we will have you on back -- back again sometime, talking more about the issues.
Thanks for joining us today.
LULTQUIST: Thank you.
Comments