By Eric Lindquist

Editor's note: U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Oshkosh, met Monday with the Leader-Telegram Editorial Board and fielded questions on several topics. Following are edited versions of some of his responses:

Q: You were elected as an outsider not poisoned by what's going on in Washington. Now that you've been there a while, are you more or less optimistic about the way we run our government?

A: I can say unequivocally I'm not more optimistic. I took a pretty dim view to Washington. I had a pretty realistic view of how entrenched the interests are there. My disappointment is I was hoping that the members on the other side of the aisle would really start acknowledging how serious the situation is and really work in good faith to start fixing the problem, but that simply hasn't happened.

Q: What was your reaction to the bill to raise the debt ceiling?

A: You can say it's maybe a step in the right direction, that we're not dramatically increasing spending, but we're really not cutting anything. Cutting spending is just Washington-speak for limiting the growth of spending. The only thing you can kinda sorta call a cut in this budget deal is we're taking 30 percent of the budget, the discretionary portion, which this year will spend $1.05 trillion and next year will spend $1.043 trillion, so that's a whopping $7 billion cut. Entitlement mandatory spending will continue to increase, so my guess is next year's budget will still spend more than it did this year. ... We simply are not seriously addressing the problem.

Q: If you were on the deficit reduction supercommittee, what are some of the things you would say the federal government just can't do any more?

A: The way to do this so you could actually solve the problem is a two-step process, and that's why I supported cut, cap and balance. The cut portion of that would have cut $111 billion from the baseline increase. The next step is statutory caps. In the House version, they did it the way I prefer, as a percentage of GDP, (or) percentage decreases in relation to the size of the economy. ... You establish those spending caps, and that forces everybody in Washington to put their plans on the table.

Q: How do you address the long-term Social Security solvency issue without upping the payroll tax, cutting benefits or raising the retirement age?

A: You can put all those things on the table. It's actually actuarily pretty easy to do. It's just a matter of how you tweak it. ... You can actually do these things by increasing the retirement age. We have to recognize that when Social Security was first enacted the retirement age was set at 65 and life expectancy was 62. Now there's a long-term program that's solvent. But the average life expectancy now is just shy of 80 years. You have to recognize that our population is just growing older. These programs — it's not ideology; it's math. For Medicare, for example, the most recent study I saw showed someone retiring today at age of 65 will have paid about $110,000. The problem is that same individual is expected to pull out about $350,000 in benefits.

Q: You wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal in which you said the health care reform bill was the greatest assault on freedom in your lifetime. But if somebody has to be treated if they show up at the emergency room, why shouldn't all but the most destitute be required to have health insurance, to have some skin in the game, so that you and I don't have to pay for them at least 100 percent?

A: Our country was formed on the basis of individual liberty and freedom and when the government says, no, you must purchase a certain product, you're taking your freedom away. You're also taking your freedom away when the government takes over the health care system, and they won't do it well. ... Obamacare is going to be a disaster for our health care system; it's going to be a disaster for our budget.

Q: Can you talk a little bit about your thoughts on our foreign policy as far as Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya?

A: I'm happy to acknowledge that our nation in general is very war weary, and I share that. I think we always have to reassess what we've done, what's been the effect and how do we move forward. ... I think we have to recognize the reality of the situation and how possible is it for us to really set up a long-term, stable Afghanistan? ... I'm highly concerned about Libya. We are choosing sides in a civil war. I am glad Moammar Gadhafi looks like he's been deposed. He should be brought to justice; he's got the blood of Americans on his hands, but I have no idea who these rebels are still today, and I'm not sure the administration does either.

View Original Article