Gary Johnson in Interview by Scott Holleran on scottholleran.com blog

On Budget & Economy: We could have avoided default without raising debt ceiling

A: We would have still brought in $200 billion a month. How we make payments [determines] whether we default on any bills. But obviously going forward, we have to put the brakes on spending. I just argue that it will never be easier than now. In the bond market, if no one was buying our debt, that would mean the Federal Reserve printing money as opposed to individuals or countries loaning us money; that's the bond market collapsing--so when that happens, that is a whole lot of money and it has to result in inflation. Russia is the most recent example. As frightening as that scenario is, that's what going to happen. But we can fix this--there's going to be a lot of hardship and pain, but that's better than killing the patient and, the way we're going, we're going to kill the patient in a monetary collapse. But I am an optimist because I think it can be fixed.

On Budget & Economy: Ending the fed OK, but that's only part of the solution

A: I think ending the Federal Reserve would be positive but if we end the Fed it's important to point out that that's not the end of the solution. A lot of the central banking function would have to be taken up by regional banks.

On Civil Rights: Supports separation of religion and state

A: Yes.

Q: You oppose gay marriage, though you favor civil unions. Why?

A: I wouldn't say I oppose gay marriage as a matter of public policy. The government shouldn't be in the marriage business. I would not be opposed to belonging to a church that supports gay marriage.

On Crime: Don't risk putting innocent to death

A: As governor of New Mexico, I was a bit na‹ve and I did not think the government made mistakes with regard to the death penalty. I came to realize that they do. I don't want to put one innocent person to death to punish 99 who are guilty.

On Education: Abolish Departments of Education and HUD

A: There are currently two that I advocate abolishing: the Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Q: Do you favor a balanced budget amendment?

A: I do--but the problem is that passing balanced budgets for future years is what we do and it takes away the immediate problem and kicks it down the road.

On Energy & Oil: Supports nuclear power

A: Yes.

On Foreign Policy: Act in US self-interest, but wary of unintended consequences

A: I think we should act in our self-interest. As I understand it, I think Eisenhower was a pretty good role model for that. Morally, you can justify almost anything we do by saying that we're doing it for the sake of others. I would point to past realities that have unintended consequences. For example, by taking out [the secular regime in] Iraq, we removed a threat to [the religious totalitarian regime] Iran.

On Health Care: Block grant Medicare; carte blanche to the states

A: Specifically, and this is waving the magic wand, because I recognize that there are three branches of government, I would have the federal government cut Medicare and Medicaid by 43% and block grant the programs [to the states] with no strings. Instead of giving the states one dollar--and it's not really giving because there are strings attached--the federal government needs to give the states 57 cents, take away the strings and give the states carte blanche for how to give health care to the poor. I reformed Medicaid as governor of New Mexico and, in that context, even with strings attached, I believe I could have delivered health care to the poor. I believe I could have done the same thing with Medicare.

On Health Care: ObamaCare is unconstitutional; so is Bush's Medicare Rx plan

A: Yes, if it's possible. I would do the same for [President Bush's Medicare] prescription [drug subsidies]. Two parties can take responsibility for where we're at right now.

On Homeland Security: No physical or psychological torture of terrorist suspects

A: I just think that there's no end to that. Let's say we know there's a bomb ticking, so we have to torture this guy--that's the argument for the death penalty--but the law that gets written also is public policy which allows us to put someone who's innocent to death. The basis of our country is that we protect the innocent. Are we going to torture people to prevent nuclear briefcase bombs? It amounts to the ends justify the means.

On Homeland Security: Abolish the TSA; let Patriot Act expire

A: I would abolish the TSA.

On Principles & Values: Favorite philosopher: Milton Friedman

A: Steve Jobs comes to mind--he represents incredible innovation. Maybe Bill Gates. I didn't have any business heroes growing up. One of the realities of my life is that those I thought were heroes were not.

Q: Who is your favorite political philosopher?

A: [Chicago economist and Free to Choose author] Milton Friedman.

On Social Security: Raise the retirement age; plus means testing

A: I would cut Social Security by raising the retirement age and have common sense means testing that's fair. I would scrap the entire federal tax system and replace it with the FairTax--a one-time consumption tax, with no more Medicare and unemployment payroll deductions--so we'd replace all federal taxes, abolishing the IRS.

On War & Peace: No military threat from Iraq, Afghanistan, nor Libya

A: I do. In all three cases, I don't see a military threat. I initially thought the intervention in Afghanistan was warranted--we were attacked and we attacked back--but we've wiped out Al Qaeda and here we are; we're still there.

Q: Isn't there evidence that we merely drove Al Qaeda from Afghanistan into Pakistan?

A: Sure.

On War & Peace: Iran is not currently a military threat

A: I would point to past realities that have unintended consequences. For example, by taking out [the secular regime in] Iraq, we removed a threat to [the religious totalitarian regime] Iran. I don't think Iran's a military threat, though it might prove to be, but we [have the military capacity to] deal with that threat.

Q: Iran in several instances has stated its intention to destroy the US, which Iran calls "the Great Satan." If you had information that Iran was preparing an attack--either through sponsorship of terrorism or by nuclear strike against one of our military bases or cities--how would you respond?

A: I'd meet with the military experts and ask a lot of questions. We have airborne lasers that can knock out incoming missiles in the launch phase.

On War & Peace: Let Israel deal with Iranian nukes; not US role to tell them

A: I think Israel is an important military ally and I support that alliance. I think Iran gets dealt with by Israel, which is likely to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I think it's wrong for our government to presume to tell Israel what to do.