Mark Greenstein, Candidate for President

by Andrew Grossman

Mark Greenstein, Dartmouth class of 1986, is perhaps the most surprising candidate in the Democratic primary. As Gore and Bradley argue over how, exactly, their platforms differ, Greenstein champions a radical departure from the Democratic Party line. I met Greenstein last week and had lunch with him at Murphy's. Our waitress was enthralled. She knew something was going on, but what? What was she to make of it when Greenstein shooed her away while discussing, enthusiastically, abolishing the income tax? Was she impressed as he ate his mashed potatoes while debating Cuban-American relations without missing a beat—or a mound of potatoes, for that matter. Greenstein is quite a talker and, clearly, he's not your garden-variety Democrat.

The Dartmouth Review: What's it like to be running as an independent candidate in New Hampshire, the most politically saturated state in the Union?

Mark Greenstein: Now, I'm not truly independent. I have decided to go on the Democratic Party primary ballot for a reason: they get attention. Even though in some ways I'm closer to a Libertarian, they don't get to be heard until after September. Now, there's a lot of reasons I'm on the Democratic Party primary ballot. In a way, I am an old-fashioned Democrat, really old fashioned. I mean like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson old-fashioned. If they were around today, they would probably be categorized in the nomenclature as libertarian. So I'm here because I'm trying to bring the Democratic mainstream to see that your leaders have gotten off mooring. You're way off to the statist-socialist side of things, and you really do have a choice. So, while I am independent in spirit, I am allied with the Democratic Party, and I am, by nature, a small “d” democrat, meaning what people want; not necessarily what big businesses, what lobbyists, what interest groups that speak really loudly, what the media want. What real people want: that's what I think any President for domestic issues really ought to get to. In that way, I am independent; in other ways, I'm really a Democrat.

TDR: So have you've had problems getting through to the media? Is there a lockout on less-mainstream candidates?

MG: I don't know. I think there's a bit of an unconscious or maybe conscious wanting to play the horse race and I'm a very, very dark horse right now. So, even among the big six Republicans, you see Tim Russert giving much more attention to McCain and Bush. I was at a conference in Manchester where McCain and Bush appeared, along with Hatch and Forbes. McCain and Bush got a lot more time, even though they were supposed to get only an equal share of time. I'm not complaining. I didn't expect to get attention; that's OK. One of these days, some supporter of mine will be able to alert a mainstream media guy who says, “You know, this is worthy of a story.” It'll happen. I hope it'll happen before the New Hampshire primary, but I'm on the ballot in six other states, and in one of them I'm going to get 5% of the vote. And then, people will say—mainstream media will say—“who is this guy?” That's what I'm waiting for.

There's one other thing that I can do, and it may happen. I could ambush one of them. Now, I don't think I'll need to resort to it, but if it's the last week and I still don't get any major media attention, I will be at one of those debates, and I will get myself on camera speaking and throwing a dagger at one of their policies. Now, I don't think it will come down to that.

TDR: What do you plan to accomplish with your presidential bid? Do you have an agenda beyond getting into the White House?

MG: I want to expose to the independents, mainstream Democrats, and even Republicans that liberalism has gone too far, and that if they want to combat that they really have a choice. I am on the ballot here in New Hampshire; I'm right below Al Gore. I'll be in at least six other states; I expect to be in up to twenty by the end of primary season. And in one of these states, people will see, because the media will finally pay attention, that there's a choice. There's a self-reliant Democrat; that's how I call myself. Self-reliant in that he doesn't need big money, so that big money wouldn't have to be part of the governmental equation when it comes time to pass new policies.

TDR: We're getting into the realm of economics. What is your economic plan for the country? Do you have one?

MG: Yes, to remove as many laws as I can that are not delivering fairness or effectiveness. I would have a czar for getting rid of dumb laws. I know that sounds a little juvenile, but we came up with “czar” ten years ago and it seemed to stick. Frankly, it doesn't need to be a seasoned politician. I expect I'll choose somebody from New Hampshire or Nevada, two very freedom-oriented states—it could be a Dartmouth student—who could point to bureaucratic things that weren't passed by Congress. The czar's job is to look at every single regulation, and if it is not efficacious or not fair or didn't have a democratic inspiration, if it was coming from a couple companies or one vociferous lobby group, it goes back to Congress, and Congress has to put itself on the line and say, “Out!” If they won't do that, I will consider not enforcing it.

The economic plan also involves reducing taxes. I would do it first by getting rid of Social Security. The system is bankrupt. Everyone knows it. I passed a billboard in California from E-Trade. It says, “Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, Social Security: Three things that don't exist—at least by your retirement age.” At this point Social Security, which can't pay for its future obligations, should get rolled into welfare. I would abolish Social Security and force or allow Congress to reward senior citizens as they see fit; just don't steal from workers.

Now that's a start, because Social Security taxes are 12.6%—the worker's contribution plus the employer's contribution. So that's a pretty big chunk. That's a lot of money that would come back right into your pocket.

Then I'd go after the personal income tax. I think it's a relatively immoral tax. We started it with good intentions in 1913, fourscore and seven years ago. We've got a tax code that was only meant to tax four percent of incomes and only the richest Americans. Now, what's it done? It's gotten so out of whack that there are clearly inefficiencies, and there's this silly sort of incentive system for companies to do things based on the tax code—whether or not it is economically or socially desirable. I think the code itself is immoral, and I'd like to replace those taxes with wealth and spending taxes. That is, a national sales tax no greater than two or three percent is all you need.

What happens on the other side, with the property taxes? Property is valued so that we could probably get another four to five hundred billion dollars a year. Keep the corporate income tax where it is, that's another hundred and fifty billion dollars. Import taxes I'd keep and leave the estate tax where it is; it's not a big revenue maker, but I think it's fair.

TDR: If it's that easy to reduce taxation and spending, why hasn't been done yet? Why aren't other candidates proposing anything this radical?

MG: It's not easy; there's political momentum. People haven't lived, except for the very oldest Americans, in a regime in which there wasn't a federal income tax. So, they think it's ingrained. The consequences of what the tax code is becoming are so heinous at this point, that there is no way more efficient and better than to have a national sales tax and wealth taxes. It seems like it's morally better to pay a tax on things that we take advantage of, things that we take pleasure in, things that we spend our money on. So an extra two or three percent on a two hundred dollar purchase; now it's two hundred and six dollars. Is that going to change your purchase? I don't think so. But, by contrast, with all the taxing of what we don't really want to do—work, labor—the first third of it is going to a government that might not be using it very effectively. I just think that's relatively immoral.

Once you're on a two or three percent national sales tax and a two or three percent wealth tax on property—real property, cars, and boats—then you can make the budget process devoid of spending versus taxing. You could actually equate, in a very fair and clear way, the revenue with the outlay. You have Congress set the spending—make it totally recognized that, whatever they choose to spend, we would pay for it. Therefore, I would abolish deficit spending. I'd abolish surpluses, too. We'll be living on what we make.

TDR: What are your ideas on foreign policy, particularly regarding Russia and the whole Chechen problem? Should the US be intervening?

MG: I'm only going to talk in a limited way on foreign policy. Why? Because I don't know that much. I'm not privy to our capabilities as a national force; I'm not privy to some CIA information on the capabilities of our allies, our enemies, and the people within countries who could become our enemies. For a long time I thought what Russia was doing in Chechnya was immoral and undemocratic, but a nice piece in the Union-Leader not long ago pointed out that the Chechens themselves have basically been abusing people who didn't go along with their fundamentalist Islamic ideas. So, in some ways, what Moscow's goals are may be more freedom-oriented than what a Chechen independent regime would want. So, it's really complex, and I'm not in a position to say what I would do.

TDR: So what about Elian Gonzalez? Should he be sent back to Cuba or should we keep him here?

MG: The Elian Gonzalez example is, I think, an immoral decision by the INS. The INS decided to pick out a law, which supposedly fosters a parent's reuniting with a child. I don't think this is an appropriate law, and, even if it was, I think it ought to be overlooked in this case. INS people still contain a lot of liberals who still hold that Castro is a proletarian hero. Now that belief should have been dispelled forty years ago when he started abusing his own citizens.

The fact that he won't let Elian Gonzalez's father come to the US freely causes me to presume that he's not able to speak his own free will. I won't trust his words until Castro allows Mr. Gonzalez to emigrate here. If after six months in Florida, he and his son willingly want to go back to Cuba, then let them. Ask any Cuban-American you see: they're not going back. That people have to flee on rafts, risk their lives, and potentially lose their lives, as Elian Gozalez's mother did, is because Castro is running a not-very-free place. Nice cigars out there, but not much else.

TDR: So, to sum things up, what's your message to Dartmouth Students? What do you have to offer younger voters?

MG: Your generation is probably the most idealistic and has the most opportunity to make a difference than any other generation right now. That idealism naturally channels into my candidacy because I am the candidate who is more small-“d” democratic than anybody else. What people want, people get. I see myself as a potential President as the chief administrator. When there is a view that is broadly expressed, when Constitutionally-protected, I want to be the administrator to get the bureaucracy channeling in the right way.