ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Jon Huntsman”

Economy

Huntsman: ‘I Will Break Up The Big Banks’

By Pat Garofalo on Jan 9, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Across the board, the GOP’s 2012 presidential candidates have denounced the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, enacted to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis. However, none of them has come up with a plan to replace it, save one: former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who is hanging his campaign on a strong showing tomorrow in the New Hampshire primary.

In a Fox News op-ed, Huntsman explicitly said that he would like to “break up the big banks” by imposing a fee on banks whose size hits a certain percentage of GDP:

As president, I will break up the big banks, end future taxpayer bailouts, and restore capitalist principles – competition and creative destruction – to our financial sector.

We will accomplish this by imposing a fee on banks whose size exceeds a certain percentage of GDP, proving them an incentive to slim down and localize.

This is akin to the “bank tax” that lived a short life during the financial reform debate. While it wouldn’t be as clean a break as reimposing the strict divide between investment banking and traditional commercial banking, if it were large enough, a fee like the one Huntsman proposed would provide an incentive for banks to shrink — or if not, could be used to build up a pot of money that could be tapped to dismantle a big bank that is going under, instead of resorting to ad hoc, taxpayer funded bailouts.

As Reuters’ Felix Salmon put it, Huntsman “goes where Obama dares not tread.” Indeed, Obama has never called for breaking up the biggest banks — or “right sizing” them, as Huntsman puts it — preferring instead to craft a regulatory framework in which big banks can exist without having one of their failures doom the wider economy.

But that fact is that the biggest banks are still big enough to pull down the financial system, and while Dodd-Frank went a long way to make it possible to dismantle those banks without taxpayer funds, it didn’t do much to reduce the dangerous co-mingling of investment and commercial banking (which even 90s deregulator Newt Gingrich now admits it was “a mistake” to permit in the first place).

Security

Huntsman Raps Romney: ‘The President Of The United States Is The Commander-In-Chief’

By Ali Gharib on Jan 9, 2012 at 1:09 pm

During Saturday night’s ABC/Yahoo! Republican presidential debate, former U.S. ambassador to China Jon Huntsman rapped former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney on failing to recognize the chain-of-command of the U.S. military. By design, the military leadership is subservient to the president, a fact most GOP contenders have ignored throughout the campaign as they sought to portray Barack Obama as weak on national security.

Romney has, as on so many issues, flip-flopped on whether or not a president should defer to his generals in making decisions about war and peace. Initially, he said Obama should defer to military leaders, then walked his position back and said he would listen to the generals’ “input” and make his “own decision.” During Saturday’s debate, Romney didn’t quite return to his initial position, but he did punctuate his statement on a plan for Afghanistan by declaring that he would be “listening to the commanders on the ground.”

Asked to respond, Huntsman, who’s spoken out for a more speedy withdrawal from Afghanistan, lept at the opportunity:

MODERATOR: Governor Huntsman, you have a disagreement?

HUNTSMAN: Yes. I would have to tell Mitt that the president of the United States is the commander-in-chief. Of course you get input and — and advice from a lot of different corners of Washington, including the commanders on the ground.

But we also deferred to the commanders on the ground in about 1967, during the Vietnam War, and we didn’t get very good advice then.

Watch a video of the exchange:

The U.S.’s top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Martin Dempsey, and other top generals agree with Huntsman. “I find some of those articles about divergence or control of the generals to be kind of offensive to me,” Dempsey recently said. “(A)t the end of the day, our system is built on the fact that it will be our civilian leaders who make that decision and I don’t find that in any way to challenge my manhood, nor my position. In fact, if it were the opposite, I think we should all be concerned.”

Huntsman concluded his comments on Saturday by declaring that “civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan.” He said he doesn’t want to spend more money or lose more troops in that scenario and the U.S. should “move on.”

LGBT

Huntsman Speaks Out Against Santorum’s Polygamy Comments: Treat Everyone With ‘Fairness And Dignity’

By Igor Volsky on Jan 6, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Former Utah governor and GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman is speaking out against Rick Santorum’s efforts to link marriage equality to polygamy and urging the former Pennsylvania senator to treat all voters with dignity, Bloomberg reports:

One of the other candidates, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, in an appearance earlier this week compared gay marriage to polygamy, asking voters “what about three men?” Huntsman described that kind of rhetoric as divisive, saying the conversation ought to be based on “fairness and dignity.”

Huntsman is one of the few Republican presidential hopefuls to support civil unions and reciprocal beneficiary rights for same-sex couples, and would allow states to enact marriage equality. He has previously spoken out against homophobia in the campaign, condemning his fellow candidates for allowing a debate audience to jeer an openly-gay servicemember.

Huntsman first embraced civil unions in February 2009, despite supporting a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage in 2004.

Climate Progress

Boston Globe Endorses Huntsman Over Romney, Singling Out Climate and Energy Issues

By Joe Romm on Jan 6, 2012 at 10:43 am

The largest newspaper in the state Mitt Romney once governed has endorsed former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman in the lead up to the New Hampshire primary.

Here’s the key excerpts from the Boston Globe editorial, “For vision and national unity, Huntsman for GOP nominee“:

He has stood up far more forcefully than Romney against those in his party who reject evolution and the science behind global warming….

Strong economic growth put Utah in the top five in job creation during Huntsman’s tenure, while he gave tax credits to companies developing solar energy. He … joined the Western Climate Initiative, which set goals for reducing greenhouse gases.

Of course, even Huntsman has waffled at times — see Call Jon Huntsman “Crazy”: He Flips on Climate Science (and Earns an F in Geography). UPDATE: Huntsman Mostly Flops Back).  But nowhere near as consistently (inconistently?) as Mitt has waffled.

NEWS FLASH

Citing Romney’s Climate Denial, Boston Globe Endorses Huntsman | The Boston Globe, one of the most influential papers for the New Hampshire primary, has endorsed Jon Huntsman over home-state Mitt Romney, in large part because of Romney’s climate denial. While Romney is “trying to appease enough constituencies to get himself the nomination, Huntsman has been bold,” the Boston Globe editors write. “He has stood up far more forcefully than Romney against those in his party who reject evolution and the science behind global warming.” The Globe gave special attention to Huntsman’s pro-climate record as Utah governor as well. “Strong economic growth put Utah in the top five in job creation during Huntsman’s tenure, while he gave tax credits to companies developing solar energy. He offered a sweeping school choice plan, and joined the Western Climate Initiative, which set goals for reducing greenhouse gases.” Although Huntsman has been less of a science-denier than Romney, he has similarly renounced his former support for cap-and-trade and climate action.

By Brad Johnson on Jan 6, 2012 at 9:30 am

Health

Huntsman Would ‘Assess Reinstating Certain Provisions’ Of Obamacare

By Igor Volsky on Jan 4, 2012 at 2:02 pm

Jon Huntsman walked back his support for repealing the Affordable Care Act during a campaign event in Lebanon, New Hampshire yesterday, promising a more “careful assessed approach,” the Union Leader reports:

When asked about Obamacare, Huntsman said he has not promised to repeal the health care law like many of his primary contenders, but said he would take a balanced approach to the bill. Good measures in the bill such as coverage for people with pre-existing conditions or allowing young adults to stay on their parents plan up to a certain age should stay in place, along with other good measures in the bill if possible, he said. He added the Supreme Court has yet to rule whether or not the bill is constitutional, he said.

“Let’s take a careful assessed approach,” he said. “As president I think my inclination would be to call together the fifty governors together, cause many of the governors have worked on various aspects of healthcare reform. … We’ve got to start with cost containment and transparency,” he said.

Huntsman has previously backed eliminating the law entirely, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in May 2011, “If I had a chance to repeal it, I would. But then you have to say what goes in its place, and I think the answer to that is look at what all the states are doing.” This afternoon, campaign spokesperson Tim Miller clarified that the candidate “supports the repeal of Obamacare and would assess reinstating certain provisions once repealed.”

In 2007, the former Utah governor introduced a reform plan that closely resembles the health care law. The proposal “called for providing subsidies to help Utahns who didn’t qualify for government programs and requiring insurance companies to take all comers without charging higher premiums based on medical history. Taking a page from Massachusetts, Huntsman also sought to build a health exchange…[and] called for everyone to get insurance or face penalties.” Huntsman did establish the exchange, which is similar to the state-based marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act. He ultimately abandoned his larger version of reform (after it stopped being politically feasible) and his “goal of halving the state’s ranks of uninsured.” At the end of his term, “The state’s uninsured rate remained steady at 11 percent in 2010, meaning 300,000 Utahns went without coverage.”

NEWS FLASH

Huntsman: Romney Is An Agent Of The Big Banks | Hoping to make a better showing in New Hampshire than he did in Iowa, GOP contender Jon Huntsman criticized his main competition, Mitt Romney, as a Wall Street shill who will protect the status quo. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Huntsman attacked Romney as beholden to the bankers who have largely funded his campaign. Huntsman has advocated for more limits on the big banks, and said of Romney, “It is the fact that he has raised so much money from the large banks, the banks that need to be right-sized. If you are the largest recipient of funds from Wall Street, and in particular the large banks, you are not going to be inclined to want to change that model.”

By Marie Diamond on Jan 4, 2012 at 11:25 am

Justice

Six GOP Presidential Candidates Want More Justices Who Don’t Know The Difference Between Corporations and People

By Ian Millhiser on Dec 16, 2011 at 11:30 am

A last night’s GOP presidential debate, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked each of the seven candidates to name their favorite Supreme Court Justice. Six of the seven candidates named some combination of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito — all of whom voted in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations should be able to spend unlimited money to buy and sell American elections. The candidates’ picks were:

  • Rep. Michele Bachmann: Scalia is “at the top of the list.” Roberts, Thomas and Alito are “marvelous.”
  • Fmr. Speaker Newt Gingrich: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are “a pretty darn good list.”
  • Fmr. Gov. Jon Huntsman: Roberts and Alito “fit the bit very, very nicely.”
  • Gov. Rick Perry: “Alito, Roberts or Thomas, pick one.”
  • Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney: “Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia.”
  • Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum: “Thomas.”
  • Rep. Ron Paul: “All of them are good and all of them are bad.”

Watch it:

Although Paul refused to name a favorite justice, there should be no doubt that he shares his fellow candidates’ support for corporate-owned democracy. In a 2010 interview with radio host Thom Hartmann, Paul said that he agreed with the Citizens United decision’s result because he thought that not allowing corporations to spend unlimited money influencing elections is somehow discriminatory in favor of newspaper companies.

Moreover, Citizens United is one small part of the favoritism Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito have shown to wealthy corporations at the expense of ordinary Americans. As ThinkProgress previously explained, all four of these justices also endorse the following gifts for corporations:

In other words, if the GOP’s preferred justices get their way, there may no longer be any need for corporations to buy elections — because they’ll be largely immune from the law anyway.

Security

Huntsman Says He’d Launch A Ground Invasion To Prevent Iran From Getting Nukes

By Eli Clifton on Dec 14, 2011 at 1:07 pm

Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman is developing a track record as an outspoken Iran hawk whenever questions about Iran’s nuclear program come up. Last month, he suggested that a war with Iran was inevitable, and earlier this week, he baselessly claimed that the Iranians have “already decided” that they want nuclear weapons.

But in an interview last night with CNN’s Erin Burnett, Huntsman staked out even more hawkish territory and committed to a ground invasion to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon:

BURNETT: Do you think at this point, unless we’re going to commit, and I’m curious whether you would commit to full on military conflict with Iran, that we have to accept that they will eventually be a nuclear power? It’s more important to figure out how to deal with that than to yell and scream about it happening when its inevitable anyway.

HUNTSMAN: Well, I think they’ve already made the decision to go nuclear. [...]

BURNETT: So, if push comes to shove and this is important, I’m not saying this is something you do tomorrow, but if push comes to shove, if what was between them and a nuclear weapon or there was an uncertainty, required troops invasion, you’d do it?

HUNTSMAN: I can’t live with the implications of not doing it. I can’t live with the thought of what a nuclear Iran brings to the region and what they said about Israel, which is our centerpiece alliance in the region. I can’t live — I can’t live with the world with a nuclear Iran.

So, then, you say, what do you do? And realistically, you got to have all options on the table. You got to be prepared to use all elements of national power.

Watch it:

While Jon Huntsman is confident that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, and is prepared to commit to a ground invasion of Iran to prevent it, neither the United Nations nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nor U.S. intelligence estimates have made that claim. Either Huntsman has access to information the IAEA and the White House aren’t acknowledging or he’s willing to go to war on a hunch.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up