Eric Cantor has represented the 7th District for the better part of a decade.
In that time he has moved up the ranks, and he now holds the powerful post of minority whip in the House of Representatives. He has been making the media rounds to promote “Young Guns,” his book about the direction he wants to take the Republican Party in.
With a week to go before Election Day, he is campaigning to keep his seat on Capitol Hill. Unlike previous elections, Cantor faces challenges on both the left, from Democrat Rick Waugh, and on the right from Tea Party-backed Floyd Bayne.
Cantor spoke with BizSense some of the big business issues facing the country.
Below is an edited transcript.
Richmond BizSense: What is the biggest obstacle to job creation, and what policies would you support during another term to improve the employment situation?
Eric Cantor: Right now there is an utter lack of confidence on the part of the business community to begin to invest again to create jobs. There are signs of uncertainty that continue to plague the outlook of small business. The most impactful uncertainty has to do with tax rates. The problem is businesses and individuals do not know what their taxes will be at the end of year.
The president insists somehow we ought to allow taxes to go up on some individuals. According to his plan, tax rates are to go up on individuals who make $200,000 or more or couples making $250,000 or more. Fifty percent of those people impacted are small-business people.
The first order of business for Congress will be to send a signal that we will not allow taxes to go up in a recession. If Republicans do regain control of the House, one of our first items will be to put a bill across the floor to ensure no taxes go up.
RBS: You have made it clear that you support offshore drilling in Virginia. How do you plan to sell the idea of resuming the lease sales in Virginia in light of the BP disaster this summer?
EC: I think that, if you look at the energy outlook for our country, one has to accept the fact that fossil fuels are going to play a role. In addition to fossil fuels, we need to commit ourselves to the necessary investments in the technology that will allow us to wean off of fossil fuels. But for the foreseeable future, fossil fuels are a part of our energy mix.
We have large potential sources of natural gas in this country as well as potential oil finds, and we ought to be doing everything we can to ensure we move to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. In many instances, the money we pay overseas ends up in the hands of people who don’t really like us, and that isn’t necessarily great policy.
RBS: You voted in favor of passing the Troubled Assets Relief Program. How would you assess the success of this program? Did it work the way it was intended? Has it failed to meet your expectations in any way?
EC: First of all, Secretary Henry Paulson and Chairman Ben Bernanke came to Capitol Hill, looked us in the eye and said that we, in this economy, are at a precipice. After the collapse of Lehman, the Chinese government had pulled $250 billion of liquidity from our money markets. That move, they said, threatened to wipe out the wealth that individuals had in the stock market in their 401(k)s. The risk was an utter collapse of our economy, which would have had devastating effects not just on banks, but on people.
At that point I decided we needed to try and act, and act as quickly as we could. The way that TARP was implemented by the Obama administration was nowhere near the implementation that was described to us at the time TARP was passed. We saw TARP go to auto companies and other things other than stabilizing the banking system. I was very disappointed in the implementation of that program, and that is why I voted against the second piece in terms of its renewal. I stand strong that we [should] end that program and use that money to repay the debt.
RBS: There has been much examination of the role government played in the leadup to the financial crisis of 2008, or more accurately the role that government did not play. The response has been a call from many for greater regulation of the financial industry. Where do you strike the balance when it comes to regulation? Have the problems that led us here been fixed? What else needs to be done?
EC: I don’t believe the problem has been fixed. What the Dodd-Frank bill has done is propose a gargantuan leap toward additional regulation without addressing the weaknesses in the regulatory system that allowed for the near-collapse to occur. We can be much smarter about this. Each and every one of us should have a fair shot at return on investment. It is about transparency and applying the law fairly. What Congress did with Dodd-Frank — if we are unable to stop some of its implementation, we will end up damaging the ability for the American economy to continue to grow.
It is about transparency as far as taxpayers are concerned; it is about making sure government doesn’t put itself in a position where it decides who wins and loses. We ought not have government bailouts; we ought not have government in areas of supporting institutions if they can’t stand on their own. Dodd-Frank has perpetuated bailout culture. The other thing it does not address is issues of government-supported entities. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are at the core of the near-collapse. We have in this administration a tendency to give them an open checkbook. That is an unacceptable role for taxpayers to be in.
RBS: What are your thoughts on the proposed foreclosure moratorium?
EC: There needs to be a focus on the fact that 90 percent of Americans are paying their mortgage and some doing so under great hardship. Focus on those playing by the rules.
For those who took out mortgages they can’t afford to pay, it is unfair to ask the rest of taxpayers to pick up the bill. In America, we are held accountable for our actions.
If you propose support for a national moratorium by the government, what you are going to do is bring on the real collapse of the foreclosure industry. If you say people who lend money can’t protect their interest, then the only loans you will have are loans extended by the government.
RBS: The EPA is in the process of imposing a pollution diet for the Chesapeake Bay, and Virginia will have to implement its own plan to comply with their standards. Do you think the EPA standards are too restrictive for business? What are your thoughts on cleaning up the bay?
EC: Clearly the bay is not in the state we want it to be in. We have to continue to work to clean it up. There are bright spots, and there needs to be balance. The priority is you want economic livelihood back and restored along the bay and the rest of the commonwealth. But if you want to maintain the bay’s health, it does [necessarily] mean economic vitality. As far as the EPA requirements, Virginia will have to try and do some things that haven’t been done. My goal overall will be to achieve a balance.
RBS: You’ve been on the job for almost a decade, and unlike in other elections. voters have two other candidates to choose from. Why should they vote for you?
EC: Throughout the 7th District, there is a commitment to common sense conservatism and a commitment to free enterprise. Over the last two years we’ve seen an agenda put forward by this administration and the Pelosi majority in Congress that is almost unrecognizable when people look at what government should and should not be doing. If reelected, I’m committed to continue to cut spending at the federal level, keep taxes in check and make sure we return balance between the private sector and government to its rightful place of a limited government to promote more economic freedom.
BizSense will interview third party candidate Floyd Bayne next week.
Eric Cantor has represented the 7th District for the better part of a decade.
In that time he has moved up the ranks, and he now holds the powerful post of minority whip in the House of Representatives. He has been making the media rounds to promote “Young Guns,” his book about the direction he wants to take the Republican Party in.
With a week to go before Election Day, he is campaigning to keep his seat on Capitol Hill. Unlike previous elections, Cantor faces challenges on both the left, from Democrat Rick Waugh, and on the right from Tea Party-backed Floyd Bayne.
Cantor spoke with BizSense some of the big business issues facing the country.
Below is an edited transcript.
Richmond BizSense: What is the biggest obstacle to job creation, and what policies would you support during another term to improve the employment situation?
Eric Cantor: Right now there is an utter lack of confidence on the part of the business community to begin to invest again to create jobs. There are signs of uncertainty that continue to plague the outlook of small business. The most impactful uncertainty has to do with tax rates. The problem is businesses and individuals do not know what their taxes will be at the end of year.
The president insists somehow we ought to allow taxes to go up on some individuals. According to his plan, tax rates are to go up on individuals who make $200,000 or more or couples making $250,000 or more. Fifty percent of those people impacted are small-business people.
The first order of business for Congress will be to send a signal that we will not allow taxes to go up in a recession. If Republicans do regain control of the House, one of our first items will be to put a bill across the floor to ensure no taxes go up.
RBS: You have made it clear that you support offshore drilling in Virginia. How do you plan to sell the idea of resuming the lease sales in Virginia in light of the BP disaster this summer?
EC: I think that, if you look at the energy outlook for our country, one has to accept the fact that fossil fuels are going to play a role. In addition to fossil fuels, we need to commit ourselves to the necessary investments in the technology that will allow us to wean off of fossil fuels. But for the foreseeable future, fossil fuels are a part of our energy mix.
We have large potential sources of natural gas in this country as well as potential oil finds, and we ought to be doing everything we can to ensure we move to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. In many instances, the money we pay overseas ends up in the hands of people who don’t really like us, and that isn’t necessarily great policy.
RBS: You voted in favor of passing the Troubled Assets Relief Program. How would you assess the success of this program? Did it work the way it was intended? Has it failed to meet your expectations in any way?
EC: First of all, Secretary Henry Paulson and Chairman Ben Bernanke came to Capitol Hill, looked us in the eye and said that we, in this economy, are at a precipice. After the collapse of Lehman, the Chinese government had pulled $250 billion of liquidity from our money markets. That move, they said, threatened to wipe out the wealth that individuals had in the stock market in their 401(k)s. The risk was an utter collapse of our economy, which would have had devastating effects not just on banks, but on people.
At that point I decided we needed to try and act, and act as quickly as we could. The way that TARP was implemented by the Obama administration was nowhere near the implementation that was described to us at the time TARP was passed. We saw TARP go to auto companies and other things other than stabilizing the banking system. I was very disappointed in the implementation of that program, and that is why I voted against the second piece in terms of its renewal. I stand strong that we [should] end that program and use that money to repay the debt.
RBS: There has been much examination of the role government played in the leadup to the financial crisis of 2008, or more accurately the role that government did not play. The response has been a call from many for greater regulation of the financial industry. Where do you strike the balance when it comes to regulation? Have the problems that led us here been fixed? What else needs to be done?
EC: I don’t believe the problem has been fixed. What the Dodd-Frank bill has done is propose a gargantuan leap toward additional regulation without addressing the weaknesses in the regulatory system that allowed for the near-collapse to occur. We can be much smarter about this. Each and every one of us should have a fair shot at return on investment. It is about transparency and applying the law fairly. What Congress did with Dodd-Frank — if we are unable to stop some of its implementation, we will end up damaging the ability for the American economy to continue to grow.
It is about transparency as far as taxpayers are concerned; it is about making sure government doesn’t put itself in a position where it decides who wins and loses. We ought not have government bailouts; we ought not have government in areas of supporting institutions if they can’t stand on their own. Dodd-Frank has perpetuated bailout culture. The other thing it does not address is issues of government-supported entities. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are at the core of the near-collapse. We have in this administration a tendency to give them an open checkbook. That is an unacceptable role for taxpayers to be in.
RBS: What are your thoughts on the proposed foreclosure moratorium?
EC: There needs to be a focus on the fact that 90 percent of Americans are paying their mortgage and some doing so under great hardship. Focus on those playing by the rules.
For those who took out mortgages they can’t afford to pay, it is unfair to ask the rest of taxpayers to pick up the bill. In America, we are held accountable for our actions.
If you propose support for a national moratorium by the government, what you are going to do is bring on the real collapse of the foreclosure industry. If you say people who lend money can’t protect their interest, then the only loans you will have are loans extended by the government.
RBS: The EPA is in the process of imposing a pollution diet for the Chesapeake Bay, and Virginia will have to implement its own plan to comply with their standards. Do you think the EPA standards are too restrictive for business? What are your thoughts on cleaning up the bay?
EC: Clearly the bay is not in the state we want it to be in. We have to continue to work to clean it up. There are bright spots, and there needs to be balance. The priority is you want economic livelihood back and restored along the bay and the rest of the commonwealth. But if you want to maintain the bay’s health, it does [necessarily] mean economic vitality. As far as the EPA requirements, Virginia will have to try and do some things that haven’t been done. My goal overall will be to achieve a balance.
RBS: You’ve been on the job for almost a decade, and unlike in other elections. voters have two other candidates to choose from. Why should they vote for you?
EC: Throughout the 7th District, there is a commitment to common sense conservatism and a commitment to free enterprise. Over the last two years we’ve seen an agenda put forward by this administration and the Pelosi majority in Congress that is almost unrecognizable when people look at what government should and should not be doing. If reelected, I’m committed to continue to cut spending at the federal level, keep taxes in check and make sure we return balance between the private sector and government to its rightful place of a limited government to promote more economic freedom.
BizSense will interview third party candidate Floyd Bayne next week.
Cantor’s radio ads touting his conservatism run hollow. He was right there brokering TARP to the Republicans. He’ll be re-elected easily but my protest vote is going to Bane.
I with you – I’ve supported Cantor with my money and my votes, but he lost both when he voted for the TARP mess. It hasn’t helped at all. Eric has sold his soul to the Beltway Satan (lust for power) and he sees himself as future Speaker of the House. He’s going along to get along, and we don’t need that in Washington right now. My vote will be going to Floyd Bane, also. If nothing else, it may send a wake up call to Eric.
Brick is right. When i asked Rep Cantor about why he voted for TARP, he said – his words – “I worked hard to make sure that these funds will be used efficiently and that the interests of the taxpayers will be protected.” So now, if he claims that the funds were not used efficiently and that the interests of the taxpayer were not protected, he is saying that he is a dupe and inneffective. Cantor is complaining publicly about the debt, but he voted time and again with his party to spend spend spend. Cantor will probably win, but… Read more »
I am not quoting exactly what Eric Cantor said in his ad, however he said he met with businesses everyday to get companies to come to Virginia. He should be willing to make public the list of companies and how many have come over the last five years. Results are what counts. He has been very quick to speak out on every program in a bad way. What has he brought to the country.
This is a request for information before I vote.
I have not decided whether to support Cantor. I am one who believes the Congress is responsible for our country being in this mess. For Cantor to have moved into such a leadership role in the Party, it is my opinion that he must have played by the rules of those people who have been leaders in the Congress over the years. This would make Cantor culpable in our demise as a country. The special interests in banking, big business, main street, et al, have partnered with Congress in the poor leadership we have received. I am tired of this… Read more »
VOTE OUT CANTOR IF YOU WANT YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE TO BE BRIGHT
VOTE OUT CANTOR!
VOTE OUT CANTOR!
VOTE OUT CANTOR!
VOTE OUT CANTOR!
VOTE OUT CANTOR!
What Cantor doesn’t seem to grasp is that the threat of increased taxes looms because our government is essentially bankrupt. Discretionary spending makes up a comparatively inconsequential part of our budget when one considers Social Security and defense. These are the 2 areas where cuts will make a real difference in the deficit, Cantor will never be able to make cuts in either lest he risk losing the support of the elderly who are overwhelmingly Republican in Virginia. While his approach will certainly differ from that of the Democrats, its failure is just as assured.
If you look at what Cantor says in the first question, you get a quote from a career politician, specifically the third paragraph. Please bear in mind, this is my asspumtion that Biz Sense reprinted his answer verbatium. Cantor– ” The first order of business for Congress will be to send a signal that we will not allow taxes to go up in a recession. If Republicans do regain control of the House, one of our first items will be to put a bill across the floor to ensure no taxes go up.” My big issue with this is he… Read more »
I’m with everyone else here. I’m voting for Bayne.
Cantor is part of the problem, all these economic problems started when Cantor and Bush were first elected in 2000. While millions of Americans have lost their houses, jobs and pride, Cantor and Bush became wealthier. He says he is sorry but yet won’t do anything to change his ways, he wont even hold public town halls, he uses controlled photo opportunities. He is more comfortable picking up checks at swanky D.C. parties then being with his constituents. By the way do you know he is called Mr. Gucci by Boehner? The problem in the last 10 years have been… Read more »
7th district voter–Thanks for taking the time to write this, it’s spot on!!
Actually Donna his talking points are the same old and tired rhetoric that has moved Independents such as myself over to the GOP side during this election. Hope, change and blame are useless and weak.