Interview with Linda McMAHON – for U.S. Senate
Linda McMahon (Contributed photo)
Linda McMahon
Republican
Former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment
Q: With quite a few high profile seats becoming available this fall, why did you decide to make a bid for the U.S. Senate and not, say, for Governor?
A: Well, when I first thought about getting into this race, which was probably late spring or early summer of 2009. I was really becoming more and more concerned about where our government was taking our country. And it really did appear to me that unless some people stepped in, that had business experience and were not career politicians, and offered fresh ideas and fresh voice, that we were just going to continue down this path we were going. I didn’t particularly like where Chris Dodd was on the issues. At that particular time I really thought that he should not remain as our senator. I didn’t feel very strongly that he would be the candidate also come this fall, in 2010. But in any way, I really felt that I wanted to go to the Senate, because I wanted to be able to share in the whatever regulations or laws were going to be made on a national basis. With experience with WWE, to have grown it from just a small family business to a national and then a global brand, certainly I’m familiar with doing business across the country and internationally and I felt that those skills could be well served in Washington.
Q: How does your resume qualify you for a U.S. Senator?
A: I think that the job of being a CEO of any company that has been private and then taken public [would qualify]. First of all, I understand the consequences of regulations and tax increases, etc. on small businesses, because I’ve been there. And I think there are not enough of our senators or our congress- men and women who have had business experience and understand the rules that they are passing and the impact that they’re going to have. In addition, the management and leadership skills that it takes to grow a company from a small private company to a company that is now traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and its a global brand, are skills which I believe will be certainly very useful as a Senator – negotiating skills, management, leadership. In my role as a CEO the financial people reported to me, the legal people, all of the administrative people at WWE [reported to me], so I believe that those skills, which I’ve honed over the years, negotiating with large contracts, not only with corporations, but often with government agencies as well, I think will serve me well as a U.S. Senator.
Q: What is your biggest weakness?
A: I certainly think that anyone who is going into the U.S. Senate will have some learning curves there, but I think that the skills that I have as a business person—and it’s real life business experience. It’s experience that I’ve had from being bankrupt to coming back from being bankrupt, from building a company from the ground up to where it’s today, employing over 500 people here in Connecticut. I think those are all great skills to bring to the table.
Q: How do you see the role of Congress and more specifically the U.S. Senate in helping Connecticut recharge itself.
A: I think that especially our full Congress that would consist also of the Senate has to be concerned with paying down our debt and eliminating our spending so that our economy can get back on track. We’ve got to put people back to work in this country. With over 70 percent of the jobs that are created by small businesses we have to focus on the free market, free enterprise system to allow businesses to grow and to flourish as they have in years past. And as we then improve that economy and have the right incentives, for business to grow, in place, not only will the economy of Connecticut benefit from that but certainly our nation as a whole will benefit from that as well. And I look forward, as a Senator, working with the new governor of Connecticut, to hopefully bring new businesses to Connecticut as we are involved in meeting people all around the country and having meetings that will help guide some of that business to Connecticut.
Q: On which issues do you agree with the Obama administration?
A: There are a lot of issues in front of us today that we have to take a look at. We have to make sure that we are covering part of our population that does not have health care, but I don’t think the health care bill we have in place today is the one that best serves all of the people of our country. We’ve not brought down the cost of health care with this bill – it’s clearly going to go up. And I don’t think that what was intented at the outset will be the result of the health care bill. Also, the financial reform bill. There again are some aspects of financial reform that I certainly agree with. But we did not address Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Those have to be addressed. I don’t have any issue at all with banks having more skin in the game. I think that’s a good thing. And I won’t have any problems working on pieces of legislation that I think will be beneficial to our country, regardless of whether democrats or republicans are working on them, as long as it’s a bipartisan effort and it’s for the good of the American people.
Q: Fairfield County is a growing financial center and an important part of our economy is the health of the financial industry and you already touched upon the recent financial reform package that was passed by Congress. Can you tell us a little bit more about it and what else should be involved in this package to make our financial industry more resilient?
A: … Now, sort of the framework of this [financial] reform has been passed, but now, it’s my understanding that probably over 243 different regulations are going to have to be written to implement this bill. So much goes into that that I am not sure of all the impact it’s going to have. What I do see happening, clearly, is bigger government…
Q: We live in a global society where borders are almost nonexistent and local businesses face competition from everywhere. What do you intend to do, as U.S. Senator, to help keep and grow jobs in our state?
A: One of the things we have to do is look at regulations that are in Connecticut. I think primarily [jobs are] most influenced by the local government that is in Connecticut. The business taxes and regulations that are passed locally are part of what is causing an exodus of Connecticut workers and Connecticut businesses. However, the national corporate income tax rate, combined with the state’s, is about 35%—that’s one of the largest in the world. We don’t even compete with Europe, which is at 25%. We have to bring down our taxes, so that we can be competitive on the market place out there. Reducing the regulation that we have on companies is one of the ways that we can really incentivize businesses to stay here in this country.
Q: Do you think that the economy is on the way up or is it on the way down right now?
A: This is America. Our economy is strugling to recover. You’ll see green shoots here and there, you’ll will see small growth in the economy, but until we put people back to work and you see that unemployment number start to come back [down] you won’t have a sustained recovery in this economy.
Additional questions, not included in Stamford Plus and Norwalk Plus magazines:
Q: Fairfield County is a growing financial center and an important part of our economy is the health of the financial industry and you already touched upon the recent financial reform package that was passed by Congress. Can you tell us a little bit more about it and what else should be involved in this package to make our financial industry more resilient?
A: Here’s what I am seeing with this financial reform. I’ve not read 2,300 pages of the financial reform bill and I am quite dismayed that Senator Dodd made practically the same statement that Nancy Polosi had made on the passage of the health care bill, which is basically “we don’t really know what all this is going to entail till we get it passed, until we try to start implementing it”. Now, sort of the framework of this [financial] reform has been passed, but now, it’s my understanding that probably over 243 different regulations are going to have to be written to implement this bill. So much goes into that that I am not sure of all the impact it’s going to have. What I do see happening, clearly, is bigger government. We’ve practically hijacked the Federal Reserve with this bill. The President is now going to nominate not only the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, as he’s been doing, but also the Vice-Chairman and the President of the New York Bank, which, of course, has been independent up until now. And I think the independence of the Federal Reserve is what’s really going to be at issue. And also this new superregulator that is looking over everyone’s shoulder is going to be housed in the Federal Reserve. So, I really do think that we are absolutely destroying more and more of the independence of the Federal Reserve with this bill and those are important issues that we have to take a look at and make sure that we are not compromising the independence of the Federal Reserve. So I’m not in favor of this financial reform package for all those reasons.
Q: Do you think there should be more or less regulation?
A: We have a fair amount of regulation in place now. I just think we have to look at regulations that are already on the books which I don’t think are being enforced. I believe that we should look at those, we should have more bipartisan debate on those issues. I think financial reform is a good thing, but I think that this bill grows government more than it does anything else.
Q: Do you think that the bailout and the federal stimulus worked?
I do not think that the stimulus package worked. Let’s separate the two. I don’t think that the stimulus has worked
Q: The Bush tax cuts are likely to be left to expire at the end of the year. Your thoughts?
Since 2003 this has been tax law and this tax law is expiring at the and of the year. I believe this is the wrong time for taxes to increase in out country. The income tax rate will go from 35 to 39.6 [percent] and that’s really going to impact small business that are right at $250,000 threshold. Even if what President Bush has said he’s not going to tax anyone whose income level is below $250,000, what happens if you increase that upper tax level above $250,000 to the 39.6 [level], small business, many of them that operate as sole proprietors, are going to fall into that [level]. It’s just more money out of their pocket for trying to do the same work, continuing to create this environment of uncertainty for small businesses as they are trying to recover and come back or even to grow and expand. And then you have the dividend taxes will increase, capital gains [tax] will increase, death tax will increase, gift tax will increase. And then once the health care bill is fully in place you will have another 5% tax on top of that. I just absolutely thing it’s the wrong time to be raising taxes during these recessionary times that we’ve been in.
Q: How do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan benefit our National Security and should we continue to fight them?
I certainly think that the premise of going to both of those countries is to fight terrorism, where it is growing, where bases are being developed to launch terrorism from and terror attacks to be made on the United States. And then, Iraq, I think we have certainly made a difference in the country of Iraq, they’re now a fledgling democracy and I think there are benefits there. And I’m glad we’re on our trip withdrawal phase of Iraq at this particular point. In Afghanistan, I think we are going to have to evaluate whether or not the goals that first let us into Afghanistan are now achievable and I believe the administration is reevaluating those goals. But our goal in Afghanistan is that the people of Afghanistan be a strong nation so that they don’t become reliant on the terrorist activities for the growth and sustainability of their economy and of their country. We have put money and forces there to eradicate Al Qaida and I think Al Qaida numbers are really reduced now in Afghanistan so I believe we need to reevaluate the continuing goal of the war there and how many people we’re sending in. I don’t get any more briefings than, you fellows in the news do, so I think we’re all dependent what we here in the steps that the government is taking at this particular point. We wanted to leave Afghanistan a stronger and more robust economy to fight off Al Qaida so that we reduced the terrorist activity there. I think we’ve seen success, because according to the latest information that I have seen, there are only between 60 and 100 Al Qaida people left in Afghanistan. Now, are they over the border into Pakistan? How do we now work with Pakistan to make sure that those nuclear warheads are protected, I think it’s still a big issue of concern and what is going to be our strategy going forward?
