NIck Ciesielski, Libertarian Party, Candidate for State Treasurer

My main belief is that we are overtaxed and overregulated. Government interference in the economy has created a system of perverse incentives that make it harder for Pennsylvanians to provide for their families. When it comes to inflation, we need to examine its root cause. I define inflation as an increase in the money supply, as opposed to the more common understanding of rising prices. Federal government spending exploded in 2020 during the pandemic, adding $6 trillion in debt that year alone. Currently, the debt is increasing by $1 trillion every three months. When this much money is created and injected into the system, it puts upward pressure on prices. The real issue is that price increases lag behind the injection of new money. Those closest to the source of this newly created money—typically financial institutions—get to spend it before prices rise, while the average person faces higher prices later on. Government spending, at all levels, needs to be reined in, and politicians must be held accountable for driving us into unsustainable levels of debt. As state treasurer, I will refuse to allow a single dollar of new debt to be issued, which is where the real power of the treasurer lies in checking the general assembly's fiscal actions.

The rising cost of housing has multiple factors that need to be addressed, some with relatively simple solutions and others that are more complex. The simpler solutions involve eliminating bureaucratic red tape, which adds unnecessary costs and delays. Overly burdensome permitting processes slow down construction and disincentivize new projects. Zoning regulations also play a role by limiting the amount of land available for higher-capacity developments in favor of low-density, single-family housing. By allowing the supply of housing to increase, we can bring down overall costs. The more complex issue stems from the perverse incentives created by our monetary and banking systems. The inflation of the monetary supply means more dollars are in circulation, which drives up prices. Additionally, banks and other financial institutions, which have easier access to this newly created money than the average homebuyer, use it to bid up the price of housing as investments. This reduces the number of homes available for regular buyers. Constant inflation also incentivizes purchasing housing as an investment because real estate tends to hold its value better than cash. As the supply of money increases, the purchasing power of dollars held in the bank decreases, making housing seem like a safer store of wealth. While the simpler solutions can be implemented quickly to boost housing supply, addressing the systemic monetary issues will require broader reform. This includes adopting a monetary policy that either preserves the spending power of the dollar or allows for alternative investments that provide a better store of value than real estate.

The current healthcare system is a nightmare for consumers, largely due to massive government interference. Excessive regulation, limited available options, and laws written by lobbyists have allowed insurance companies to control the industry and guarantee themselves profits. One of the main issues stems from laws requiring most employers to provide health insurance. This practice began during World War II as a way to bypass wage controls and has since become deeply embedded in the system. As a result, consumers are tied to whatever health plan their employer offers and lose that coverage if they leave their job. Purchasing insurance independently is significantly more expensive since there's no employer covering part of the cost. Most medical facilities expect patients to have some type of insurance plan and use highly opaque pricing structures. Additionally, many insurance plans have extensive coverage requirements, which add costs for services consumers may not need or want. To fix these issues, we need to allow competition and market forces to work. Prices should be transparent, and the focus should be on healthcare, not on catering to insurance companies. Companies should be free to offer a range of products with varying coverage options that meet consumers' needs. Alternative models like direct primary care, which often offers transparent prices on a subscription basis for full access to a doctor, are likely to continue growing. Providers like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, which operate on a transparent pricing model without involving insurance companies, will also likely become more competitive as the costs in the standard healthcare system rise. Health shares—where individuals pool together to cover each other’s medical bills, often at rates negotiated down from standard insurance prices—are also growing in popularity, especially among those who find traditional insurance through the government-controlled market too expensive.

There are real issues with the current immigration system. While the general libertarian position supports the free movement of people and goods across borders, the current situation is quite different. From what I can tell, there seems to be a policy of importing immigrants at the expense of taxpayers. Cities are providing money, housing, and special statuses like asylum and refugee designations, which appear to be used as a way to bring people in first and ask questions later. Some reports suggest that NGOs are facilitating large-scale operations that help people exploit the system. The first step in addressing this issue is to stop funding the welfare programs that are driving this system. Without this growing welfare apparatus funded by taxpayers, the immigration debate will change significantly. Once we reach that point, the focus can shift to those who want to immigrate, integrate, work, and provide for themselves and their families. These are the risk-takers—people willing to put everything on the line to build a better life—and they are exactly the kind of immigrants we want to help build a stronger country.

As far as policy relevant to the office of state treasurer, absolutely no tax payer money should be spent on abortions.

Individuals should be able to choose whatever tools they believe are appropriate for their own defense. I believe in the plain meaning of the second amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I do not believe that law abiding individuals should have arbitrary restrictions on firearms, while the government writes itself exemptions.

The state treasurer does not have much to do with environmental policy, but I do believe in ensuring robust energy production in Pennsylvania. More economic development and prosperity requires more energy, so there should not be some great focus on limiting energy consumption or interfering in the free market to incentivize or disincentivize certain methods of energy production. Outside of the box thinking can help align incentives for cleaner energy. For example, people concerned with the use of fossil fuels in energy production should support expanded nuclear energy production. The drawback to nuclear power is that it produces a consistent amount of power, and is extremely limited in its ability to ramp up and down production to meet grid demand over the course of a day. By pairing expanded nuclear power with high energy demand computing, such as Bitcoin mining and AI processing, all of this energy can be consumed. When more energy is required by the grid, the data centers can reduce their usage almost instantly, allowing that power to be delivered to consumers, rather than requiring additional energy production to come online to match the demand. Microsoft has recently mentioned recommissioning a reactor on Three Mile Island to power AI data centers. This concept is one agreement to shut down data center computing to redirect power to the grid during peak demand away from naturally emerging in the market. As far as clean water/ clean air/ pollution goes, these are issues because the government allows a certain amount of pollution in their regulations. If individuals were free to bring legal action against polluters and provide evidence of actual damage to themselves or their property, then the threat of legal action would do more to efficiently and effectively regulate pollution.

Rights are natural and belong to individuals, all of whom have the same rights. I reject the concept that groups have particular rights or that rights need to be defined for any particular group. Consenting adults can make whatever choices they want about how to live their life, as long as they do not harm anyone else. Most of these issues are solved through voluntary agreements and removing the winner take all mentality that comes into play with government interference.

This is a complex issue, but the first step in reducing the cost of higher education is to stop offering massive student loans to almost every student. The current student loan system is a major driver of the skyrocketing costs. The government hands out these loans as part of financial aid packages to students, regardless of their area of study. This allows students to take on significant debt to pursue degrees with low earning potential and poor job prospects in related fields. Additionally, this debt cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. By removing government interference in higher education lending, private institutions would be forced to evaluate a borrower’s ability to repay before issuing a loan. Unlike government-backed loans, these private loans could be discharged through bankruptcy, so lenders would bear the risk of losing money if they make poor decisions. This would naturally limit the amount and size of loans given to students. As a result, colleges and universities would be forced to lower their prices, cut costs, and focus on offering degree programs that ensure graduates can repay their loans. This market-driven approach would help rein in the rising costs of higher education.