Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Joining
Speaker 2: us now is former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson. He's running
Speaker 2: for president twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3: Scritch to you, sir, It's wonderful to be here. Your
Speaker 3: new studio looks really sharp.
Speaker 2: Thank you appreciate it. It's creating that very nice of you.
Speaker 2: So you're running for the GOP primary. You're running in
Speaker 2: that primary to try and become the nominee eventually the
Speaker 2: president of the United States. Just lay out a little
Speaker 2: bit for the audience. Why are you running for president?
Speaker 3: Running for president because we're going the wrong direction right
Speaker 3: now under Joseph Biden's leadership, whether it's energy policy, whether
Speaker 3: it's too much federal spending, border security. And then secondly,
Speaker 3: I care about these issues and my experience which is
Speaker 3: the challenges that we face. So I have something to
Speaker 3: offer for our country. And if you look at my life,
Speaker 3: I've never set on the sidelines when there's a need
Speaker 3: that I can fill. And so I love this country
Speaker 3: and I know that we can get back on track.
Speaker 3: I'm an optimist about it, but it's going to take
Speaker 3: some work, and I provide the skills the leadership that
Speaker 3: can bring our country together in the sense of the
Speaker 3: sort of a motto that I have is bringing out
Speaker 3: the best of America. And to me, that's what a
Speaker 3: president should be for the best of America, bringing out
Speaker 3: the best of America.
Speaker 4: And I don't think we've seen that in recent years.
Speaker 4: Got it?
Speaker 1: So, Governor, I don't want to be a jerk, but
Speaker 1: I'm looking at the polls.
Speaker 5: You know, you have a ways to go.
Speaker 1: They've had you at one percent and most of the
Speaker 1: ones that I've seen, So what is the plan to
Speaker 1: overcome that deficit? And then, obviously you want to win?
Speaker 1: But are there goals for the campaign if you aren't
Speaker 1: able to win? A message you want to get across,
Speaker 1: things you want to say, people you want to challenge.
Speaker 5: Are there other goals for the campaign?
Speaker 3: Well, the goal is to win. Whenever you look at
Speaker 3: our pulling numbers. One we're going up slowly, but we're
Speaker 3: going up. And secondly, everybody is in single digits except
Speaker 3: for two of the candidates, and one's falling and the
Speaker 3: other was pretty steady. And so this is waiting an
Speaker 3: opportunity to break out. Somebody is going to break out.
Speaker 3: The debate could be the opportunity, or could be the
Speaker 3: second or a third debate. But I'm okay with where
Speaker 3: we are right now. We just want to be moving
Speaker 3: in the right direction. And in terms of some other alternatives,
Speaker 3: I'm only interested in being president of the United States,
Speaker 3: but I'm also interested in my message being significant for
Speaker 3: our country. And I was a third candidate to get in.
Speaker 3: I'm in the non Trump lane, which means that I
Speaker 3: feel very strongly that our country is not well served
Speaker 3: with another Trump Biden contest, and my voice makes a
Speaker 3: difference there. And so it is important that we have
Speaker 3: people that care about America, that have unique views that
Speaker 3: are on the debate stage, and.
Speaker 4: I'm one of those.
Speaker 2: Right So you're self identifying as non Trump. He remains
Speaker 2: a very popular figure in the Republican Party. I think
Speaker 2: that's completely undeniable whenever we look not only polls, but
Speaker 2: in terms of the overall reception. What is your biggest
Speaker 2: concern about a second term for the former president?
Speaker 3: Well, my biggest concern is that it would be the
Speaker 3: revenge tour he wants to get even and that's a
Speaker 3: characteristic regretfully of Donald Trump, and that's not a good
Speaker 3: motivation at all for the leader of our country. Secondly,
Speaker 3: I think he'd have a hard time pulling a team together.
Speaker 3: In his first term, he pulled a good team together
Speaker 3: because people are loyal to this country, but then the
Speaker 3: way he treated people that were loyal to him and
Speaker 3: tried to serve our country. Who wants to serve in
Speaker 3: that administration? And so nobody wants the chaos that Donald
Speaker 3: Trump would bring in a second term. And I don't
Speaker 3: believe anyone would deny that there would be chaos, and
Speaker 3: that's not to what our country needs, and it would
Speaker 3: be a great risk if he was president again.
Speaker 1: So the R and C is requiring all candidates to
Speaker 1: sign basically a loyalty pledge in order to get on
Speaker 1: the debate stage, which I know is something you aspire
Speaker 1: to do, saying that you will commit to support the
Speaker 1: GUP nominee, no matter who it is, even if it
Speaker 1: is Donald Trump. Are you planning to support Donald Trump
Speaker 1: if he is the Republican nominee.
Speaker 3: Well, I've always supported the nominee of the party. I've
Speaker 3: been a Republican since I was a young adult, a
Speaker 3: young lawyer in Bentonville, and I've helped build a Republican
Speaker 3: party in Arkansas through decades of Democratic leadership, strengthening the
Speaker 3: Republican Party. So there's not anybody this more of a
Speaker 3: loyal Republican than me. I've also don't like party loyalty ofs.
Speaker 3: That's one of the reasons I became a Democrat was
Speaker 3: I didn't like the Democrat. Excuse me, I became a
Speaker 3: Republican because I didn't like the Democrat party loyalty oath
Speaker 3: and I believe in a little bit more independence and
Speaker 3: that country is above anything else. So I don't like it,
Speaker 3: but we need to be on the debate stage, and
Speaker 3: I'm going to look at it and believe that there's
Speaker 3: going to be a nominee other than Donald Trump, so
Speaker 3: I can say I can support the nominee of the party.
Speaker 2: I see. I'm curious here. Whenever you call yourself in
Speaker 2: the non Trump lane. Are we just talking politically or
Speaker 2: are we also talking policy? What are your biggest policy
Speaker 2: differences right now with former president?
Speaker 3: Well, my biggest policy differences is that he tends toward isolationism.
Speaker 3: You know, whenever he set the stage for a complete
Speaker 3: withdrawal from Afghanistan, it set the stage then for Biden's
Speaker 3: disastrous withdrawal from that country that we all saw on
Speaker 3: the world stage and live in our TV at home. Secondly,
Speaker 3: he added trillions of dollars to our national debt that
Speaker 3: he didn't have control over the spending and it wasn't
Speaker 3: a priority for his Thirdly, whenever you look at the
Speaker 3: disruptions that he causes, whether it is in our trading
Speaker 3: relationships with our trading partners, our allies across the globe
Speaker 3: that has not been helpful to us, and the steadiness
Speaker 3: of our economy. So there's substantive differences that I'll be
Speaker 3: raising during the debate and through the course of campaign.
Speaker 5: How long would you have stayed in Afghanistan?
Speaker 3: You know we can The key is like how long
Speaker 3: do you stay in Europe? After World War Two? We
Speaker 3: still have a presence there, so indefinitely, Well, we're definitely
Speaker 3: in europeative insurgents in Europe right, Well, you've got a
Speaker 3: lot happening in Ukraine right now.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: No, So if you look at Afghanistan, it looks what's
Speaker 3: happened since our complete withdrawal. You've had women's rights suppressed,
Speaker 3: the Taliban has taken over and it is right for
Speaker 3: terrorist training camps again. And we've lost lives there going
Speaker 3: after Osama bin Laden.
Speaker 5: So should we go back in if you were president.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no, it's you know, the die is cast.
Speaker 3: But you know you could have kept a minimal presence
Speaker 3: there that would have kept the Taliban in check. That
Speaker 3: would have given that country a possibility of a future
Speaker 3: and that they don't go back into the the repression
Speaker 3: of rights that that country has been known for through history.
Speaker 3: So yes, I think that we should have had a
Speaker 3: longer presence there. The key is listening to your military advisors.
Speaker 3: A no military advisor said, yes, we need to have
Speaker 3: one withdraw from Afghanistan. That was a presidential decision.
Speaker 5: Well, it's also what.
Speaker 1: The American people supported after so many decades of war.
Speaker 3: Right, and the war has to end, whether it's Ukraine
Speaker 3: War or whether it is Afghanistan, but a presence there,
Speaker 3: just like South Korea we have a presence there, we
Speaker 3: have a presence in Europe. We can have a small
Speaker 3: presence in Afghanistan. Now it's too late, but that's the
Speaker 3: kind of sacrifice that our soap men and women in
Speaker 3: the military made for getting Osama bin Laden, for changing
Speaker 3: the leadership of country. That was the righteous cause that
Speaker 3: we had after nine to eleven. And you don't leave
Speaker 3: a vacuum that is filled with the same terrorists that
Speaker 3: we went and defeated.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's interesting because the way that you
Speaker 2: laid out the conflict, we agree, you know, every way
Speaker 2: we went to Afghanistan in order to remove and kill
Speaker 2: osambin Laden, and then we eventually transitioned to some sort
Speaker 2: of democracy project. So I guess that the quibble and
Speaker 2: the kind of why we're pressing you here is like,
Speaker 2: why was it worth the several hundred million dollars per year,
Speaker 2: the potential loss of American lives, the violation of the
Speaker 2: peace treaty the President Trump signed with the Taliban in
Speaker 2: order to keep Like you're saying, women's rights in Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: We can say that women's rights is important, but why
Speaker 2: is it worth the blood and toil of American soldiers
Speaker 2: as well as American treasure to continue that presence there.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I mean, first of all, we didn't
Speaker 3: need to have that deal with the Taliban. Okay, the
Speaker 3: negotiating with the Taliban, but.
Speaker 2: Then we would have been at war with the Taliban.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, Afghanistan was largely stabilized, largely stabilized before
Speaker 3: our withdrawal, and that's what set the stage for the
Speaker 3: disarray and the suppression rights that you see today. And
Speaker 3: I don't believe it's the obligation of the United States
Speaker 3: to use our military forces to correct every human rights
Speaker 3: violations across the globe. No, we have to act in
Speaker 3: our national interest. It was in our national interest to
Speaker 3: go into Afghanistan, and that case was much stronger than.
Speaker 4: Ever going into Iraq.
Speaker 2: No argument here.
Speaker 3: So Afghanistan was the national interest to go in there.
Speaker 3: Once you go in, and as Colin pal said, once
Speaker 3: you break it, you own it. Well, we broke it
Speaker 3: and we didn't own it. We we didn't stick with
Speaker 3: our support of the Allies. And it wasn't just you know,
Speaker 3: you mentioned the agreement with the Taliban. More importantly, our
Speaker 3: agreement with our allies that we are in there and
Speaker 3: we want you in there, and all of a sudden
Speaker 3: our withdrawal disrupted our relationship with our European allies and
Speaker 3: others that had followed the good faith leadership of the
Speaker 3: United States that this is an important place to go
Speaker 3: for the global war on terrorism.
Speaker 1: So, Governor, let's talk a little bit about Ukraine. You know,
Speaker 1: do you basically support President Biden's approach to the Ukraine War?
Speaker 5: There are areas where you differ, you know.
Speaker 3: I think there's a lot of areas that he has
Speaker 3: done well in this. He's unified the European community in
Speaker 3: support of it, which wasn't hard, and the sense that
Speaker 3: they're threatened. He has been consistent and in support of Ukraine.
Speaker 3: The differences that I would have would be in his
Speaker 3: decision making.
Speaker 4: It is very very slow, and that slowness has cost a.
Speaker 5: Lot of lives. Give us an example of.
Speaker 3: That, well, the F sixteens he meditated for what four
Speaker 3: months before he decided that we ought to give them
Speaker 3: F sixteens, and that was too long in the decision making.
Speaker 3: The Abram tanks are the same way that it took
Speaker 3: a long time to decide we want to give them
Speaker 3: our Abram tanks, and then once we've made that decision,
Speaker 3: then it's a slow process in getting them there.
Speaker 4: America is a great company.
Speaker 3: We ought to be able to move quicker than that,
Speaker 3: and that saves lives and will end the war much quicker.
Speaker 2: So you had no qualms of the Ukrainis would use
Speaker 2: F sixteens to strike Russian territory?
Speaker 4: Is I say, I didn't say that.
Speaker 3: I didn't say it, and I said that we ought
Speaker 3: to give them F sixteens. That's first in defending their
Speaker 3: own territory, and it could be reclaiming the territory that
Speaker 3: Russia invaded them and took from them. So that's always
Speaker 3: appropriate when we look at our support as to how
Speaker 3: this is used, and that's part of listening to the
Speaker 3: strategic military advice and working in the Ukraine as to
Speaker 3: what restrictions and understands they would be on those F sixteens.
Speaker 3: But primarily you've got to reclaim the territory you lost.
Speaker 2: Certainly, one of the reasons that President Biden didn't do
Speaker 2: it is we learned this later through FAISA intercepts, is
Speaker 2: that President Selenski said he directly wants F sixteens in
Speaker 2: order to be able to strike Russian territory. So given
Speaker 2: his assurances, I mean, at what level are we supposed
Speaker 2: to hold the word of our Ukrainian allies when we
Speaker 2: have private intercepts and in some cases even public protestations
Speaker 2: about the limits of American aid on their ability to
Speaker 2: strike against actual Russian tariffs, not even disputed Crimerian territory.
Speaker 2: We're talking about Rostov and deeper inside of Russia.
Speaker 3: Well, those are tougher calls and their strategic calls. I mean,
Speaker 3: obviously you don't want attacks on military targets that are
Speaker 3: not relevant to the war in Ukraine. But if you've
Speaker 3: got you know, a base right across the line that's
Speaker 3: using that that's sending in rockets to that kill civilians,
Speaker 3: you might have a need to take out that position.
Speaker 2: So under your presidency, you would be fine with Ukrainian
Speaker 2: military undertaking an operation like that aids given by the
Speaker 2: United States taxpayer.
Speaker 3: It has to be very clearly defined. We're giving them
Speaker 3: support with our military armament. We're they have discretion as
Speaker 3: to how they use it. But just like the cluster
Speaker 3: bombs that we made a decision, President Biden made a
Speaker 3: decision had to go there. That's not an ideal decision.
Speaker 5: It's do you support it?
Speaker 3: Though, Well, I would like to think if I'd been president,
Speaker 3: we wouldn't have lost our ability to produce traditional ammunition
Speaker 3: and we would have been better prepared that we never
Speaker 3: had to have that.
Speaker 4: That is an option.
Speaker 3: I mean that, So I would like to believe that
Speaker 3: that would have never happened under my leadership.
Speaker 4: It's not ideal.
Speaker 3: Now, whenever you're in a desperate situation, you need ammunition,
Speaker 3: you know, do you go to that level? You know
Speaker 3: President Biden said yes on that. But the point being
Speaker 3: you've got, you know, understandings is how that's going to
Speaker 3: be used, and if if Ukraine violates those understandings, we've
Speaker 3: got a pretty heavy hand to withdraw a level of
Speaker 3: support and say, all right, you're not going to get
Speaker 3: the next round of F sixteen's if you're not following
Speaker 3: our guidance and and and understanding of the sensitivity of
Speaker 3: attacks in Russia or excessive use of those cluster bombs.
Speaker 1: How do you think about the risk of escalation Because listen,
Speaker 1: we agree with you that the Ukrainian causes just we're
Speaker 1: all on the same page there. However, we have to
Speaker 1: acknowledge the reality that Russia's nuclear armed superpower and there
Speaker 1: is some risk. Then this is part of why Biden
Speaker 1: has been slow in these decisions and why frankly, I
Speaker 1: think that sending up sixteen's and I certainly think cluster
Speaker 1: bombs are a mistake, is because you continue up this chain,
Speaker 1: where does.
Speaker 5: It ultimately lead.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people raising alarms about the
Speaker 1: possibility of tactical nukes being deployed and what that could
Speaker 1: what sort of broader conflagration that could lead to. How
Speaker 1: would you think about and manage those risks as president
Speaker 1: of the United States? What would be the upper ceiling
Speaker 1: or is there an upper seiling limit on your support?
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, the limits are first of all, we're not
Speaker 3: sending our personnel there, and that's what we're trying to avoid,
Speaker 3: So you know, we're not putting our men and women
Speaker 3: at risk in Ukraine, and that's a line that I
Speaker 3: draw very critical. Secondly, you want to make sure that
Speaker 3: you get material to them timely and that they have
Speaker 3: the ability to defend their freedom and their territory.
Speaker 4: And that's what's at stake.
Speaker 3: It is sovereignty and freedom and Russia violated sovereignty and
Speaker 3: freedom in the United States. If we ever stand for anything,
Speaker 3: it is to stand for those oppressed by invading armies,
Speaker 3: and so providing the material is in our national interest.
Speaker 4: And you know, you ask, you know what's the line.
Speaker 3: First of all, Russia should not dictate our principles of
Speaker 3: engagement or our principles of support.
Speaker 4: And so whenever are we.
Speaker 1: Risking nuclear war, that's the bottom line question here.
Speaker 4: We risk it every day.
Speaker 3: We Whenever you have a confrontation over the South China
Speaker 3: Sea with another nuclear power, that's a risk.
Speaker 4: You have to measure risk.
Speaker 3: And there's two ways that you handle it as president.
Speaker 4: President.
Speaker 3: One is to show strength so they don't test that
Speaker 3: metal in the decision making. And then secondly that you
Speaker 3: have people in that office that understand judge crisis and
Speaker 3: how to manage that. Whenever I had a standoff when
Speaker 3: I was United States attorney with a terrorist group in
Speaker 3: northern Arkansas, I was asked by the hostage rescue team
Speaker 3: to come in and to assist in the negotiation. That
Speaker 3: gave me a bulletproof vest. I went out there and
Speaker 3: I did that, and guess what, we didn't have a shootout.
Speaker 3: We had a peaceful resolution of that in which I
Speaker 3: prosecuted the violators in court, but we didn't have the
Speaker 3: arms shootout loss of life that ever I expected to happen,
Speaker 3: and so that's good judgment.
Speaker 2: Last question on Ukraine, do you support NATO membership for Ukraine?
Speaker 4: I do not.
Speaker 3: Whenever you look at NATO, that would trigger our personnel
Speaker 3: and you know under the Article five provisions of our
Speaker 3: NATO agreements, and so that's part of the reason we
Speaker 3: need to continue to support Ukraine independently of NATO, so
Speaker 3: that you know Article five is not triggered, and so
Speaker 3: during this time of war, NATO should be off the table.
Speaker 4: Got it.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you about an issue that has obviously
Speaker 1: come to the fore of our politics after the Dobbs decision,
Speaker 1: Row versus Wade being overturned. I know you signed as
Speaker 1: governor fairly restrictive law in the state of Arkansas. I
Speaker 1: also know you're on the record saying that if it
Speaker 1: was on your desk, you would sign some sort of
Speaker 1: national abortion band with some exceptions. Former Vice President Mike
Speaker 1: Pence is on the record saying that you know, in
Speaker 1: the national band, he envisions.
Speaker 5: Women who are carrying non.
Speaker 1: Viable fetuses would be required to carry those to term.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with that stance from former Vice President
Speaker 1: Mike Pence? If that bill was on your desk, would
Speaker 1: you sign it?
Speaker 3: The only commitment I've made is that if there was
Speaker 3: a fifteen week prohibition with the exceptions of the life
Speaker 3: of the mother, the cases of rape and incest, then
Speaker 3: if that's a consensus that Congress arrives at, then I
Speaker 3: would sign that. I think beyond that, the exceptions are
Speaker 3: very important and that I'm sure will be discussed in
Speaker 3: the conference. And as to whether Congress can agree upon that,
Speaker 3: I do not believe Congress will be able to reach
Speaker 3: the super majority agreement as necessary.
Speaker 1: Sure, but we're trying to figure out what your views
Speaker 1: are on the issue. Right So for you, if that
Speaker 1: came to your desk and it didn't have an exception
Speaker 1: for non viable fetuses, would you know would you sign
Speaker 1: that bill?
Speaker 3: I'll just tell you what I did in Arkansas. Of course,
Speaker 3: whenever the bill came to my desk that had restrictions
Speaker 3: on abortion, and they actually passed it with only the
Speaker 3: life of the mother as an exception, I wrote a
Speaker 3: letter saying I would have My policy is believing that
Speaker 3: rape and incests should be included, and so I would
Speaker 3: have to see more evidence that that would be medically
Speaker 3: necessary and to make sure that if that exception is
Speaker 3: in there, that it is carefully drawn to make sure
Speaker 3: or there's not an instance in which the doctor simply
Speaker 3: makes a mistake and you do have a lif eater.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you about the politics of abortion. What
Speaker 2: is your theory of the case on twenty twenty two?
Speaker 2: Do you think how much do you think abortion had
Speaker 2: to do with midterm losses for Republicans? Was it a lot,
Speaker 2: was it a little? Was it mostly Trump? What's your
Speaker 2: theory mostly Trump? You think it was mostly Trump. You
Speaker 2: don't think abortion had much to do with it.
Speaker 3: You know, you look at states like Wisconsin, and it
Speaker 3: was a big issue there, and I'm sure it was
Speaker 3: a factor, But the overarching cause of our defeat in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty was the fact that President Trump invoked himself
Speaker 3: and recruited candidates that were looking to the past and
Speaker 3: onto the future. We're not solving problems, Pennsylvania being a
Speaker 3: good example of that. You know, in terms of twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four, Sure, it's going to be an issue because
Speaker 3: it's an undecided policy matter in our states, in our
Speaker 3: national government, candidates are going to have to talk about it. Secondly,
Speaker 3: the Democrats are going to make it an issue. They're
Speaker 3: going to push that envelope and that divide, and the
Speaker 3: candidates just have a responsibility to say what's in their heart,
Speaker 3: what their convictions are, and people understand that this is
Speaker 3: one that we're going to have some disagreements on it.
Speaker 1: So it's fifteen weeks is not a hard line for you?
Speaker 1: Or if there was a six week ban on the table,
Speaker 1: is that something you would be open to?
Speaker 5: You know, where are you specifically.
Speaker 3: I'm going to specifically we're going to have to have
Speaker 3: reasonable restrictions with reasonable exceptions and a consensus at the
Speaker 3: national level.
Speaker 4: And you know, part.
Speaker 3: Of the job of developing a consensus is what happens
Speaker 3: in the state level between now and then, because the
Speaker 3: states are are testing grounds as to what's working, what's
Speaker 3: not working, what is the right values for a particular state,
Speaker 3: and so we're just not there yet to start making
Speaker 3: those decisions.
Speaker 4: Fifteen weeks is what is.
Speaker 3: A bill that's you know, on the table, that has
Speaker 3: some support. It mirrors many of the European exceptions and
Speaker 3: policies it's made as well, So that's something that is acceptable.
Speaker 4: Beyond that, let's see where we go.
Speaker 1: All right, so let me ask you a few lightning
Speaker 1: round we can get some quick responses on some economic issues.
Speaker 1: So on social Security, you're president of the United States.
Speaker 1: Do you think it should be cut? Do you think
Speaker 1: it should be increased? Do you think it should stay
Speaker 1: as it is?
Speaker 3: I would handle this by doing the same thing Ronald
Speaker 3: Reagan did, which is create a commission for the future
Speaker 3: of Medicare and Social Security. Have they'll make recommendations for
Speaker 3: the long term sustainability of it, and obviously part of
Speaker 3: that is controlling cost. And so that's how I would
Speaker 3: approach it. Because it's not going to be solved in
Speaker 3: a presidential campaign.
Speaker 5: It's going to but you're open to cuts, I.
Speaker 3: Wouldn't define them as cuts. I would define them as
Speaker 3: obviously cost saving measures to sustain it for the future.
Speaker 1: Okay, minimum wage I know in Arkansas, I think it's
Speaker 1: eleven dollars an hour right now, significantly higher than the
Speaker 1: national minimum wage. Would you fight to increase the minimum
Speaker 1: wage you think it should stay as it is, or
Speaker 1: would you get rid of it?
Speaker 4: All together at the federal level.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I mean it's become irrelevant at the federal
Speaker 3: level because the states have superseded the minimum wage, just
Speaker 3: like Arkansas at eleven dollars. So you leave it as is,
Speaker 3: you know, is it already in some states?
Speaker 4: Some states are still lower. Uh, the minimum wage.
Speaker 3: Ought to be raised at the federal level. I don't
Speaker 3: think that is an urgent economic matter. Because the wage
Speaker 3: rates have gone up dramatically, it has become irrelevant. Minimum
Speaker 3: wage is always a floor, and if you had the
Speaker 3: floor today, it should have to be much much higher.
Speaker 3: But I don't see the need for making a change
Speaker 3: because it doesn't help anything.
Speaker 2: Right now, what about income taxes on highest earners in
Speaker 2: the United States? You think it's too high, too low,
Speaker 2: or just about right? And be given that you would
Speaker 2: be elect if elected betweenty twenty five, the tax cuts
Speaker 2: would be expiring under President Trump. You would have a
Speaker 2: significant say on that.
Speaker 3: Well, the tax cuts that were brought into play under
Speaker 3: President Trump should be extended.
Speaker 4: Okay, that's important for economic growth.
Speaker 3: On our tax policy, it needs to be a pro
Speaker 3: growth tax policy in which we spur the economy to grow.
Speaker 4: I believe we have that right now.
Speaker 3: If their adjustments to be made to stimulate more growth,
Speaker 3: I would look at those in terms of the higher
Speaker 3: end taxpayers.
Speaker 4: I don't see a change there.
Speaker 3: Obviously, when you go back in history and under President Carter,
Speaker 3: we were at a seventy percent income tax rate if
Speaker 3: you got to a high level, No country should take
Speaker 3: seventy cents out of every dollar earned. That's a disincentive
Speaker 3: for work, for success in entrepreneurship.
Speaker 1: The Trump tax cuts obviously went overwhelmingly to all these
Speaker 1: individuals and corporations. What we saw from corporations was the
Speaker 1: theory was, oh, they'll invest in their people, they'll invest
Speaker 1: in innovation roamingly. What they did is rewarding themselves with
Speaker 1: stock buybacks. So why does that make sense to continue
Speaker 1: when eighty three cents on of every dollar went to
Speaker 1: the top.
Speaker 4: Well, I know.
Speaker 3: Many companies did invest in their employees, raised their wage rates,
Speaker 3: gave bonuses, and so you know, that's what companies should do.
Speaker 3: They have to make decisions on how they manage their funds,
Speaker 3: but it's important for them to be invested, be able
Speaker 3: to invest in capital equipment. And once you slow down
Speaker 3: that investment, the economy slows down. And once that economy
Speaker 3: slows down, people lose jobs, our debt goes up, our
Speaker 3: deficit goes up. So we need to incentivize growth and
Speaker 3: capital investment in this country. And that's what the previous
Speaker 3: tax bill did, and let's continue that.
Speaker 2: Well, my last question here is on the stock buybacks,
Speaker 2: like Crystal was just alluding to. You're from Bentamville, Arkansas.
Speaker 2: We were talking at the beginning before we started about
Speaker 2: Sam Walton. Sam Walten built a massive empire by investing
Speaker 2: almost every dollar back into the company, but specifically in hardware,
Speaker 2: and actually building new stores, in the wages, and actually
Speaker 2: developing its workforce. Why do you think stock buybacks should
Speaker 2: be allowed?
Speaker 4: Then?
Speaker 2: In that case, you know Walmart, you know particularly lately,
Speaker 2: has invested much more in financialization than in many of
Speaker 2: the things that made the company once great. Do you
Speaker 2: think that should be allowed? I mean, would you keep
Speaker 2: that as president? In your general theory here under business.
Speaker 3: Well, my general theory is that stock buybacks are you know,
Speaker 3: artificial holding the price value in order to protect the
Speaker 3: equity investors, and so that is not a priority that
Speaker 3: we should have for businesses. And so I don't like
Speaker 3: the policy we shouldn't encourage that.
Speaker 5: They used to be banned. Was that something you'd be
Speaker 5: open to?
Speaker 3: You know, I don't like telling businesses how they need
Speaker 3: to invest now. You know, as Ronald Reagan said, if
Speaker 3: you want to increase it, subsidize it, if you want
Speaker 3: to decrease it, tax it, And so there is some
Speaker 3: merit even as a conservative, in using that for pro growth.
Speaker 3: If it's timing growth, then we ought to look at
Speaker 3: discouraging that.
Speaker 2: And do you think politicians should be allowed to trade
Speaker 2: individual stocks?
Speaker 3: No, no, I tell you just you know, Congress, they
Speaker 3: have too much information that they know that the average
Speaker 3: citizen does not know, and so they should not be trading.
Speaker 1: All right, Governor, Very grateful for your time. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Great to have you in today.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir, appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Good to be with you.
Speaker 5: Yeah, good luck to you