October 8, 2025 • 36 mins
Hour 2 of the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show delivers a packed discussion on politics, policy, and personality clashes dominating the headlines. Buck opens the hour with commentary on the government shutdown, noting how Washington, D.C., feels like a ghost town without bureaucrats clogging the streets—a stark reminder of federal inefficiency and bloated government.
The segment pivots to California politics, spotlighting Katie Porter’s controversial interview meltdown during her gubernatorial campaign. Buck plays portions of the viral CBS exchange where Porter clashes with a reporter over questions about Trump voters, abruptly ends the interview, and accuses the journalist of being “argumentative.”
Buck critiques Porter’s temperament and dives deeper into her record, citing past allegations of abusive behavior toward her ex-husband and staff, as well as Politico reports on her toxic workplace reputation. He frames these revelations as critical for voters evaluating Porter’s bid to succeed Gavin Newsom and possibly position herself for a future presidential run.
Listeners weigh in with calls analyzing Porter’s combative attitude and media dynamics, reinforcing Buck’s argument that Democrats often shield candidates from scrutiny. The conversation underscores broader themes of accountability and media bias.
The hour’s centerpiece is an in-depth interview with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who breaks down the mechanics of the shutdown and the stalled negotiations in Congress. Paul explains that Democrats previously supported current spending levels but are now holding out for Obamacare subsidies, which were designed as temporary pandemic measures. He argues these subsidies primarily benefit wealthier Americans, worsen deficits, and may even extend benefits to illegal immigrants—despite laws prohibiting such allocations. Paul warns that both parties are complicit in reckless spending, projecting U.S. debt to hit $40 trillion, and calls for structural reforms like his Penny Plan to balance the budget within five years.
The discussion expands to foreign aid cuts, entitlement reform, and the political calculus behind shutdown strategies. Paul predicts Democrats will cave after a weekend of left-wing pressure but cautions that bipartisan overspending remains unchecked. He also proposes a market-driven solution to rising healthcare costs: allowing consumers to join large buying groups like Costco for collective bargaining on insurance—a move he says could dramatically lower premiums.
Additional listener calls tackle healthcare policy, insurance group dynamics, and the feasibility of cost-sharing models in the digital age, adding practical perspectives to the policy debate.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Second hour of playing Buck kicks off right now. We're
gonna have Senator Ran Paul joining us at the bottom
about the government shutdown, which I have to say for
my own reasons here in DC, I am loving every
minute of It's amazing. I feel like I could hop
on an electric scooter and just do a little tour
of the town and not have to stop anywhere because
(00:20):
there's no one on the streets. It's fabulous, you know.
I just put a little scarf on, you know, in
case it gets Chile on the scooter and I go
Capitol Building, Georgetown, stop by the White House, High five,
Steve Miller. See how everybody's doing. That's the kind of
day it is over here. It's wonderful, wonderful. They have
all the bureaucrats, you know, jostling together, and you know,
(00:41):
making the line at Starbucks one hundred people long. None
of that stuff. This government shutdowns pretty nice, pretty nice.
So let's dive into politics in California for a minute,
shall we, Because a lot of you have seen this.
It's gone viral, as you know. We have Steve Hilton
on to talk about his run for governor in that state.
(01:02):
Gavin Newsom, Hey everybody, how you doing. He's turned out
he is going to run for president quite obviously, and
he has to give up his governor's mansion to whoever
the next person to win that contest is going to be.
And it's looking right now, at least on the Democrat
(01:22):
side of things, it's looking like Katie Porter is the
likeliest to win. Now, every state has different rules about
how this stuff goes. California, as I understand it, and
some of you live there, so you're going to know
this better than I do, has like a top two situation.
So you have all these people that are going to
be running, and then the top two vote getters are
(01:44):
going to be in the general election LA ballot in
November of twenty twenty six. I think that's right. If
it's wrong, my team will tell me in a moment
and I'll correct it. But I think that's basically how
it goes. But Katie Porter is getting a lot of
attention she probably did not want right now. In fact,
(02:04):
the newsweek headline here is Katie Porter's chances of winning
California governor election suffer blow. And let's get into why
that is. She sat down with a journalist. She sat
down with a journalist and had the exchange team. Can
I do this? Actually, Producer Mike, Let's let's do a
(02:25):
little play pause here, right, So I'm gonna pay it.
I'm gonna say, all right, let's pause for a second
here because this is a long one. It's a couple
of minutes long. So I want to get in and
out of this SoundBite, but I want you to hear
the whole thing, because wow, Katie Porter comes across as
a really nasty and unlikable person and unprofessional. So let's
start this off. This is a CBS interview with Julie
(02:47):
Watts of CBS News California. Come on, it's CBS, and
this is communist broadcasting services like this, This is not.
This is home team stuff for Porter. But if you
ask her real questions, she apparently doesn't. If this is
how it goes play, what do you.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Say to the forty percent of California voters who you'll
need in order to win, who voted for Trump?
Speaker 3 (03:07):
How would I need them in order to win?
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Man?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Well, unless you think you're going to get sixty percent
of the vote, you think you'll get sixty percent?
Speaker 5 (03:14):
All everybody who did not vote for Trump will vote
for you.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
That's what you're in a general election. Yes, if it
is me versus a Republican, I think that I will
win the people who did not vote for Trump.
Speaker 5 (03:24):
What if it's you versus another Democrat?
Speaker 3 (03:26):
I don't intend that to be the case.
Speaker 5 (03:28):
So how do you not intend that to be the case?
Speaker 6 (03:31):
You do? You?
Speaker 5 (03:31):
Are you going to ask them not to run?
Speaker 6 (03:33):
No?
Speaker 3 (03:33):
No, I'm saying I'm going to build the support. I
have the support already in terms of name recognition, and
so I'm going to do the very best I can
to make sure that we get through this primary in
a really strong position. But let me be clear with you.
I represented Orange County. I represented a purple area. I
have stood on my own two feet and one Republican
votes before. That's not something every candidate and this race
can say. If you're from a deep blue area, if
(03:54):
you're from LA or you're from Oakland, you don't have
an experience.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
You just said you don't need those Trump vot So
you asked me if I needed them to win.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
So you don't feel like this is unnecessarily argumentative.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
What is your question?
Speaker 1 (04:06):
The question is, oh, well, let's pause there for a second.
Let's pause there for a second because it's about to
get really good. Everybody, I want to keep you on
the edge of your seats. Argumentative, argumentative. I got to
tell you, as a conservative dealing with the media, like
that's like a like a hiatsu massage, that's not argumentative. Like,
are you kidding me? That's she can't handle that, that's
(04:26):
getting her all. Oh, oh, you're just hearing the beginning
of Hurricane Porter unleashed. Here. Things are things are going
to get worse. Keep playing it.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
It's the same thing I asked everybody that this is
being called the empowering voters to stop Trump's power graph.
Speaker 5 (04:42):
Every other candidate has answered this question. This is not
and I said, I support it.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
So and the question is what do you say to
the forty percent of voters who voted for Trump?
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Oh, I'm happy to say that. It's the do you
need them to win? Part that I don't understand. I'm
happy to answer. The question's for the question is you
haven't written and I'll answer.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
And we've also asked the other ca and that's do
you think you need any of those forty percent of
California voters to win?
Speaker 5 (05:04):
And you're saying no, you don't.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
No, I'm saying I'm going to try to win every
vote I can. And what I'm saying to you.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
Is that, well to those voters, Okay, so you I.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Don't want to keep doing this, I'm gonna call it.
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Whoa, whoa, Hey, hit the pause button. Hit the pause button.
She can't handle that. What exactly is the look is
there is the reporter maybe or things getting a little
lost in translation here about the numbers. Looks she's a
CBS journalist. She's trying to you know, she could be
doing like sideline reporting for the NFL or something. She
happens to be here with this politician who cares? Here
(05:38):
she is, and she's trying to just she's just trying
to do like a decent job. This is not a gotcha.
I know, gotcha. Every time I used to go on CNN,
it was like an ambush and I had to fight
through it. I know what gotcha is like. This is
not gotcha. This is trying to just clarify a point.
But also you can tell Katie Porter has decided Congressowan
Porter has decided to really you know, sink her teeth
(06:01):
into this, and uh, I think just comes across as ogrish.
If you will, I use that term people like that
one online ogrish as in befitting of an ogre. It's
not nice, not nice. The way she's acting here a nice?
Keep playing it.
Speaker 5 (06:18):
You're not gonna do the interview with them? Nope, not
like this.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
I'm not not with seven follow ups to every single
question you ask.
Speaker 5 (06:24):
Every other candidate has a I don't care.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
I don't care. I want to have a pleasant, positive
conversation which you asked me about every issue on this list.
And if every question you're going to make up a
follow up question, then we're never going to get there,
and we're just going to circle around. I have had
to do this before ever.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
You've never had had an information Okay, but every other
candidate has done this.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
What part of I'm me? I'm running for governor because
I'm a leader, So I am going to make.
Speaker 5 (06:55):
So you're not going to answer questions from reporters. Okay,
why don't we go through?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
I will continue to ask follow up questions because that's
my job as a journalist, but I will go through
and ask this and if you don't want to answer,
you don't want to answer, So nearly every legislative I.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Don't want to have an unhappy experience for you, and
I don't want this whole on camera.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
I don't want to have an unhappy experience with you either.
I would love to continue to ask these questions so
that we can show our viewers what every candidate feels
about every one of these issues that they care about.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Okay, isn't that amazing? Also notice the manipulation there. I'm
not a psychiatrist, so I'm not going to say that
has hints of maybe borderline personality disorder or causing a
problem and then saying right away that you're not the
one who wants to cause the problem that you just
(07:45):
cause you know, I'm not going to diagnose this, but
I can tell you this, there are people who could
strikes me as not a good moment for Katie Porter.
But let's if you want maybe you're saying, you know,
maybe she had a bad day. Uh, she wants to
be the governor of the fifth largest economy in the world.
You know, maybe we should just say look to the
(08:07):
record and get a sense says to what is the
real Katie Porter?
Speaker 6 (08:11):
Like?
Speaker 1 (08:12):
You know, anyone can have a bad day, right anyone
can have a bad day. Maybe you want to. I mean,
I don't particularly want to take that position on this,
but I want to bring you this story from twenty
twenty three, Representative Katie Porter scalded ex husband's scalp with
boiling potatoes. Documents I shall read. The former husband of
(08:35):
Representative Katie Porter said the California Democrat frequently abused him
verbally this is from The New York Post, and through toys, books,
and other objects at him during their marriage, even pouring
scalding hot mashed potatoes on his head during a fight,
according to divorce records. Matthew Hoffman, who filed for divorce
(08:55):
from Porter in twenty thirteen, said in a request for
a restraining order dated April third of that year that
he was routinely called a bleeping idiot and a ble
bleeping incompetent by his rage prone spouse, who also shattered
a glass coffee pot on their kitchen counter in March
twenty twelve when she felt their house wasn't clean enough.
(09:17):
She's delightful, delightful. She would not have let me have
a cell phone because she said, quote, you're too bleeping
dumb to operate it.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
When she gets angry, I'm quoting here. When she gets angry,
she will claw and scratch her arms and then say
to me, look what you made me do again. I
am not a psychiatrist, but google borderline personality disorder. Uh,
Google some of what's going on here, the creation of
the problem and then the pretense ones you've created it
(09:52):
that you don't want drama. I'm not the one starting
the fire here. I don't want anyone starting fires when
you've thrown the gasoline all over the fire you started. Now,
I know what the Democrats would say here. They'd say, oh,
but he retracted that, and she ended up. Oh you
mean that his far more powerful spouse and the very
(10:13):
serious money interests aligned behind her or able to get
him to retract something that he had already put it
in a divorce proceeding because they made him an offer
probably he couldn't refuse. Yeah, okay, but that did happen.
So he retracted those things. But he said all those
things in court documents and they were reported on, which
I think is interesting. Again, I'm just looking at the
(10:34):
totality of evidence. Are we gonna say that Katie Porter
had a bad day, or were we getting a window
into this member of Congress who wants to be the
governor of California, and from there probably would see yourself
as running for president. So I think it's a pretty
fair game to get into all this. But you may say, Buck,
divorce proceedings can get ugly. I mean, who among us
(10:55):
hasn't thrown boiling hot potatoes at somebody in a fit
of rage at some point, Well all of you, I'm sure,
But you know we're trying to be generous here. I'm
trying to take the maximum benefit point of view for
the ogrish Katie Porter, the bullying Katie Porter here, and
so that I would then just say, well, clearly she
(11:17):
would have a lot of people who would come forward
who have worked with her to speak to what an
impeccable character she has, what a kind and encouraging boss
and mentor she is. And for that I bring you
Politico Katie Porter and the bad boss problem. Oh hold
(11:40):
on a second, this isn't that at all. This is
pretty bad quote. Some former staffers have said that she
is I'm trying to find the quotes here basically deeply
abusive and nasty and prone to fits of rage and
(12:03):
temper tantrums, and yeah, it's abusive to staff, has a
massive staff turnover problem. Sixty five percent of her staff
turned over during her time there, and everyone basically says,
at least that has worked for her says that she's
horrible and really mean. So are we gonna put these
data points together? I think we should. I think we should.
(12:23):
I don't think we can do the benefit of the
doubt thing anymore. Between the scalding hot potatoes thrown at
her ex, the staffers who say that she is a
brutish and nasty woman, and now this berating of a
reporter for nothing, I mean it was. It was a
nothing burger and she was not having it. So I
(12:45):
just think that everybody in California should know. And my
broader lesson on this is somehow the really nasty people
in politics, I mean, the really nasty people in politics
are always Democrats. I'm not saying there aren't people on
the Republican side that can be a little slimy and
you know not. But if you're talking about somebody who's
really in a you know, an abusive son of a
(13:05):
gun situation, you know, Democrats there's a reason for that.
I know They want to say it's a both sides thing,
but it's not a both sides thing. And in fact,
most of the Republicans that I know on the hill,
and I know many of their staffers, their staffers all
say they're fantastic people and they really look up to them.
That's very common, very common. I don't I'm in I
(13:29):
don't hear that. I hear stuff about the Democrats. Oh
you're like buck Well. Who else I don't know. Maybe
Amy Klobershar of a senate as Senate fame who is
famous for eating her salad with a comb and throwing
things at staffers. Yeah, true stories. Those are the allegations,
at least allegations throwing things at staffers, eating salad with
a comb. You know, do you have any I don't
(13:51):
know any Republicans who eat salad with a comb and
throw and throw things at their staffers. I'm just saying
I do not know of that happening. So if you do,
please call in and tell me. All right, Look, Israel
represents the only true democracy in the Middle East. They've
been a steady ally of the US since nineteen forty eight,
particularly when we needed friends in that part of the world.
Israel is also home to the Jewish people, same people
(14:11):
with a rich history that has benefited Christians alike for
centuries of the Christian faith. You likely had a Bible
lesson er who that tells the story of the Jewish people,
and you read or heard the words emphasizing the care
and protection of looking after those that are Jewish, God's
chosen people. Many Christians in America are standing with Israel
this month by participating in a growing movement created by
(14:32):
the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. It's called Flags
of Fellowship. This countrywide effort, the Flags of Fellowship, unites
churches across America planning over one million Israeli flags across
our land show the world that Israel is not alone.
To get more information about how you can join the
Flags of Fellowship movement, visit IFCJ dot org. That's IFCJ
(14:53):
dot org. You don't know what you don't know, right,
but you should. On this Hang with Clay and Buck podcast, Hi,
welcome back in here to Clay and Buck and we
got some calls coming in. Let's get to them. Uh.
First up on the list, Mike in Waco, Texas. What's
going on Mike, Yeah, Hey, thank you.
Speaker 7 (15:16):
I just wanted to say that you said earlier that
that candidate for governor California called out that reporter got
testy with her for no reason, and I'd like to
submit to you that there was a reason, and the
reason was that that reporter dared to question her and
press her for a logical answer. Just like with when
(15:38):
you say that it's not possible for a man to
become a woman or a woman to become a man,
people react sometimes like as if you're hateful by simply
asking the question, or.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Mike, I will, I will accept your your editor you're
adendum here. I think that's just a matter of speaking.
I meant that there's no you know, there's like no
grounds for her to freak out, But you're correct. The
grounds for her freak out are the questions. So so
I think I think that's a fair a fair edition.
So thank you. I agree. Note or comment taken Girard
(16:13):
in Louisiana. What's going on, Girard?
Speaker 4 (16:16):
I'm doing fine? How are you? Buck?
Speaker 1 (16:18):
I mean, I'm having a great day here in a
very wide open government shutdown d C. It's the loveliest
DC I can remember. Honestly, but go ahead sounds great.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
My question was that Katie Porter kept referring to the
fact that if you keep asking follow up questions, we'll
never get through all your questions. It seems to me
that she is intimating that she had a copy of
all the questions ahead of time.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
That could be could be. I mean, I don't I
assume that she just you know that that's you could
be right. I wouldn't jump there necessarily because she can
assume that there's other questions that she's going to ask
her where they submitted in advance. Maybe, but I think
that I could tie in. Thank you Gerard for calling in.
I can tie in your comment with Mike's comment. Which
is the problem here is that questions are being asked
and followed up on, and Katie Porter expects a CBS
(17:08):
affiliate journalist to just sit there and do dictation from
the likely Democrat candidate for governor after the primary is over.
You know, so there's the outrage comes from what are
you doing? You're not supposed to do this a little
bit like the Dasha Burns lady who actually was the
one who said the thing about the Pandora's box. Remember
(17:33):
she wasn't she the one who reported on Fetterman, who
actually has been doing great for a Democrat. But I
think she said that she talked to Fetterman and he
seemed a little not all there, and everyone went completely
insane on her, and it was clear that he was
not all there. But you're not allowed to say that
was the point. So the most obvious it's like the
Biden thing, the most obvious observation is not allowed if
(17:56):
it goes against what the part he dictates. All right,
Prize Picks, our friend Klay Travis, Let's be honest, Let's
not tell him this because I don't think Clay's ego
needs any help. But he has been in fuego with
his prize Pick so far this year. He has been
nailing it. He's got a bunch of the things where
you get like four or five times your money. He
is doing a phenomenal job. And Prize Picks is so
(18:17):
much fun, especially when you can dry, when you can
rely on the expertise of somebody like our good buddy Clay.
So millions of members, billions of dollars awarded in winnings,
get started today on Prize Picks. Download that app, get
fifty dollars instantly in lineups when you play your first
five dollars. When you download the Prize Picks app, use
my name Buck as your promo code. Get fifty dollars
instantly when you play five dollars. That's code Buck on
(18:40):
Prize Picks to get fifty dollars instantly when you play
five bucks. Clay's going to be back tomorrow. He's going
to be giving you his picks for the football games
that are happening this weekend. I believe they occur on Sunday.
I am told Prize Picks that's or the college ones
or Saturday. I know things Prize Picks download at used
code Buck clearly back tomorrow. Welcome back in here to
Clay and Buck. We are joined by Senator Rant Paul
(19:03):
of Kentucky. Senator Paul Away, appreciate you making time for
us today.
Speaker 4 (19:08):
No problem, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
Government shutdown so far. I got to say it's pretty
nice walking around the streets of DC. I know that's
a very basic view of things, but government seems to
be working reasonably well for a so called shutdown. What
is as you see it, at issue today? Why have
we seen no progress in the Schumer shutdown negotiations.
Speaker 4 (19:34):
Well, I think the great irony of this situation is
that every Democrat in the Senate and every Democrat versually
in the House as well, voted for these spending levels
in December of last year. So this continuing resolution has
spending levels that were actually set under Biden. These are
the Biden spending levels, and every Democrat has previously voted
for them. The reason they're not voting for them now,
(19:56):
at least according to the Democrats, is well, we want
to renew these temporary Obamacare subsidies. Well, that's moving the
goalpost because these people have all voted for the spending
bill before and it doesn't include the Obamacare subsidies, never
has And the reason the Obamacare subsidies are expiring is
because that's the law that the Democrats wrote. They wrote
(20:19):
them to be temporary because they were trying to cram
a lot of spending into a reconciliation bill and the
only way they could do it was to make things temporary. So, really,
this is all on the Democrats, and eventually they will
fold and they will vote to reopen the government.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Now, why are the If you could dig into this
a bit Senator Paul Why are these subsidies for Obamacare
both so important to Democrats and so necessary.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
Well, you know, the argument with Obamacare when it started,
you know, background twenty ten, was that it was going
to keep healthcare insurance prices from going up and make
health care more affordable. It turns out if you look
at healthcare and darns prices, they've gone up ever since.
There's been no slowdown in the increase in healthcare prices.
In fact, when you subsidize something, you're increasing the demand
(21:09):
for it. You actually are, in all likelihood increasing the
price of things. But they haven't been successful. These Obamacare
subsidies aren't really going for the poor. They're actually going
to relatively rich people now. And like I say, they
were brought in by the Democrats during the pandemic. They
(21:29):
were said to be, oh, well, people are having a
tough time to the pandemic. We're going to give them
extra money. The real problem, though, that nobody discusses around here,
is there is no money to give these people. I mean,
the money literally has to be borrowed from China or
printed up by the Federal Reserve. We're two trillion dollars
short with the current levels of welfare and warfare frankly,
(21:51):
and we're two dollars short a year. Where's the money
come from. It's the best to be borrowed.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Yeah, well with gold that I think four thousand dollars
an ounce now, I mean, I think people are starting
to see that the printing press is very much in use, unfortunately.
And I wanted to know if you could also look
into or explain to us a little bit, Senator Paul,
the argument over whether some of this funding or whatever
(22:17):
the portion may be, makes it to subsidize care for illegals.
You're an MD as well as a senator, so you
have a particular insight into this. What is the truth
of that.
Speaker 4 (22:28):
Well, it's confusing in the sense that we do have
many laws that say welfare is not supposed to go
to illegal aliens, But we also have laws that say
illegal aliens aren't supposed to vote either, and we know
for a fact that illegal aliens are The most recent
prominent case of them voting was a guy that was
that superintendent from Des Moines who was here in the
(22:50):
country illegally and registered to vote and voting in Maryland
and had been for some time. So we know that
the states, particularly the Democrat states, are very loud actules
California and others. They just don't really police the situation all.
So we do know that illegal people illegally in the
country are voting. We also know that they're receiving healthcare
(23:11):
as well. So in legislation then previously passed by Republicans,
language was explicitly put in to say it cannot and
should not happen. And the Democrats are trying to repeal
that language now and try to make it such that
states could make the decision to give welfare and voting
privileges to illegal aliens.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
Senator Paul this isn't the first. I think this is
the eleventh shutdown, right, but this isn't your first rodeo
with this. And I think in the past what has
been at least a narrative the media pounds, whether it's
really fair or true or not, is Oh, the Republicans
are being blamed. This is going to hurt Republicans politically.
I'm certainly not seeing that. And I don't think whatever
(23:53):
data that can be trusted on this, to the degree
it can be trusted, shows that what is the you
see it for the Democrats I'll speak to specifically if
you can speak to maybe on just the Senate side.
What is their calculation here? Why have they decided that
this is the hill they want to fight on.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
I think they're miscalculated. They also, I think the Republicans
have not hit them hard enough yet. I mean the Republicans,
I'm about the only one I hear reminding people that
the Democrats all voted for the spending levels nine months ago.
They're the exact same spending levels. The one reason Republicans
don't bring this up is Republicans used to be critical
of the Biden spending levels, but now the Republicans are
(24:35):
all voting for the spending levels. That's why I'm really
the only Republican voting against not only the Democrats spending levels,
but voting against the Republican levels because they incurred a
deficit this year of about two trillion and are projected
to incourage usit next year of about two point one trillion.
So I think both parties are terrible in the deficit.
(24:56):
I'm voting against both the Republican and the Democrat plan
because the one thing that is bipartisan up here is
spending money. We don't have We're.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Going to be at forty trillion then in this debt
really soon, and you know, Elon Musk came in with
Doge and there seemed to be this moment in time,
Senator where there was at least the beginnings of a
willingness to do something about this. It does not look
like that has really come to fruition. Maybe that's putting
(25:24):
it too gently that we're even trying to turn the
spending curve around. Do you think that there will be
I know the White House has spoken about this, some
substantial trimming of federal employees that will occur during the shutdown.
How does that work?
Speaker 4 (25:41):
You know, dose did a lot of good things. I
was a big supporter Elon Musk and the thing to
be brought to government. We did end up voting on
two recision packages or one, but then they did one
as a pocket recision and so about twelve billion and
four and aid was reduced. You know, I've been championing
reductions in foreign aid need for a decade here and
(26:02):
introduced over thirty five bills to do it. This is
the first time we've done it since I'm here. But
the problem is the continuing resolution that Republicans have put
forward spends at the currently appropriated levels for four and AID.
That doesn't include the twelve billion dollars in cuts. So basically,
if they pass the continuing Resolution that Republicans want everybody
to vote for now, it'll let the four and AID
(26:23):
back in it. And so if you want to get
rid of four and eight again, we will have to
do the same thing again next year. So taking away
the twelve billion that didn't become the new baseline, it's
not a lower baseline for four and AID. They're going
back to the original one with this continuing Resolution. So
it's another reason not to be too excited about what
the Republicans have put forward, is that we're going to
start all over again with the things that Doge put
(26:46):
forward and the recision packages. We have to do it
again next year.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Do you think there's any realistic scenario where there's a
willingness on the Republican side to make what has to
happen for real cuts to be I mean, I feel
like we've been talking about this, you have, I have
a lot of everybody listening now talking about this, going
back to the origins of the Tea Party. So this
is looking like what fifteen years of When are we
(27:12):
going to make cuts? The debt is too high. The
debt is too high. We just discussed that it's going
to be at forty trillion dollars. When do we decide
to do something about this or is it just a
waste of discussion at this point because we haven't suffered
the economic fallout from our profligate spending, so no one's
going to do anything about it.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
Well, the lay of the land is this, there are
no Democrats that will vote to cut one penny of
one dollar of federal spending. On the Republican side, there's
a lot of lip service. But when I presented my
Penny Plan budget, which would balance over five years. I
did this two weeks ago, thirty six Republicans supported it.
Now that's the high water mark, that's the most I've
(27:51):
gotten before. But it also means that I think about
sixteen Republicans do not support it. These sixteen Republicans all
and are the leaders of the spending committees, the appropriations committees,
and so there isn't a desire among them really to
cut spending. And so until we have a Republican majority
and a majority of those Republicans are willing to cut,
(28:14):
we don't get anywhere. It also doesn't help when people say, well,
we're not going to look at Social Security or Medicare
and Medicaid. We'll do it sometime in two or three
years from now. We'll make the date in the future.
All of these things, when you take them off limits
and you don't do anything to food stamps, if you
take all of these entitlements at the table, you really
(28:35):
there isn't enough waste in fraud to cut to actually
balance the budget.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
Well, what do we have to do? I mean, is
this turning into the entitlements discussion again, which nobody wants
to touch.
Speaker 4 (28:45):
It's about elections. You need more hardcore people. I think
the people out there, you know that I meet as
I travel a country, they are ready to cut spending.
They are ready for more significant cuts, and they're ready
for somebody who introduce a balanced budget. So I think
if my penny planned budget were surveyed among the public,
(29:05):
among the Republican public, I think you'd get ninety percent
of the vote, you know, But up here I'm getting
about sixty percent of the Republicans for it. So really,
the Republicans up here are all getting the message they
need to get the message that the debt is a
real problem and it's time to start cutting spending. But
a lot of them haven't got that message yet.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
How long do you think this shutdown is going to last?
And is it a big deal to you? Whether it
goes for another day or another two weeks, does it
really make much difference? How do you see that?
Speaker 4 (29:33):
The rumor is that the Democrats have a left wing
socialist rally in DC this weekend, and they're afraid of
their left wing. They're afraid of the socialists, and so
they have to show they're putting up a fight for
the Obama the free stuff, the Obamacare free subsidies. So
the rumor is they will fight through the weekend and
then give in next week. They'll give in because there'll
(29:55):
be some sort of public public promise that will negotiate
on the subsidies. And frankly, there probably are fifteen Republicans
that will vote to increase or keep the Bioblcare subsidies.
They don't care that it has to be borrowed, they
don't care that it's more big government. So what will
happen is all the Democrats will be for that fifteen
(30:15):
or twenty Republicans will vote with them, and big government
always wins. But I think the public's getting increasingly frustrated
with it. So there's going to be a time at
which the public is going to say, let's, you know,
let's throw some of the bums out.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Why do we need subsidies if Obamacare makes healthcare cheaper?
That seems to be a conundrum.
Speaker 4 (30:36):
Center. Yeah. One of the things we could do, and
I've proposed this for years now, I proposed that we'd
let people consumers, people who buy health insurance, let them
bargain collectively. What I mean by that is, if you
belong to Costco, there are forty four million members of Costco.
If Costco were to buy your insurance for you, my
(30:57):
guess is Costco can get a better price than you
can individually.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
If my wife could buy her insurance from Costco, by
the way, it would have happened yesterday if she loves Costco.
So keep going.
Speaker 4 (31:08):
And the rule that's keeping us from doing this is
a federal rule that says you can buy insurance with
a group if you all have to be in the
same employment. You have to be ditch stickers or carpenters
or welders. You can buy your insurance together, but you
can't be in multiple different employment, which is a really
dumb rule. And last Trump administration, I got him to
(31:32):
do an executive order. It was challenged in court. But
I have a bill that would do this. It would
change what's called the Arissa law and would let anybody
wants to join any group buy insurance. And then what
you'd have is you'd have a head of cost codes
health insurance buying, would sit down with the head of
the big insurance companies and you'd really get a much
(31:53):
better price. And so that's the one thing you could
do that is a market phenomenon. It's a way of
injecting the market. It actually would bring down health care calls.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Senator rand Paul always appreciate you, sir, Thanks for making
the stop today with us.
Speaker 4 (32:07):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
It was a time when dinner was more than just
a meal. It was the hour every day when family
came together. Actually, you know what I'm gonna tell you
something right now, there was the Jesuit headmaster of my
high school. When my parents did the first parent teacher day,
he sat all the parents together in the auditorium, and
he said, you know what, one of the most important
things you can do with your kids is have dinner together.
(32:30):
True story. This is a guy who's been an educator
for like forty years and very very smart guy. He said,
one of the most important things.
Speaker 8 (32:37):
Now.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
I know people were travel busy, but the point is
when you can, you should do it. And good Ranchers
certainly believes in that. Good Ranchers is calling Americans back
to the table. From now through Thanksgiving. Good Ranchers is
encouraging families to sit down and share a meal every Thursday.
Doesn't have to be fancy, just has to be together.
And here's the fun part. Every week, one lucky winner
(32:58):
will win a free Thanksgiving ham for just sharing a
photo of their gathering on their Instagram story and tagging
at good Ranchers and using the hashtag back to the Table.
That's hashtag back to the Table. So visit good ranchers
dot com. Use my name Buck as your code when
you subscribe for an additional forty dollars off your initial
order plus free meat for life. You get to pick
that free meat gift. It's delicious. Code Buck and forty
(33:21):
dollars off plus free meat for life. It's a great deal.
I eate the last meal I made with Kerry. Last
weekend we had Good Ranchers flats and I think it
was boned in New York strip or maybe it was
boned in RIBBEI. I get them both from Good Ranchers.
It's all delicious. But I was working my magic on
my cast iron with Good Ranchers. It was delicious and
I'm gonna be doing it again this weekend. Go to
Good Ranchers dot com. Use my name Buck as your
(33:42):
promo code forty dollars off free meat for life. Check
it out today.
Speaker 4 (33:46):
News and politics, but also a little comic relief.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
Clay Travis at Buck Sexton. Find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back
in here to Clay and Buck, and we're gonna be
talking to Senator Ron Johnson about the weaponization of law,
the DOJ stuff, the testimony by Attorney General Bondi up
(34:10):
on Capitol Hill. Also some very interesting statistics coming out
from FBI Director Patel, so we shall dive into that momentarily.
So make sure you stick around with us. And let's
see we have DD Jim from Rockland County who listens
(34:31):
on WOOR radio. What's up play it?
Speaker 6 (34:37):
As far as superheroes go, nobody beats Superman because he's
the only one who has truly super human powers.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
The Hulk just gets mad and big.
Speaker 6 (34:47):
Everybody else needs some kind of gadget to protect them.
The only thing that takes Superman down is Kryptonite. And
I don't think Kryptonite is just laying around that you
can get on Amazon. Well maybe Amazon. That's what makes
Superman the best, very in.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
Depth analysis to our superhero analogy here. I have to
say we're going way beyond my knowledge here, although I
feel like he's not giving Hulk his fair due. Rather
a burly fellow, the Hulk, you know what I mean,
very very muscular. Let's get call Brian in North Carolina.
What's up, Brian?
Speaker 8 (35:24):
Hey Buck, I was just listening to your call with
Ram Paul, and it kind of ticked me off in
a way because I've been thinking about this for years
upon years about insurance. You know, you're discussing about group
group insurance and so on, and how if you go
to Costco you'd be able to get you know, the
cheaper policies because or not to your cheaper policies, but
to be able to get policies that would provide you
(35:45):
with cheaper medical coverage because you're in a quote group.
That whole argument to me seems outdated. Okay, that made
sense sixty years ago, years ago before we had computers.
So the whole idea back then was we sell them
in groups. You know, we'll sell insurance to it to
(36:06):
a business because oh, they may have two thousand people,
and I can get two thousand people signed up and
then we'll admit. It'll make administration of the policies easier. Well,
today there's a thing called the computer, and you can
get online and if I wanted to, I could go
to Anthem or Blue Cross, brou Shield, but I could
sign up and buy their insurance policies, but I would
have to pay the individual prices.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
In my mind, well, this is where insurance is a
is inherently. I'm sorry we're at the end here, Brian,
but thank you for calling. In insurance, just like on
your house, there's a cost sharing component to it, and
in healthcare that gets very complicated very quickly, because how
old are you, how healthy are you? You need younger,
healthier people to subsidize the older, sicker people, or else
(36:49):
you don't have insurance, right, This is the question, This
is the problem, This is the crux of the matter.
Second hour of playing Buck kicks off right now. We're
gonna have Senator Ran Paul joining us at the bottom
about the government shutdown, which I have to say for
my own reasons here in DC, I am loving every
minute of It's amazing. I feel like I could hop
on an electric scooter and just do a little tour
of the town and not have to stop anywhere because
(00:20):
there's no one on the streets. It's fabulous, you know.
I just put a little scarf on, you know, in
case it gets Chile on the scooter and I go
Capitol Building, Georgetown, stop by the White House, High five,
Steve Miller. See how everybody's doing. That's the kind of
day it is over here. It's wonderful, wonderful. They have
all the bureaucrats, you know, jostling together, and you know,
(00:41):
making the line at Starbucks one hundred people long. None
of that stuff. This government shutdowns pretty nice, pretty nice.
So let's dive into politics in California for a minute,
shall we, Because a lot of you have seen this.
It's gone viral, as you know. We have Steve Hilton
on to talk about his run for governor in that state.
(01:02):
Gavin Newsom, Hey everybody, how you doing. He's turned out
he is going to run for president quite obviously, and
he has to give up his governor's mansion to whoever
the next person to win that contest is going to be.
And it's looking right now, at least on the Democrat
(01:22):
side of things, it's looking like Katie Porter is the
likeliest to win. Now, every state has different rules about
how this stuff goes. California, as I understand it, and
some of you live there, so you're going to know
this better than I do, has like a top two situation.
So you have all these people that are going to
be running, and then the top two vote getters are
(01:44):
going to be in the general election LA ballot in
November of twenty twenty six. I think that's right. If
it's wrong, my team will tell me in a moment
and I'll correct it. But I think that's basically how
it goes. But Katie Porter is getting a lot of
attention she probably did not want right now. In fact,
(02:04):
the newsweek headline here is Katie Porter's chances of winning
California governor election suffer blow. And let's get into why
that is. She sat down with a journalist. She sat
down with a journalist and had the exchange team. Can
I do this? Actually, Producer Mike, Let's let's do a
(02:25):
little play pause here, right, So I'm gonna pay it.
I'm gonna say, all right, let's pause for a second
here because this is a long one. It's a couple
of minutes long. So I want to get in and
out of this SoundBite, but I want you to hear
the whole thing, because wow, Katie Porter comes across as
a really nasty and unlikable person and unprofessional. So let's
start this off. This is a CBS interview with Julie
(02:47):
Watts of CBS News California. Come on, it's CBS, and
this is communist broadcasting services like this, This is not.
This is home team stuff for Porter. But if you
ask her real questions, she apparently doesn't. If this is
how it goes play, what do you.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Say to the forty percent of California voters who you'll
need in order to win, who voted for Trump?
Speaker 3 (03:07):
How would I need them in order to win?
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Man?
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Well, unless you think you're going to get sixty percent
of the vote, you think you'll get sixty percent?
Speaker 5 (03:14):
All everybody who did not vote for Trump will vote
for you.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
That's what you're in a general election. Yes, if it
is me versus a Republican, I think that I will
win the people who did not vote for Trump.
Speaker 5 (03:24):
What if it's you versus another Democrat?
Speaker 3 (03:26):
I don't intend that to be the case.
Speaker 5 (03:28):
So how do you not intend that to be the case?
Speaker 6 (03:31):
You do? You?
Speaker 5 (03:31):
Are you going to ask them not to run?
Speaker 6 (03:33):
No?
Speaker 3 (03:33):
No, I'm saying I'm going to build the support. I
have the support already in terms of name recognition, and
so I'm going to do the very best I can
to make sure that we get through this primary in
a really strong position. But let me be clear with you.
I represented Orange County. I represented a purple area. I
have stood on my own two feet and one Republican
votes before. That's not something every candidate and this race
can say. If you're from a deep blue area, if
(03:54):
you're from LA or you're from Oakland, you don't have
an experience.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
You just said you don't need those Trump vot So
you asked me if I needed them to win.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
So you don't feel like this is unnecessarily argumentative.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
What is your question?
Speaker 1 (04:06):
The question is, oh, well, let's pause there for a second.
Let's pause there for a second because it's about to
get really good. Everybody, I want to keep you on
the edge of your seats. Argumentative, argumentative. I got to
tell you, as a conservative dealing with the media, like
that's like a like a hiatsu massage, that's not argumentative. Like,
are you kidding me? That's she can't handle that, that's
(04:26):
getting her all. Oh, oh, you're just hearing the beginning
of Hurricane Porter unleashed. Here. Things are things are going
to get worse. Keep playing it.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
It's the same thing I asked everybody that this is
being called the empowering voters to stop Trump's power graph.
Speaker 5 (04:42):
Every other candidate has answered this question. This is not
and I said, I support it.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
So and the question is what do you say to
the forty percent of voters who voted for Trump?
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Oh, I'm happy to say that. It's the do you
need them to win? Part that I don't understand. I'm
happy to answer. The question's for the question is you
haven't written and I'll answer.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
And we've also asked the other ca and that's do
you think you need any of those forty percent of
California voters to win?
Speaker 5 (05:04):
And you're saying no, you don't.
Speaker 3 (05:05):
No, I'm saying I'm going to try to win every
vote I can. And what I'm saying to you.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
Is that, well to those voters, Okay, so you I.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Don't want to keep doing this, I'm gonna call it.
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Whoa, whoa, Hey, hit the pause button. Hit the pause button.
She can't handle that. What exactly is the look is
there is the reporter maybe or things getting a little
lost in translation here about the numbers. Looks she's a
CBS journalist. She's trying to you know, she could be
doing like sideline reporting for the NFL or something. She
happens to be here with this politician who cares? Here
(05:38):
she is, and she's trying to just she's just trying
to do like a decent job. This is not a gotcha.
I know, gotcha. Every time I used to go on CNN,
it was like an ambush and I had to fight
through it. I know what gotcha is like. This is
not gotcha. This is trying to just clarify a point.
But also you can tell Katie Porter has decided Congressowan
Porter has decided to really you know, sink her teeth
(06:01):
into this, and uh, I think just comes across as ogrish.
If you will, I use that term people like that
one online ogrish as in befitting of an ogre. It's
not nice, not nice. The way she's acting here a nice?
Keep playing it.
Speaker 5 (06:18):
You're not gonna do the interview with them? Nope, not
like this.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
I'm not not with seven follow ups to every single
question you ask.
Speaker 5 (06:24):
Every other candidate has a I don't care.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
I don't care. I want to have a pleasant, positive
conversation which you asked me about every issue on this list.
And if every question you're going to make up a
follow up question, then we're never going to get there,
and we're just going to circle around. I have had
to do this before ever.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
You've never had had an information Okay, but every other
candidate has done this.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
What part of I'm me? I'm running for governor because
I'm a leader, So I am going to make.
Speaker 5 (06:55):
So you're not going to answer questions from reporters. Okay,
why don't we go through?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
I will continue to ask follow up questions because that's
my job as a journalist, but I will go through
and ask this and if you don't want to answer,
you don't want to answer, So nearly every legislative I.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Don't want to have an unhappy experience for you, and
I don't want this whole on camera.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
I don't want to have an unhappy experience with you either.
I would love to continue to ask these questions so
that we can show our viewers what every candidate feels
about every one of these issues that they care about.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Okay, isn't that amazing? Also notice the manipulation there. I'm
not a psychiatrist, so I'm not going to say that
has hints of maybe borderline personality disorder or causing a
problem and then saying right away that you're not the
one who wants to cause the problem that you just
(07:45):
cause you know, I'm not going to diagnose this, but
I can tell you this, there are people who could
strikes me as not a good moment for Katie Porter.
But let's if you want maybe you're saying, you know,
maybe she had a bad day. Uh, she wants to
be the governor of the fifth largest economy in the world.
You know, maybe we should just say look to the
(08:07):
record and get a sense says to what is the
real Katie Porter?
Speaker 6 (08:11):
Like?
Speaker 1 (08:12):
You know, anyone can have a bad day, right anyone
can have a bad day. Maybe you want to. I mean,
I don't particularly want to take that position on this,
but I want to bring you this story from twenty
twenty three, Representative Katie Porter scalded ex husband's scalp with
boiling potatoes. Documents I shall read. The former husband of
(08:35):
Representative Katie Porter said the California Democrat frequently abused him
verbally this is from The New York Post, and through toys, books,
and other objects at him during their marriage, even pouring
scalding hot mashed potatoes on his head during a fight,
according to divorce records. Matthew Hoffman, who filed for divorce
(08:55):
from Porter in twenty thirteen, said in a request for
a restraining order dated April third of that year that
he was routinely called a bleeping idiot and a ble
bleeping incompetent by his rage prone spouse, who also shattered
a glass coffee pot on their kitchen counter in March
twenty twelve when she felt their house wasn't clean enough.
(09:17):
She's delightful, delightful. She would not have let me have
a cell phone because she said, quote, you're too bleeping
dumb to operate it.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
When she gets angry, I'm quoting here. When she gets angry,
she will claw and scratch her arms and then say
to me, look what you made me do again. I
am not a psychiatrist, but google borderline personality disorder. Uh,
Google some of what's going on here, the creation of
the problem and then the pretense ones you've created it
(09:52):
that you don't want drama. I'm not the one starting
the fire here. I don't want anyone starting fires when
you've thrown the gasoline all over the fire you started. Now,
I know what the Democrats would say here. They'd say, oh,
but he retracted that, and she ended up. Oh you
mean that his far more powerful spouse and the very
(10:13):
serious money interests aligned behind her or able to get
him to retract something that he had already put it
in a divorce proceeding because they made him an offer
probably he couldn't refuse. Yeah, okay, but that did happen.
So he retracted those things. But he said all those
things in court documents and they were reported on, which
I think is interesting. Again, I'm just looking at the
(10:34):
totality of evidence. Are we gonna say that Katie Porter
had a bad day, or were we getting a window
into this member of Congress who wants to be the
governor of California, and from there probably would see yourself
as running for president. So I think it's a pretty
fair game to get into all this. But you may say, Buck,
divorce proceedings can get ugly. I mean, who among us
(10:55):
hasn't thrown boiling hot potatoes at somebody in a fit
of rage at some point, Well all of you, I'm sure,
But you know we're trying to be generous here. I'm
trying to take the maximum benefit point of view for
the ogrish Katie Porter, the bullying Katie Porter here, and
so that I would then just say, well, clearly she
(11:17):
would have a lot of people who would come forward
who have worked with her to speak to what an
impeccable character she has, what a kind and encouraging boss
and mentor she is. And for that I bring you
Politico Katie Porter and the bad boss problem. Oh hold
(11:40):
on a second, this isn't that at all. This is
pretty bad quote. Some former staffers have said that she
is I'm trying to find the quotes here basically deeply
abusive and nasty and prone to fits of rage and
(12:03):
temper tantrums, and yeah, it's abusive to staff, has a
massive staff turnover problem. Sixty five percent of her staff
turned over during her time there, and everyone basically says,
at least that has worked for her says that she's
horrible and really mean. So are we gonna put these
data points together? I think we should. I think we should.
(12:23):
I don't think we can do the benefit of the
doubt thing anymore. Between the scalding hot potatoes thrown at
her ex, the staffers who say that she is a
brutish and nasty woman, and now this berating of a
reporter for nothing, I mean it was. It was a
nothing burger and she was not having it. So I
(12:45):
just think that everybody in California should know. And my
broader lesson on this is somehow the really nasty people
in politics, I mean, the really nasty people in politics
are always Democrats. I'm not saying there aren't people on
the Republican side that can be a little slimy and
you know not. But if you're talking about somebody who's
really in a you know, an abusive son of a
(13:05):
gun situation, you know, Democrats there's a reason for that.
I know They want to say it's a both sides thing,
but it's not a both sides thing. And in fact,
most of the Republicans that I know on the hill,
and I know many of their staffers, their staffers all
say they're fantastic people and they really look up to them.
That's very common, very common. I don't I'm in I
(13:29):
don't hear that. I hear stuff about the Democrats. Oh
you're like buck Well. Who else I don't know. Maybe
Amy Klobershar of a senate as Senate fame who is
famous for eating her salad with a comb and throwing
things at staffers. Yeah, true stories. Those are the allegations,
at least allegations throwing things at staffers, eating salad with
a comb. You know, do you have any I don't
(13:51):
know any Republicans who eat salad with a comb and
throw and throw things at their staffers. I'm just saying
I do not know of that happening. So if you do,
please call in and tell me. All right, Look, Israel
represents the only true democracy in the Middle East. They've
been a steady ally of the US since nineteen forty eight,
particularly when we needed friends in that part of the world.
Israel is also home to the Jewish people, same people
(14:11):
with a rich history that has benefited Christians alike for
centuries of the Christian faith. You likely had a Bible
lesson er who that tells the story of the Jewish people,
and you read or heard the words emphasizing the care
and protection of looking after those that are Jewish, God's
chosen people. Many Christians in America are standing with Israel
this month by participating in a growing movement created by
(14:32):
the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. It's called Flags
of Fellowship. This countrywide effort, the Flags of Fellowship, unites
churches across America planning over one million Israeli flags across
our land show the world that Israel is not alone.
To get more information about how you can join the
Flags of Fellowship movement, visit IFCJ dot org. That's IFCJ
(14:53):
dot org. You don't know what you don't know, right,
but you should. On this Hang with Clay and Buck podcast, Hi,
welcome back in here to Clay and Buck and we
got some calls coming in. Let's get to them. Uh.
First up on the list, Mike in Waco, Texas. What's
going on Mike, Yeah, Hey, thank you.
Speaker 7 (15:16):
I just wanted to say that you said earlier that
that candidate for governor California called out that reporter got
testy with her for no reason, and I'd like to
submit to you that there was a reason, and the
reason was that that reporter dared to question her and
press her for a logical answer. Just like with when
(15:38):
you say that it's not possible for a man to
become a woman or a woman to become a man,
people react sometimes like as if you're hateful by simply
asking the question, or.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Mike, I will, I will accept your your editor you're
adendum here. I think that's just a matter of speaking.
I meant that there's no you know, there's like no
grounds for her to freak out, But you're correct. The
grounds for her freak out are the questions. So so
I think I think that's a fair a fair edition.
So thank you. I agree. Note or comment taken Girard
(16:13):
in Louisiana. What's going on, Girard?
Speaker 4 (16:16):
I'm doing fine? How are you? Buck?
Speaker 1 (16:18):
I mean, I'm having a great day here in a
very wide open government shutdown d C. It's the loveliest
DC I can remember. Honestly, but go ahead sounds great.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
My question was that Katie Porter kept referring to the
fact that if you keep asking follow up questions, we'll
never get through all your questions. It seems to me
that she is intimating that she had a copy of
all the questions ahead of time.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
That could be could be. I mean, I don't I
assume that she just you know that that's you could
be right. I wouldn't jump there necessarily because she can
assume that there's other questions that she's going to ask
her where they submitted in advance. Maybe, but I think
that I could tie in. Thank you Gerard for calling in.
I can tie in your comment with Mike's comment. Which
is the problem here is that questions are being asked
and followed up on, and Katie Porter expects a CBS
(17:08):
affiliate journalist to just sit there and do dictation from
the likely Democrat candidate for governor after the primary is over.
You know, so there's the outrage comes from what are
you doing? You're not supposed to do this a little
bit like the Dasha Burns lady who actually was the
one who said the thing about the Pandora's box. Remember
(17:33):
she wasn't she the one who reported on Fetterman, who
actually has been doing great for a Democrat. But I
think she said that she talked to Fetterman and he
seemed a little not all there, and everyone went completely
insane on her, and it was clear that he was
not all there. But you're not allowed to say that
was the point. So the most obvious it's like the
Biden thing, the most obvious observation is not allowed if
(17:56):
it goes against what the part he dictates. All right,
Prize Picks, our friend Klay Travis, Let's be honest, Let's
not tell him this because I don't think Clay's ego
needs any help. But he has been in fuego with
his prize Pick so far this year. He has been
nailing it. He's got a bunch of the things where
you get like four or five times your money. He
is doing a phenomenal job. And Prize Picks is so
(18:17):
much fun, especially when you can dry, when you can
rely on the expertise of somebody like our good buddy Clay.
So millions of members, billions of dollars awarded in winnings,
get started today on Prize Picks. Download that app, get
fifty dollars instantly in lineups when you play your first
five dollars. When you download the Prize Picks app, use
my name Buck as your promo code. Get fifty dollars
instantly when you play five dollars. That's code Buck on
(18:40):
Prize Picks to get fifty dollars instantly when you play
five bucks. Clay's going to be back tomorrow. He's going
to be giving you his picks for the football games
that are happening this weekend. I believe they occur on Sunday.
I am told Prize Picks that's or the college ones
or Saturday. I know things Prize Picks download at used
code Buck clearly back tomorrow. Welcome back in here to
Clay and Buck. We are joined by Senator Rant Paul
(19:03):
of Kentucky. Senator Paul Away, appreciate you making time for
us today.
Speaker 4 (19:08):
No problem, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
Government shutdown so far. I got to say it's pretty
nice walking around the streets of DC. I know that's
a very basic view of things, but government seems to
be working reasonably well for a so called shutdown. What
is as you see it, at issue today? Why have
we seen no progress in the Schumer shutdown negotiations.
Speaker 4 (19:34):
Well, I think the great irony of this situation is
that every Democrat in the Senate and every Democrat versually
in the House as well, voted for these spending levels
in December of last year. So this continuing resolution has
spending levels that were actually set under Biden. These are
the Biden spending levels, and every Democrat has previously voted
for them. The reason they're not voting for them now,
(19:56):
at least according to the Democrats, is well, we want
to renew these temporary Obamacare subsidies. Well, that's moving the
goalpost because these people have all voted for the spending
bill before and it doesn't include the Obamacare subsidies, never
has And the reason the Obamacare subsidies are expiring is
because that's the law that the Democrats wrote. They wrote
(20:19):
them to be temporary because they were trying to cram
a lot of spending into a reconciliation bill and the
only way they could do it was to make things temporary. So, really,
this is all on the Democrats, and eventually they will
fold and they will vote to reopen the government.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Now, why are the If you could dig into this
a bit Senator Paul Why are these subsidies for Obamacare
both so important to Democrats and so necessary.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
Well, you know, the argument with Obamacare when it started,
you know, background twenty ten, was that it was going
to keep healthcare insurance prices from going up and make
health care more affordable. It turns out if you look
at healthcare and darns prices, they've gone up ever since.
There's been no slowdown in the increase in healthcare prices.
In fact, when you subsidize something, you're increasing the demand
(21:09):
for it. You actually are, in all likelihood increasing the
price of things. But they haven't been successful. These Obamacare
subsidies aren't really going for the poor. They're actually going
to relatively rich people now. And like I say, they
were brought in by the Democrats during the pandemic. They
(21:29):
were said to be, oh, well, people are having a
tough time to the pandemic. We're going to give them
extra money. The real problem, though, that nobody discusses around here,
is there is no money to give these people. I mean,
the money literally has to be borrowed from China or
printed up by the Federal Reserve. We're two trillion dollars
short with the current levels of welfare and warfare frankly,
(21:51):
and we're two dollars short a year. Where's the money
come from. It's the best to be borrowed.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Yeah, well with gold that I think four thousand dollars
an ounce now, I mean, I think people are starting
to see that the printing press is very much in use, unfortunately.
And I wanted to know if you could also look
into or explain to us a little bit, Senator Paul,
the argument over whether some of this funding or whatever
(22:17):
the portion may be, makes it to subsidize care for illegals.
You're an MD as well as a senator, so you
have a particular insight into this. What is the truth
of that.
Speaker 4 (22:28):
Well, it's confusing in the sense that we do have
many laws that say welfare is not supposed to go
to illegal aliens, But we also have laws that say
illegal aliens aren't supposed to vote either, and we know
for a fact that illegal aliens are The most recent
prominent case of them voting was a guy that was
that superintendent from Des Moines who was here in the
(22:50):
country illegally and registered to vote and voting in Maryland
and had been for some time. So we know that
the states, particularly the Democrat states, are very loud actules
California and others. They just don't really police the situation all.
So we do know that illegal people illegally in the
country are voting. We also know that they're receiving healthcare
(23:11):
as well. So in legislation then previously passed by Republicans,
language was explicitly put in to say it cannot and
should not happen. And the Democrats are trying to repeal
that language now and try to make it such that
states could make the decision to give welfare and voting
privileges to illegal aliens.
Speaker 1 (23:32):
Senator Paul this isn't the first. I think this is
the eleventh shutdown, right, but this isn't your first rodeo
with this. And I think in the past what has
been at least a narrative the media pounds, whether it's
really fair or true or not, is Oh, the Republicans
are being blamed. This is going to hurt Republicans politically.
I'm certainly not seeing that. And I don't think whatever
(23:53):
data that can be trusted on this, to the degree
it can be trusted, shows that what is the you
see it for the Democrats I'll speak to specifically if
you can speak to maybe on just the Senate side.
What is their calculation here? Why have they decided that
this is the hill they want to fight on.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
I think they're miscalculated. They also, I think the Republicans
have not hit them hard enough yet. I mean the Republicans,
I'm about the only one I hear reminding people that
the Democrats all voted for the spending levels nine months ago.
They're the exact same spending levels. The one reason Republicans
don't bring this up is Republicans used to be critical
of the Biden spending levels, but now the Republicans are
(24:35):
all voting for the spending levels. That's why I'm really
the only Republican voting against not only the Democrats spending levels,
but voting against the Republican levels because they incurred a
deficit this year of about two trillion and are projected
to incourage usit next year of about two point one trillion.
So I think both parties are terrible in the deficit.
(24:56):
I'm voting against both the Republican and the Democrat plan
because the one thing that is bipartisan up here is
spending money. We don't have We're.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Going to be at forty trillion then in this debt
really soon, and you know, Elon Musk came in with
Doge and there seemed to be this moment in time,
Senator where there was at least the beginnings of a
willingness to do something about this. It does not look
like that has really come to fruition. Maybe that's putting
(25:24):
it too gently that we're even trying to turn the
spending curve around. Do you think that there will be
I know the White House has spoken about this, some
substantial trimming of federal employees that will occur during the shutdown.
How does that work?
Speaker 4 (25:41):
You know, dose did a lot of good things. I
was a big supporter Elon Musk and the thing to
be brought to government. We did end up voting on
two recision packages or one, but then they did one
as a pocket recision and so about twelve billion and
four and aid was reduced. You know, I've been championing
reductions in foreign aid need for a decade here and
(26:02):
introduced over thirty five bills to do it. This is
the first time we've done it since I'm here. But
the problem is the continuing resolution that Republicans have put
forward spends at the currently appropriated levels for four and AID.
That doesn't include the twelve billion dollars in cuts. So basically,
if they pass the continuing Resolution that Republicans want everybody
to vote for now, it'll let the four and AID
(26:23):
back in it. And so if you want to get
rid of four and eight again, we will have to
do the same thing again next year. So taking away
the twelve billion that didn't become the new baseline, it's
not a lower baseline for four and AID. They're going
back to the original one with this continuing Resolution. So
it's another reason not to be too excited about what
the Republicans have put forward, is that we're going to
start all over again with the things that Doge put
(26:46):
forward and the recision packages. We have to do it
again next year.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Do you think there's any realistic scenario where there's a
willingness on the Republican side to make what has to
happen for real cuts to be I mean, I feel
like we've been talking about this, you have, I have
a lot of everybody listening now talking about this, going
back to the origins of the Tea Party. So this
is looking like what fifteen years of When are we
(27:12):
going to make cuts? The debt is too high. The
debt is too high. We just discussed that it's going
to be at forty trillion dollars. When do we decide
to do something about this or is it just a
waste of discussion at this point because we haven't suffered
the economic fallout from our profligate spending, so no one's
going to do anything about it.
Speaker 4 (27:29):
Well, the lay of the land is this, there are
no Democrats that will vote to cut one penny of
one dollar of federal spending. On the Republican side, there's
a lot of lip service. But when I presented my
Penny Plan budget, which would balance over five years. I
did this two weeks ago, thirty six Republicans supported it.
Now that's the high water mark, that's the most I've
(27:51):
gotten before. But it also means that I think about
sixteen Republicans do not support it. These sixteen Republicans all
and are the leaders of the spending committees, the appropriations committees,
and so there isn't a desire among them really to
cut spending. And so until we have a Republican majority
and a majority of those Republicans are willing to cut,
(28:14):
we don't get anywhere. It also doesn't help when people say, well,
we're not going to look at Social Security or Medicare
and Medicaid. We'll do it sometime in two or three
years from now. We'll make the date in the future.
All of these things, when you take them off limits
and you don't do anything to food stamps, if you
take all of these entitlements at the table, you really
(28:35):
there isn't enough waste in fraud to cut to actually
balance the budget.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
Well, what do we have to do? I mean, is
this turning into the entitlements discussion again, which nobody wants
to touch.
Speaker 4 (28:45):
It's about elections. You need more hardcore people. I think
the people out there, you know that I meet as
I travel a country, they are ready to cut spending.
They are ready for more significant cuts, and they're ready
for somebody who introduce a balanced budget. So I think
if my penny planned budget were surveyed among the public,
(29:05):
among the Republican public, I think you'd get ninety percent
of the vote, you know, But up here I'm getting
about sixty percent of the Republicans for it. So really,
the Republicans up here are all getting the message they
need to get the message that the debt is a
real problem and it's time to start cutting spending. But
a lot of them haven't got that message yet.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
How long do you think this shutdown is going to last?
And is it a big deal to you? Whether it
goes for another day or another two weeks, does it
really make much difference? How do you see that?
Speaker 4 (29:33):
The rumor is that the Democrats have a left wing
socialist rally in DC this weekend, and they're afraid of
their left wing. They're afraid of the socialists, and so
they have to show they're putting up a fight for
the Obama the free stuff, the Obamacare free subsidies. So
the rumor is they will fight through the weekend and
then give in next week. They'll give in because there'll
(29:55):
be some sort of public public promise that will negotiate
on the subsidies. And frankly, there probably are fifteen Republicans
that will vote to increase or keep the Bioblcare subsidies.
They don't care that it has to be borrowed, they
don't care that it's more big government. So what will
happen is all the Democrats will be for that fifteen
(30:15):
or twenty Republicans will vote with them, and big government
always wins. But I think the public's getting increasingly frustrated
with it. So there's going to be a time at
which the public is going to say, let's, you know,
let's throw some of the bums out.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Why do we need subsidies if Obamacare makes healthcare cheaper?
That seems to be a conundrum.
Speaker 4 (30:36):
Center. Yeah. One of the things we could do, and
I've proposed this for years now, I proposed that we'd
let people consumers, people who buy health insurance, let them
bargain collectively. What I mean by that is, if you
belong to Costco, there are forty four million members of Costco.
If Costco were to buy your insurance for you, my
(30:57):
guess is Costco can get a better price than you
can individually.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
If my wife could buy her insurance from Costco, by
the way, it would have happened yesterday if she loves Costco.
So keep going.
Speaker 4 (31:08):
And the rule that's keeping us from doing this is
a federal rule that says you can buy insurance with
a group if you all have to be in the
same employment. You have to be ditch stickers or carpenters
or welders. You can buy your insurance together, but you
can't be in multiple different employment, which is a really
dumb rule. And last Trump administration, I got him to
(31:32):
do an executive order. It was challenged in court. But
I have a bill that would do this. It would
change what's called the Arissa law and would let anybody
wants to join any group buy insurance. And then what
you'd have is you'd have a head of cost codes
health insurance buying, would sit down with the head of
the big insurance companies and you'd really get a much
(31:53):
better price. And so that's the one thing you could
do that is a market phenomenon. It's a way of
injecting the market. It actually would bring down health care calls.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Senator rand Paul always appreciate you, sir, Thanks for making
the stop today with us.
Speaker 4 (32:07):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
It was a time when dinner was more than just
a meal. It was the hour every day when family
came together. Actually, you know what I'm gonna tell you
something right now, there was the Jesuit headmaster of my
high school. When my parents did the first parent teacher day,
he sat all the parents together in the auditorium, and
he said, you know what, one of the most important
things you can do with your kids is have dinner together.
(32:30):
True story. This is a guy who's been an educator
for like forty years and very very smart guy. He said,
one of the most important things.
Speaker 8 (32:37):
Now.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
I know people were travel busy, but the point is
when you can, you should do it. And good Ranchers
certainly believes in that. Good Ranchers is calling Americans back
to the table. From now through Thanksgiving. Good Ranchers is
encouraging families to sit down and share a meal every Thursday.
Doesn't have to be fancy, just has to be together.
And here's the fun part. Every week, one lucky winner
(32:58):
will win a free Thanksgiving ham for just sharing a
photo of their gathering on their Instagram story and tagging
at good Ranchers and using the hashtag back to the Table.
That's hashtag back to the Table. So visit good ranchers
dot com. Use my name Buck as your code when
you subscribe for an additional forty dollars off your initial
order plus free meat for life. You get to pick
that free meat gift. It's delicious. Code Buck and forty
(33:21):
dollars off plus free meat for life. It's a great deal.
I eate the last meal I made with Kerry. Last
weekend we had Good Ranchers flats and I think it
was boned in New York strip or maybe it was
boned in RIBBEI. I get them both from Good Ranchers.
It's all delicious. But I was working my magic on
my cast iron with Good Ranchers. It was delicious and
I'm gonna be doing it again this weekend. Go to
Good Ranchers dot com. Use my name Buck as your
(33:42):
promo code forty dollars off free meat for life. Check
it out today.
Speaker 4 (33:46):
News and politics, but also a little comic relief.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
Clay Travis at Buck Sexton. Find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back
in here to Clay and Buck, and we're gonna be
talking to Senator Ron Johnson about the weaponization of law,
the DOJ stuff, the testimony by Attorney General Bondi up
(34:10):
on Capitol Hill. Also some very interesting statistics coming out
from FBI Director Patel, so we shall dive into that momentarily.
So make sure you stick around with us. And let's
see we have DD Jim from Rockland County who listens
(34:31):
on WOOR radio. What's up play it?
Speaker 6 (34:37):
As far as superheroes go, nobody beats Superman because he's
the only one who has truly super human powers.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
The Hulk just gets mad and big.
Speaker 6 (34:47):
Everybody else needs some kind of gadget to protect them.
The only thing that takes Superman down is Kryptonite. And
I don't think Kryptonite is just laying around that you
can get on Amazon. Well maybe Amazon. That's what makes
Superman the best, very in.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
Depth analysis to our superhero analogy here. I have to
say we're going way beyond my knowledge here, although I
feel like he's not giving Hulk his fair due. Rather
a burly fellow, the Hulk, you know what I mean,
very very muscular. Let's get call Brian in North Carolina.
What's up, Brian?
Speaker 8 (35:24):
Hey Buck, I was just listening to your call with
Ram Paul, and it kind of ticked me off in
a way because I've been thinking about this for years
upon years about insurance. You know, you're discussing about group
group insurance and so on, and how if you go
to Costco you'd be able to get you know, the
cheaper policies because or not to your cheaper policies, but
to be able to get policies that would provide you
(35:45):
with cheaper medical coverage because you're in a quote group.
That whole argument to me seems outdated. Okay, that made
sense sixty years ago, years ago before we had computers.
So the whole idea back then was we sell them
in groups. You know, we'll sell insurance to it to
(36:06):
a business because oh, they may have two thousand people,
and I can get two thousand people signed up and
then we'll admit. It'll make administration of the policies easier. Well,
today there's a thing called the computer, and you can
get online and if I wanted to, I could go
to Anthem or Blue Cross, brou Shield, but I could
sign up and buy their insurance policies, but I would
have to pay the individual prices.
Speaker 1 (36:27):
In my mind, well, this is where insurance is a
is inherently. I'm sorry we're at the end here, Brian,
but thank you for calling. In insurance, just like on
your house, there's a cost sharing component to it, and
in healthcare that gets very complicated very quickly, because how
old are you, how healthy are you? You need younger,
healthier people to subsidize the older, sicker people, or else
(36:49):
you don't have insurance, right, This is the question, This
is the problem, This is the crux of the matter.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.