Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
This is Interrupted by Matt Jones on news radio. Wait
forty WJS now here's Matt Jones. All right, it's time
for another episode of Interrupted by Matt Jones. It's with
sponsored by Cornbrad Hemp. This is the Good Life. Congressman
Andy Barr, I would say you are a first sitting politician,
(00:24):
although we got more coming in the next few weeks.
Thank you, Thank you very much for doing this. Matt.
Great to see. I want to give you credit for
doing this because I think this is happening less and
less in society, where politicians sit and will be interviewed
by people from the opposite side or who have different
points of view. Why do you think that's happening. Why
do you think that seems to me to happen last
(00:45):
and least. I don't know. I don't know why that is.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
I think, you know, our politics have become divisive and
people are sometimes worried about the gotcha mentality of things,
Whereas you know, what I think the American people want
is a refreshing exchange of ideas and the respectful and
civil way.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
And uh, you know, I think people are actually yearning
for that. I actually agree with you. You actually you mentioned devisive.
What I do think politics are more divisive now than
in my lifetime. Do you agree with that statement, and
if so, why do you think it is?
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Well, so, of course we have divisions, we have a
polarized society.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Yes, sometimes the rhetoric, uh has really ramped up. I mean,
my goodness, in my short political career, I've seen assassination attempts,
not only of President Trump twice, but of my good
friend Steve Scalice, who was the majority whip.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I mean he Steve almost passes astat.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yes, it was, and thank goodness, and he's a tough
guy and he fought through it.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
So I mean governor of Michigan was kidnapped, Oh you had.
There's been a few few things. Yeah, absolutely. Do you
politicians or people in politics, I don't want to say,
I mean, they're not telling people to do this, But
do you think that rhetoric has gotten way too negative? Yeah?
I do. I do. I think.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Look, I think that whether you're right or left, or
maybe you're in the middle, if you have strong convictions
and beliefs, that's what this country is all about. And
of course you know I'm on the conservative side of things.
I support this president. I really feel strongly in supporting
this agenda. But I think I can do that and
(02:34):
fight for my constituents without necessarily causing you know, divisive
kind of environment or you know, you can disagree with
people without being disagreeable.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
And you've always been good about that. I mean you
there was a time we'll talk about it later where
I thought about running against you, and one of the
things I've always thought is that you did a pretty
good job of being you know, I don't know what
the word is, but being at least friendly, willing to listen.
I don't think though it's unfair of me to say
that the president and I'm not saying he's the only one.
(03:08):
Gavin Newsom's now doing it on the left too, that
the president wakes up in all caps taking shots on
social media. When you read that, do you ever sit
there and go, I wish you wouldn't do that.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Well, I think the president kind of is combative in
a lot of ways, maybe because of his personality and
he's a competitor and you know, he's been that way
in business and that has been successful for him, but
also because let's face it, I mean, he's been targeted unfairly.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Has the biggest platform. I mean, do you ever wish
he would just say you can agree with all of
his policies, But do you ever wish you say, President,
you're the president you loved George Bush? He didn't do that,
but both Bush Senior and engineer, can you just turn
it down a little bit?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Here's what I want to say, kind of in general
about this whole idea is is that people in this
country should be able to express the reviews, sometimes in
a combative way. That's free speech. That's what That's what
the First Amendment's all about. And yes, I think we
all need to tone down the rhetoric, and certain politicians
can tone down the rhetoric on the right and on
(04:14):
the left in order to promote more civility and getting
things done for the good of the country. However, I
also point this out to when I talk to school
children who ask the same question, Young people who want
to be inspired. You know, remember what this country is about.
Remember what this country was founded on. This country was
founded on a disagreement. This country was founded in a
(04:36):
revolt against an authoritarian government, and disagreements and conflicts in
politics is the byproduct of freedom. And so we actually
have a system of government built around the idea that
people are going to disagree. That's why I have checks
and balances, separation of powers, division between federal and state government,
so that ambition will counteract ambition. And it's that marketplace
(05:00):
ideas that produces the positive result.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
If there's a difference between disagreement and calling and again
I'm not acting like Trump's the only one does this.
I will freely grant there are Democrats who do the
same thing. But I also think, as my mother would say,
with great power comes great responsibility. When you have the
biggest platform, that's even more important. There's a difference between
disagreement and saying you're a communist, you're a Nazi, you're this.
(05:27):
I mean, I can't we just say that should not happen?
Like I go back to McCain Obama in eight when
John McCain famously looked at the woman who was saying
something about Obama and said, that's not true. Can we
not just say, like that level should go away?
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Well, again, I think the rhetoric should be toned down.
We don't want to have these assassination attempts. We don't
want to have this political violence. Political violence in any
direction is wrong. But I think the overriding point here
is that if you're going to if you're if you're
going to err on the side of anything, to me,
(06:03):
the American response is to air on the side of
free speech. And when there's hateful speech, or when there's
wrong speech or untruthful speech, the remedy, the antidote is
not censorship or shame shaming someone. It's more speech, not less.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
I would agree with that. Do you think some of
the conversations where the President will say a television show
or a television network will say something and he say
they should be shut down? Does that bother you?
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I think this president is the greatest champion of the
First Amendment in a very long time, if not in
the history of our country.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
You know, how do you reconcile that, though I hear
that a lot, But how do you reconcile that with
some of the attempts to stop speech on college campuses,
or you know, withholding of funds due to I mean,
does that not bother you? No, it doesn't bother me
at all.
Speaker 2 (06:57):
There's nothing that is limiting America can free speech today?
We have that that's on college campuses if anything. And
by the way, no university is just entitled to uh
to uh federal money.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Ye you know, able to say we will only give
you federal money if you do x y or Z
promote x y or z speech.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Well, no, no, what I'm what I'm saying is that
when you have active anti semitism that creates unsafe environments
for Jewish students.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
When when you have universities that are actively discriminating against
certain types of people based on the religious views, when
they're actively enabling hate that that is, that doesn't that
doesn't uh uh exempt them from the purse strings. My
(07:54):
point is this is that I think it's a good
thing that Congress is scrutinizing federal resources and taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
That's not censor exactly, that's not It all depends on
how you look at it. I mean, when when Obama
or Biden was president, they could say, you know, those
of you on college campuses, if you don't promote this
view of history that says this thing, then we will
withhold federal dollars. They could do the same thing. Isn't
(08:23):
that just one side the other side of the same coin.
There's a difference between banning speech. But also when you
tie federal money to saying a certain thing, aren't you.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
I think you should tie the tie federal money to
a an open academic freedom. So if you say that
you need academic freedom, if if you're if you're disp
if you're censoring speech, if you're discriminating against a viewpoint,
then you are you are anti First Amendment. So if
you if you want federal funds, you should be promoting
(08:53):
an open marketplace of ideas, academic freedom, true freedom where
all perspectives are respected and a commodated versus what we've
seen on these college campuses, where only a woke point
of view, or a pro Palestinian point of view, or
an anti Semitic point.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Of view is tolerated. I hate the word woke because
I don't think I don't even know that it means
anything anymore. But well we'll be that as it may.
You you have spent a lot of time in Washington,
and I've always thought, and I think you're one of
these people. You have friends on the other side. Is
that I do say? It feels like to me, I've
gotten to know a lot of people. I tell the
(09:30):
story about Jamie Kohmer The one time he was on
TV with me and he was telling me how much
he liked AOC And then in that night I turned
on TV and he was calling her the worst names,
and I was like, you just were with me privately
and said you like him? Is there a requirement to
now you have to performatively hate the other side in
(09:51):
order to play to the media that's on your side,
whether it's Fox News, et cetera for the ride or
MSNBC for the left. Why can't politicians acknowledge what you
and I both know is true, which is that you
a lot of you all are friends behind the scenes.
Why is that so hard to say to people?
Speaker 2 (10:07):
Well, I think one of the reasons why I have
been an effective congressman is that I have developed relationships
with members of Congress with whom I have like.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Well. Wan Vargas is a great example.
Speaker 2 (10:18):
One is a progressive liberal from southern California, and he
and I have, you know, strong arguments and debates in
the Financial Services Committee. But he's got two daughters. I've
got two daughters. We have kind of we talk about
family a lot.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
He's a man of.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
Deep faith, He's a Catholic progressive. I'm a conservative Christian,
but we have we have long conversations about religion, about family,
about where we might have overlapping interest. We have worked
together on some things on occasion, but we also have
you know, knockdown, drag out debates and committee and then
we you know, after those debates are over, you know,
we usually joke with one another.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
And why can't we treat each other with public because
I feel like the public needs to see that. This
is my view. You tell me if I'm wrong with this.
I see more and more people on the right and
the left literally hating each other and taking their cues
from congressman, senators, presidents who seem to hate each other,
(11:16):
but then when the cameras are off, really don't so
they I feel like they kind of get the general
public riled up with this. You are ruining America, You
are ruining in America, But then they don't really feel
that way. They're all kind of hanging out in the
same places when it's over. Does that make sense, Yeah,
it does.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
But also I think it's not just I don't think
it's just members of Congress fighting each other. It's also
the American people and you know, when we have these primaries,
a lot of times in a far liberal district or
a blue district, Democrats are pulled to the left and
then at.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
That's a great point, because I think that's a huge
part of the problem is is that there are fewer
and fewer competitive districts. You've been in one for a
long time, actually, you, I would say, especially under the
old map, your district was always very competitive. Leave aside
this round of jerry mandering war of Texas and California
(12:14):
in general. Are you against jerry mander?
Speaker 2 (12:18):
I'm for a political process of redistricting consistent with the Constitution,
and the Constitution doesn't have a lot of restrictions. The
Constitution requires a reapportionment every ten years. That's why we
have a census. A lot of people think we're just
a census just about collecting data. It's actually constitutionally mandated
for the purpose of making sure that every member of Congress,
(12:41):
all four hundred and thirty five of us, roughly represent
the same number of people. That's the that's the purpose
of it. Other than that, there's not a lot that
the Constitution requires now for many many years. But what's
the legislatures have Jerry mander.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
But what's the good of it? Like, I understand everybody's
I'm not sitting here trying to say what's happening. What's
happening in Texas is a mid year thing. That's different.
But the idea of Jerry mannering goes back to eighteen eighty.
It does. But what's the good of it? Like, what
is wrong with saying when you jerryman you get people
(13:19):
on the extremes for the exact reason that you said
we should not do that. We should have people like
Andy Barr had to for ten years compete in competitive districts.
Why can't we just say that when I could agree,
I want to agree. Yeah, let me let me agree
on this point that you just made.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
I think the fact that I that I have represented
a swing district, a purple district, a blue city Lexington,
it's the big I tell my colleagues it's.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
The big blue Nation for a couple of different reasons.
Might be the most liberal city, it might be the
big blue nation.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
But it's been a privilege actually to represent the diversity
of my district. I think it's made me a better
congressman that I've represented the diverse district. And I take
that into this US Senate race, and look, I think
the only way a Democrat wins statewide in the Commonwealth
of Kentucky in twenty twenty six is the way our
governor did it. The way Governor Basher did it. He
(14:18):
won the one swing Purple district, the Lexington based congressional district.
Both times he beat Bevan and he beat Cameron in
this district. And in the second time, after redistricting, after
the district became a little bit more red, Andy Basher
won my district by nineteen points really well. And so
and it's the same district I've been winning, but it's
(14:38):
a different electorate.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
But let me go back to it's just the basic question,
just yes or no. If I put up a bill
that said we will ban jerry mander for political purposes,
there has to be some rational geographical basis for creating districts.
Would you support that?
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Well, there there already is a general requirement in the law.
And you're a good lawyer, you know this about compactness
and the tests for the legal test for jerrymandering. But
there's quite a bit of deference given to political bodies
legislatures when they do it. Now, some states legislatures have
delegated it to commissions.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Here's the would you be for that nation? No?
Speaker 2 (15:21):
And here's here's why. Is because you can't kind of
get away from the politics. What's happened is the politicians
and the bureaucrats have commandeered those processes as well.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
At the end of the day's career, her would it's
very hard. What if you just no, no, no, no, no, no.
I wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
I wouldn't delegate a core democratic function to AI or
some kind of arbitrary computer. I think at the end
of the day, there may be abuses in districting and redistricting,
but what I want ultimately is the democratic process to
hold that accountable. For example, in the state of Massachusetts,
(15:58):
everybody acknowledges it's a blue state, and yet still in
a very blue state, there's roughly thirty thirty three percent
of the people there who are either registered Republicans who
voted for President Trump, or are Republican oriented, and yet
there is not a single Republican member of Congress from
Massachusetts because arguably because.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
Of it, and they're wrong, that's totally wrong. I agree
with you on that completely. But I also just wish
that there's a part of me that wishes politicians could
also just say the obvious. Let's take the first district
in Kentucky. There is no reason for Jamie Comer's district
to go from the edge of Fulton County into Frankfort
(16:38):
and to cut a little slice that goes up through
that gets just enough of Frankfort that takes it out
of your district. Any Barr would have won the old
district he did. Why do that?
Speaker 2 (16:48):
And can I say that there's a flip side to
that coin, and that is there is no reason, no
justification for after I came up short against Ben Chandler
in twenty ten for the Democratic Legislature in Frankfurt to
carve out Southland Christian Church take half of Jessamon County
and Mercer County and Garrett County away and totally in
district with Owensboro.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
So why do we do it? Well, so you will
you say the same thing about the courage. So my
point is this.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
The reason why I say that is not to belly
ache about what happened to me. The reason why I'm
saying that is it happens to both parties.
Speaker 1 (17:23):
I agree, and we had just wrong both.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Just as you may say it was a geographic anomaly
for Comer's district to look like that, it was also
a geographic anomaly for someone who is living one mile
from New Circle Road to be in a congressional district
in Owensboro. The point is this that there is really
no perfect way to draw these maps, and the question
is what is the What is the best way? Is
(17:47):
the best way to put it in the hands of
a group of elites in a state capital who are
unaccountable to the people, or is it to give it
to the elected representatives of the people in the states.
Sometimes states are controlled by republican sometimes states are controlled
by democrats. It's an imperfect system, and yes there's gerrymandering
on both sides, but I'd much rather it be a
(18:07):
democratic process than an undemocratic So you.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Won't just say that it shouldn't happen either way.
Speaker 2 (18:13):
Well, I believe that in general, districts should be compact
based on geography and common common you know, regionalism. I
think that makes sense. In general, the details are ultimately
decided by someone.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
The question is who is the best someone. I agree
with that I think we're getting farther and farther and
farther away from even attempting to be compacked, which makes
me a little said.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
I think where you and I agree is ultimately, what
was the district that I did represent for over a decade.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
It was a purple district. I thought it was a
great and I think.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
It made me a better congressman because I because it
was more reflective of the whole country, and so I
represented people who voted for Barack Obama and people who
voted for Donald Trump, and rural, suburban and urban I
represent ended at all.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I think that Old Lessington District is what these districts
as much as we could should be. And I actually
think you were effective doing that, and I wish more
people had to be effective in the way that I
think you were because of that. That's why, ultimately, and
we'll get to at the end, I didn't run against you,
is because I actually thought you did a pretty good
job of a lot of what it means to be
(19:21):
a congressman. Thanks that means a lot, especially like constituent relations.
I think that's something your office has always been great at.
I was very proud of you in twenty twenty, when
it came time to vote on the election whether or
not Biden won, that you did where some of your
colleagues did not. Do you still today believe Joe Biden
(19:43):
won the twenty twenty election. So what I told Mike,
I said, yes or no? Do you believe Joe Biden
won the twenty twenty What I believe is that the election.
Speaker 2 (19:53):
I believe two things that belie a yes or no answer. One,
I believe that that election had a to of abnormalities
that I think is in Nobody can dispute the fact
that there were many irregularities that gave Americans a lower
level of confidence in the outcome. The fact that we
have massive mail in ballots, the fact that we had
(20:15):
multiple days of voting without controls, the fact that there
were a lot of irregularities in the way the vote
was counted, and a lot of that was attributable to
changes in the law right before the election because of COVID.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
That the Republican put in on.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
But can I just say one thing about about that?
When I was asked by my constituents why I voted
after there were election contests, after there was certifications. The
reason why I ultimately voted to certify the election was
because I don't think Congress had I think Congress has
a pretty limited role in the electoral college process. I
(20:54):
think states have a very large role. And what I said,
especially to my disappointed constituents who voted for President Trump
and who really felt like that there was too many
irregularities in the election, was that, you know, and it's
exactly why I did it was because I didn't want
in twenty twenty four, when President Trump won for Maxine
(21:15):
Waters in California, to be able to be empowered in
Congress to invalidate the electoral college votes of Kentucky because
of whatever reason she wanted.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
But I will say, Congressman, I'll look in the camera.
Donald Trump won the twenty twenty four election. Can you
say Joe Biden won the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
What I can say is that I certified the election
results because there was because there were because there were
there were contests in the states, there were lawsuits in
the states, and there was a certain and secretaries of
state certified it. And so as a member of Congress,
I have a limited role because nobody sent me to
slave disappointed me.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
Congressman is why can't we just say that when I
sit here and think of why I think you are
a fair minded You and I talk privately sometimes, and
I always like listening to your thought process. I won't
go into what it was, but one time I kind
of couldn't understand something I called you. You really did
a good job of explaining it to me, and you
changed my thought process slightly on it. But if we
(22:16):
can't look in the camera and say Donald Trump won
in twenty sixteen, Donald Trump won in twenty twenty four,
and Joe Biden won in twenty twenty, how do we
expect constituents who know much less than you to believe it?
Why can't you just say.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
Well, because why can't Why can't Americans on all sides
acknowledge I'm saying the massive irregularities.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
One twenty I acknowledge, But I still think if you
take all those into consideration, he still won.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
The conduct of the election was so aberrational, so unusual,
it gave it. It gave all of us a lot
of legitimate questions about the legit. You the questions I
have massive questions about the conduct of the question is
weather Biden won? We need massive, massive changes to the
way that we conduct elections so that we never have
(23:11):
an election like that. Same with and by the way,
it's not the first election where you had that happen
in twenty twenty. We had that problem in Florida with
hanging chats. We had that problem in that.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
But al Gore conceded the election, and al Gore still
says to this day that George W. Bush won.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Well, actually that's not true, al Gore. Al Gore and
his defenders believe that they won.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
They just for this interview just the other day, say
George W. Bush, Well, legitimate.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
The bottom line is we do have we have in
our history, we've had messy elections. What we want to
do is avoid them. And that's why we need electoral
reforms so that we never have and so that Americans,
American voters on any political side of the fence, doesn't
ever have legitimate questions about the integrity of our elections.
(24:02):
I like what our Secretary of State has said about
the way we should conduct our elections.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
It should be easy to vote, but hard to cheat.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
And nobody really knows about the election of twenty twenty.
You know, the scale of the problems of the fraud.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Or what we have one it in the history of
America that is not conceded a race. And I think
that I just it strikes me that if we can't
here's what I actually think it is. I think you
you tell me, feel free to correct me, because I
don't want to just I think, you know, he lost.
I think though you all have a political incentive that
(24:42):
you cannot go against Donald Trump. You just can't. And
that worries me because let's say it was a Democrat
and you just like, let's say, because here's the thing,
We're going to end up electing in my party someone
like him because it's effective. And I'm going to watch
my Democratic comment congressman and senators do the same thing.
(25:03):
And that's not Can I tell Can I tell?
Speaker 2 (25:06):
Can I tell you what I think most of your
listeners and most of my constituents, and frankly, most of
the voters of the Commonwealth and Kentucky really think about this.
They really don't think, I know, you care a lot
about this issue. I think most of my constituents and
the voters of this country, they care about inflation, they
care about the cross of groceries, They care about whether
or not their kids can go to college. What the
(25:28):
national debt means, the threat from China, what, what what
the geopolitical situation looks like. I think they care about
the border being secured. They care about those things a
lot more than look four years, five years in the
past and relitigating that.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
I totally agree with you. So let's go to some
of those I'm going to do something that I wish
politicians would do more. I'm gonna give credit as president
for something I'm going to say. I think Donald Trump
has done a very good job of keeping the border secure.
I think the border it's health has been significantly more secure.
But so that was one of the three or four
(26:05):
things I think that were the core constituents of what
he ran on. I think one of the other things, though,
was lowering prices, things that sometimes the president really doesn't
have to control over but they say they do. I
have to think, knowing Andy Barr's political philosophy's pre Trump,
you have to be I would assume against tariffs in
the abstract, Am I right about? So? I'm for free trade.
Speaker 2 (26:27):
That's what I'm for, and that's exactly why I'm actually
for the president's trade policy. Let me explain why, because
we don't have free trade. We haven't had free trade
in this country and in the world. We have a system, frankly,
that's full of unfair trade. And it's not just China.
It's not just China. And it's not just because we
have trade imbalances with allies and partners. It's because there's
(26:50):
so many of our trading partners that have tariff and
non tariff trade barriers that are closed to American exporters,
but we've opened up our markets to them. And it's
both in terms of trade, it's also in terms of
capital flows. We open up our capital markets, we allow
foreign companies to list on our stock exchanges, but that
(27:10):
we get no reciprocal treatment. So finally, we have a president,
the first president in my lifetime, who's actually trying to
reorient the rules of international trade. And when is it
a good time to do that?
Speaker 1 (27:22):
When?
Speaker 2 (27:23):
When is it When can you do that such a
massive undertaking and not have some uncertainty, some turbulence. Of
course there's going to be some turbulence in that process,
but look at the results.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
Look at the costs haven't gone down, But I mean
that's the way that costs. I understand the argument for
long term tears. I disagree with them. I think it's
actually a Bernie Sanders argument that he's made for years.
It's actually a far left argument, to be honest. But
in the short term, we've got a state full of
people that haven't seen the prices go down. When should
(28:01):
they expect that they will? Well?
Speaker 2 (28:03):
I think they First of all, inflation is one of
these things where once the cat is out of the bag,
it's hard to get it back in, or the toothpaste
out of the tube. The inflation, remember, is the rate
of price increases when inflation is under controlled, so called
price stability. And I've been given the privilege of having
oversight over the Federal Reserve and interest rate policy and
(28:24):
money and price stability.
Speaker 1 (28:26):
What they say is price stability.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
What the Fed says is pricedability is two percent increases
in prices. So it's not the prices. When prices go down,
that's called deflationre okay, Uh? Price stability is when is
they define it as two percent increases. What we saw
was rampant runaway inflation forty r inflation under the Biden
administration and unified democratic control of Congress overspending, which caused
(28:52):
nine percent inflation, and a lot.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Of that was COVID. I mean, let's be let's be
fair some of some of the some of the world.
Let's I just want to be fair about the conversations.
I'm not Biden. I do think made some decisions that
led to higher inflation, like the Second Stimulus Bill, which
you could argue was un shouldn't have been known. But
let's be fair. There was inflation in every western country
(29:15):
in the world, and ours was one of the lowest.
Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Well, no, no, because because it was not just it
was not just the overspending which created excess demand. Inflation
is always a function of supply demand, and you had
not only excess demand, but you also had fiscal policy
errors that included constraining the supply of labor, paying people
to not work, constraining the supply of energy. So you
(29:41):
had constrained supply, you had excess demand. That supply demand
mismatch push prices up, and then it was compounded, You're right,
beyond beyond the Biden administration and Democrats. It was compounded
by the Federal Reserve, which was parenting this narrative that
inflation is transitory. In fact, it was not, and the
(30:01):
FED was slow to raise interest rates. Now they're slow
to cut them. So the Fed has been wrong twice now.
But the bottom line is it was a toxic policy
mix that that made the cost of living sore and
made it very painful for Kentuckians.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
Now we're back to my question, when do you think
Kentuckians should expect the tariff policies that you say you're for,
which surprises me that you're for. When should they expect
the prices to go down?
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Well, what we what we've already seen is movement towards
price stability. We're almost at prized it. We're slightly elevated
over price stability. And all we've seen we've we've heard
more about predictions of inflation from President Trump's tariff policy
than we heard about actual inflation under President Biden. The
reality is we've seen we've seen maybe arguably a one time,
(30:49):
small modest price increase as a result of of of tariffs,
but we've seen a lot of disinflationary policies counteract that.
For example, the tax cuts reduces the cost of business
that allows businesses to lower prices. Deregulation both an energy,
financial services in another areas lowers the cost of business.
(31:11):
That is very disinflationary. And then I would say, beyond
the power of me and mother policymakers or President Trump
or anyone, is innovation. Innovation is very disinflationary. Whether it's
the innovation on the blockchain, it's AI. It's going to
increase productivity. And I think you're going to start to
see as long as we unleash and not over regulate
this innovation that's happening, you're going to see a lot
(31:33):
more productivity and a lot more decrease in prices, which
will allow the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates in
the cost of borrowing.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
Let me give you some because I don't want to
keep you too long. Let me give you some like
yes or no, to the extent you can give yes
or no. Way I understand, like, I understand like sometimes
that can be misleading, so I don't want to Did
you agree with the decision to fire the leave aside
all the issues people might have with the way the
statistics are calculating, did you agree with the decision to
(32:00):
fire the person? Yes?
Speaker 2 (32:02):
As the jobs Yes you did, Yes, I do because
for years, for years, you think it's her fault that
what the system was. I think that that that office
is broken. That office needs to be totally overhauled, because
in both Republican Democrat administrations there is wild swings and
(32:23):
corrections that make it if it's not actually politicized, it
makes it look politicized, and it's lost all credibility.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
And you think fire and her will fix.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
That, well, I think remaking the whole office and incorporating
a lot more data and a lot more and frankly
new leadership that would implement the reforms that would give
that that office more credibility.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
A very business owner, knowing that they fired people the
day after low numbers came out makes me not trust
whatever they do next. I mean that, seriously, put aside partisanship.
The day people fire people the day after bad numbers
come out, how am I supposed to believe?
Speaker 2 (32:59):
And there have been bad numbers out of that office
for for many many years. I mean we we saw
in the in the run up to the election, you
had very bad you had very positive numbers, and then
and then of course they have to revise these numbers.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
After the election. There's clearly a lot of them.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
And so this is not like a one off problem,
it's a it's a consistent problem.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
Do you the Epstein files? I have to tell you,
I've always thought everyone for two years has made probably
more of this than it actually is. I've always believed
it's probably a bunch of lot less than people think.
But we've gotten to this point. Yeah, do you support
(33:43):
the release of all of the Epstein files to the public.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
So I've always known, to a certain extent, Okay, there's
this really bad guy Epstein, and it's kind of gross
and and actually my wife and I watched this Netflix
episode recently, this Netflix series of Who Epstein really was,
and the the absolute depravity of this guy.
Speaker 1 (34:03):
It's just awful stuff.
Speaker 2 (34:04):
So I actually gained more appreciation for the facts of
what was going on there. So yes, for the sake
of the victims, for the sake of our society, there
needs to be transparency, and I support that. I also
recognize that the release of these files needs to be
done the right way. In other words, to the extent
victims need to be protected, their privacy needs to be protected.
(34:26):
So yes, release, Yes, transparency, but there is an interest
in victim privacy here, so it has to be done
the right way. Let me say one other thing though.
The reason why I think this seems really really political
is that I think Epstein committed suicide in jail. What
in twenty nineteen. The Biden Justice Department had these files
for four years. Why is all the clamor and the
(34:48):
upf math.
Speaker 1 (34:49):
Well, let's be fair, Congressman. There are people, including Cash
patail In Dan Bongino, who made their career on this
issue and are now in charge. And it is a
fair argument to go, well, why didn't the Biden people
release it? I'll accept that, but I also think it's
fair to people to go, Okay, if you made your
(35:11):
career being mad they didn't release it, how have you
not released it? You know? Summertime means hot days, hard work,
and fighting to find time to slow down. That's important.
Thankfully we've got corn bread hemp. They're here to help.
Their lineup of natural hemp based wellness products are designed
to help you stress less, move more, and sleep better.
(35:31):
I use them. They help me to feel great. And
whether you're looking to swap your evening cocktail for something
without the hangover, if you need relief after a long
day of work, or you just want to find a
moment to chill. They got you covered. Infew Seltzers are light,
refreshing and perfect for those moments when you want to
feel good but not feel guilty or have a hangover. Plus,
their full spectrum gummies and oils are made with USDA
(35:54):
ORGANDIC ingredients that work. Go to cornbreadheimp dot com slash
Matt Jones and go ahead and use my code Matt Jones.
It's thirty percent off your order. By the way, there
are other places you can get this, but this is
a better deal. Cornbredhemp dot com slash Matt Jones and
the code is Matt Jones Cornbred Hemp. This is a
good life. You're a religious man. I think that's fair
(36:18):
to say, right a Presbyterian Piscapellitay Piscapellay. I think my
mom would be okay with me saying that my mom
went to seminary and is very, very religious, and I
think a lot of the President's actions drove her from
the party and drove I've heard a lot of religious
(36:40):
people who are Republicans say I'm sad to see the
movement the Republican Party has gone from the moral majority
Newt Gingrich era of Republicans to whatever this is. Now,
I'm not gonna put it just on Trump, but I
think it's part of it. But this owned the Libs
and a lot of the sort of soul of morality
(37:04):
of the Republican Party. Well, I'm not saying it's gone.
It doesn't seem to be as important. Do you agree
with that.
Speaker 2 (37:11):
I can't speak for anyone else's theology or religious journey
or whatever.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
I can just speak for myself.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
Is one of the things that draws me to Christianity
is this parable from the Scripture about the speck in
your eye versus the log in the other's eye. You know,
we're all sinful by human nature, and we all are fallen.
And you know, who am I to judge the law
the speck in your eye for the law and not
recognize the log in my eye? And you know, the
(37:37):
Episcopal Church of which I belong, I got a lot
of negative feedback for a controversial post I made on
social media when an episcopal bishop was very confrontational with
President Trump on immigration at the National Cathedral right after
and politicized a sermon really right in front of him.
(37:58):
And you know, one of the I think wonderful very
Christian things about the Episcopal Church is the motto of
the Episcopal Church, all are welcome here. Well, it didn't
appear that the president was welcome in the Episcopal Church
that day. And I think, look, I think the church
should be open to all this. The church is not
Republican or democrat. The church is not liberal or a
republican or liberal or a conservative. That the church is
(38:21):
supposed to welcome all. And so I think instead of
judging other people all the time about you know, the gosh,
the president should have said this, or the president should
have or this democrat shouldn't have said that, or what,
just focus on yourself.
Speaker 1 (38:32):
Just be the best person you do you think the
religious members? Okay, so let me do the criticism of
my party first. I think for a number of years
my party has not done a good job of being
welcoming to people that they think are different than them,
in this case, often people with just different views, people
(38:53):
maybe not as educated, and that's really annoyed me. A
lot of the people that are my you know, people
I care about, right, people I went to school with,
et cetera. Rural America. Do you think your party the
religious members, especially what you just said, which I totally agree.
We should be open to everyone. Do you think you
(39:16):
guys are getting away from that in having your policy beliefs.
Do you think sometimes you all are demonizing immigrants even
while trying to keep the border secure, which I support
people who are different, whether it be sexuals, transgender, whatever.
Do you wish sometimes that, especially with those vulnerable people,
(39:38):
there'd be less harsh rhetoric.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
I think there's intolerance in a lot of different places
in American life. It's on the left, it's on the right.
The way I lead my life is I try to
focus on myself. Now, I will tell you that I
think we need a restoration of common sense. And I'm
so grateful for this president that he feels that. I
think he is embodying that, uh, that restoration of common sense.
(40:02):
I was just telling you I have two daughters, and
I have daughters who are in athletics, and I think, uh,
we need to keep biological men out of the private
spaces of.
Speaker 1 (40:11):
Our gotten that battle. So you've won that battle, and
I'm for that, And I don't think that's intolerance. I
think that I didn't say that gender people should have
rights in general. Maybe they shouldn't play sports, but should
they just have Let me tell you, I just want
common sense back.
Speaker 2 (40:27):
So can you say they should have rights? Everybody in
America's rights. That's a great thing about our country. Our
country is I'm for limited government, I'm for I'm for freedom,
but I'm also for common sense. And I'm and uh
and I want to protect the private spaces of girls.
And it's really the the the extremes of our of
(40:50):
our of our culture have gone way beyond you know,
just what the average person thinks is appropriate. And and
that's why I you know, I've worked really hard on
this protecting you know, girls and girls sports issue.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
Yeah, I would argue, while I agree with you on
that policy, I think people talk about it a lot
more because it helps not talk about the things that matter.
Speaker 2 (41:15):
Well, can I tell you it's it's not a speculative
or a hypothetical issue. There have been over six hundred cases, Matt,
and you do well, No, we haven't. Actually we haven't
because because of because well the President, thank goodness, has
issued an executive order. The problem is that he's been
sued by California, Washington State, Maine, Minnesota. And you've had
(41:39):
documented cases like in the softball championship in Minnesota where
you had a biological boy pitch twelve shutout innings, or
the triple jump state champion in California was a boy
and girls triple jump. There have been six hundred cases
where female athletes have been denied their championships or their awards.
(42:00):
I think this is actually a real problem.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
I agree with you on the policy. I also think
it wouldn't be too hard to say transgender people deserve
equal rights too.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
I think all men are created equal, and obviously in
the Constitution, that means all people are created equal, and
we are endowed by our creator with certain inabiltable rights, life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness that applies to everybody.
Speaker 1 (42:23):
Okay. Clayton and CROUM was founded on a simple idea
all leather goods should last a lifetime. They make everything, bags, belts, wallets,
and much more. And the best part, they're doing it
right here in Kentucky. You can check them out at
claytonancroom dot com. That's c r U m E dot
com claytonancroom dot com. The retail stores in Louisville at
two sixteen South Shelby Street in Nulu. Quality leather goods,
(42:45):
built to last. If you're listening all around the country,
you want great leather goods. Clayton and Kream c l
A Y t O N and kroom dot Com just
a couple of questions that people wanted me to ask
when I brought this up on the show. I have
mixed emotions about town halls because I think they're very
good in theory, and I think they should happen, especially
(43:08):
for representatives. But I also don't think you should just
have to stand there and have people scream at you
from the crowd. So I do I have mixed emotions
on it. Do you think you can think of a
way because you're not doing town halls right now, or at
least not ones open to the general public, can you
Is there a way to do that where someone who's
(43:28):
not Matt Jones, who might would like to say their
opinion to you, could do it, but you also don't
have to sit there and listen to somebody screaming. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Absolutely, So we've been using technology to do that, and
we've also been doing it in smaller groups. So my
accessibility to my constituency is very important to me. I've
even taken one on one meetings from people who are
very very opposed to the president, very upset with what's
going on in the country, upset with my votes, what
have you. And I will take those meetings in small
(43:56):
settings where there's civility, where I can listen, where I'm
not being drowned out with shouting.
Speaker 1 (44:01):
You know.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
Now, obviously the disadvantage of that is that you can't
meet with as many people because.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
You only have so much time, and you're meeting with
smaller groups.
Speaker 2 (44:10):
The other thing that we have done to avoid these
very uncivil shouting matches where nobody gets anything accomplished.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Is teletown halls.
Speaker 2 (44:23):
Now, some people criticize the teletown Hall and they think
we screen out hostile calls. The fact of the matter is,
I actually prefer a question in some cases like this
back and forth, which is much more interesting than just
sawce offtful interview, where you have questions from people from
either the right or from the left who maybe disagree
(44:46):
with you on a particular vote, and it gives me
an opportunity to explain myself, to maybe persuade, and even
if I don't persuade, at least I'm offering my point
of view on a point of difference, and.
Speaker 1 (44:57):
I think it's valuable for people to just hear. Like
I think it's valuable to hear you, even when you
frust my answer might frustrate to you know, to hear
you articulate it because I agree with you. You go in
on Fox News or AOC going in and say MSNBC
and what's what's that doesn't help? It really doesn't. It
really doesn't. And by the way, you will see me
on CNN, yahn. I mean I got Scott Jennings on
(45:20):
there now, So Scott, he does a great job, by
the way, Yeah, no, he doesn't. Part of the thing
was Scott though, was a perfect example when I was
talking about about how like he hadn't got people talk
about each other like they're the worst, but then they
all hang out together and it's like there's a little
bit of just showmanship that kind of drives me crazy.
Speaker 2 (45:38):
My point is that I'm I'm never afraid to kind
of see run don't You might might want to ask him.
I think he does a great job on SES he
run He's like five five on one right.
Speaker 1 (45:48):
Well, no, if you I will say this, we agree
better on CNN than if you run. You do have
a competitive primary here, Daniel Cameron, Nate Morris in now,
Nate Morris has clearly sort of targeted you in this.
I don't really know anything about him except that he's
a business guy. How do you if you were to
(46:11):
make the case to Republicans watching this why they should
vote for Andy Barr instead of Nate Morris or Daniel Cameron,
what would you say, Well, this is why you should
be elected over them.
Speaker 2 (46:19):
I mean, I think both of my opponents say that
they support President Trump and his agenda. I'm actually the
one candidate in the race who's doing it day in
and day out.
Speaker 1 (46:32):
You know, I have a record. I have a record
in Congress.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
You can look at it, and that record is one
of supporting border security, of leading the fight in the
Trump first term, defending the legality of President Trump building
a border wall infrastructure, of writing major portions of the
legislation that rolled back the Dodd Frank Law that President
Trump signed in office. I was the chairman of President
(46:55):
Trump's campaign in Kentucky in twenty twenty four. I voted
for the one Big Beautiful bill they talk about it.
I actually helped to write parts of it and pass it.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
Do you think he will endorse you, Well, we.
Speaker 2 (47:06):
Have to earn earn the endorsement every single day. But
the good news is that, you know, I don't have
to talk about supporting him.
Speaker 1 (47:13):
I'm doing it. I'm doing it every single day. President
texted me the other night.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
He was very appreciative of the fact that I gave
him the right just credit that he deserves for bringing
all those jobs to my district in Mercer County, the
announcement of Apple, because of his policies and because of
the and because of the Made in America tax cut,
that I got a chance to vote for Apple's decision
to bring all of those jobs in, all of the
(47:36):
iPhone guerrilla glass being made in the corning plant in Hagersburg.
Speaker 1 (47:41):
Get of jobs is that just I'm for it. I'm excited.
Speaker 2 (47:44):
So I think it could I think it could double
the jobs that are there now. It might be more.
There's four hundred jobs there, by the way, have you
been there. It's amazing, It's very very cool. It's very cool.
So that so for your listeners who don't know, the
hard glass that's on your iPhone, a good chunk of
that is made Inheritsburg, Kentucky, but there's also plants in China, Asia,
and all of those jobs, all of that manufacturing capacity
(48:06):
is being on shore back to the United States in Kentucky.
They're not just no, it's Apple. Apple made the announcement.
And by the way, I serve on the Select Committee
on the Strategic Competition with China. This is not just
an economic story for Kentucky. It's a national security story
because we have we have dangerous dependencies on China when
it comes to our supply chains. And you laugh, oh, well,
(48:28):
maybe iPhones aren't critical to national security?
Speaker 1 (48:31):
Are they actually are?
Speaker 2 (48:33):
And and if if God forbid, there was a cross
trained invasion of Taiwan, one of the first things that
China would do to retaliate is stop producing the component
parts of iPhones. That would that would make a big
that would be a big problem in the United States.
Speaker 1 (48:47):
One thing I think both parties should agree on is
on the Chinese issues. And I actually you and I
have talked some about that and I'm generally agree.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
And can I say that the the Select Committee on
the Strategic Competition of China is some of the most
meaningful and purposeful work that I've done in my thirteen
years in Congress, and I would not call it bipartisan.
Speaker 1 (49:08):
I would call it nonpartisan. It has been the most
nonpartisan experience of my time in Congress. And it really
you know, it's cliche to say not red, not blue,
but red, white and blue. In this case, the United
States is facing a generational threat and we need to
come together as a country to deter that threat. On
(49:29):
that question, because I know people will ask TikTok, you
guys passed a bill saying they got to sell it,
they still haven't. Should the president enforce it?
Speaker 2 (49:37):
I think the President supports the idea of divestment requiring
and in fact, the President has been trying to orchestrate,
by the way, with mister wonderful and Frank McCord, who
is a businessman with a lot of liquidity, to actually
buy TikTok out of Chinese ownership, because TikTok, let's face
it is very important, not just for entertainment, but for
a lot of small businesses. They've used that as a
(49:59):
platform to mark get their goods and services. Okay, so
from TikTok. So we recognize and I've got constituents who
are TikTok promoters or what have you.
Speaker 1 (50:10):
So the key is not to ban it. I'm a
First Amendment advocate.
Speaker 2 (50:13):
The key is to divest it so that it's not
a Chinese communist surveillance tool and so they can't throttle
up misinformation through TikTok.
Speaker 1 (50:22):
Last question, just a personal one. So in two thousand
and fifteen, I guess the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee came
to me and said, you know, we'd like you to
run in this district against Andy Bart And I went
through their whole process, I went through their boot camp,
I went up there, decided it was not for me.
I think the house would be a good decision. I
(50:43):
think the house would be such a boring job. But
I do wonder with you so and I'm not when
you hear the news Matt Jones is thinking about running
for you against in your for the office? What was
your Matt Jones? He's I love Matt Jones. I listened
to Matt Jones all the newspaper about it, about something
like he should stick to basketball, and I was like,
(51:04):
come on, man, but what did you think?
Speaker 2 (51:08):
Well, look, listen, you've got a ton of fans, and
for good reason, you do a great job on KSR.
I'm a fan for goodness sake, and so you know,
if you ever seek a public office, you know you'll
have a natural following and you've got a lot offers Kentucky.
Speaker 1 (51:26):
You love Kentucky. I'll tell you this.
Speaker 2 (51:27):
We have disagreements politically, but there's one thing that you
and I share, and that is a deep passion not
just for Kentucky basketball, which we clearly do, but also
our commonwealth. You grew up in Middlesbrough, you grew up
in Southeast Kentucky. I love Eastern Kentucky. Frankly, Eastern Kentucky
is what motivated me to run for Congress to begin with.
I remember getting criticized by Lexingtonians and my opponent Ben
(51:50):
Chandler for you know, running in the wrong district because
I was focused on the coal miners in eastern Kentucky.
But the point is I love Kentucky, and when I
see people struggling in Kentucky, yeah, I want to make
a difference to help them. I know you feel the
same way I do.
Speaker 1 (52:03):
I do, and I the when when Trump ran, the
one thing I did say is, well, I'm glad he's
like acting like these people matter, because I think there's
been a lot of years where people stopped acting like
these people matter. I think his policies have had mostly
the opposite effect. But I did like that he brought
(52:24):
it up. And but I also worry that we're going
to get through eight years of somebody who at least
claimed to really be on their side and as any better.
Speaker 2 (52:35):
Well, let me tell you what I say you what's
better for the waitress in eastern Kentucky.
Speaker 1 (52:39):
No tax on tips for their medical for the well. No, no, no, no, no,
no no. That that's that's not true.
Speaker 2 (52:46):
If you, if you, if you are a legal citizen,
if you are if if you are disabled, if you
are dual eligible elderly, if you're indigen if you're a
mom and kid in poverty, nothing is.
Speaker 1 (52:58):
Going to change. Do you worry about the hig hospital.
Speaker 2 (53:01):
I am glad that we were able to include in
their a rural Health Transformation program that will plus up
specific assistance to rural hospitals. We're going to monitor the
implementation of that. But I want to say something about
the rural hospital changes. Medicaid was originally designed as a
federal state shared program, and the way that Kentucky and
(53:24):
other expansion states expanded Medicaid under the ACA. Under Obamacare
was that they put on these provider taxes and these
state directed payments to basically make the federal government pay
one hundred percent of that. That really not the original
design of medicaid. Even after our changes, ninety percent, ninety
percent of all of Medicaid that will be paid for.
(53:47):
I don't think they're going to close. I think that's
very hyperbolic. I do believe that there could be some
services that would would be altered. And that's why we
created this fifty billion dollar fund and why I'm going
to monitor that fund and if we need to plus
it up to make sure that we keep rural hospitals
not only open, but providing services like obstetrics. You know,
it's a big deal if you've got to if you
(54:09):
live in Harlan and you got to drive to Lexington
if you're pregnant, Yeah it's or Middleborough. You know, you've
got a hospital down there, but you know, Pikeville, whatever.
We want to make sure that those critical services remain open.
And so I'm confident that this fifty billion dollar fund
will do that. We'll monitor it to make sure we
protect those rural hospitals.
Speaker 1 (54:29):
Well, I do want to say thank you for not
just doing this interview, but you have always you've always
been accessible to us, even after criticisms, which I think
is I do think that there is a lot of
positive to say about that. Someone who will come in
and take disagreement. I wish you luck on the on
(54:49):
the Senate race, and thank you very much. And real quick,
are we going to win a national championship this year?
Of course? Number nine? Come home? Bring it. Do you
ever find yourself was not in your district but if
you become a senator, are you aware I've always been down, man,
I've always been else down and uh so listen to listen.
(55:10):
I think listen authenticity.
Speaker 2 (55:12):
Agree with authenticity, and so listen my friends in Louisville,
the Republicans in Louisville, who are Cardinal fans. You got
to understand I was born and raised in Lexington, I
and I'm and and.
Speaker 1 (55:23):
Listen, Daniel played come on. So thank you very great
to being with you. Thanks a lot