Congressman Warren Davidson -- 11/25/25

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:14):
It's seven six here fifty about Kerosene Detalk Station. I'm
very happy Tuesday to segue into Thanksgiving, the last day
of the week, and happy to have, as always, any
day of the week's great day to have Congressman Warren Davidson,
proudly representing the eighth District Heneral, Ohio, back on the program.
Congressman Davidson, welcome back in and advance early Thanksgiving. Happy
Thanksgiving to you and your family.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, Brian. And what an
eventful few days. I mean, I just spoke with you
last Thursday, but there's been a lot going on.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
Uh. Yeah, it's really a question of where do we begin.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
You enlisted in the Army third Infantry. You then went
to West Point, You then went to Ranger School. You
were in the seventy fifth Ranger Regiment, your hundred and
first Airborne Division. You know about the Military Code of Justice,
what's legal and what is illegal? Or do you here's
a question. We had this video that was issued by
the Democrats, and I hope you don't mind me using
this as the first topic to talk about, but I
figure giving your proud military experience, you might be able

(01:10):
to chime in on it. The Democrats, I think six
of them, sent a video out which included a statement quote,
right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming
from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws
are clear. You military personnel can refuse illegal orders. You
can refuse illegal orders. They said it twice. You must
refuse illegal orders three times. What is an illegal order,

(01:32):
Congressman Davidson, in the context of let's say, bombing Venezuela
in boats, in ships, in international waters or elsewhere. That's
one of the things I believe they were commenting on.
Is a service member to know and do you or
I even know if it's unlawful or lawful to blow
up a boat off the shores of Venezuela right now?
Don't you need legal opinion or some sort of ruling
from the Supreme Court because this is kind of outside

(01:54):
of the realm of the Constitution, which says you have
to have a declaration of war to wage war against
a foreign country.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
Davidson, Well, there's a lot there, Brian, you know fundamentally, Uh, look,
these guys were trying to sew discord and division within
our military and frankly within our country. They thought it
would be kind of this cool video or it was
actually more malicious than that, and it was frankly designed

(02:21):
as an early stage of what you know is a
known as a color revolution. This is how you do
regime change operations. And a lot of these people know
that well, I mean some of them former CIA backgrounds
that you know, this is a doctrinal thing. And if
you if you define domestic enemies to the Constitution and

(02:41):
then you use a battle cry don't give up the ship. Uh, well,
there's a lot of implied things there, and you know,
I think they're getting the scrutiny they've deserved for this.
Does it Does it amount to treason? I don't know.
Does an amount to sedition? I'm not sure what it
Sure does sound like it's more serious than the seditious

(03:03):
conspiracy charges that people were sentenced to long sentences in
jail with under underwrite. And so does it count a
seditious conspiracy? I don't know? Maybe? But is it really dumb?
Absolutely really dumb? And it was meant to divide our
country in our military and that it certainly has. So Look,
these aren't good people, I mean when you look at

(03:24):
their backgrounds. Yet, Okay, they served their country, and that's
what I always tell people. Hey, being a veteran's awesome.
You should serve your country if you can. It's one
of the best decisions I made in my life was
to join the army. But let's be clear, being a
veteran does not inoculate you from being dumb, and we
just saw that with that video.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
I'm sorry for whatever reason, Bob McDonald's I went to
West Point comment just went through my mind when you
made that last day in the Congressman Davidson. Anyhow, so
I guess you know going back to does this constitute
seditious behavior?

Speaker 2 (03:57):
You don't know.

Speaker 1 (03:57):
I don't know that requires a legal determination. Again, when
pressed on all the television programs of the talking heads,
each of the individuals who were involved in this video
couldn't cite a single illustration of an unlawful order that
Trump allegedly has made. So I think they got backed
into the corner on that one. But your point is
well taken, Congressman Davidson.

Speaker 2 (04:18):
Well thanks. Look, I always tell people, Look, when you
first get to basic training, make sure you tell the
drill sergeant all the things you're not gonna do. It'll
really help you get clear on how it works.

Speaker 1 (04:31):
Oh that's awesome. Congress and Davidson. The other thing I
wanted to bring up, and I wanna catch you off, gud,
because I want to hear what you are prime to
talk about this morning. In terms of all the events
that are happening. I saw this bizarre common and of
course coming from James Carville, you'd expect it to be bizarre.
He wants the Democrats to engage in what he called
pure economic rage. This is what they're going to run on.

(04:52):
He said, It's time for Democrats who embrace the sweeping, aggressive, unvarnished,
unapologetic and altogether unmistakable platform of pure economic rage. This
is our only way out of the abyss. He's of course,
focusing on inflation. I know Donald Trump campaigned on lowering inflation,
and he said he was going to try to lower it.
That's a very complicated thing to engage in. But I

(05:14):
guess economic rage. Is there anything the administration can do
to cope with inflation practically speaking? Because this clearly is
going to be a dominant part of the conversation as
we move into next year of the fall election.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
Yeah, I mean, look, rage bait is their whole program.
And you know they're they're even raging at this. Uh.
You know doctor a psychiatrist who says, look, people are
coming in TDS is real. These people can't cope. They
have Trump derangement syndrome. They're wrecking their own lives, the
relationships with friends and family because they obsess about Donald Trump.

(05:49):
And that is the Democrat platform is, you know, get Trump,
and I think that's going to be their focus. And look,
if the economy gives you any any handle to pull on,
they'll use that. If there's anything else that they can
grab onto, they'll use that. But it is one hundred
percent Trump is their platform anti Trump. And so look,

(06:09):
is the economy strong. I mean, here's the challenge about
the top ten percent of earners are driving about fifty
percent of the consumption in our economy. You know, so
it is healthy on one end, and the end that
it's healthy on is people that already have assets. You
already own your home, you've got a retirement account, you've
got a job that the wages are maybe keeping up

(06:30):
with inflation or insulating you a little better, more disposable income.
You know, things are you know, relatively good there, but
you know, you look at people that don't have assets,
that are trying to be first time home buyers, that
are in a situation where they're living paycheck to paycheck. Yeah,
the rate of increases drop. That's where inflation is lower,
but the price level is still very high, and wages

(06:52):
have it kept up with that. And frankly, the solution
a lot of my colleagues offer is, well, if you care,
then you give subsidies. More government is always the answer,
and we're suffering from a fatal overdose of government. I mean,
what causes inflation. It's massively more spending going into the economy, Yes,
and the things that you subsidize get inflated faster than

(07:13):
the rest of the economy. So yeah, fair point. If
you get the subsidy, it is lower for you, but
it raises the overall price level for everyone else, and
it turns into this endless spiral of well, then we'll
have to increase the subsidies. And that's exactly what's going
on with Obamacare.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
Well, indeed, I'm glad you pivoted over to Obamacare. It's
what kept the government shut downs along the extension of
these subsidies for people who probably could afford a premium,
but oh, low and behold, maybe not. With the massive
increase in Obamacare premiums because of the massive influx of
people who were pre existing condition they just join Obamacare
after they've been diagnosed with a pretty significant illness. That

(07:50):
has just driven the costs into just impossible to manage amounts.
That's the problem in the failure with Obamacare right there.

Speaker 2 (07:59):
Yeah, yeah, I mean fundamentally it was designed to work
that way. I mean Republicans said it was, and you know,
Democrats have been united behind well, Obamacare is their checkdown policy.
What they really want is Medicare for all, Medicare. So
this is delivery the delivery vehicle for it. Because the
government just keeps eating a larger and larger portion of

(08:21):
the spend and healthcare. I mean, when the Great Society
launched back in the sixties under Lyndon Johnson and more
government for more things, healthcare was about six percent of
the economy. Now it's almost twenty twenty four percent of
the economy is healthcare. And of that huge percentages of government,

(08:41):
the single largest expense for the federal government is healthcare.
So and the rate of growth is just eating the
world on that. And of the things you could do
with the money, the dumbest is send it to the
health insurance companies, right, I mean, you can send it
to the doctors and hospitals. They're the ones that are
providing the care, and they all that they need it.
So you could straight pipe it to the doctors and hospitals,

(09:03):
or you could send it to the consumer that's actually
getting treated. But you send it to this middleman, and
the middleman's still giving you double digit increases. They're still saying, well,
this is out a network. There's still denying claims, and
there's still just terrible service overall. So you go deal
with the doctors and nurses and you feel like, how
these people really care. They're doing great stuff. You look

(09:24):
at the things. Obamacare is by design, in my opinion,
a disaster. But either way, let's say it's got the
most noble intentions, it still isn't working. And so people
always say, well, where's the Republican plan. They've been varied.
I mean, we've got dozens of proposals that are out there.
I've got several myself. I've always wanted a healthcare committee
so that every single hearing is on healthcare, and it's

(09:46):
almost twenty percent of the economy. There's no excuse for
not having that. Maybe we'll finally get it, but we'll
least get the debate. I hope between now and Christmas.

Speaker 1 (09:55):
Let us debate further with Congressman Davidson. Congressman Davidson will
do it. Congressman's choice on the next topic. I know
there's a lot of things you want to talk about
finite amount of time this morning, but we'll hear what
Congressman Davison has to say after these brief words. Starting
with Plum Type plumbing, it's always plumbing done right. When
you call my friends at Plumb Type Plumbing, they know
you deserve better. Delivering on better with better customer service

(10:16):
starts with you knowing in advance they do not charge
a service fee, so when they come over, they'll give
you a free estimate. It's always going to be fair
and ethical pricing with Plum Type plumbing. And when it
comes to getting that water heater replaced, don't replace it
with a tank, go tank loose modern technology. It'll save
you money, save you a lot of space, and provide
you with endless hot water you don't have a tank
to dry out. It just keeps churning it out as

(10:37):
long as the hot water spig it's on. Amazing sewer
line replacement. Don't go with the other guys. Plumb type
plumbing does trenchless sewer line repair and replacements. You don't
have that landscaping problem and the big mess associated with
the other guys digging down to get to it for
all residential plumbing needs. Been around since oh, nineteen ninety nine.
I believe a plus with a BBB well deserved online

(10:58):
it's plumb tight, te plump tight dot com the number
five one three seven two seven eighty four eighty three
five one three seven two seven tight. This is fifty
five krc AN iHeartRadio Station seven twenty here if you've
got KRCV talk station, Happy Tuesday. Congressman Warren Davidson on
the program. I know there's a million things we could
talk about, Congressman Davidson kind of what's uh, you know,

(11:19):
what's what's on your mind of what you might want
to bring to my listeners and my attention.

Speaker 2 (11:24):
Yeah, hey, thanks, Brian. I think one of the biggest
things is what is Congress doing? I mean, you know,
you'd go to Congress and you're sitting here looking at
President Trump getting executive orders, all kinds of executive actions,
and people are like, well, why aren't we codifying President
Trump's executive orders? And you know, some of that frustration
was voiced by Marjorie Taylor Green with her resignation, and

(11:45):
I think a lot of my colleagues feel that sense
of frustration, and it's you know, where's the play call?
And I remember when I was first in Congress back
in you know, twenty seventeen, I replaced speaker Bainer came in,
Paul Ryan was speaker, and I had this little booklet
called A Better Way. They had this basically the offensive playbook.
Here's the things we're gonna do. And people say, well,

(12:06):
why aren't you doing xyz? And I go, well, I
don't know, but there's a place he hears the bullet
points and you could say this is a plan right now.
There are a lot of things where it's like, well,
we didn't even have the playbook for some of this stuff,
and when we do, there's a coalition of folks that
sort of say, well, let's not do that. And some
of it's the administration, some of the things that they

(12:27):
want to do, like, for example, look, I think it's fine.
It's a preemptive strike to take out drug boats in
the Caribbean. Seems like you say, hey, you should get authorization. Great,
let's just do the authorization. I'm for it. These guys
are bringing infentanyl that are killing people right here in Ohio.
To me, it's a preemptive strike. They plan it on
killing Americans. We're going to stop them from doing it.

(12:47):
And you know, do I feel that way about every
kind of drug that's going on. No, but these cartels
are to me enemies of our country. They've been designated
that way, and I think they're a legitimentary But let's
have the debate on the floor. Administration's concerned that if
we do that, well, then it might imply they don't
have the authority to do whatever they want and that

(13:08):
would disrupt what they're actually doing. So you have that
on issue after issue. At the border, we've got a
secure border. Where are the laws that change this and
codify it. A lot of times they don't want to
bring those up because they're afraid they'll fail, or in
some cases, we've passed bills in the House and they're
waiting on sixty votes in the Senate. We just saw
how important sixty votes is to get something through the

(13:30):
Senate with the shutdown. But if you break the filibuster,
now you can't use that excuse anymore. You've got to vote.
And honestly, some of the Senators don't want to vote.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
Hiding behind the filibusters so they don't have to go
on record.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
Yeah, I mean, that definitely happens. And of course anyone
senator can kind of put their thumb on a bill
and hold it up and cause delays and everything. They've
got their own process. But there are a host of
reasons why everybody's frustrated right now. And I think the
other one, maybe the most common question I've gotten since
I've been elected, is you know, when is someone going
to jail? And I think that's why the Epstein thing

(14:08):
resonates so much. People promised accountability for that, and in frankly,
a lot of why Trump's you know, you know, big
mad at Thomas Massey and Marjor Taylor Green as they
signed this discharge petition, Like I'm willing to work with
the Committee of Jurisdiction here on the Oversight Committee they've
been releasing documents. I think Pam Bondy's released some documents.
It doesn't help to say that it's a hoax and nothing,

(14:31):
when on the one hand, everybody was going to go
to jail that was doing it, and it was a
huge scandal. The binders were handed out to journalists and
then it just in a matter of weeks disappears, like,
where's the explanation for that? That hearing should have happened.
It was supposed to during the shutdown, and I think
it's back on tap for January. But people need an
answer for that. And there's no prosecutor in the in

(14:53):
the legislative branch, right we keep unearthing all this rage
bait for people, and people say, well, what's Congress going
to do? You know about it? Because we had the hearings,
We've made this stuff public. But the prosecutor is the
attorney general. So I would love a hearing, and I've
told Jim Jordan, the Chairman of Judiciary, this would be
the hearing for me. Don't just bring Pam Bondy, bringing

(15:16):
Merrick Garland, who was attorney general for Joe Biden. No
one had any questions for him, No one had any
questions for Joe Biden, why didn't Merrick Garland bring the case?
Go back to the previous administration, Bill Barr and Jeff's
sessions were Donald Trump's attorney general's his first term, and
then go back before that and look at Eric Holder.
I would bring every one of those attorneys general. So

(15:36):
this is a scandal that's been going on in the
news for you know, ten fifteen years at this point,
Why was there never a case braun And have every
single one of those attorneys general give an answer. I
think that would be a good hearing. But here's the thing,
at the end of the day, no matter what comes
out of that, people are still going to be going
when somebody going to jail, and that's the job of

(15:59):
the Attorney general and the US attorneys around the country.
So they need to be bringing cases, evidence presented at trial,
convictions in jail time. Because it's clear that there's a
kind of double standard on this. And I will say
Congress has exposed a lot of this, but that's why
the frustrations there is. Congress did expose it, but what
are we supposed to do about it? And at the
end of the day, we could change the funding. We

(16:21):
could change some of the rules, we could remove judges,
we could do some things. I don't want to say
we're powerless here, but you know it's in action in
certain elements of the executive branch, and inaction and components
of the legislative branch. And I think people are rightly frustrated.

Speaker 1 (16:36):
Well and just lying in the sand division between the
two party system we have. If one side proposes it
as glorious and brilliant and bipartisan as it would be
as it's sort of an objective observation of any proposal,
just because one side proposes that, the other side is
lockstep against this, which means we're not going to get
anywhere with anything.

Speaker 2 (16:56):
Yeah, I mean, and that's where you've got to have
a play. So like, are going to make sure we
don't get shut down again by January thirty? Any well,
we should. We should have the votes on all the
appropriations bills. We've got three of the twelve done and
so we've got nine more. All of those have made
it out of a committee in the House anyway, the
Appropriations Committee. We need slow time and have the debate,

(17:19):
get the amendments, pass the bills, and in the House,
we can pass them on a simple party line vote.
Then other question is are we going to get the
votes in the Senate, And for some of them probably not,
so what are we going.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
To do about it?

Speaker 2 (17:32):
And then you could break the filibuster in the Senate.
We can't do anything about that in the House. But
that's where reconciliation comes in. So normally you're not supposed
to put discretionary spending, your normal appropriations in with what's
known as mandatory spending. And that's not priority. That's a term.
So like if you give it x dollars to run
the Department of Defense or the Department of Transportation, et cetera,

(17:55):
that's a specific dollar amount. We don't set a specific
dollar amount for food stamps, for example, it's like, oh,
we just handed out the last EBT card. No, it's
that if you qualify, then we spend the money. So
that's mandatory. So the mandatory spending site has normally dealt
with with reconciliation, but both parties have added components of

(18:16):
discretionary spending. Democrats added when they did the Green New
Deal named the Inflation Reduction Act. They put you know,
EPA funding and things like that in there, and when
we did the Big Beautiful bill, we put defense funding
and border security funding in there, so those are normally
discretionary items. We could just round out whatever we can't
pass across the floor of the House and Senate deem

(18:37):
it mandatory and basically give a big check to the administration.
Say look, just run the government and that would be
a true power play because it would be party line,
and I think we should be ready to run that
play by January thirtieth. Otherwise, you know, Democrats feel like
they don't have to negotiate again. It's like, well, they
kept saying, well, where's where's your negotiation. It's like, well,

(18:58):
the CR was the negotiation. We can't settle for a
CR on January thirty if we need offense, and I'd
love to do some of it collaboratively with Democrat votes,
but I would be you know, I'm encouraging my leadership
team to say, look, we run the reconciliation play, and
even if we don't end up running it, we've got
it ready and if they don't want to negotiate, fine,

(19:19):
we'll just run a pure party line play.

Speaker 1 (19:22):
Wash rinse repeat. Congressman Warren Davidson, God Bless you, sir
for spending time my listeners and me. I certainly appreciate it.
I know my listeners enjoy hearing from you. Obviously a
man of logic, common sense, and reason, and we wish
there were more people like you intellected capacity. I'll look
forward to having you back on the program real soon,
Congressman Davidson. And again, very happy Thanksgiving for my listeners
and my family to yours.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
Thank you so much, Brian, It's always an honor. God
bless you all your listeners, and happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
Thank you very much. My friend seven twenty nine bring
them account from Hudson Institute Energy Policy. Coming up next.
SU's that Low's Camp mortgages. So you call SU's that
Lowe's Camp. You need to insist on personal care and
excellence when you're dealing with mortgage. It's a lot of money.
You're talking about, probably one of the biggest financial transactions
you'll engage in. You want to work with the best.
That's Susette Lows the Camp with Cross Country Mortgage represent

(20:08):
She can handle mortgages in all fifty states plus Puerto Rico.
She's the best in customer service, has more knowledge than
anybody in the business. I would argue, thirty five plus
years experience and as sweet and nice to work with
as a human being could possibly be coupled with no
junk fees, no application fees. It's always great rates at
a low cost, and she is quick on turning things
around for you. Like my daughter and Eric worked with Susette,

(20:29):
they were happy. I think financing was locked in like
two days. Wonderful, wonderful news for my daughter and Eric
and Suzette Low's Camp delivered. She will for you to
call her, She'll get right back five one three three
one three fifty one seventy six five one three three
one three fifty one seventy six or send her an
email Suzette dot Low's Camp, Los e KA MP sust
dot Low's Camp at CCM dot com fifty five KRC