May 7, 2026 • 20 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Seven oh six fifty five kros Detalk Station by Thomas
Wishing your wren a very happy Friday Eve and welcoming
as I always do, with a big smile on my
face and with great thanks. Congressman Warren Davidson. It's great
to have you back on the morning show, Sir, welcome back.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Definitely, my honors. I always great to talk with you, Brian.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Let us pivot over to the primary. I'm sad to
point out that hardly anybody shows up to vote in
that and that's I mean, obviously the primaries are not
as big of a draw as a general election. But
I think as we look toward November, which emerged for me,
and I think this sort of goes with that, saying
we have to have massive voter turnout on the Republican
side of the ledger. You know, if you look at
(00:41):
the Democrats, a lot of them don't vote, and a
lot of Republicans don't vote. What do you get a
fifty percent turnout and a big in a big election.
You're maybe that means fifty percent of the registered voters
don't show up, So it becomes a voting numbers game
question for you. Congressman Davidson. If these high gas prices
and the inflationary reality that this war has caused people
are going to blame Donald Trump for that? Is that
(01:02):
going to cause people to vote against their best interests
Folks who are traditionally Republican. Are they going to turn
their backs on everything that they believe in and vote
for the other party merely because they're angry about five
dollars gas? Or might they not show up? Because I
suppose both sides of the political ledger are struggling with
that idea. How do you see this playing out in November,
Congressman Davidson.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Well, the scary thing is that people might just withdraw
and not show up. So you think, like, you know,
the people that don't vote in general. You know a
lot of times the political scientists people say, well, that's
because things are good and people are relatively happy. Well
that might be the case for some folks, but I
think what you're seeing from a lot of people is
they just don't trust the system is going to fix
(01:43):
it at all, or they don't like what's on the menu.
They're like, no, why would I eat? There's nothing on
the menu I want? And they're frustrated with both parties
because the results haven't been produced that Frankly, even when
you go out and elect the majority that you say, oh,
these guys are going to go do the thing that
we said we believed in the campaign. Rhetoric was so good,
(02:03):
You're like, but the doing part. Why are these elected
people that we elected to do things sometimes not just
not getting those things done, but occasionally doing things that
are completely contrary to what was promised in the election.
I think people are pretty disgusted by that on some fronts,
(02:24):
and at some level, I think even though it's the
primary instead of the general, there's some warning signs out there.
I mean, there were like twenty two thousand more people
Democrats voted in this primary than Republicans, and you know,
Republicans outnumber Democrats right now, so that's not a great
sign for Republican morale.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
I agree with you completely on that it isn't. And
of course, I mean Republicans and Democrats suffer equally under
five dollars plus a gown gasoline pivoting over to Iran.
Is that situation going to be resolved in time for
the election. I mean, assuming that this is that's a
get people up off their butt to go vote issue
high prices. I worry about that because it's certainly going
to generate Democrat enthusiasm in November.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Yeah, there's no question that's that's that's one of the challenges.
A lot of people are demoralized as Republicans because they
didn't want this, and broadly the country doesn't really like it.
It's not a popular war. And then the results are
there's no free wars, right, I mean there's a trade
off there. I mean you can look to it and say, well,
it's great that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. I
(03:29):
guess I'm happy about that. But you know, I got
an F one fifty. It costs like one hundred and
thirty bucks to fill that sucker up. Man. That's that's
that hits the bank account for people, and that's a
that's a legit drag on the economy. You see six
dollars diesel before long, that's going to show up on
shelves and stores. You know. Right now, it's it's squeezing
(03:50):
lots of things. They're still high demand, and you're seeing
some of the stock market hold strong because the demand
is staying high and people look at it as something
that isn't going to necessarily be enduring, but you know,
I'm afraid that it may be enduring enough to ripple
even if it was resolved, you know by this weekend,
(04:10):
that there could be some implications even between now and
the election.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Indeed, you know, and then the longer term forecast. The
thing that I'm worried about is the fertilizer being held
up because you know, it's crop season. You need the
fertilizer out there to keep crop production up. And we're
going to feel an inflationary effect of that if we
don't get that straight open back up and that fertilizer
out into the world.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Yeah, I mean, so there are a lot of concerns.
I mean, this goes back to a lot of things. Though,
you know, people, I'm a free trade guy. I would
love that we don't have tariffs. But I do think
the right leverage was applied to set things in shape
for a negotiation with China, because China is really, you know,
the inner pound gorilla in the room, and people want
to pretend like, oh, everything's fine, We're just trading with them.
(04:55):
We're trading with them under framework that Bill Clinton spent
the nineties putting together the treated as a developing economy,
and in the nineties essentially they were. But today they're
the second largest economy in the world. They've got phenomenal
capabilities with their technology, the resources, they growing and strong
middle class, and they're abusing the rules of the trade
(05:16):
game to steal intellectual property with their government like a
whole government. Their intelligence agencies are targeting and stealing intellectual
property from companies like Cleveland Cliffs, Like how are they
making this greatest steal? They'll block it and shape market
access to even get into their country. Then they'll subsidize
and dump and steal market share around the world, and
(05:37):
they've done that very strategically. Well steal for one, but
if you look on pharmaceuticals, we can't even make our
own drugs at scale without China. You look at fertilizer
is a dependency that we have from a lot of places.
But if you want feed for animals, the vitamins that
are enriched, the rare earth minerals and critical minerals. It's
(05:58):
not just the mining rights. We've got a lot of
things that we mind. The processing of it is done
in China, So we are very dependent upon China's supply
chain right now. That's with no shocks. Chips are getting
a lot of attention over the past few years, and
question is what are we going to do about it?
And there may be some temporary suffering to produce a
(06:20):
better outcome, but that doesn't mean that everyone's going to
take that into account when they go vote.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Well, and it's going to take a long time to
unravel that. To the extent we try to unravel that
relationship with China, I just find it odd and want
to start contrast to how we treated the Soviet Union
back during the Cold War and how we treated China.
We developed this relationship with China, and you look at China.
You pointed out, it's the second largest economy in the world.
We built that. How is it that American taxpayer dollars
(06:46):
and the billions and billions of dollars, if not ultimately
trillions of dollars we spent in China building China's infrastructure
and offshoring our manufacturing to the communists in China. I mean,
how do we ever view that as being in our
best interest?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Concressent day, Well, look, this was the debate and both
the Republicans and Democrats in the nineteen ninety two elections
said oh yeah, we're going to make this work. And
Ross Perot was the third party candidate who said, there's
going to be a giant sucking sound of your jobs
leaving the country, and people, you know, discounted Ross Perot,
(07:23):
you know, said he's kind of a nutty guy. He's
an a centric billionaire or whatever. And maybe that was
a debatable thing in the nineties. You know, I was
in the army house, focused on army stuff, but I
paid attention to the debate and we look back at
the pass. He's been right, right, he's been vindicated. And
it took really until President Trump in twenty sixteen to
(07:43):
have a presidential level candidate say we're going the wrong way.
We have to change course. And now people are broadly
he's supporting the direction, but they don't want to take
the steps necessary to fix it. They're like, oh, yeah,
we are two dependent on China, so what are you
going to do with it? Well, I'm just going to
drop this order right now because I can get it
tomorrow and it's going to come whereas it well, it
(08:04):
was ship to a warehouse. It's sitting here close to
me and they'll deliver it. The convenience is great, and
people don't want to deal with the changes in the
trade regimes. I mean, I even talked with law enforcement
who are buying drones to use, and drone technology is
shaping lots of things in the world, and they use
it for you know, let's just say you're missing a
(08:25):
missing person. They want to go up and find that person.
Drones can do it. They can do it more safely
than a police chase, for example. But you're getting these
things for a third of the cost from China and
they're like, well, there's no American that's equivalent. I'm like, well,
the Chinese are subsidizing this, and they're just amazed that
American law enforcement is putting their tech all throughout the country,
(08:47):
I think. And at the end of the day, that's
what we're up against. It's hard to go against the
subsidized price. And you're like, well, howle in the long
run does this work out for China? And when you
look at the results, it seems to be working out
pretty well.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Damn well.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
They're growing pretty strong.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Yeah, and it is an interesting Trump's first term, he
was warning about this and wanting to write the ship
of our relationship with China for all the reasons you're
talking about that and all the reasons we woke up
to because of COVID nineteen, right, I mean COVID nineteen
showed up many years after Trump was elected, and lo
and behold, what he was saying is true. We don't
make our own stuff. We find ourselves in a world
(09:22):
of hurt right now. So I think it got more
people on the break the relationship or whittle it down
relationship with China bandwagon Congressman Davidson.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Yeah, definitely. And you know he's headed to China here
later this month. I think this is going to be
a really high stakes situation. I do think China's in
a position to give leverage with Iran. They need the oil,
they want trade to resume. That's why I think that
the navy blockade is smart and strategic and a better
use of resources than getting into a ground war in Iran,
(09:52):
more likely to succeed. And China can be useful in
that because they want the oil, they want the trade,
and frankly, their economy depends on the trade at this point.
So I think it's a really high stakes negotiation for
President Trump in may it is, and it shapes the
real superpowers of today, you know landscape going forward, the
(10:15):
United States and China.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Well, I suppose you one has to balance. China wants
the straight of Horror moves open for its own economy. Basically,
they need the resources that are coming from from the
strait of hormones? Do they need that more than they
need the Iranian thorn in America's side that they have
been enjoying and supporting for so long? What's more important
to the Chinese government?
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Congressman Davidson, Well, there's no question having the United States
bogged down in the Middle East has been good for China. Yeah,
I mean, we've squandered our wealth, We've made Central Command
the focus. All of our effort is heavily focused in
the Middle East. That China is definitely the big beneficiary
of the Ukraine War. You know, great, Well, we can't
(10:55):
keep you bogged down and then the least stay focused
over here in Ukraine depleting your treasury doing all this stuff.
And you know, at some level, China's worst nightmare is
getting you know, Donald Trump elected president and somebody like
peg Seth leaving the Department of War. Because now the
military is focused on you know, fighting and winning wars
(11:15):
and extreme confidence rather than you know, pronouns and you know,
purple hair pronoun people and all this nonsense that was
going on under the Biden administration. Isn't that? So you know,
the direction is the right way for our country. But yeah,
to your point, China would be happy to see us
continue bogged down because we're not paying attention to the Pacific. No,
we're not.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
And as you pointed out a moment ago, we're going
through all of our munitions at a very very rapid pace.
Those are costly and they take a long time to replenish.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Pause.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
We'll bring Congressman Davidson back, maybe talk a moment about reconciliation,
which is on the plate right now, what that might
bring about seventeen right now. If you have KCD talk
station Fashioned pro I'm sorry, yeah, seven twenty two, if
you have KRCD talks station Ryan Thomas with Congressman Warren
Davidson pivoting over to the reconciliation process. I guess my
understanding is the House and Senate both officially pass budget
(12:05):
resolution that initiated the reconciliation process, which means that we
don't need sixty votes in the Senate to get something done.
Enter reconciliation, which right now, the current bill is seventy
two billion dollars and it's primarily to fund ice and
homeland security. So I've already seen rumblings that people want
(12:29):
a third reconciliation bill. Does this one not take on enough?
Congressman Davidson, are you behind this reconciliation process? Where are
we on this one? Congressman?
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Yeah, this is known as a skinny budget and reconciliations
like think of the Senate as say, running a blockade
on the straight at Hormuz, and this the reconciliation is
a complicated process. To break the Senate's blockade. You see
the magic word reconciliation. They go, oh, we don't have
to have sixty votes. We can actually go to the
(12:59):
floor and book and then a simple majority passes the Senate.
There's some strings attached. You can't really do policy. You
can just do spending or more or less spending, more
or less revenue, tax policy, and spending policy. So this
is different because most of the money has strings attached.
A lot of times you can't really put very many
(13:20):
strings attached to this This is why it's sort of
gaslighting to say, well, we can attach Save America Act
to that, Well, it would be stripped out because it's
purely a policy thing. You could put some spending on
election integrity or something and try to get a small
string attached, but you're not going to get a major
policy through with this magic word reconciliation. The reason it's
(13:42):
inadequate is it accepts the Democrats' terms. You know, they said,
we can fund homeland security, but we're not going to
vote to fund ice and border patrol, so we're not
going to allow you to have the federal government. This
is basically the Democrats sanctuary city policy is really open
rebellion to the United States authority. They're basically saying each
city and state around the country is going to decide
(14:04):
the lawful presence or process of removal for foreign nationals
in the United States. I was like, no, that's clearly
a federal role. The federal government decides, you know this path,
and Democrats have locked that in by literally defunding ICE
in border patrol. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans accepted that term and
(14:25):
they strung out the shutdown all year. So recently we
voted to fund homeland security. We only funded homeland security
without funding ICE in border patrol. So this seventy two
billion dollars skinny budget. Started to think of seventy two
billion as skinny, but in a one point seven trillion
dollars spending level, that seventy two is a small, small number.
(14:47):
So you get one thousand, seven hundred billion that we
spend it in a normal year through the regular appropriations process.
So this just funds three years worth of ICE in
border patrol. It gets this twenty twenty nine, so we
don't have to keep dealing with this and funds ICE
on board for what it except the terms of their debate.
And that's why Republicans are talking about doing a third
(15:09):
reconciliation path, because we want to disarm the Democrats up
front as we go into appropriations. And remember the government's
only supposed to be funded until September thirtieth, that's the
start of the fiscal year, so we know Democrats want
all kinds of concessions in order to vote for that,
and we don't want another shutdown right before the election.
(15:30):
So the way that you have leverage on that, I
mean to me, the maximum way is you just appropriate
the top line number, all one point seven trillion to
the executive branch and no strings attached, no departments, nothing,
just put it all to President Trump and the team there.
And Democrats would lose their minds, right because, like what,
(15:51):
you're going to let them go do whatever? Yep. And
now I don't think we get the votes in the
House to do that, but you would get Democrats ready
to negotiate because that would give complete control and leverage
to the president in terms of deciding which department gets what,
how they spend it. Everything would be sent over as
a single line item in appropriations. So they would lose
(16:14):
their mind and of course don't want that, and broadly
Republicans don't either. We do want a negotiation. And Democrats said, oh,
it is a negotiation. Now you're literally shutting down our
border patrol and our immigration enforcement in exchange for all
kinds of other concessions. And so they say, oh, but
you're not negotiating, which means you're not surrendering to our demands.
(16:37):
And so the only way you change that is you
set the terms of the fight instead of the Democrats
setting the terms of the fight. And that's why we
want reconciliation.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Three understood now, question mark, because me being the fiscal
hawk that I am, deafsitt hawk I am. Can you
defund partners of the government in a reconciliation bill that's
dollars and cents? Why don't throw some sections in there?
Just pull the plug on a lot of the money.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Yeah, that's exactly what we should be doing. I mean,
those just highlighted a lot of these things, right, and
you know we can we can spend less money on
certain things. We can, you know, have offsets to pay
for spending on say three years worth of ice. We
could cut any number of things. I mean I've proposed
I think I proposed like one point two trillion dollars
worth of cuts last last year when we were doing
(17:26):
the big beautiful bill that was reconciliation one point zero
for this Congress. Not the first time it's been done.
I mean Democrats did it twice under Joe Biden. That
was their Build Back Better Initiative and their Inflation Reduction
Act or Green New Deal is they called it. But
they did reconciliation as well. We were doing one. We
want to catch up to them and do at least two.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
Well, I guess ill like can say, is with popcorns out,
Congressman Davidson, and I like your idea, Well, my idea,
your idea stick some dfunding in that reconciliation bill, although
I don't see that happening. That's already locked in stone,
that it's seventy two billion. There's no more room for
leverage or negotiation at this point. I sort of am concluding, yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Once we pass the budget that mocks in this two
point zero, but there's so much appetite to do more
that that's why they had to start promising, well, we're
going to do another one, and honestly, that would be
surprising if we get it done before the election. Honestly,
the hope is that we at least get it teed
up so that we can you know, finish the job
in the lame duck period between the election and January third,
(18:34):
so they'll be like the wrap up phase of this Congress,
and then you'll set the next Congress will be one
hundred nineteen. We're one hundred nineteenth Congress now will be
in one hundred and twentieth January third, twenty twenty seven.
That's when the new maps take effect and all that,
but in this one here, even though the number is
seventy two billion, we could cut spending in certain other
areas in order to do it. The hard thing is
that we just appropriated money for a lot of other things.
(18:56):
So we're fighting against colleagues to say, well, you can't
cut that well idea. Yeah, that's going to be the
challenge over the next few weeks.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Indeed, and you know, I saw this article from the
Hill about the Republican infighting over the possibility of a
third Reconciliation Bill, which sounds like a pretty good idea,
especially among opposition, especially among members of the Senate Appropriations Panel,
who believe it's our job, in the words of one lawmaker,
to pass funding for Pentagon under regular order. So even
Republicans have an opposition this because it sounds like they're
(19:28):
trying to protect their own turf, which means they're trying
to protect vested interest groups and things like that, so
they can pack their their well advanced, their particular personal
goals in a big broad bill, which means we'll have
to make concessions to the Democrats in a regular order.
That's a problem, Congressman Davidson.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Yeah, that's that's that is. Unfortunately, when people say you
want more bipartisanship, you'll be careful what you ask for
because the most bipartisan thing in Congress is appropriation. Thank you.
The appropriators have been the roadblock. I mean, we didn't
get thirty nine trillion in debt because it's a one
party problem, both parties, and they dominate the appropriations committees
in the House and Senate, and that has been the
(20:07):
barrier to getting this magic path through the blockade across
the finish line. Reconciliation undermines the power of the appropriators.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
See, we are our own worst enemies sometimes. Congressman Davison,
thank you so much for your time here on the
fifty five KOC Morning. Shaw'll look forward to having you
on again real soon. And I keep fighting to fight,
my friend, please
Seven oh six fifty five kros Detalk Station by Thomas
Wishing your wren a very happy Friday Eve and welcoming
as I always do, with a big smile on my
face and with great thanks. Congressman Warren Davidson. It's great
to have you back on the morning show, Sir, welcome back.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Definitely, my honors. I always great to talk with you, Brian.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Let us pivot over to the primary. I'm sad to
point out that hardly anybody shows up to vote in
that and that's I mean, obviously the primaries are not
as big of a draw as a general election. But
I think as we look toward November, which emerged for me,
and I think this sort of goes with that, saying
we have to have massive voter turnout on the Republican
side of the ledger. You know, if you look at
(00:41):
the Democrats, a lot of them don't vote, and a
lot of Republicans don't vote. What do you get a
fifty percent turnout and a big in a big election.
You're maybe that means fifty percent of the registered voters
don't show up, So it becomes a voting numbers game
question for you. Congressman Davidson. If these high gas prices
and the inflationary reality that this war has caused people
are going to blame Donald Trump for that? Is that
(01:02):
going to cause people to vote against their best interests
Folks who are traditionally Republican. Are they going to turn
their backs on everything that they believe in and vote
for the other party merely because they're angry about five
dollars gas? Or might they not show up? Because I
suppose both sides of the political ledger are struggling with
that idea. How do you see this playing out in November,
Congressman Davidson.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Well, the scary thing is that people might just withdraw
and not show up. So you think, like, you know,
the people that don't vote in general. You know a
lot of times the political scientists people say, well, that's
because things are good and people are relatively happy. Well
that might be the case for some folks, but I
think what you're seeing from a lot of people is
they just don't trust the system is going to fix
(01:43):
it at all, or they don't like what's on the menu.
They're like, no, why would I eat? There's nothing on
the menu I want? And they're frustrated with both parties
because the results haven't been produced that Frankly, even when
you go out and elect the majority that you say, oh,
these guys are going to go do the thing that
we said we believed in the campaign. Rhetoric was so good,
(02:03):
You're like, but the doing part. Why are these elected
people that we elected to do things sometimes not just
not getting those things done, but occasionally doing things that
are completely contrary to what was promised in the election.
I think people are pretty disgusted by that on some fronts,
(02:24):
and at some level, I think even though it's the
primary instead of the general, there's some warning signs out there.
I mean, there were like twenty two thousand more people
Democrats voted in this primary than Republicans, and you know,
Republicans outnumber Democrats right now, so that's not a great
sign for Republican morale.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
I agree with you completely on that it isn't. And
of course, I mean Republicans and Democrats suffer equally under
five dollars plus a gown gasoline pivoting over to Iran.
Is that situation going to be resolved in time for
the election. I mean, assuming that this is that's a
get people up off their butt to go vote issue
high prices. I worry about that because it's certainly going
to generate Democrat enthusiasm in November.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
Yeah, there's no question that's that's that's one of the challenges.
A lot of people are demoralized as Republicans because they
didn't want this, and broadly the country doesn't really like it.
It's not a popular war. And then the results are
there's no free wars, right, I mean there's a trade
off there. I mean you can look to it and say, well,
it's great that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. I
(03:29):
guess I'm happy about that. But you know, I got
an F one fifty. It costs like one hundred and
thirty bucks to fill that sucker up. Man. That's that's
that hits the bank account for people, and that's a
that's a legit drag on the economy. You see six
dollars diesel before long, that's going to show up on
shelves and stores. You know. Right now, it's it's squeezing
(03:50):
lots of things. They're still high demand, and you're seeing
some of the stock market hold strong because the demand
is staying high and people look at it as something
that isn't going to necessarily be enduring, but you know,
I'm afraid that it may be enduring enough to ripple
even if it was resolved, you know by this weekend,
(04:10):
that there could be some implications even between now and
the election.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Indeed, you know, and then the longer term forecast. The
thing that I'm worried about is the fertilizer being held
up because you know, it's crop season. You need the
fertilizer out there to keep crop production up. And we're
going to feel an inflationary effect of that if we
don't get that straight open back up and that fertilizer
out into the world.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Yeah, I mean, so there are a lot of concerns.
I mean, this goes back to a lot of things. Though,
you know, people, I'm a free trade guy. I would
love that we don't have tariffs. But I do think
the right leverage was applied to set things in shape
for a negotiation with China, because China is really, you know,
the inner pound gorilla in the room, and people want
to pretend like, oh, everything's fine, We're just trading with them.
(04:55):
We're trading with them under framework that Bill Clinton spent
the nineties putting together the treated as a developing economy,
and in the nineties essentially they were. But today they're
the second largest economy in the world. They've got phenomenal
capabilities with their technology, the resources, they growing and strong
middle class, and they're abusing the rules of the trade
(05:16):
game to steal intellectual property with their government like a
whole government. Their intelligence agencies are targeting and stealing intellectual
property from companies like Cleveland Cliffs, Like how are they
making this greatest steal? They'll block it and shape market
access to even get into their country. Then they'll subsidize
and dump and steal market share around the world, and
(05:37):
they've done that very strategically. Well steal for one, but
if you look on pharmaceuticals, we can't even make our
own drugs at scale without China. You look at fertilizer
is a dependency that we have from a lot of places.
But if you want feed for animals, the vitamins that
are enriched, the rare earth minerals and critical minerals. It's
(05:58):
not just the mining rights. We've got a lot of
things that we mind. The processing of it is done
in China, So we are very dependent upon China's supply
chain right now. That's with no shocks. Chips are getting
a lot of attention over the past few years, and
question is what are we going to do about it?
And there may be some temporary suffering to produce a
(06:20):
better outcome, but that doesn't mean that everyone's going to
take that into account when they go vote.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Well, and it's going to take a long time to
unravel that. To the extent we try to unravel that
relationship with China, I just find it odd and want
to start contrast to how we treated the Soviet Union
back during the Cold War and how we treated China.
We developed this relationship with China, and you look at China.
You pointed out, it's the second largest economy in the world.
We built that. How is it that American taxpayer dollars
(06:46):
and the billions and billions of dollars, if not ultimately
trillions of dollars we spent in China building China's infrastructure
and offshoring our manufacturing to the communists in China. I mean,
how do we ever view that as being in our
best interest?
Speaker 2 (06:59):
Concressent day, Well, look, this was the debate and both
the Republicans and Democrats in the nineteen ninety two elections
said oh yeah, we're going to make this work. And
Ross Perot was the third party candidate who said, there's
going to be a giant sucking sound of your jobs
leaving the country, and people, you know, discounted Ross Perot,
(07:23):
you know, said he's kind of a nutty guy. He's
an a centric billionaire or whatever. And maybe that was
a debatable thing in the nineties. You know, I was
in the army house, focused on army stuff, but I
paid attention to the debate and we look back at
the pass. He's been right, right, he's been vindicated. And
it took really until President Trump in twenty sixteen to
(07:43):
have a presidential level candidate say we're going the wrong way.
We have to change course. And now people are broadly
he's supporting the direction, but they don't want to take
the steps necessary to fix it. They're like, oh, yeah,
we are two dependent on China, so what are you
going to do with it? Well, I'm just going to
drop this order right now because I can get it
tomorrow and it's going to come whereas it well, it
(08:04):
was ship to a warehouse. It's sitting here close to
me and they'll deliver it. The convenience is great, and
people don't want to deal with the changes in the
trade regimes. I mean, I even talked with law enforcement
who are buying drones to use, and drone technology is
shaping lots of things in the world, and they use
it for you know, let's just say you're missing a
(08:25):
missing person. They want to go up and find that person.
Drones can do it. They can do it more safely
than a police chase, for example. But you're getting these
things for a third of the cost from China and
they're like, well, there's no American that's equivalent. I'm like, well,
the Chinese are subsidizing this, and they're just amazed that
American law enforcement is putting their tech all throughout the country,
(08:47):
I think. And at the end of the day, that's
what we're up against. It's hard to go against the
subsidized price. And you're like, well, howle in the long
run does this work out for China? And when you
look at the results, it seems to be working out
pretty well.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Damn well.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
They're growing pretty strong.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
Yeah, and it is an interesting Trump's first term, he
was warning about this and wanting to write the ship
of our relationship with China for all the reasons you're
talking about that and all the reasons we woke up
to because of COVID nineteen, right, I mean COVID nineteen
showed up many years after Trump was elected, and lo
and behold, what he was saying is true. We don't
make our own stuff. We find ourselves in a world
(09:22):
of hurt right now. So I think it got more
people on the break the relationship or whittle it down
relationship with China bandwagon Congressman Davidson.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Yeah, definitely. And you know he's headed to China here
later this month. I think this is going to be
a really high stakes situation. I do think China's in
a position to give leverage with Iran. They need the oil,
they want trade to resume. That's why I think that
the navy blockade is smart and strategic and a better
use of resources than getting into a ground war in Iran,
(09:52):
more likely to succeed. And China can be useful in
that because they want the oil, they want the trade,
and frankly, their economy depends on the trade at this point.
So I think it's a really high stakes negotiation for
President Trump in may it is, and it shapes the
real superpowers of today, you know landscape going forward, the
(10:15):
United States and China.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Well, I suppose you one has to balance. China wants
the straight of Horror moves open for its own economy. Basically,
they need the resources that are coming from from the
strait of hormones? Do they need that more than they
need the Iranian thorn in America's side that they have
been enjoying and supporting for so long? What's more important
to the Chinese government?
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Congressman Davidson, Well, there's no question having the United States
bogged down in the Middle East has been good for China. Yeah,
I mean, we've squandered our wealth, We've made Central Command
the focus. All of our effort is heavily focused in
the Middle East. That China is definitely the big beneficiary
of the Ukraine War. You know, great, Well, we can't
(10:55):
keep you bogged down and then the least stay focused
over here in Ukraine depleting your treasury doing all this stuff.
And you know, at some level, China's worst nightmare is
getting you know, Donald Trump elected president and somebody like
peg Seth leaving the Department of War. Because now the
military is focused on you know, fighting and winning wars
(11:15):
and extreme confidence rather than you know, pronouns and you know,
purple hair pronoun people and all this nonsense that was
going on under the Biden administration. Isn't that? So you know,
the direction is the right way for our country. But yeah,
to your point, China would be happy to see us
continue bogged down because we're not paying attention to the Pacific. No,
we're not.
Speaker 1 (11:35):
And as you pointed out a moment ago, we're going
through all of our munitions at a very very rapid pace.
Those are costly and they take a long time to replenish.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Pause.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
We'll bring Congressman Davidson back, maybe talk a moment about reconciliation,
which is on the plate right now, what that might
bring about seventeen right now. If you have KCD talk
station Fashioned pro I'm sorry, yeah, seven twenty two, if
you have KRCD talks station Ryan Thomas with Congressman Warren
Davidson pivoting over to the reconciliation process. I guess my
understanding is the House and Senate both officially pass budget
(12:05):
resolution that initiated the reconciliation process, which means that we
don't need sixty votes in the Senate to get something done.
Enter reconciliation, which right now, the current bill is seventy
two billion dollars and it's primarily to fund ice and
homeland security. So I've already seen rumblings that people want
(12:29):
a third reconciliation bill. Does this one not take on enough?
Congressman Davidson, are you behind this reconciliation process? Where are
we on this one? Congressman?
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Yeah, this is known as a skinny budget and reconciliations
like think of the Senate as say, running a blockade
on the straight at Hormuz, and this the reconciliation is
a complicated process. To break the Senate's blockade. You see
the magic word reconciliation. They go, oh, we don't have
to have sixty votes. We can actually go to the
(12:59):
floor and book and then a simple majority passes the Senate.
There's some strings attached. You can't really do policy. You
can just do spending or more or less spending, more
or less revenue, tax policy, and spending policy. So this
is different because most of the money has strings attached.
A lot of times you can't really put very many
(13:20):
strings attached to this This is why it's sort of
gaslighting to say, well, we can attach Save America Act
to that, Well, it would be stripped out because it's
purely a policy thing. You could put some spending on
election integrity or something and try to get a small
string attached, but you're not going to get a major
policy through with this magic word reconciliation. The reason it's
(13:42):
inadequate is it accepts the Democrats' terms. You know, they said,
we can fund homeland security, but we're not going to
vote to fund ice and border patrol, so we're not
going to allow you to have the federal government. This
is basically the Democrats sanctuary city policy is really open
rebellion to the United States authority. They're basically saying each
city and state around the country is going to decide
(14:04):
the lawful presence or process of removal for foreign nationals
in the United States. I was like, no, that's clearly
a federal role. The federal government decides, you know this path,
and Democrats have locked that in by literally defunding ICE
in border patrol. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans accepted that term and
(14:25):
they strung out the shutdown all year. So recently we
voted to fund homeland security. We only funded homeland security
without funding ICE in border patrol. So this seventy two
billion dollars skinny budget. Started to think of seventy two
billion as skinny, but in a one point seven trillion
dollars spending level, that seventy two is a small, small number.
(14:47):
So you get one thousand, seven hundred billion that we
spend it in a normal year through the regular appropriations process.
So this just funds three years worth of ICE in
border patrol. It gets this twenty twenty nine, so we
don't have to keep dealing with this and funds ICE
on board for what it except the terms of their debate.
And that's why Republicans are talking about doing a third
(15:09):
reconciliation path, because we want to disarm the Democrats up
front as we go into appropriations. And remember the government's
only supposed to be funded until September thirtieth, that's the
start of the fiscal year, so we know Democrats want
all kinds of concessions in order to vote for that,
and we don't want another shutdown right before the election.
(15:30):
So the way that you have leverage on that, I
mean to me, the maximum way is you just appropriate
the top line number, all one point seven trillion to
the executive branch and no strings attached, no departments, nothing,
just put it all to President Trump and the team there.
And Democrats would lose their minds, right because, like what,
(15:51):
you're going to let them go do whatever? Yep. And
now I don't think we get the votes in the
House to do that, but you would get Democrats ready
to negotiate because that would give complete control and leverage
to the president in terms of deciding which department gets what,
how they spend it. Everything would be sent over as
a single line item in appropriations. So they would lose
(16:14):
their mind and of course don't want that, and broadly
Republicans don't either. We do want a negotiation. And Democrats said, oh,
it is a negotiation. Now you're literally shutting down our
border patrol and our immigration enforcement in exchange for all
kinds of other concessions. And so they say, oh, but
you're not negotiating, which means you're not surrendering to our demands.
(16:37):
And so the only way you change that is you
set the terms of the fight instead of the Democrats
setting the terms of the fight. And that's why we
want reconciliation.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Three understood now, question mark, because me being the fiscal
hawk that I am, deafsitt hawk I am. Can you
defund partners of the government in a reconciliation bill that's
dollars and cents? Why don't throw some sections in there?
Just pull the plug on a lot of the money.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Yeah, that's exactly what we should be doing. I mean,
those just highlighted a lot of these things, right, and
you know we can we can spend less money on
certain things. We can, you know, have offsets to pay
for spending on say three years worth of ice. We
could cut any number of things. I mean I've proposed
I think I proposed like one point two trillion dollars
worth of cuts last last year when we were doing
(17:26):
the big beautiful bill that was reconciliation one point zero
for this Congress. Not the first time it's been done.
I mean Democrats did it twice under Joe Biden. That
was their Build Back Better Initiative and their Inflation Reduction
Act or Green New Deal is they called it. But
they did reconciliation as well. We were doing one. We
want to catch up to them and do at least two.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
Well, I guess ill like can say, is with popcorns out,
Congressman Davidson, and I like your idea, Well, my idea,
your idea stick some dfunding in that reconciliation bill, although
I don't see that happening. That's already locked in stone,
that it's seventy two billion. There's no more room for
leverage or negotiation at this point. I sort of am concluding, yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Once we pass the budget that mocks in this two
point zero, but there's so much appetite to do more
that that's why they had to start promising, well, we're
going to do another one, and honestly, that would be
surprising if we get it done before the election. Honestly,
the hope is that we at least get it teed
up so that we can you know, finish the job
in the lame duck period between the election and January third,
(18:34):
so they'll be like the wrap up phase of this Congress,
and then you'll set the next Congress will be one
hundred nineteen. We're one hundred nineteenth Congress now will be
in one hundred and twentieth January third, twenty twenty seven.
That's when the new maps take effect and all that,
but in this one here, even though the number is
seventy two billion, we could cut spending in certain other
areas in order to do it. The hard thing is
that we just appropriated money for a lot of other things.
(18:56):
So we're fighting against colleagues to say, well, you can't
cut that well idea. Yeah, that's going to be the
challenge over the next few weeks.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
Indeed, and you know, I saw this article from the
Hill about the Republican infighting over the possibility of a
third Reconciliation Bill, which sounds like a pretty good idea,
especially among opposition, especially among members of the Senate Appropriations Panel,
who believe it's our job, in the words of one lawmaker,
to pass funding for Pentagon under regular order. So even
Republicans have an opposition this because it sounds like they're
(19:28):
trying to protect their own turf, which means they're trying
to protect vested interest groups and things like that, so
they can pack their their well advanced, their particular personal
goals in a big broad bill, which means we'll have
to make concessions to the Democrats in a regular order.
That's a problem, Congressman Davidson.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
Yeah, that's that's that is. Unfortunately, when people say you
want more bipartisanship, you'll be careful what you ask for
because the most bipartisan thing in Congress is appropriation. Thank you.
The appropriators have been the roadblock. I mean, we didn't
get thirty nine trillion in debt because it's a one
party problem, both parties, and they dominate the appropriations committees
in the House and Senate, and that has been the
(20:07):
barrier to getting this magic path through the blockade across
the finish line. Reconciliation undermines the power of the appropriators.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
See, we are our own worst enemies sometimes. Congressman Davison,
thank you so much for your time here on the
fifty five KOC Morning. Shaw'll look forward to having you
on again real soon. And I keep fighting to fight,
my friend, please
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.