Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/17/23 EXCLUSIVE: GOP 2024 Candidate Asa Hutchinson On Ukraine, Abortion, Minimum Wage

Episode Date: July 17, 2023

Former Governor Asa Hutchinson joins us in studio to talk about his 2024 campaign. Krystal and Saagar ask him questions on Ukraine, Abortion, Minimum Wage and more.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Hey, guys. Ready or not, 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Joining us now is former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson. He's running for president in 2024. It's great to see you, sir. It's wonderful to be here. Your new studio looks really sharp.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Very nice of you. So you're running for the GOP primary. You're running in that primary to try and become the nominee and eventually the president of the United States. Just lay out a little bit for the audience. Why are you running for president? Running for president because we're going the wrong direction right now under Joseph Biden's leadership, whether it's energy policy, whether it's too much federal spending, border security. And then secondly, I care about these issues and my experience matches the challenges that we face. So I have something to offer for our country.

And if you look at my life, I've never sat on the sidelines when there's a need that I can fill. And so I love this country, and I know that we can get back on track. I'm an optimist about it, but it's going to take some work. And I provide the skills, the leadership that can bring our country together in the sense of sort of a motto that I have is bringing out the best of America. And to me, that's what a president should be, for the best of America, bringing out the best of America. And I don't think we've seen that in recent years. Got it. So, Governor, I don't want to be a jerk, but I'm looking at the polls. You know, you have a ways to go.

They've had you at 1% in most of the ones that I've seen. So what is the plan to overcome that deficit? And then, obviously, you want to win. But are there goals for the campaign if you aren't able to win? A message you want to get across, things you want to say, people you want to challenge. Are there other goals for the campaign? Well, the goal is to win. And whenever you look at our polling numbers, one, we're going up slowly, but we're going up. And

secondly, everybody is in single digits except for two of the candidates and one's falling and the other was pretty steady. And so this is waiting for an opportunity to break out. Somebody's going to break out. The debate could be the opportunity or it could be the second or third debate. But I'm okay with where we are right now. We just want to be moving in the right direction. And in terms of some other alternatives, I'm only interested in being president of the United States,

but I'm also interested in my message being significant for our country. And I was the third candidate to get in. I'm in the non-Trump lane, which means that I feel very strongly that our country is not well served with another Trump-Biden contest. And my voice makes a difference there. And so it is important that we have people that care about America, that have unique views, that are on the debate stage. And I'm one of those. Right. So you're self-identifying as non-Trump.

He remains a very popular figure in the Republican Party. I think that's completely undeniable whenever we look not only at polls, but in terms of the overall reception. What is your biggest concern about a second term for the former president? Well, my biggest concern is that it would be the revenge tour. He wants to get even. And that's a characteristic, regretfully, of Donald Trump. And that's not a good motivation at all for the leader of our country. Secondly, I think he'd have a hard time pulling a team together.

In his first term, he pulled a good team together because people are loyal to this country. But then the way he treated people that were loyal to him and tried to serve our country, who wants to serve in that administration? And so nobody wants the chaos that Donald Trump would bring in a second term. And I don't believe anyone would deny that there would be chaos. And that's not

what our country needs. And it would be a great risk if he was president again. So the RNC is requiring all candidates to sign basically a loyalty pledge in order to get on the debate stage, which I know is something you aspire to do, saying that you will commit to support the GOP nominee no matter who it is, even if it is Donald Trump. Are you planning to support Donald Trump if he is the Republican nominee? Well, I've always supported the nominee of the party. I've been a Republican since I was a young adult, a young lawyer in Bentonville, and I've helped build a Republican party in Arkansas through decades of Democratic leadership, strengthening the Republican party. So there's not anybody that's more of a loyal Republican than me.

I've also don't like party loyalty oaths. That's one of the reasons I became a Democrat was I didn't like the Democrat, excuse me, I became a Republican because I didn't like the Democrat party loyalty oath. And I believe in a little bit more independence and that country is above anything else. So I don't like it. But we need to be on the debate stage. And I'm going to look at it and believe that there's going to be a nominee other than Donald Trump, so I can say I can support the nominee of the party. I see. I'm curious here, whenever you call yourself in the non-Trump lane, are we just talking politically or are we also talking policy? What are your biggest policy differences right now with the former president?

Well, my biggest policy differences is that he tends toward isolationism. Okay. You know, whenever he set the stage for a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, it set the stage then for Biden's disastrous withdrawal from that country that we all saw on the world stage and live in our TV at home. Secondly, he added trillions of dollars to our national debt that he didn't have control over the spending and it wasn't a priority for his. Thirdly, whenever you look at the disruptions

that he causes, whether it is in our trading relationships with our trading partners, our allies across the globe. That has not been helpful to us and the steadiness of our economy. So there's substantive differences that I'll be raising during the debate and through the course of campaign. How long would you have stayed in Afghanistan? You know, we can, the key is like, how long do you stay in Europe after World War II? We still have a presence there. So indefinitely?

Well, we're indefinitely in Europe. There's not an active insurgence in Europe, right? Well, you've got a lot happening in Ukraine right now. Sure. Let me get to that. No, no. So if you look at Afghanistan, you look at what's happened since our complete withdrawal. You've had women's rights suppressed.

The Taliban has taken over. And it is ripe for terrorist training camps again. And we've lost lives there going after Osama bin Laden. So should we go back in if you were president? No, no, no, no. It's, you know, the die is cast, but you could have kept a minimal presence there that would have kept the Taliban in check, that would have given that country a possibility of a future, and that they don't go back into the repression of rights that that country has been known for through history. So yes, I think that we should have had a longer presence there. The key is listening to your military advisors. And no military advisor said, yes, we need to have 100% withdrawal from Afghanistan. That was

a presidential decision. Well, it's also what the American people supported after so many decades of war. Right. And the war has to end, whether it's the Ukraine war or whether it is Afghanistan. But a presence there, just like South Korea, we have a presence there. We have a presence in Europe. We can have a small presence in Afghanistan. Now, it's too late, but that's a kind of sacrifice that our men and women in the military made for getting Osama bin Laden, for changing the leadership of the country. That was the righteous cause that we had after 9-11. And you don't leave a vacuum that is filled with the same terrorists that we went and defeated. Well, I think it's interesting because the way that you laid out the conflict, we agree. Every way we went to Afghanistan in order to remove and kill Osama bin Laden. Then we eventually transitioned to some sort of democracy project.

So I guess that the quibble and kind of why we're pressing you here is like, why was it worth the several hundred million dollars per year, the potential loss of American lives, the violation of the peace treaty that President Trump signed with the Taliban in order to keep, like you're saying, women's rights in Afghanistan? We can say that women's rights is important, but why is it worth the blood and toil of American soldiers as well as American treasure to continue that presence there? Well, I mean, first of all, we didn't need to have that deal with the Taliban. Okay. The negotiating with the Taliban. But then we would have been at war with the Taliban. Well, you know, Afghanistan was largely stabilized, largely stabilized before our withdrawal. And that's what set the stage for the disarray and the suppression of rights that you

see today. And I don't believe it's the obligation of the United States to use our military forces to correct every human rights violation across the globe. No. We have to act in our national interest. It was in our national interest to go into Afghanistan. And that case was much stronger than ever going into Iraq. No argument here. So Afghanistan was the national interest to go in there. Once you go in, and as Colin Powell said, once you break it, you own it.

Well, we broke it, and we didn't own it. We didn't stick with our support of the allies. And it wasn't just, you know, you mentioned the agreement with the Taliban. More importantly, our agreement with our allies that we are in there and we want you in there. And all of a sudden, our withdrawal disrupted our relationship with our European allies and others that had followed the good faith leadership of the United States, that this is an important place to go for the global war on terrorism. So, Governor, let's talk a little bit about Ukraine.

You know, do you basically support President Biden's approach to the Ukraine war? Are there areas where you differ? You know, I think there's a lot of areas that he has done well in this. He's unified the European community in support of it, which wasn't hard in the sense that they're threatened. He has been consistent in his support of Ukraine. The differences that I would have would be in his decision making. It is very, very slow. And that slowness has cost a lot of lives. Give us an example of that.

Well, the F-16s. He meditated for, what, four months before he decided that we ought to give them F-16s. And that was too long in the decision making. The Abram tanks are the same way that it took a long time to decide we want to give them our Abram tanks. Then once we've made that decision, then it's a slow process in getting them there. America is a great company. We ought to be able to move quicker than that. And that saves lives and will end the war much quicker. So you had no qualms that the Ukrainians would use F-16s to strike Russian territory? I didn't say that. I didn't say it. And I said that we ought to give them F-16s. That's first in defending their own territory, and it could be reclaiming the territory that Russia invaded them and took from them.

So that's always appropriate when we look at our support as to how this is used. And that's part of listening to the strategic military advice and working with Ukraine as to what restrictions and understandings they would be on those F-16s. But primarily, you've got to reclaim the territory you lost. Certainly. One of the reasons that President Biden didn't do it is, we learned this later through FISA intercepts, is that President

Zelensky said he directly wants F-16s in order to be able to strike Russian territory. So given his assurances, I mean, at what level are we supposed to hold the word of our Ukrainian allies when we have private intercepts, and in some cases even public protestations, about the limits of American aid on their ability to strike against actual Russian territory, not even disputed Crimean territory. We're talking about Rostov and deeper inside of Russia. Well, those are tougher calls, and they're strategic calls. I mean, obviously, you don't want attacks on military targets that are not relevant to the war in Ukraine. But if you've got a base right across the line that's sending in rockets that kill civilians, you might have a need to take out that position.

So under your presidency, you would be fine with the Ukrainian military undertaking an operation like that, giving aids given by the United States taxpayer? It has to be very clearly defined. We're giving them support with our military armament. They have discretion as to how they use it. But just like the cluster bombs that we made a decision, President Biden made a decision, had to go there. That's not an ideal decision. Do you support it, though? Well, I would like to think if I'd been president, we wouldn't have lost our ability to produce

traditional ammunition, and we would have been better prepared that we'd never had to have that as an option. I mean, so I would like to believe that that would have never happened under my leadership. It's not ideal. Now, whenever you're in a desperate situation, you need ammunition. You know, do you go to that level? You know, President Biden said yes on that. But the point being, you've got, you know, understandings as how that's going to be used. And if Ukraine violates those understandings, we've got a pretty heavy hand to withdraw a level of support and say, all right, you're not going to get the next round of F-16s if you're not following our guidance and understanding the sensitivity of attacks in Russia or excessive use of those cluster bombs. How do you think about the risk of escalation? Because, listen, we agree with you that the Ukrainian cause is just, we're all on the same

page there. However, we have to acknowledge the reality that Russia is a nuclear-armed superpower and there is some risk. Then this is part of why Biden has been slow in these decisions and why, frankly, I think that sending F-16s, and I certainly think cluster bombs are a mistake, is because you continue up this chain. Where does it ultimately lead? There are a lot of people raising alarms about the possibility of tactical nukes being deployed and what sort of broader conflagration that could lead to. How would you think about and manage those risks as president of the United States? What would be the upper ceiling or is there an upper ceiling limit on your support? Well, yeah, the limits are, first of all, we're not sending our personnel there.

And that's what we're trying to avoid. So, you know, we're not putting our men and women at risk in Ukraine. And that's a line that I draw. Very critical. Secondly, you want to make sure that you get material to them timely and that they have the ability to defend their freedom and their territory. And that's what's at stake. It is sovereignty and freedom. And Russia violated sovereignty and freedom. And the United States, if we ever stand for anything, it is to stand for those oppressed by invading armies. And so providing the material is in our national interest. And, you know, you ask, you know, what's the line? First of all, Russia should not dictate our principles of engagement or our principles of support. And so whenever...

Are we risking nuclear war? That's the bottom line question here. We risk it every day. Whenever you have a confrontation over the South China Sea with another nuclear power, that's a risk. You have to measure risk. And there's two ways that you handle it as president. One is to show strength so they don't test that metal in the decision-making. And then secondly, that you have people in that office that understand judgment, crisis,

and how to manage that. Whenever I had a standoff when I was United States Attorney with a terrorist group in northern Arkansas, I was asked by the hostage rescue team to come in and to assist in the negotiation. They gave me a bulletproof vest. I went out there and I did that. And guess what? We didn't have a shootout. We had a peaceful resolution of that

in which I prosecuted the violators in court, but we didn't have the armed shootout loss of life that ever I expected to happen. And so that's good judgment. Last question on Ukraine. Do you support NATO membership for Ukraine? I do not. Whenever you look at NATO,

that would trigger our personnel under the Article 5 provisions of our NATO agreements. And so that's part of the reason we need to continue to support Ukraine independently of NATO so that Article 5 is not triggered. And so during this time of war, NATO should be off the table. Got it. Let me ask you about an issue that has obviously come to the fore of our politics after the Dobbs decision, Roe versus Wade being overturned. I know you signed as governor fairly restrictive law in the state of Arkansas. I also know you're on the record saying that if it was on your desk, you would sign some sort of national abortion ban with some exceptions. Former Vice President Mike Pence is on the record saying that, you know, in the national ban,

he envisions women who are carrying non-viable fetuses would be required to carry those to term. Do you agree with that stance from former Vice President Mike Pence? If that bill was on your desk, would you sign it? The only commitment I've made is that if there was a 15-week prohibition with the exceptions of the life of the mother, the cases of rape and incest, then if that's a consensus that Congress arrives at, then I would sign that. I think beyond that, the exceptions are very important important and that I'm sure will be discussed in the conference and as to whether Congress can agree upon that. I do not believe Congress will be able to reach the supermajority agreement that's necessary.

Sure, but we're trying to figure out what your views are on the issue, right? So for you, if that came to your desk and it didn't have an exception for non-viable fetuses, would you, you know, would you sign that bill? I'll just tell you what I did in Arkansas. Of course, whenever the bill came to my desk that had restrictions on abortion and they actually passed it with only the life of the mother as an exception, I wrote a letter saying I would have, my policy is believing that rape and incest should be included. And so I would have to see more evidence that that would be medically necessary and to make sure that if that exception is in there,

that it is carefully drawn to make sure there's not an instance in which the doctor simply makes a mistake and you do have a live fetus. Let me ask you about the politics of abortion. What is your theory of the case on 2022? How much do you think abortion had to do with midterm losses for Republicans? Was it a lot? Was it a little? Was it mostly Trump? What's your theory? Mostly Trump. You think it was mostly Trump? You don't think abortion had much to do with it? You know, you look at states like Wisconsin, and it was a big issue there, and it was a factor.

But the overarching cause of our defeat in 2020 was the fact that President Trump invoked himself and recruited candidates that were looking to the past and not to the future and were not solving problems, Pennsylvania being a good example of that. You know, in terms of 2024, sure, it's going to be an issue because it's an undecided policy matter in our states, in our national government. Candidates are going to have to talk about it. Secondly, the Democrats are going to make it an issue. They're going to push that envelope and that divide. And the candidates just have a responsibility to say what's in their heart,

what their convictions are. And people understand that this is one that we're going to have some disagreements on. So it's 15 weeks. Is that a hard line for you? Or if there was a six-week ban on the table, is that something you would be open to? You know, where are you specifically? I'm going to, specifically, you're going to have to have reasonable restrictions with reasonable exceptions and a consensus at the national level. And, you know, part of the job of developing a consensus is what happens in the state level between now and then because the states are our testing grounds as to what's working, what's not working, what is the right values for a particular state. And so we're just not there yet to start making those decisions. 15 weeks is what is a bill that's on the table that has some support. It mirrors many of the European

exceptions and policies it's made as well. So that's something that is acceptable. Beyond that, let's see where we go. All right. So let me ask you a few kind of lightning round. We can get some quick responses on some economic issues. So on Social Security, you're president of the United States. Do you think it should be cut? Do you think it should be increased? Do you think it should stay as it is? I would handle this by doing the same thing Ronald Reagan did, which is create a commission for the future of Medicare and Social Security, have them make recommendations for the long-term sustainability of it,

and obviously part of that is controlling cost. And so that's how I would approach it because it's not going to be solved in a presidential campaign. But you're open to cuts? I wouldn't define them as cuts. I would define them as obviously cost-saving measures to sustain it for the future. Okay. Minimum wage, I know in Arkansas, I think it's $11 an hour right now, significantly higher than the national minimum wage. Would you fight to increase the minimum wage? Do you think it should stay as it is or would you get rid of it altogether? At the federal level? Yes. Well, I mean, it's become irrelevant at the federal level because the states have superseded the minimum

wage, just like Arkansas, at $11. So you'd leave it as is? Not all states. Some states. Some states are still lower. The minimum wage ought to be raised at the federal level. I don't think that is an urgent economic matter because the wage rates have gone up dramatically. It has become irrelevant. Minimum wage is always a floor. And if you had the floor today, it should have to be much, much higher. But I don't see the need for making a change because it doesn't help anything right now. What about income taxes on highest earners in the United States? Do you think it's too high, too low, or just about right? And given that you would be elect, if elected, by 2025, the tax cuts would be expiring

under President Trump. You would have a significant say on that. Well, the tax cuts that were brought into play under President Trump should be extended. Okay. That's important for economic growth. On our tax policy, it needs to be a pro-growth tax policy in which we spur the economy to grow.

I believe we have that right now. If there are adjustments to be made to stimulate more growth, I would look at those. In terms of the higher-end taxpayers, I don't see a change there. Obviously, when you go back in history and under President Carter, we were at a 70% income tax rate if you got to a high level. No country should take 70 cents out of every dollar earned. That's a disincentive for work, for success, and entrepreneurship. The Trump tax cuts obviously went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest individuals and corporations. What we saw from corporations was the theory was, oh, they'll invest in their people.

They'll invest in innovation. Overwhelmingly, what they did is rewarding themselves with stock buybacks. So why does that make sense to continue when 83 cents on of every dollar went to the top? Well, I know many companies did invest in their employees, raised their wage rates, gave bonuses. And so, you know, that's what companies should do. They have to make decisions on how they manage their funds, but it's important for them to be able to invest in capital, equipment, and once you slow down that investment, the economy slows down. And once that economy slows down, people lose jobs, our debt goes up, our deficit goes up.

So we need to incentivize growth and capital investment in this country. And that's what the previous tax bill did. And let's continue that. Well, my last question here is on the stock buybacks, like Crystal was just alluding to. You're from Bentonville, Arkansas. We were talking at the beginning

before we started about Sam Walton. Sam Walton built a massive empire by investing almost every dollar back into the company, but specifically in hardware and actually building new stores in the wages and actually developing its workforce. Why do you think stock buyback should be allowed then in that case? Walmart, particularly lately, has invested much more in financialization than in many of the things that made the company once great. Do you think that should be allowed? I mean, would you keep that as president? your general theory here under business? Well, my general theory is that stock buybacks are

artificial, holding the price value in order to protect the equity investors. And so that is not a priority that we should have for businesses. And so I don't like the policy. We shouldn't encourage that. They used to be banned. Was that something you'd be open to? You know, I don't like telling businesses how they need to invest. Now, you know, as Ronald Reagan said, if you want to increase it, subsidize it. If you want to decrease it, tax it. And so there is

some merit even as a conservative in using that for pro-growth. If it's stymie growth, then we ought to look at discouraging that. And do you think politicians should be allowed to trade individual stocks? No. Okay. No, I'll tell you, just, you know, Congress, they have too much information that they know that the average citizen does not know. And so they should not be trading. All right. Governor, very grateful for your time. Thank you so much. Great to have you in today. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it very much. Good to be with you.

Yeah. Good luck to you. This is an iHeart Podcast.