Meet the Press - April 16, 2023
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Hey, thank you, Chuck.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I mean, I'm not quite sure what you're asking there. I mean, I can sign on briefs all day. I'm not sure that has any great importance. I think what is important is that we have a political process by which we resolve these issues. That particular ruling seems to be going through -- it was on a process-oriented thing. Among the reasons that they ruled that way, I'm told, is that the FDA did not follow correctly the Administrative Procedures Act. Now, that's a question of fact. It can be resolved by the courts. It's actively being resolved. I think the broader question is how do you resolve the issues in general. I think that returning it to the states to allow a state's values to guide is very important. In Massachusetts and New York, California, nothing changes. In my state, a law written by a Democratic female state senator and signed into law by a Democratic governor established a more pro-life statute. That's the way I think it's going to resolve politically, I think the way it's going to resolve socially and culturally.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
So I think you're going back to the kind of assertion that the principle basis of the court case in Texas was about the safety. And I think specifically it said that it was supposed to -- the accelerated pathway was supposed to approve a drug to treat an illness. It is a stretch to call a pregnancy an illness. And of course, obviously we know what happens to the unborn baby. And so I'm not quite really sure that you're framing this question accurately. Now, beyond that is also a cultural and social issue. In my state, we are a pro-life state. We have legislation which is far more pro-life than it is in, say, California. But the Californians keep their law, and we keep our law, and that's the way it's going to work out nationally.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I think that's totally alarmist. It's totally alarmist. And by the way, when did the FDA go above the law? It can ignore the Administration Procedure Act, which every other agency has to follow theoretically, but they don't have to? So, I mean, I think that's alarmist. And I also think that the FDA should not be above the law.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
If he's speaking about the public's perception, I would say that'd be the case, that would be the case. There was a doctor from New Jersey who was testifying before Congress and just grieving about how all of her patients were fearful. I'm thinking, "Nothing's going to change in New Jersey." She doesn't understand the law. Or if she understands it, she's deliberately mischaracterizing. So there is a perception issue out there. But what Dobbs does, it returns to states the decisions to allow the decision to be reflective of the state. In New Jersey, it doesn't change. In Louisiana, it reflects our values. Again, a law written by a Democratic female state senator, signed into law by a Democratic governor. So I agree with kind of the premise of what Governor Sununu said, but I'm kind of disagreeing with how you're presenting it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
I think Dobbs is the uncomfortable middle ground, where people will confront that there is a diversity of opinion. And no one group has the ability to impose their will upon the other. And so Dobbs, I think, was the correct decision.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
First, I think that the Dobbs decision was the correct decision. You can give me theoreticals all day long. You truly can. I'm pro-life, by the way. I am pro-life. But the fact is, you're going to need 60 votes to get something through the Senate. What Tammy Baldwin was just talking about, there can be no restrictions in the states upon abortion, meaning that a child could be coming through the birth canal and could still be aborted, is that right? No, it's wrong. And most Americans think that is wrong. And the fact is, Tammy will not get that through the Senate. There's not 60 votes for allowing that. On a bipartisan basis, it's already been rejected. So I kind of reject giving me theoretical after theoretical just because I just -- I mean, that's what you do if you want to fill air time and get people buzzing. But it's not how we actually govern.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
You know, both Joe Biden and former President Trump have the same plan, which is to do nothing on Social Security, and to allow a 24% cut to benefits when the fund goes insolvent in about eight or nine years. They both have the same plan. It does make it harder. When your leading presidential candidates have made the decision to deceive the American people and to say there isn't a problem, when every actuary who looks at this says that there is a problem, and someone who's currently receiving -- 80 years old, otherwise would be in poverty -- will get a 24% cut in their benefits by current law, it makes it very hard when they are so irresponsible. It is true for President Biden. It is true for former President Trump.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
What we have is a big idea. And in our big idea, we create a fund which is separate from Social Security. We put about $1.5 trillion in it and we allow it to be invested in the nation's economy. There's no risk borne by the beneficiary. And there's no Social Security dollars put into this separate fund. And we allow it to sit there. And we allow it to grow. And at the end, it bridges, helps bridge Social Security's sustainability. All the risk is borne by the fund. Now, what you do in the additional 25% -- that is 75% of what we need to do. The additional 25% are dials that politically we have to come together and resolve. If one side proposes something, the other side will demagogue it. We see Trump and we see Biden demagoguing it now. We need honesty with the American people. But we have a big idea that'll solve 75% of the problem, and that's a pretty good idea.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Thank you, Chuck.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source