Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. The program you're about to hear was intended to be a debate between two candidates, but today my guest is Kailee Buller, who is the Republican challenging the Democrat John Mannion in New York's 22nd congressional district. We extended the same debate invitation to both campaigns. Our longstanding practice made clear that both campaigns in the invitation is that if only one candidate accepts our invitation, we will go forward with an interview of that candidate. And unfortunately, Congressman Mannion declined. The 22nd district contains all of Onondaga and Madison counties and portions of Oneida, Cortland, and Cayuga counties, including the cities of Syracuse, Utica, and Auburn. Ms. Buller, welcome back to the program. And I just want to say at the beginning, I appreciate your willingness to engage in a debate. I'm sorry that we couldn't do that, but I am glad that you are here to talk with me. Let me just start by giving you a chance for the benefit of those who may not have caught my previous interview with you a few months ago, if you could very briefly just reintroduce yourself to our listeners.
Kailee Buller: Well, thank you for having me. And this is the kind of leader that I'm going to be. I want to be open to all invitations and have conversations with people of all different beliefs. So, my name is Kailee Buller, running for Congress, New York 22, Republican conservative candidate for Congress, grew up blue collar, dad's a prison guard, mom's a nurse. Went away to college, worked hard, was saddled in student loan debt, and there weren't a lot of jobs here in the Syracuse area when I graduated in 2011. So, I went to DC, didn't have any money, and just worked really hard. I became a CEO. I've been a lobbyist. I've worked for President Trump and the Trump administration, and I've gotten a lot of things done in a bipartisan manner with members of Congress and when the Biden administration and the Obama administration were in. And so I've seen how things work in DC, and we've been left behind in central New York, so I'm ready to fight for central New York. My family never left. I've come back my whole career, and I moved my family back in February to run for this seat and I'm proud to be here. And as I talk to constituents, I feel very needed and I feel like I'm in the right place.
GR: Well, thank you, I appreciate that. So let me get into the questions then. You've made a lot of criticisms of the incumbent, John Mannion. What do you think, if you had to choose, are the three most important ones? You know, the three most important reasons that voters should choose you over the incumbent?
KB: I mean, we are struggling more here in this part, this area of New York, in this part of the country than more than any other place in the entire country and a lot of that is for broken tax and energy policies. And a lot of these policies are things that John Mannion spearheaded and voted for when he was in the state Senate and then went to Congress and really didn't do anything about those things. So, number one, he voted for increased taxes while he was a state senator. We have the highest tax in the whole country. Number two, when he was in Congress, he voted against the tax cuts. He voted no on no tax on tips, no on no tax on overtime, no on no tax and Social Security, no on the child care tax credit, and then he says he's an affordability guy. When he was in the state Senate, he voted to ban gas stoves, he voted to ban gas cars. He's been a proponent of the renewable energy endeavor that we're on. And listen, I'm all for all of the above energy, but we don't have that here in New York. And if you're a true affordability candidate, and if you're looking to help the citizens of New York right now, they are struggling with their energy bills, extremely. And Congressman Mannion hasn't done anything but just add his name to a bill a week ago that got introduced a year ago that has no chance of passing. And so, I'm someone who is very action oriented. And John Mannion likes to complain and he says he's a moderate. His voting record is more aligned with AOC, 98% Democrat. So, I would say the crisis that we're in in New York State is in part thanks to John Mannion's voting record and the things that he believes. And he really needs to open up and get away from the partisanship and talk to people where they are and understand that we have to compromise. We need to start drilling here, we need to start opening up nuclear quicker. All these things need to happen to broaden our options and lower our costs.
GR: So I want to pick up on that affordability theme that you just brought up, because that is, been, at least as far as I can tell, one of the main themes of your messaging more generally that Mannion has made this affordability problem worse and not better. What would you be advocating in that regard that would actually help? I'm gathering from what you just said, that some tax relief would be part of that expanded energy development as you say on all fronts. But tell us a little bit more about how you would attack the affordability problem.
KB: Sure. And I've laid out my five point plan, I'm a very policy heavy person and I know what needs to happen. I laid all that out in April very transparently on my website, and now we're on the trail talking about it. But number one, as the highest taxed state in the nation, I'll never support a tax increase, period, full stop. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. More taxes is not equaling better services. We have some of the poorest people in the whole country that I've ever seen, our homeless population is through the roof. Number two, on the energy side of the house, I support fast tracking state, local and federal nuclear. I support building the Constitution pipeline, which Kathy Hochul and John Mannion have refused to do. We could open up a lot of union jobs, and we could actually be drilling our own energy here. We're sitting on a very lucrative, the Marcellus Shale here right now. Pennsylvania is run by a Democrat governor and a Democrat House and they have wind, they have solar, they have nuclear, they have hydro, and they are fracking and they are drilling, and we are buying 86% of our natural gas from Pennsylvania. Please explain to me how a Democrat governor is making this work. It's not Democrat or Republican, we have the wrong Democrats in office serving us. They're not serving us, they're serving some larger political pet project and we need to take a step back and look at other states, red or blue, who are doing this better than us. Pennsylvania is one of the biggest states that we are losing migration to, not outward migration, Pennsylvania and Florida are two of the highest ones. Democrat state. We have the wrong Democrats in who aren't thinking about all of us.
GR: That's interesting. I knew about Florida. I wouldn't have guessed Pennsylvania, but, well, there's a long border there. Let me ask you this, and this is a question that kind of comes out of the problem of spending and taxing, it's about the national debt. And this is something I have been thinking about a lot, both as a political scientist and as a citizen. The national debt relative to the size of our economy is now rivaling what it was in World War Two. This is a bipartisan thing. Obama saw it go up, Biden saw it go up, but so did Bush 43 and Donald Trump has presided over this as well. Now, you say you wouldn't consider a tax increase, full stop, because of the situation that New Yorkers face being in either the or one of the highest taxed states in the country. But I don't see how we're going to get out of that national debt problem without something on the revenue side, at the national level anyway. Could you just talk more about how you think we could get our hands around this national debt problem, without raising taxes apparently?
KB: The national debt is one thing that makes me sick. We are over $40 trillion, and I started out as a tax and fiscal analyst back in 2010 - 2011. And when that happened, we were talking about how Social Security is going to become insolvent. And now we're among that time frame. About 2032, everyone on Social Security is going to get an 18% to 22% haircut unless people in Congress have a fix. And so, there is a lot at stake with our national debt. And I think a lot of people are like, oh, you know, someone else can deal with it, but this is now our kids’ and our grandkids’ problem and we have to have good people in Congress who understand how to balance a checkbook. I have to balance our checkbook every, you know, month with my husband, the government should too. And there's so much that needs to happen here. So, it's going to take a lot of different ideas. It's going to take a commission to figure a lot of these things out, but it needs to be people on both sides of the aisle who actually understand tax and fiscal policy when it comes to Social Security, for instance, everyone who's paid into it has to have it. But my kids, we have to reform the program for people. My kids are six, three and two, I'm a mom, 37, three young kids, and this is not sustainable. And people aren't having kids at the level that they were when these programs were, and people are living longer. So, when these programs were made, they were well-intentioned, but we have to acknowledge they're not working for how far we've come as a society. It's great that people are living longer, it's great that people have control over how many kids they want to have, if at all, but that's putting us in a vulnerable situation. And this is one thing I very much disagree with the Trump administration on, and I'm endorsed by the president, I've worked for the president, but I don't like how we’re deficit spending at all. And it's been a criticism when I was in there in the first term and in the second term, and someone has to come in and get this together, and there has to be leadership at the presidential level. And, you know, we can make some ground on some of the waste, fraud and abuse, and I commend the administration, they've done that, but we can't get there with just waste fraud and abuse, and I understand that, I understand the numbers. So, I can't tell you today the exact way to approach it, because I alone would never be able to fix this, but it would have to be a group of 10, 12, 20 of us who actually understand this and want to get the right solution. Because when you negotiate, someone is always going to give up a concession and someone is always going to, you know, it's give and take. No side comes away with a perfect win.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm speaking with Kailee Buller, the Republican who's running for Congress in New York's 22nd district. I just want to say I appreciate what you put in at the end that waste, fraud and abuse cutting is not going to get us all the way there. I think too often people hide behind that, so I appreciate what you're saying on that. Let me just follow up and say then what I'm hearing from you is that you are willing to, through a bipartisan process with a commission reminiscent perhaps, of the one during the Reagan administration looking at Social Security, and I believe the late Senator Pat Moynihan was part of that, to take a serious look at Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Do I have that right?
KB: Yeah. I mean, listen, the deficit spending isn't just happening on only those programs. Those are the biggest ones, obviously, but then you look at, you know, the wars that we find ourselves in, I'm not supportive of the Iran war, I've been very vocal about that. I grew up during Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't want to see boots on the ground, and there's a lot of money being spent on a lot of these wars. And, you know, I think all of us want peace through strength, and we want to take care of America first. A lot, especially a lot of people in the younger generation. They're like, people are struggling here in America, we have to take care of America, and that's true, too. And two things are true at once but we're spending a lot of money on a lot of different things. And we need a full audit, and that's the other reason, I believe, that we should have fully transparent expenses at all levels of government. And Auburn is a microcosm where I live, I can't see the line by line breakdown of what they're spending money on and the same thing goes at the federal level. These are all of our taxpayer dollars, and we should understand where they're going. We're a generous population, I'm a generous person, I want to help those who need it. But it's gotten extreme when you see all of this, these different levels of fraud and people spending our money and not really thinking about the ramifications of it.
GR: So, I want to ask you a question now about immigration policy. We haven't talked about that yet. It's been extremely controversial in the second Trump administration, not only across the nation, but right here and this area of central New York as well. We could have talked for the whole program on that and s till not finish the topic, but I want to just give you a chance to sketch out in broad terms, what kind of immigration policy you would like to see going forward, and in particular, what kind might you be able to imagine getting through Congress as a compromise?
KB: Yeah. So right now, the current laws on the books, which are extremely broken, are the ones are which are being enforced by the president. Congress has failed us on immigration reform time and time again for at least over a decade. I've been working on immigration reform when I was in the industry for grocery and the snack food industry, a lot of those facilities, stores, manufacturing were like, rely on immigrants. And so I understand the H-2A program very well. That's the program that farmers use and it works well for apple picking and berry picking, but it does not work well for dairy and meat because you have to milk a cow and you slaughter, you know, cattle 365 days a year, whereas apples and berries that season is short and so the H-2A labor works there. So, number one, in terms of the confines of a policy that can work, and this is again, a negotiation, number one, we have to have the border secure in law because right now the president has secured the border, but another president, Democrat or Republican, can come in and open it back up. We need to secure the border in law. Number two, any illegal immigrant here that is a criminal needs to get out. That's rape, that's molestation, that's pedophile, you know, we don't want them in their country if they're not contributing. Number three, the H-2A program needs to be fixed and expanded so dairy and meat can be allowed there. And number four, we're a compassionate population, we, and I recognize there are people who came here for the right reasons under the wrong circumstances, who've been here for many years, and they've contributed to our economy and they're admirable neighbors. And in that case, we need to find some kind of way to make them part of our community. They came here for the right reasons for the wrong circumstances, but we also need to make sure those who've waited the right way come first, and then the people who came here the wrong way, but are still good people come second. So, there's a way to do that with the right people at the table. I've worked on this issue long enough to understand that, and I think that the president could even get behind something like this if we had a bipartisan situation in this coming term. And when I'm elected, this will be one of the key priorities I want to work on, because I understand it and I think everyone automatically assumes, oh, Republicans, they, you know, hate this and that, but that's just not true. We're talking about people here, right? These are people, these are humans.
GR: You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher, and I'm talking with Kailee Buller. She's the Republican candidate for Congress in this November's elections and she's challenging Democrat John Mannion in New York's 22nd Congressional district. I wanted to follow up on the immigration issue, which we were talking about before the break, and ask if I understand something about what you said correctly. Right now, the illegal crossings into the United States or crossings in general, have really plummeted.
KB: They're gone, they're done. Zero, I've seen zero numbers, but…
GR: You've seen zero, okay, well I know they're way, way down. So can I take from that and what you said prior to the break as an indication that you going forward then would not necessarily see the need for the kind of activity that we are seeing by ICE in the different communities right now?
KB: Yeah, I mean, if you get this right and federal law and actually do it right, you wouldn't need the same level of probably ICE enforcement. And listen, ICE hasn't been perfect, they've got some things wrong and we've all seen it, you know, play out and it's horrific. None of us would condone some of the things that have happened. But there is a place for ICE. I don't support abolishing ICE. I don't support abolishing prisons. I don't support defunding the police. Like, those are irrational things. And also, I mean, we have to make sure that our, you know, prison guards, our police and our ICE agents are trained properly. A lot of these things come down to failure of training, right? So, but I believe that if we got an immigration law right, that this would be less of a situation.
GR: Well, and to your point and a question for you, the ICE initiative was stood up rather quickly, I think after January 20th. Would you not agree?
KB: I mean, yeah, listen, I ran a $200 billion, 100,000 person department at any one time if you're doing anything that quick with a huge workforce, like, things are going to go wrong and I'm not, no means defending anyone that did anything wrong, because there's absolute missteps and there's been tragedy. But sure, I mean, sometimes when you move, sometimes when you move too slow, you miss opportunities, sometimes you move too quick, you make mistakes, right? And that's just life right now.
GR: So let me ask you a question that has been getting a lot of attention in the media just this week, and it is President Trump's recent television spot, I assume that you have seen this or read of it. It was made with tax dollars, it says that right at the end of the, I think it's a 30 second spot. It's very dark, it's very ominous. He's talking about the deep state, globalists, communists and so on. What do you think of this kind of communication coming from the president?
KB: I mean, listen, the president has a lot of innovative ways to communicate, I've seen it in person. I think that he's really flipping the script on what it means to communicate. I mean, look, listen, what he did with Twitter in the first one, we've never seen that happen ever, right? So he's doing things that are different. But the president has witnessed a lot of things in his experience and a lot of those things we don't even know because they're top secret and they're behind closed doors. But I can tell you when it comes to communism, at least, is part of what you asked, I mean, I'm really nervous about a lot of, especially the youth being much more open to socialism and communism because, you know, I was a political science and history person, and I know you are too and I'd love to have a greater conversation on this and get your views. And you, you're teaching the youth, so I would love to hear where their opinions are, but, and I talk to a lot of them every day, and a lot of them have grown up in a very inherently, place where the system has screwed them, right? Like, Democrats and Republicans they’re buried in student loans. They can't find jobs that are aligned with their circumstances, especially in this area. People that I know, people that I went to college and high school with, and they've turned to drugs or they're waitressing and they're trying to pay their loans off. And so, the system, in a lot of ways, has failed them, and so those are a lot of the people that are looking to socialism and saying, well, why shouldn't we do that? Because, you know, the current system is not working, let's try something new. And I don't blame them for being interested in a different system. But when I look at history and around the world, first is high taxes and it's take your property, then it's take your freedoms, and that is really how we've seen socialism play out around the world. So I, as a 37 year old mom of three, I'm not interested in exploring socialism. I'm interested in giving people back more of their money and doing more of what they want with it, not taking more and then distributing it how we want to. And so, I think that's a real conversation that we need to have. We need to embrace the young people who want that and learn from them and understand, like, why are they gravitating toward that? What does that mean? Because I think there's a lot of people in politics who just want to say no, but it's like we need to talk to them and understand why they got there. And I can kind of understand it, I got lucky. I was in debt, I went and left and paid it all off and now I'm back trying to help other people who are in the circumstance I was in. But people who stayed here, they didn't have the same opportunity I did, and I want to change that. So, to your point on the commercial, you know, I don't really have an opinion on it. I just think that Trump is changing the way we communicate, for better or for worse and that's what it is and I'm going to focus on the issues that matter to central New York. And no one's asked me about that commercial but you frankly, so, which is interesting.
GR: (laughter) Okay, all right. Well, if you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is Republican congressional candidate Kailee Buller. So, you talked a little bit about this earlier, but, if you win, it’s going to be extremely likely, at least in my opinion, that you’ll be joining a minority caucus, that’s what all the polling figures seem to suggest. Tell us more about your strategies you’ll have to be effective being in the minority. You already mentioned, you know, you’re going to be looking to reach across the aisle, but give us a little more detail about how you’re going to approach that.
KB: Well, first, just as a reminder, because I know a lot of people think that I have no chance of winning this race and I want to just dispel that because this district is 35% Democrat, 32% Republican and conservative and 29% Independent and I talk to people every day who are so fed up and they want change. And part of the reason I came into this is because I've watched my family and friends suffer, and I've seen how other states do such a better job than we do here in New York in taking care of their people and giving them more opportunities. And so, part of the reason I want to do this, I want to show that even though I'm a Republican, even though I've worked in the Trump administration, there are really good Republicans out there who actually are well intentioned to actually want to work across the aisle and my career shows that. I was a lobbyist during the Obama administration, and I got the healthy food financing across the line. I was the only Republican lobbying this issue, and it was a bipartisan issue that the president signed into law for the Farm Bill, and I got that done. I lobbied Democrats and Republicans and it won by one vote in the Ag Committee and then it passed and it was signed into law. That's the first big thing that I did. In the Obama administration, I did a ton of things with biofuels. I worked with the Obama administration on a day-to-day basis on biofuels and on renewable energy issues. And that's why I say I'm not opposed to renewable energy, I actually have worked on it. So I actually have a real experience. And then when I worked inside the Trump administration, I worked with Democrats every single day that would be frustrated or they had questions. And, you know, Rosa DeLauro and Amy Klobuchar and, you know, the Pennsylvania, Fetterman, I mean, they would reach out all the time and we'd have great conversations. We didn't let it play out in the media, no one even knew we were talking but we would just, like, be helpful and have good conversation. So that's the kind of leader I'm going to be. I want to work with anyone who is well intentioned, wants to work with me. What I've seen happen in the political process is everyone just criticizes each other and my opponent does this constantly. Trump did this, Trump did that, okay, what solution do you have to fix it? I don't like just complaining, I like having a solution. Like, my team sometimes gets annoyed with me because I'm like, I don't know what my position is on that yet, I'm not going to go out and say that until I start figuring it out and rolling out exactly what I think we could actually do. I know how the process works, I know what's viable and what can't be done. I think a lot of political people get into this and say, I'm going to do this. I'm going to do that and a lot of them don't know it's not possible. I know what's possible in DC and what's not in a minority, you know, and when a president is a Democrat, again, I will work with that person, just like I'm going to work with this president. I think we've all gotten so hung up in the political party, and I want to kind of knock that down and show people that the new next generation of leaders is different.
GR: You know, j
ust for our listeners who may not be familiar, the three names you mentioned there, I was struck by DeLauro.
KB: I love her.
GR: The two of you are a little ways apart politically.
KB: I love her.
GR: Yeah, interesting, very interesting. Let me ask you this…
KB: She's extremely liberal.
GR: I know, that's why I'm asking.
KB: And I love her. And honestly, like AOC, if we have ideas we can work on together, like, I will work with anyone who wants to work together.
GR: Okay, fair enough, glad to hear it. So, let me ask the question then this way, if you're elected, and by the way, I want to make it clear both to you and our listeners, I have not seen a poll on your race, my comment was about the likely composition of the House of Representatives.
KB: Yeah, I understand.
GR: Okay. If you're elected, what former member of Congress from this district, if any, meaning, I don't mean the 22nd by number, I mean, you know…
KB: The area, because it’s changed so much.
GR: Yeah, it’s changed, yeah, the district that's centered around the city of Syracuse. Is there one that you would most closely resemble? People who can remember them, can look back and say, okay, she's saying she would be most like…?
KB: I mean, certainly John Katko comes to mind, but I've talked with every one of the members. I've talked with Ann Marie Buerkle, I've talked with Brandon Williams, I’ve talked with Katko, I've talked with Walsh, like, I’ve really wanted to dig in. And I love hearing people's feedback and advice and that I make my own assumptions and then I kind of make my decisions, but they've all been tremendously helpful and very thoughtful and have had really good guidance for me. So, I want to bring that statesmanship back to central New York. This is still a moderate district, even though the Dems slightly outrank the Republicans here. And in my opinion, Kathy Hochul and John Mannion are too radical for where the state and where this area needs to be. And that's what frustrates me and part of the reason I want to run, because I watched John Mannion get elected and he was moderate and I'm like, he's likable, I think he'll be good for the district. Dan Maffei was here, he wasn't terrible, right? Like, he's a really smart guy, he was a Democrat, like, this area can go back and forth, but John Mannion's voting record and what he says are two very different things. And for me, I want to come out and say, I voted for this because X, instead he votes and just like hopes you're not watching, and that's not a statesman. And Katko was and Walsh was and even Brandon was and Ann Marie.
GR: So, let's broaden this and say, what living American politician right now do you most admire and why?
KB: Mike Lawler has been someone who's been really helpful to me and how he's been able to navigate (unintelligible) he has 100,000 more Democrats. He and I are both very moderate and we're both, he's 40, I'm 37, he has young kids, I have young kids. So, he is someone that I look up to, and I also call for advice because we're just pragmatic. We're different, we fight back when it's right, but we, you know, make deals and we'll talk and work with anyone. And he's one of the most bipartisan members of Congress. So right now, in this moment, I would say Mike Lawler.
GR: All right. Well, we've got about a minute and a half or so left, and I wanted to leave you a little bit of time at the end to talk about any issue that I haven't asked you about, that you want our listeners to know that you'll be paying a lot of attention to if you win, because we talked about immigration, you know, we talked about affordability. Is there something else out there that you want to make sure they hear?
KB: Well, I think when it comes to good governance, listen, I signed a term limit pledge. I believe strongly in term limits. And we talked about this a little bit, but I've been a lobbyist and I see how corrupt things can get when you know, people are in for too long. So, I believe the House and Senate need to enact term limits. You get and you get out, you make a difference, and then let the next person come in and have their legacy. Like, this business of staying in until you die and you're in for years and years and years, it's not appropriate. And then I also think the gerrymandering that's happened around this country, I hate it. In New York, it's Democrat, but other states have done it Republican, and it's caused our nation to become more partisan because every cycle people have to double down and become more Republican or more Democrat to align with their new gerrymandered district. My dad lives on a street, half the street is Auburn School District, half it's Skaneateles school district. We should not be dividing streets, counties, neighborhoods and schools. It's just wrong and it's for political purposes, I don't like that. And then the other thing I will say is, I want to show everyone that I am the next generation of leader. I want to be transparent. I want to have the difficult conversations. I want to have the town halls. And that's another reason it's so disappointing that, you know, my opponent doesn't want to have live debates, he doesn't want to have open questions. He, you know, doesn't want voter ID, but he wants ID to come into his town halls. If people want to talk to me, I want to talk to them. I meet random constituents all the time. I go up to people all the time. If I'm going to represent you, I want to hear the good, the bad, and I want to represent everybody. And I learn a lot. I mean, I've been spending a lot of time at the homeless shelters and in Section 8 and I just want folks to know that I am here to give back and use my experience to make better change here and make this a place my kids can stay, your kids can stay if they want to. I didn't have that choice. And so, I think we need someone like me to do that.
GR: We'll have to leave it there. That was Kailee Buller. Ms. Buller, again, thanks so much for taking the time to talk with me.
KB: Thank you. That went so quick, how fun. I appreciate your time and having me, thank you.
GR: It always does. You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, conversations in the public interest.
