Unemployment right now is at 4.1%.

Inflation is at 2.8.

250,000 new jobs created, according to the last report.

The Dow is at 43,000.

How is this not a good economy?

Look, we've had some leading indicators move, but I think talking to New Jersey voters in all 21 counties, everyone realizes how much more expensive things are than four years ago.

I mean, what's happened in the inflation over the last four years, it's not solved when you look at what groceries cost four years ago to what they cost today, what fuel and heating oil and all those things cost.

This is a burden for New Jersey families.

So the solution isn't, I don't think, to spend another trillion seven.

I don't think you can force it by saying, oh, we're just going to cut prices or we're going to give away things here.

I mean, I know from I house 180 of our employees, affordability is a very important thing.

But I think these things don't get solved in the halls of Washington.

And think tanks, I think they get solved by unshackling our business people, making sure they can get permits to do the building, making sure interest rates are low, and that we're not living beyond our means as a country.

And I think political outsiders and business people will make a difference in these issues.

We can't have more of the same.

It hasn't worked.

Used to be that you could get a blue collar job, what they used to call blue collar jobs and earn a living, raise a family with it.

The current minimum wage in New Jersey is 15 bucks, about half that on the national level.

You're an employer.

Curtis, How do you pay your folks $15 an hour, I assume?

Are you union shop at your places?

We're not.

We have had hotels that were union hotels in Atlantic City through our career, but in Cape May yet.

There's very few people that make minimum wage of our 1000 employees.

All right.

We we understand the affordability issue and there's a supply and demand issue with labor.

I mean, there's we need workers and we pay well.

And look, I mean, I think this is an example, though, again, of the differences here.

I mean, I do think we need to make sure that we're investing in our unions and our workers.

You know, Mr. Bashaw, you know, oppose the, you know, post trying to increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 up.

I disagree with that.

You know, I think when you're talking about something that really would pay, what, 15, $16,000 a year, no one in this country can be able to live off of that.

What would you like to see in a federal bill that would codify abortion?

I think that we need to codify a woman's right to choose.

In all 50 states federally.

I think that a reasonable restriction would be that there is a viability determination based on doctors and a conversation.

You're not willing to say at what point you think that there should be a.

Right not.

To be.

A woman.

I think that that's a process that we need to go through to come to common ground.

Okay.

Let me ask you this then.

Let's say you get elected to Senate, a federal abortion bill comes up for a vote.

Would you be willing to say right here that you would break from your party to vote in favor of that bill?

Look, when my party's right, I'm going to defend them and support them.

And when my party's not right, I'm going to stand up to it.

I'm Curtis Bashaw.

I'm running for this Senate seat to represent New Jersey.

I'm my own person.

I don't agree with my husband on everything.

So I'm going to be that person.

And I think people that know me understand that.

So, Mr. Kim what's the difference, then, between the two of you here?

If you're both pro-choice, do you support abortions without any restrictions?

Do you support on demand abortions without restrictions?

Well, look, I think the number one difference between us is that, you know, I believe that abortion is constitutionally protected.

You know, my opponent, Mr. Bashaw, does not.

You know, I think a woman's right to choose her ability to make decisions about her own body is fundamental to what it means to have freedom in this country.

You know, but we shouldn't have government being able to tell us, you know, what we can do with our own bodies.

So I think that that's the fundamental difference.

That's why I take.

That's why I take opposition to Mr. Bashar saying that he's pro-choice.

Because, you know, I think when you're talking about that, you're talking about, you know, the fundamental freedoms about the Constitution be able to do this.

The fact right now is we do not have choice right now for so many women over 12 states fully banning abortion right now.

Six of them, you know, are banning this, including life of the mother.

Ten have no exceptions for rape.

And so to your other question about, you know, where does this go?

I mean, what I would say is, you know, this is something that a woman can decide.

And what we've seen is that when there are restrictions that are put into place that is being weaponized in those states, I mean, in Alabama, you can go to jail for 99 years if you perform an abortion.

They're going after doctors.

Doctors are worried about doing anything, even when it comes to miscarriages and other issues out there, because they're worried about legal repercussion.

So, you know, Mr. Bashaw said that he thinks that there's a common sense approach that, you know, we can come together as a country on this issue.

I'm not sure what you have seen about how this debate has gone down in our country right now.

But it is very toxic and it is very corrosive.

I do not see how you going down to the U.S. Senate is going to single handedly change everything that we see.

On the question of mass deportation.

Do you support that proposal by the former president?

And how would something like that work and what would the impact of that be?

I don't think that that's feasible.

Personally, I think that that is really impractical.

I do think that we need to know who's here.

And it's why because there's more people coming every day.

I think it just makes sense to secure the border.

We have let's not make the problem about those.

So those who are people say I would.

Definitely and getting to know who they all are, if they're a criminal or have a criminal history from their country or from our country, I think that that's reasonable to ask them to go home.

But I think we need to have a compassionate conversation and we need to work on some paths for citizenship.

In my opinion, I don't think it's possible to deport 10 million people.

Well, not impossible to be able to do.

But look, it would also be terrible for our economy as well.

You know, this is something that, you know, when I talk to people across New Jersey, you know, I talked to a lot of businesses say, look, we need the workforce right now.

You know, can we make sure that people coming in that they can get, you know, the work authorization and other things like that?

So, you know, I think it makes economic sense.

I mean, I think on this question, Mr. Bash and I are on a similar path.

We want to make sure that there are pathway forwards past the dream and promise Act for our Dreamers.

You know, that used to be bipartisan.

I hope we can be that find more people that we can work with in different ways.

But yeah, look, I mean, I think that that's something that we want to make sure we're addressing.

When when should deportation be an option?

Well, look, I mean, I think we've we have on the books, for instance, already, that, you know, if somebody is convicted of crimes, especially violent crimes, drug offenses, other things like that, yes.

Those are a means by which to be able to deport.

And we have that on the law.

In the law already.

And those are actions I think I would be supportive of.

You've both now said that you support Israel's right to defend itself.

The Biden administration on Sunday sent a letter to the Israeli government stating essentially that it needs to get in check with regard to the humanitarian crisis and potential human rights violations.

30 days to do that or putting the aid from the U.S. in jeopardy.

Should Israel have the right to defend itself without conditions on weapons and aid?

I'll ask you first.

I think you have allies for a reason.

They're your friends and you trust them.

And I don't think that war is the type of thing that you can micromanage.

I think Israel has a right to run its war.

I don't even want it's with a regional powerhouse like Iran and not a proxy war like it was previously.

Well, Israel has a right to defend and win and Iran has now attacked Israel.

Mr. Kim.

Well, when we have partners and allies around the world, we support many of them.

But we should have a single standard.

You know, we have to hold our, you know, certain of accountability.

And when we're a partner, yes, we work with them to understand, you know, what is going to take for them to win, what is the right types of defense equipments, people to do so.

And yes, we should have standards when it comes to access to humanitarian aid and other aspects of that to make sure that this is going through the proper way to be able to make sure will hold in that sense.

We do that for our own troops.

You know, I'm on the Armed Services Committee.

We hold our own troops accountable in that way.

And, yes, I think we should hold everyone to that standard.

So do you think that the Biden administration should there's this thing, the Leahy law, Right.

Which is named after the Vermont senator, which applies those standards in those conditions.

But the Biden administration has it has not used it so far and applying it to Israel, Should they?

Should the administration be enforcing that?

Yes, we should.

We should enforce that standard all over the world.

You know, and and yes, I do believe that our partners yesterday should be held to account, because, again, those are the same laws that we have, our own troops held to.