Republican Joe McGraw is running to unseat the one-term Democrat in Illinois' 17th Congressional District.
The Republican candidate is running against incumbent Democrat Congressman Eric Sorensen, who is seeking his second term. WVIK News spoke with Joe McGraw about his campaign and some of the issues voters say are top priorities leading up to the November 5th election.
WVIK News edited the transcript for clarity.
WVIK News: My first question is, can I have your full name and a little bit of summarization as to why you wanted to run for the 17th Congressional District?
Joe McGraw: Yeah, my name is Joe McGraw. I retired as a judge in 2023. During my time on the bench, I saw the direct consequences of an open border in the South, specifically crime and human trafficking and drugs, fentanyl in particular. It was completely uncontrolled and remains uncontrolled by the current administration. And... unaddressed by my opponent, and also extremely high taxes, high rates of inflation, the unaffordability of homes and jobs going overseas. Essentially, the middle class is being crushed by inflation and high interest rates and lack of substantial jobs. And I'm a father of five, and I looked at what kind of future... I wanted my kids and grandkids to have, and I know we can do better because we have done better. And the current path we're on is not the right path.
WVIK News: And you mentioned being a former judge. How does that kind of work into some of these issues, mentioning the border, healthcare, inflation? With your time on the bench, what perspectives could you bring to Congress?
McGraw: Well, you know, the primary role of a judge... Of course, is to do justice and to uphold the law. That applies across the board, no matter what we're talking about. But in addition to that, I've handled everything from death penalty cases to child custody cases. I'm also a trained mediator and a trained arbitrator. I've settled multimillion-dollar disputes. I've had to make extremely difficult decisions where you have each side as an advocate. And they're urging upon you opposite outcomes. They each present their evidence, their testimony. And you have to listen carefully, apply the law, weigh the evidence, and then make a decision. And each of those areas you mentioned, we don't need a partisan. We don't need someone with an additional or other agenda other than improve the life of the folks in the 17th. So, I'll go to Washington, D.C., a person who can work with others, make decisions. And regardless of party, when I was chief judge, I was also chairman of the chief judges of Illinois. There are 24 judicial districts in the state of Illinois. They each elect their own chief judge. And from among them, they elected me to be their chairman. And so, whether they were Republicans or Democrats or whatever race or gender they were, it didn't make a bit of difference. We worked together to solve problems in the area of access to justice. So, I'm adept and skilled with working with groups of people, even if they hold different points of view, and listening carefully, finding the facts. And once you know what the facts are, then you can work together on a resolution.
WVIK News: If you are elected to Congress, what type of solutions do you see to help Americans who are having trouble affording groceries, rent, utilities, because, like you said, rising inflation, and also price surging with some of these major corporations in the country? What could be done to help alleviate some of that suffering on the American people?
McGraw: The first thing that has to be done. Well, there are really two things. We don't have a revenue problem, we've got a spending problem. America is a very prosperous country, but we've been spending money we don't have on things we should not be spending it on. You know, we're very much interested in subsidizing so many things, but are they really productive and do they really produce any wealth? So, the first thing that has to be addressed is you have to close the border, because that has allowed anywhere from 12 to 20 million people into the country. They are all an additional burden on social services, on health care and on schools, not to mention other criminal costs. And we can't afford 12 to 20 million more people. We have more people that we have to subsidize, that we have to pay for. And then the budget itself, number one, we have to have a budget, Brady. Right now, we've gone from continuing resolution to continuing resolution, and that just is kicking the can down the road. And there's no accountability on the part of Congress for those votes. I mean, everything is rolled together, and you're not voting on individual bills, spending bills, spending decisions. And if you vote against the continuing resolution, you're tarred and feathered for being, you know, against Social Security, shutting down the government, not supporting the military, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So, we have a budget, the way we did during the Clinton era. Clinton was the last president where we had an actual budget. Newt Gingrich was the Speaker. And they got together, and they actually produced a budget where different line items are delineated, and the members of Congress have to vote yes or no on specific expenditures. That improves accountability because everybody in the district will say, hey, Joe, why did you vote for that, or why did you vote against it? And that will necessarily have the benefit of less money being spent. Because if you can't justify this to the folks in the district, you're not going to be supporting it. And a lot of these boondoggles will not be supported by the government. So, it's going to take a while before we have a balanced budget. But the pathway is to have a budget.
WVIK News: Now, you mentioned one of the things that we're seeing is so much spending in Washington. Are there any departments or current programs that you think should have reduced funding? To help, as you mentioned, get back to a balanced budget?
McGraw: I seldom, if ever, take a one-size-fits-all approach. Because really, individualized justice, individual consideration, that yields the best results. And so, I would be definitely in favor of thoroughgoing audit of each of the federal agencies. You know, right now, the federal government is the biggest employer in the United States. It wasn't always that way. So, there's been a huge growth in the administrative state. Sometimes, as we've learned from time to time, they've strayed from their mission. They've gotten involved in mission creep. They are spending money for things that they ought not to be. And, to be fair, Congress has oftentimes not had the courage to take the tough vote. And so, issues aren't addressed. And then, the administrative agencies are left with resolving issues. The Constitution makes it clear that the laws, you know, are created in Congress. But due to the lack of that, you know, the administrative agencies that are only supposed to make rules to implement the laws have gone way out of their lane. And they're making laws of their own. So, you have to look at the scope, the focus of the administrative agencies, and how they're using their personnel and how they're spending the money allocated. So, I'm sure some are doing better than others, but I'm sure some aren't. So, it would be a case-by-case analysis.
WVIK News: Okay. Thank you so much, Joe. I want to kind of go back to something you mentioned about the border. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but your idea currently to help with the issue is to temporarily shut down the border. Is that correct?
McGraw: Well, just to return to legal immigration, I'm definitely not an opponent of legal immigration. My mother came here as an immigrant. And the people I've talked to who have naturalized are some of the most patriotic Americans I know. They really appreciate our freedoms, our economy, our Bill of Rights. And they certainly don't want to see the type of government in the U.S. that they left. And they don't want to see illegals jumping the line, getting everything paid for, and bringing with them their values and ideals of the countries from which they came as it relates to government. So, legal immigration. Of course, secure the border physically and reinstitute the Remain-In-Mexico policy. I'm talking about the southern border now. Reinstitute the Remain-In-Mexico policy and beef up the State Department's ability to evaluate asylum claims in Mexico. We cannot have unvetted people without identifications swarming across the border every day. Okay. We don't know who they are, why they're here, what they're after, and what they're up to. And that's the current totally uncontrolled situation.
WVIK News: I know being a former judge dealing with the border issue, some people have suggested that there are not enough judges actually who are responding to these asylum claims. And that may be one area of improvement. Because as you mentioned, you know, there's a legal pathway. But for a lot of people, that may take years, years and years and years. So, I don't know if you would support adding more judges or if that's something that Congress shouldn't be doing.
McGraw: Well, I think Congress needs to carefully take a look at why does it take so long to naturalize. You know, I was at a naturalization ceremony in Rockford maybe a month or two ago now. And there were people from, I think, about 300 folks from probably every color, every race, every country. And they were dressed in their finest. And they took an oath to become American citizens. And they raised their hand to take the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time and to sing the national anthem for the first time. And that was extremely moving. And afterwards, I spoke to so many of them. And they were just so happy to finally have become American citizens. And I heard many stories, not just then but other times, about the years and years it takes to naturalize. And so, there's a tremendous amount of resentment among those who follow the law, follow the rules, done it the right way and naturalized when they see the others coming across violating every law and being given a red carpet treatment. And as far as judges, I don't know why it takes so long to naturalize. I don't know if there's a problem with the administrative state, the bureaucracy in charge. I don't think it's a problem necessarily with judges. Now, as far as judges hearing asylum claims, that may be true. But that's because everyone is paroled, quote-unquote, into the U.S. if they claim that they are seeking asylum without any prior vetting. And so, you've eliminated one of the most important screening processes of having the State Department evaluate the claims for asylum in Mexico and then allow those that have presented a bona fide case to then enter the U.S. and be on parole until they can have their hearing. But we've just flooded the system with everybody coming in. And with the flimsiest. Yeah. You know, just saying magic words, they want asylum, and that's pretty much it. They're not being evaluated by the State Department. And so, there are huge backlogs, of course, to see an admin law judge. And I've heard reports of six, seven, or eight years in the future for your court date. And in the meantime, that person is totally unmonitored. They're pretty much free to do whatever they want in the U.S., whether their intentions are good or bad. Until their court date. And just as a judge, and my experience would tell me that having a court date that far in the future, it's extremely unlikely that many of those court dates will be kept. So, it has to be the evaluation in Mexico, and then the initial screening process, and then a reasonable court date to resolve whether someone on parole should be admitted, you know, under that status.
WVIK News: Thank you so much for your response, Joe. I'd like to move on to healthcare. What solutions, ideas, policies would you support that would help Illinoisans be able to lower their prescription costs, lower the cost to see a doctor, preventative care, kind of just that whole sphere of healthcare?
McGraw: Yeah, that's a multifaceted challenge for sure. And I think so many of the issues really are national issues, federal issues. And let me tell you what I mean by that. Right now, the cost of healthcare is far outpaced the rate of inflation. And part of that is because, you know, insurance companies are essentially establishing the rate charged. You know, the amount that they're willing to reimburse healthcare providers, it becomes the floor of what things are going to cost. So there's no real connection between, you know, what the actual cost of the service is and what the charge is. It's what the insurance companies have basically set the rate. And obviously, health insurance is essential for everyone in a modern society. There's no doubt about that. But you've got lobbyists who represent some of the biggest organizations. And big pharma, big medical, who, together with insurance, set the rates. And I think that requires investigation by Congress to understand why we're charging what we're charging for some prescriptions here. And you can get them from Canada at a fraction of the price. You know, I'm not sure what exactly needs to be done first. But obviously, I'm not sure. But I think analysis of, you know, the healthcare costs for each American and how does that break out. How much of it is preventative care? How much of it is urgent care? How much of it requires hospitalization? And, you know, my long-term thought is to give Americans a tax credit for out-of-pocket medical expenses. You know, it seems as though the more government gets involved in anything, the more complicated it gets, the more bureaucracy is created, the more red tape, the more expense. And so the direct approach would be to give Americans a tax credit for anything we have to pay out-of-pocket for their medical.
WVIK News: Thank you so much for your response, Joe. I want to specifically move to the conversation of abortion healthcare in the United States. If you were elected into Congress, and if a national abortion ban were to come up for a vote, would you support that piece of legislation? Or would you support depending on certain caveats within the bill?
McGraw: No, I would not support it. The Dobbs decision is very clear. When Roe versus Wade was reversed, and to its many, many flaws, you know, it's interesting, you know, conservative jurists and, you know, liberal jurists and law school professors and commentators, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the Roe decision. Yet, you know, it was the law for, you know, decades. The Dobbs decision has made it clear this is not a federal issue. This is a state issue. And the states are in the best position to decide. You know, the legislators in the state are much closer to their voters. They're more in step or in tune with what the sentiment is in their state, their areas. And they're in the best position to decide what should the abortion policy be in their state. Now, Illinois is abortion available through the ninth month. And so there's no impediment to getting an abortion in Illinois at all. In fact, abortions have increased since Roe was overturned. So it's a non-issue in Illinois. And as far as the other states, you know, let's realize that a federal one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work and isn't supported by the Constitution. It's a state-right issue. And so let the several states experiment with different approaches and reflect the values of their voters.
WVIK News: Now, is there an issue I may not have asked about at this point in the interview that you think is important to your campaign, an issue that many voters have been coming to you with that you think is important for our listeners to know about?
McGraw: Yeah, it's nothing unique. You know, we've driven over 50,000 miles in our district. It seems hard to believe, but it's far-flung. Unlike what the founders intended, congressional districts are supposed to be compact and contiguous. And ours are barely contiguous in anything but compact. You know, we've moved to 14 counties from Rockford to Rock Island, down the Mississippi to East Peoria and over to Bloomington, Macomb, and then back up. And so there's quite a diversity of folks. There's a lot involved in agriculture, manufacturing, those in urban areas. And so there's not just a one-size-fits-all. But what is common that we constantly hear is people feel like they're being crushed by inflation and taxes. You know, Bidenomics has been a colossal failure. People in the middle class who have, you know, we're talking generations now of folks in the middle class, feel as though their kids and their grandkids won't be able to lay hold of the American dream the way they did. And those that are younger, you know, they've told me that they don't know how they're going to buy a home. They don't know if they can save enough to buy a home. They've postponed marriage. They've postponed home buying. And it's all because they feel the middle class is an afterthought to Washington, D.C. They see our government spending money on illegals, for example. And no second thought is given to it. And yet, you know, we have infrastructure. It needs repair. I've talked to so many small town managers and their infrastructure crumbles. Yet they have mandates from the EPA to drill new wells and lay new pipeline and on and on the list goes. But they have no revenue to support it. There's another unfunded mandate from a government far away that doesn't know anything about the rural way of life. Same thing is happening to rural fire departments and rural EMS. You know, you've got, you know, federal agency telling them they have to replace all their equipment every so often. And, you know, those are exceptionally expensive, you know, for the firefighters and for the fire trucks. And they don't have the revenue to do that. These people are volunteers. They're doing it out of, you know, the love of their, you know, fellow citizens. You know, leaving their day job and rushing to the fire department to respond. And now with all these OSHA regulations, they're going to have to get new equipment they can't afford and get training that they can't afford to take. And they don't have the time to do it anyway. And so what's the net cost? That's fine for an urban area with revenue to address those training and equipment issues. But what that means is that large swaths of our rural areas will be left without fire protection. They'll be left without EMS services. And it's just another example of centralized government taking a one-size-fits-all approach, thinking about the urban areas, whereas the folks that go to work every day that have seen the jobs go offshore and now they're working multiple jobs without benefits trying to make ends meet. They just don't see a way out of this. So, you know, they want to know that American manufacturing is going to come back. They want to know that interest rates are going to come down. They want to know that inflation is going to come down. And, you know, even though some headlines you might read might suggest that inflation is going down, they know better because the prices aren't going down. And we're talking about necessaries like gas and groceries. They have to. They obviously have to pay for that. And things like saving for college or something like that, saving for retirement becomes further and further distant dreams. And, you know, how are they supposed to make ends meet if their retirement is going to be based on Social Security alone? It's just it's a catch-22. You've got a working middle class. It's kind of caught between, you know, federal government. And, you know, and wealthy oligarchs that seem to dictate policy in the U.S. And then you've got the working poor and the middle class. Just take Illinois, the tremendous out-migration of people. You know, it's like people vote with their feet. You know, Illinois has made this an inhospitable place to live for folks that can leave, and so they do.
WVIK News: And with that, Joe, that's all the questions I have for you today. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your day and speaking with WVIK.
McGraw: Oh, thanks, Brady. I look forward to talking with you again.