June 3, 2025 • 29 mins
Senator Rand Paul, of Kentucky, joins to discuss the Big Beautiful Bill, and where his concerns lie:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the longtime Senator and conservative grassroots leader from Kentucky, told Breitbart News exclusively that he believes the Democrats are “adrift” as a party without an identity right now. But, he warns, Republicans could face major risks and consequences in the upcoming midterm elections if they too lose their identity.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
All right, News roundup and information overload. Our toll free.
Let me give you our number. It is eight hundred
and nine four one. Sean. If you want to be
a part of the program, we welcome back to the show.
Senator ram Paula Kentucky. I want to talk to him
about a lot of different issues, the one Big Beautiful
(00:22):
Bill now that it is in the Senate and some
of the changes that are being discussed and what it
would take for him to support it. And number two,
i'd like to talk to him. Did you see the
Atlanta FEDS prediction and estimate of GDP growth over the
first two months of the second quarter is now a
(00:44):
booming four point six percent. Because the last time we
were on, we talked a lot about your concern and
there should be concern about tariffs and getting some of
these deals done, and I think there's going to be
more to follow, and I absolutely underst stand your concern
about that, But four point six percent, if the second
(01:05):
quarter comes in anywhere near that number, wouldn't you say
that that is a phenomenal success.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Yeah, I think it'd be great if we have growth
over four percent. We'll wait and see what the numbers show.
A lot of things about the tariff aren't yet set
in motion. You know, most of the people who tell
me they are going to have to pay higher prices
for the goods they sell say that their contracts lock
them into not raising the price of the goods for
(01:31):
a couple of months. So many people who import things
from overseas or saying that their costs will go up
later on in the fall. So there's going to be
the adjustment to tariffs. The tariffs are, without question at tax.
When you tax something, you get less of it, so
you'll get less trade. And it used to be that
Republicans work for lower taxes, not higher taxes. We thought
(01:51):
that bringing more money into the government wasn't the goal.
Actually the goal was leaving more money in the private sector.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Well, but yeah, you have to view this through the
prism of the fact that and you acknowledge this the
last time you were on that America is getting ripped off,
that the European Union is ripping us off, that are
that Canada is ripping us off. All these countries you know,
friend and follow alike, China totally ripping us off and
you know, the question is does America at some point
(02:20):
stand up for itself and say that enough is enough?
And you know, America go through a little bit of pain,
but demand that we have either free and fair trade
or reciprocal tariffs. Now as a as a consequence of
the President's strong physician, we also have had some incredible benefits.
I'll list them for you. One ten trillion dollars in
(02:42):
committed moneys for manufacturing in America, including semiconductors, chips, and
pharmaceuticals that will be made here. I think those two
issues are good for American national security. We did have
you know about, on average twenty five billion dollars that
we'd never seen before in tariff money because the President
(03:04):
has taking a stand that we're not going to be
ripped off anymore. I don't think you want America ripped off,
you know.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
I think it's important to kind of unpack that when
we talk about whether or not a country is ripped off.
Trade is mutually beneficial or basically doesn't occur. So most
trade that you think is an American in China is
really Americans going and buying something at Walmart. So when
you go and you buy a TV at Walmart, and
let's say it's made in China. You only buy that
TV if you think that it's beneficial to you. So
(03:33):
all transactions really that are voluntary or mutually beneficial. You
want the TV more than you want your six hundred dollars,
and the person who made the TV wants your six
hundred dollars more than the TV, and so you make
a trade. You can all circle around that to them.
My goodness, at the end of the year, a million
people bought a TV at Walmart and they were all
individually happy. But if you say that all the TVs
(03:54):
came from China, we now have a trade deficit, and
so people say, well, we were ripped off.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Basically, no, it's not the trade deficit. It's the terriff differential.
In other words, that they prevent American goods from going
into their country, which hurts our farmers, our manufacturers, our
ranchers and other industries. And I'm not even including intellectual
property theft. And we're giving free and free access to
(04:21):
our markets at very low teriff rates. You know, at
some point, don't we have to challenge the system and
say make it free and fair or if you want tariffs.
That's got to be reciprocal. I mean, that just seems
that seems simply like fundamentally fair to me.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
You know, we're the number one importer of goods in
the world, but we're also the number two exporter of
goods in the world, so we do make a great
deal off of trade. And I think my argument is
that in each individual trade they have to be mutually beneficial.
If you draw a circle around them, you can show
that we have a trade deficit. The problem with fairness arguments,
(04:57):
and they do make sense. So when you tell it's
not fair that a certain country has a twenty percent
tariff on ours and we don't have a tariff on that,
it does it does sort of resound and you say, oh,
my goodness, it doesn't sound fair. But what if I
told you that teachers.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
It doesn't sound fair, but in reality it isn't fair.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Let me finish point. So what if I tell you, though,
that teachers making sixty thousand dollars a year and a
rap star making six million dollars a year isn't fair
because the teacher really is more of a service to
the country, and we should pay a teacher more than
a rap star. But those are arguments from the left,
and we usually don't accept fairness arguments because we let
the market decide how much your value is worth. How
(05:36):
much should a you know, a television personality make, how
much an athlete make? How much would a teacher make?
And a fireman we don't go by sort.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Of a TV personality does not make enough. I No,
I'm kidding, but I'm really having a hard time understanding this.
Why would China prevent our goods? For example? Why is
Canada put massive tariffs? Or the year of Union, for example,
they put a ten percent tariff on our automobiles going
(06:04):
into Europe and we only put a two and a
half percent tariff on theirs, and then they have a
twenty percent vattack, So that's a thirty percent increase in
our sticker price. And we sell very few American cars
in the European Union, and they sell a ton of
cars in America. As a result of the President's threat
of tariffs, Now BMW and Mercedes and all these foreign
(06:27):
countries are now going to build their facilities here and
that'll create jobs for Americans, which I'm fine with. Then
those will not be subject to tariffs.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
No, I think that's a good and that's a great result.
If we get to lower reciprocal tariffs. I think that's
a great result. If we wind up with greater tariffs, though,
it'll be basically the effects of taxing something. You'll have
more revenue for the government, but less revenue for the
private marketplace. And so people to realize many people are
(06:55):
for the tariffs, say we're going to just past those foreigners.
Those foreigners are going to pay these well, no American companyies.
I was with the company today that imports things from
Southeast Asia then sells them to Americans that six thousand
Americans work for the company. And so the thing is
is that the people who are punished by this are Americans.
If we punish Apple and say you can't make phones
(07:17):
in China and you can't make them in India, you've
got to make them in the US, it will mean
higher prices here, and people have to decide, well or.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Or These countries realize that they have taken advantage of
it of US, and we've allowed them to take advantage
of us, and they change their policies as a result,
which I think ultimately is going to happen. My understanding
is we're close to a deal with India. We had
a deal with China. Apparently they're violating it, so that
has to be rectified. I can imagine a trade deal
(07:45):
with the European Union probably forthcoming, a trade deal with
Australia probably coming. But yet, if the President didn't take
a stand and say, wait a minute, you're treating our
country unfairly. Our manufacturers, are farmers, our ranchers on fairly unfairly,
and you need to allow access to our markets the
(08:06):
way we're allowing access to yours. I think we have
a certain power and as much as kind of all
these countries that I mentioned, they all need access to
our markets. They want our money.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
In the midst of all this, though, you have Lindsay
Graham offering up a bill to have five hundred percent
tariffs on India. So if you have five hundred percent tariffs,
if people think, oh my goodness, tariffs are so great,
why don't we do a five hundred percent tariff on
India until they quit buying oil from Russia.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Well, I'm not going to have a five hundred percent
Well it's just not going to happen. You're talking about
this putent sanctioned bill with eighty two senators are now
signing on too.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
You've got eighty two senators that are beguiled somehow into
thinking that tariffs don't mean anything in tariffs are not
our problem. But the bill offers five hundred percent tariffs
on anybody buying oil gas from Russia directly or indirectly.
So high on that list is India. I'm not positive
what happens, but as a country, I would be somewhat
offended by another country telling me I can't buy oil
(09:03):
from one country another. But it may not be logistically
possible because India advises a lot of oil from Russia.
It may not be logistically possible for them to be couple.
But there is a chance that they also react to
this in a nationalistic way and say, go take a hike.
We're going to buy all from where we want. But
then what we're talking about is a trade war that
would end up in a worldwide embargo thirty six countries
(09:26):
by oil and gas from Russia. So there is a
danger to thinking that tariffs are benign and tariff wars
are benign. Lindsey Grantsville is perhaps the most ill conceived
bill that's ever come before.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
Well, isn't it certainly better than the policy of two
hundred plus billion taxpayer dollars in a proxy war of
America between Ukraine and Vladimir Putin? I mean, ostensibly we
became the proxy.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Yeah. No, I'm not for funding the war in Ukraine
and have devoted against an opposed to all of that.
But I'm certainly not for having a worldwide and barb
go for people who do trade with Russia. So I
don't think that's a good way to end the war,
but I think it's a good way to have an
economic catastrophe, above and beyond anything.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
But let me ask you, well, I mean they're getting
reduced rates, they're paying about seven seventy cents on the
dollar for oil and gas from Russia in the European
Union Western European nations. Aren't they funding the war machine
of Vladimir Putin by allowing him to profit? Just like,
for example, when Joe Biden turned a blind eye to
(10:30):
the sanctions with Iran, didn't that didn't that enrich them
to the point where they can follment terror in the
entire region.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
I think we can have opinions about what's in our
national interests in other countries can. But if we think
we can force the entire world to do as we
say and to not deal with Russia, I don't know.
I think it's a naive notion, and it's a it's
a kind of this idea that you know that George
Bush was for, We're going to make the world safe
for democrats are going to go everywhere and tell everyone
what to do.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
No, I don't want to. I don't want to change countries.
I don't I don't even want to push regime change. However,
I don't think Iran could ever have a nuclear weapon.
And I don't you know, I look at I'd look
at Vladimir Putin as a murdering dictator, thug that never
should have amassed troops on the border with Ukraine and
military equipment the way he did, and Joe biden'sill sit
(11:17):
idly by and let him do it, and then, you know,
basically use American money to fight that war.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
But the question is whether or not we would embrace
a worldwide embargo of thirty six countries, including many members
of the EU, India and others who buy oil and
gas from Russia. And what a disaster this would be
for the world. I mean, I think that this really
is the most ill conceived bill I've ever seen come
before Congress. It would lead to a disaster.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Well, then how do you put pressure on Vladimir Putin
to end the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children, Because,
like you, I don't support American involvement in Europe. This
is a European problem. This is not an American problem.
But you know, when you see you know, I mean,
there comes a point where America, American involvement. We saw
(12:06):
this in World War Two, you know, became a necessity,
you know, to beat back the forces of Nazism and
fascism and imperial Japan. We were forced into that.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
You know, one of the countries at bazol and gas
is Israel. So we're going to have a five hundred
percent tariff on Israel in the midst of you know,
the unending crisis that they have with their enemies surround.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
You know, we're going to We're going to tell all
these countries to buy their oil and gas from us.
That's what I would do.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Well, the thing is is, you know, I guess that
sounds pretty imperialistic to me, that we're going to make
the decisions for the whole world where they can buy
their long gas. Israel's already made a decision. Israel imports
thirteen looks like a million barrels a year from from Russia.
But Germany does, Egypt does, India does, Thailand? Does Italy?
(12:55):
Poland Columbia?
Speaker 1 (12:57):
And it's like, aren't they funding his warm Isshines?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Well, I know, but the thing is, you're right, Yeah,
we have an opinion. We don't like it. We can
tell them that. But a five percent tariff in double
every ninety days is a recipe for complete You think it.
You think there's been some chaos when six point six
trillion dollars is lost in the stock market on Liberation
Day on the threat of tariffs with all these countries.
Most of those tariffs weren't five hundred percent. They were
(13:23):
anywhere between twenty thirty percent and one hundred and fifty percent.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
We would you would you deny the ten trillion in
committed investment was a result of Donald Trump showing some
strength and a willingness to go where no one, no
other person went before. Or the fact that the Atlanta
Fed is predicting four point six percent GDP growth. That's
their estimate for the second quarter. Is a result of
all this, that all the fear mongering about tariffs didn't
(13:50):
pan out.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Now there's many good things. I think the story is
not yet, not yet finished. I think we're just getting started.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
I agree with you. I agree. I think you know
there's still and my hope is they get deal after
deal after deal, and then we move on with freer
and fairer trade. I'm on Free Trader.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Our purpose isn't to simply say that the president's not
doing well. I'm in a huge supporter of the President's cabinet.
I've voted for the nominations in a support of the
tax I was part of getting the tax cuts do
in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Would like to know you agree, you agree. We agree
on a lot of things, and I don't want involvement
in foreign conflicts either, but I do want the killing
to stop. I mean, we saw the onslaught that killed
innocent men, when women and children, and frankly, I was
glad the Ukrainians took out all those those you know,
the forty two bombers of Russia. I think they have
(14:42):
every right to defend themselves at this point but it
should be European money, not American. Listen, you've got a
few more seconds. Do you have to run?
Speaker 2 (14:49):
I got a few more seconds?
Speaker 1 (14:51):
All right, quick break, We'll come back more with ram
Paul on the other side. Eight hundred and ninety four
one Seawan is our number. All right? We continue now
and shift gears with Kentucky Senator rampauls with us. You know,
there's a lot we agree on. I don't want American
in these long drawn out foreign conflicts, but I don't
want America being ripped off. I think the President is negotiating,
(15:13):
and I've known this guy for thirty years. I know how.
I think I have a pretty good understanding about how
his mind works. I think we have already reaped a
lot of benefits, and I'm hoping the result is freer
and fairer trade at the end of the day. Let
me move on to the issue of the Reconciliation Bill,
the one big beautiful bill. You have been pretty outspoken
(15:35):
about it and about the House version, which was not
easy to come by, and I don't want you to
think by any means I think it's perfect, because I
know it's not, and I know you've got a lot
of mine fields that you've got to navigate here, especially
over you have some Republican senators concerned about Medicaid provisions
in the House Past bill, you know Josh Halllesus and Collins,
(15:57):
Lisa Murkowski there, you know, Republican from states with large
rural populations, they are concerned about losing benefits. I know,
the snap issue is a big issue of Charles Grassley's
clean energy tax credits is a big one whether or
not we're actually cutting enough out of this bill. And
then you've got to get it by this one person,
(16:17):
the Senate Parliamentarian, and make sure that it passes the
Bird rule without getting too complicated in the Senate. If
you want to have if you want to overcome cloture,
which needs sixty votes for passage, reconciliations is a means
to do it. It's how Obamacare was passed, the Inflation
(16:38):
Reduction Act was passed. But there are very rigid, you know,
ourcane rules in the Senate that have to be approved
by one person, quote, the Senate Parliamentarian. So and they
must all have to do with spending. And I know
it sounds complicated because it is, and it's unnecessarily so,
but Ram Paul's with us. I really want your thoughts
(16:59):
on this and what would get Rand Paul to a
yes on this one big, beautiful bill. Knowing that you're
not going to get everything you want, nobody's going to
get everything they want here because of those rules.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Well, I think you're right. And the main thrust of
the bill is to make the tax cuts that I've
supported and voted for from twenty seventeen, to make a
lot of them permanent, to add in some new tax cuts.
I am always been in favor of letting the money
remain in the hands of those who earn it, you know,
try to keep it in the private marketplace, keep government small,
and not increase taxes. So that I'm for. There is
some spending cuts. I wish there were more. But even
(17:34):
though they're imperfect and I won't get everything I want them,
the spending cuts, I will support. What spending cuts. The
deal killer for me, and the heartburn and the heartache
comes from increasing the debt, sealing five trillion dollars. And
I've build the president this, but I've also told the
leadership for months and months now, I won't support raising
the debt sealing five trillion, because once I'm gone, once
(17:55):
there is no me or anybody else like me supporting.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Where are you going? You're a young man.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Well, now what I'm seeing. What I'm saying is is
that once there are no more Conservatives left, if everybody
votes to raise the debt feeling five trillion, the Conservative
movement's gone. It's done for seeing the past. This has
always been a Democrat process. We've never ever raised the
debt ceiling without all the Democrats and the big government
Republicans voting for it. Conservatives have never voted to raise
(18:23):
the debt ceiling. Ever, this will be the first time
that the conservative movement gets behind raising the debt ceiling.
To me, it means that from now on the debt
will be owned by the Republicans. It will no longer
be a wedge issue where we say the big spenders.
You know, we have some bat ones on our side.
We got the Democrats. But now it's going to be
passed by the Republicans and it will be five trillion.
(18:44):
The deficit this year is going to be two point
two trillion, and in March most of the Republicans, not me,
but they are.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
In fairness though, the deficit this year is really Biden
and Harris's economy. You would agree with that, it's.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Actually both because in Marchblicans voted to continue the Biden
spending levels. So I voted no in March, but the
Republicans all voted yes, most of them, and they continued
the Biden spending levels to the end of the year.
So the first six months belonged to Biden, the second
six months we belonged to the Republicans, and come the
end of September thirtieth, the Biden spending levels, which became
the Republican spending levels halfway through the year, will end
(19:21):
up with the two point two trillion dollars deficits that
the Republicans who voted for this are now responsible for. Well,
what's even more.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Well, are you factoring in this? Let's go back to
the Reagan years, because I think we both were admirers
of Reagan the Reagan tax cuts, and these tax cuts
are way bigger than the Reagan tax cuts. This will
be the largest tax cut in American history. It resulted
in a doubling of revenues to the federal government, and
(19:49):
it resulted in the creation of twenty one million new jobs,
and it resulted in the longest period of peacetime economic
growth up in history up until that point. And we
saw with the first Trump turn the tax cuts again
putting aside COVID and the debt deficits that took place
as a result of that. Take those years, extrapolate out
those years twenty twenty, twenty twenty one, and if you
(20:13):
extrapolate that out, I mean, we had incredible, massive growth.
But you're right about spending. Now, isn't this about reducing
baseline budgeting, eliminating baseline budgeting, and reducing the rate of
growth of government. Like for example, every new dollar that
(20:33):
Reagan brought in, he doubled revenues. Congress spent a dollar
twenty five At the time didn't seem like a lot.
The deficit, you know, we're talking about five hundred millions
over a billion dollars, I mean, chump change compared to
what we spend today. But don't you think that if
the economy's going to have an infusion of ten trillion,
an investment, lower tax cuts, more Americans working workfare versus
(20:57):
you know, free benefits, that there's going to be cost
savings associated with that, and an increase in revenues that
hopefully can compensate and bring us to a balanced budget,
because that's what I'm hoping for.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
You're exactly right about the Reagan years. In the Reagan years,
taxes were cut significantly in revenue roads. When you let
people keep more of their money and they paid a
lower rate, they worked harder and more revenue came in.
But the debt went up dramatically under Reagan because they
weren't able to control spending, and it was a bipartisan problem.
It's the exact same problem we face now. I'm both
(21:28):
the tax cuts. I think the CBO is wrong. I
think they will bring in more revenue, but the spending
has gone on without any lessening. And so in March
of this year, the Republicans all voted to continue the
Biden spending level.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
You're talking about the cr the past.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Yeah, well they continued the same spending level.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Well what was the option if you didn't, if you
didn't continue to fund the government. And I'm not one
that fears government shutdowns, but at some point they would
would have. You would have needed a resolution, the same.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Option as we all have. Somebody needs to have the
courage to stand up and say we're not going to
do it, and that the deficit's going to consume the
country and we have to reduce spending. But they didn't
do that. They voted for the Biden spending level. So
now the debt belongs to the Republicans. But if they
vote for the debt ceiling to go at five trillion,
it means that not only will the deficit be two
point two trillion this year, they're anticipating two point eight
(22:21):
trillion for next year. So they're borrowing five trillion dollars.
And we've never ever borrowed this much. And every time
we've set a limit, we always reach it. So if
you set a limit that high, it just means that,
you know, the roller coaster, you know, the descent into
this debt, it continues a pace, and I'm worried about it.
I'm looking at the bond market. I'm looking at interest rates.
(22:44):
We used to pay one point seven percent on average
for the US debt. Now it's three point five. But
that hasn't figured in the late the latest interest rates
when they get figured into all the Treasury bills, if
we're paying it five percent, if it goes from three
point five to five. It's going to devastate the whole
entire government's going.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
To be But don't you blame a FED chair Powell.
You know what has been Their implation is running at
two point one percent right now, okay, and the fedce
target is two percent. The Atlanta Fed has just put
out an estimate yesterday. The GDP growth over the first
two months of the second quarter is now four point
(23:24):
six percent. If you look at other indicators, consumer confidence
is up to a four year high. Employment is now,
you know, growing dramatically. Now we're going to have massive
amounts of increases in revenue, I believe because the President
opening up energy in this country to become energy dominant.
(23:44):
I think that will help the ten trillion dollars that
I refer to. I think that will help. The tax cuts.
I believe that will help. I also believe the Republican
Party now becomes the party of working men and women,
and the Democrats are the party of you know, woke.
Coastal LA leads. Job openings, by the way, showed another
unexpected increase in April. It's always unexpected when it's Trump.
(24:07):
When you factor in all of that, and I agree
in principle with you, I don't. I would have adopted
the Penny plan, Connie Max's Penny plan in your plan
years ago, but they didn't do it. And I would
actually think about bringing some maybe called the Nickel Plan
at this point. But we also have extenuating circumstances. We
have to secure our borders. We've we've got to expel
(24:30):
illegal immigrants. We've got that we need the next generation
of weaponry because we're behind. We don't even have hypersonics,
but China and Russia do, so I'm worried about all
those factors as well. There's a lot going on here
and a lot to consider.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
I think the cautionary tale is that, you know, they
went to sell ten ure bonds this last week and
there were many less offers for the bonds, and there
have been in recent times. And the interest they had
to pay is and this is the market determining and
not not foul. The market determined they had to pay
over five percent for ten year bonds. And so as
(25:05):
those interest rates rise, it means that people are getting
skittish and investors are getting skittish about buying American death.
I don't want our country to, you know, go into insultancy.
I don't want the country and we could wake up
one day and this happened. It might happen gradually, but
it might happen in a week or in six months.
You can have dramatic uphevils for people who's confidence. And
(25:28):
I think when both parties are blively spending money, no
one's willing to touch the entitlements we've taken Medicare, Medicaid
and SOB security off off of the table. There is
a great deal of concern that we get to a
point and there's going to be a sastrophe and there
has to be somebody out there, you know, you know,
some kind of canary in the coal mine saying we've
(25:49):
got a real problem and somebody's got to do something
about spending.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Listen. I'm in favor of all of it. And I
was actually sad to see Elon Musko, and I'm sad
to see what he went through because it's not a
small thing that he was able to identify over two
hundred billion dollars in waste for aud abuse and corruption.
And I'd like to see that DOGE mission continue in
every aspect and every crevice and corner of the federal government,
(26:18):
and I'd like to like you to return to constitutional order.
My take is is if the House and SENEC can
can go into conference and come out with a bill,
that's a good start, considering the tax cuts that are
the largest in history and all the things that we've discussed.
But then I think the next level is a return
(26:38):
to constitutional order, and that means putting forward budgets and
getting him done by September thirtieth for the next fiscal
year October first, and that's where I'd like to see
maybe the process of definitely reducing rates of increase and
eliminating baseline budgeting and more DOGE cuts across the board
(26:59):
in every apartment. I think there's a long way we
can go that. I think there's still a ton of
waste for odden abuse.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Well, I've told the President I'm supportive of the tax cuts.
I can support the bill if we separate out the
debt ceiling from the bill. So they need my vote.
I'm very much available. I've supported the president's commit I've
supported the president's nomination, so I was probably his biggest
defender on the sake impeachant artisan impeachment. So it doesn't
mean we're going to agree on everything, but on this,
(27:27):
you know, I can't be true to the things that
I've run for and the things that you know, we
say we're going to represent. And that is the deficit
is too large and we have to do something about it.
And so I just have to be honest that I'm
very worried about not not being more having more significant
spending cuts, and about borrowing so much.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
I just think there's got to be a way to
limit it. I mean, back in the day, didn't you
support the Penny Plan?
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yep?
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Yeah, I mean you were want you were in the
Senate and Connie Act was in the.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
House, right, Yeah, And I've had it for almost a
decade now. It actually is a six penny plan because
the COVID spending went up so much that they you know,
it now takes a six percent cut to get the
balance in five years. But it only works if you
look at all the entitlements. See, we've the current plan
has taken all the entitlements off the table. Even the
(28:23):
Medicaid so called reforms may or may not say what
they said are going to say, but we're really not
going to have significant Medicaid savings.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
And the Medicaid expending has exploded. Senator. We appreciate the
extra time. Thank you, sir, We appreciate it. Ramfall eight
hundred and nine four one Shawn is a number.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
All right.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
That's going to wrap things so for today. Hannity Tonight,
nine eastern on the Fox News Channel. James Comer, Massive Investigations,
What did they know? When did they know it? Who
was really in charge? Who used the auto pen? Also Newkingridge,
Greg Jarrett, Steve Moore on the Incredible Economic News, Matt
Towry on polling, Clay Travis in our other News of
(29:04):
the day segments. Say you DVR tonight Hannity, nine eastern
on Fox. We'll see then back here tomorrow. Thank you
for making this show possible.
Stay right here for our final news roundup and information overload.
All right, News roundup and information overload. Our toll free.
Let me give you our number. It is eight hundred
and nine four one. Sean. If you want to be
a part of the program, we welcome back to the show.
Senator ram Paula Kentucky. I want to talk to him
about a lot of different issues, the one Big Beautiful
(00:22):
Bill now that it is in the Senate and some
of the changes that are being discussed and what it
would take for him to support it. And number two,
i'd like to talk to him. Did you see the
Atlanta FEDS prediction and estimate of GDP growth over the
first two months of the second quarter is now a
(00:44):
booming four point six percent. Because the last time we
were on, we talked a lot about your concern and
there should be concern about tariffs and getting some of
these deals done, and I think there's going to be
more to follow, and I absolutely underst stand your concern
about that, But four point six percent, if the second
(01:05):
quarter comes in anywhere near that number, wouldn't you say
that that is a phenomenal success.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Yeah, I think it'd be great if we have growth
over four percent. We'll wait and see what the numbers show.
A lot of things about the tariff aren't yet set
in motion. You know, most of the people who tell
me they are going to have to pay higher prices
for the goods they sell say that their contracts lock
them into not raising the price of the goods for
(01:31):
a couple of months. So many people who import things
from overseas or saying that their costs will go up
later on in the fall. So there's going to be
the adjustment to tariffs. The tariffs are, without question at tax.
When you tax something, you get less of it, so
you'll get less trade. And it used to be that
Republicans work for lower taxes, not higher taxes. We thought
(01:51):
that bringing more money into the government wasn't the goal.
Actually the goal was leaving more money in the private sector.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Well, but yeah, you have to view this through the
prism of the fact that and you acknowledge this the
last time you were on that America is getting ripped off,
that the European Union is ripping us off, that are
that Canada is ripping us off. All these countries you know,
friend and follow alike, China totally ripping us off and
you know, the question is does America at some point
(02:20):
stand up for itself and say that enough is enough?
And you know, America go through a little bit of pain,
but demand that we have either free and fair trade
or reciprocal tariffs. Now as a as a consequence of
the President's strong physician, we also have had some incredible benefits.
I'll list them for you. One ten trillion dollars in
(02:42):
committed moneys for manufacturing in America, including semiconductors, chips, and
pharmaceuticals that will be made here. I think those two
issues are good for American national security. We did have
you know about, on average twenty five billion dollars that
we'd never seen before in tariff money because the President
(03:04):
has taking a stand that we're not going to be
ripped off anymore. I don't think you want America ripped off,
you know.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
I think it's important to kind of unpack that when
we talk about whether or not a country is ripped off.
Trade is mutually beneficial or basically doesn't occur. So most
trade that you think is an American in China is
really Americans going and buying something at Walmart. So when
you go and you buy a TV at Walmart, and
let's say it's made in China. You only buy that
TV if you think that it's beneficial to you. So
(03:33):
all transactions really that are voluntary or mutually beneficial. You
want the TV more than you want your six hundred dollars,
and the person who made the TV wants your six
hundred dollars more than the TV, and so you make
a trade. You can all circle around that to them.
My goodness, at the end of the year, a million
people bought a TV at Walmart and they were all
individually happy. But if you say that all the TVs
(03:54):
came from China, we now have a trade deficit, and
so people say, well, we were ripped off.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Basically, no, it's not the trade deficit. It's the terriff differential.
In other words, that they prevent American goods from going
into their country, which hurts our farmers, our manufacturers, our
ranchers and other industries. And I'm not even including intellectual
property theft. And we're giving free and free access to
(04:21):
our markets at very low teriff rates. You know, at
some point, don't we have to challenge the system and
say make it free and fair or if you want tariffs.
That's got to be reciprocal. I mean, that just seems
that seems simply like fundamentally fair to me.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
You know, we're the number one importer of goods in
the world, but we're also the number two exporter of
goods in the world, so we do make a great
deal off of trade. And I think my argument is
that in each individual trade they have to be mutually beneficial.
If you draw a circle around them, you can show
that we have a trade deficit. The problem with fairness arguments,
(04:57):
and they do make sense. So when you tell it's
not fair that a certain country has a twenty percent
tariff on ours and we don't have a tariff on that,
it does it does sort of resound and you say, oh,
my goodness, it doesn't sound fair. But what if I
told you that teachers.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
It doesn't sound fair, but in reality it isn't fair.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Let me finish point. So what if I tell you, though,
that teachers making sixty thousand dollars a year and a
rap star making six million dollars a year isn't fair
because the teacher really is more of a service to
the country, and we should pay a teacher more than
a rap star. But those are arguments from the left,
and we usually don't accept fairness arguments because we let
the market decide how much your value is worth. How
(05:36):
much should a you know, a television personality make, how
much an athlete make? How much would a teacher make?
And a fireman we don't go by sort.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Of a TV personality does not make enough. I No,
I'm kidding, but I'm really having a hard time understanding this.
Why would China prevent our goods? For example? Why is
Canada put massive tariffs? Or the year of Union, for example,
they put a ten percent tariff on our automobiles going
(06:04):
into Europe and we only put a two and a
half percent tariff on theirs, and then they have a
twenty percent vattack, So that's a thirty percent increase in
our sticker price. And we sell very few American cars
in the European Union, and they sell a ton of
cars in America. As a result of the President's threat
of tariffs, Now BMW and Mercedes and all these foreign
(06:27):
countries are now going to build their facilities here and
that'll create jobs for Americans, which I'm fine with. Then
those will not be subject to tariffs.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
No, I think that's a good and that's a great result.
If we get to lower reciprocal tariffs. I think that's
a great result. If we wind up with greater tariffs, though,
it'll be basically the effects of taxing something. You'll have
more revenue for the government, but less revenue for the
private marketplace. And so people to realize many people are
(06:55):
for the tariffs, say we're going to just past those foreigners.
Those foreigners are going to pay these well, no American companyies.
I was with the company today that imports things from
Southeast Asia then sells them to Americans that six thousand
Americans work for the company. And so the thing is
is that the people who are punished by this are Americans.
If we punish Apple and say you can't make phones
(07:17):
in China and you can't make them in India, you've
got to make them in the US, it will mean
higher prices here, and people have to decide, well or.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Or These countries realize that they have taken advantage of
it of US, and we've allowed them to take advantage
of us, and they change their policies as a result,
which I think ultimately is going to happen. My understanding
is we're close to a deal with India. We had
a deal with China. Apparently they're violating it, so that
has to be rectified. I can imagine a trade deal
(07:45):
with the European Union probably forthcoming, a trade deal with
Australia probably coming. But yet, if the President didn't take
a stand and say, wait a minute, you're treating our
country unfairly. Our manufacturers, are farmers, our ranchers on fairly unfairly,
and you need to allow access to our markets the
(08:06):
way we're allowing access to yours. I think we have
a certain power and as much as kind of all
these countries that I mentioned, they all need access to
our markets. They want our money.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
In the midst of all this, though, you have Lindsay
Graham offering up a bill to have five hundred percent
tariffs on India. So if you have five hundred percent tariffs,
if people think, oh my goodness, tariffs are so great,
why don't we do a five hundred percent tariff on
India until they quit buying oil from Russia.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Well, I'm not going to have a five hundred percent
Well it's just not going to happen. You're talking about
this putent sanctioned bill with eighty two senators are now
signing on too.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
You've got eighty two senators that are beguiled somehow into
thinking that tariffs don't mean anything in tariffs are not
our problem. But the bill offers five hundred percent tariffs
on anybody buying oil gas from Russia directly or indirectly.
So high on that list is India. I'm not positive
what happens, but as a country, I would be somewhat
offended by another country telling me I can't buy oil
(09:03):
from one country another. But it may not be logistically
possible because India advises a lot of oil from Russia.
It may not be logistically possible for them to be couple.
But there is a chance that they also react to
this in a nationalistic way and say, go take a hike.
We're going to buy all from where we want. But
then what we're talking about is a trade war that
would end up in a worldwide embargo thirty six countries
(09:26):
by oil and gas from Russia. So there is a
danger to thinking that tariffs are benign and tariff wars
are benign. Lindsey Grantsville is perhaps the most ill conceived
bill that's ever come before.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
Well, isn't it certainly better than the policy of two
hundred plus billion taxpayer dollars in a proxy war of
America between Ukraine and Vladimir Putin? I mean, ostensibly we
became the proxy.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Yeah. No, I'm not for funding the war in Ukraine
and have devoted against an opposed to all of that.
But I'm certainly not for having a worldwide and barb
go for people who do trade with Russia. So I
don't think that's a good way to end the war,
but I think it's a good way to have an
economic catastrophe, above and beyond anything.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
But let me ask you, well, I mean they're getting
reduced rates, they're paying about seven seventy cents on the
dollar for oil and gas from Russia in the European
Union Western European nations. Aren't they funding the war machine
of Vladimir Putin by allowing him to profit? Just like,
for example, when Joe Biden turned a blind eye to
(10:30):
the sanctions with Iran, didn't that didn't that enrich them
to the point where they can follment terror in the
entire region.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
I think we can have opinions about what's in our
national interests in other countries can. But if we think
we can force the entire world to do as we
say and to not deal with Russia, I don't know.
I think it's a naive notion, and it's a it's
a kind of this idea that you know that George
Bush was for, We're going to make the world safe
for democrats are going to go everywhere and tell everyone
what to do.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
No, I don't want to. I don't want to change countries.
I don't I don't even want to push regime change. However,
I don't think Iran could ever have a nuclear weapon.
And I don't you know, I look at I'd look
at Vladimir Putin as a murdering dictator, thug that never
should have amassed troops on the border with Ukraine and
military equipment the way he did, and Joe biden'sill sit
(11:17):
idly by and let him do it, and then, you know,
basically use American money to fight that war.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
But the question is whether or not we would embrace
a worldwide embargo of thirty six countries, including many members
of the EU, India and others who buy oil and
gas from Russia. And what a disaster this would be
for the world. I mean, I think that this really
is the most ill conceived bill I've ever seen come
before Congress. It would lead to a disaster.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Well, then how do you put pressure on Vladimir Putin
to end the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children, Because,
like you, I don't support American involvement in Europe. This
is a European problem. This is not an American problem.
But you know, when you see you know, I mean,
there comes a point where America, American involvement. We saw
(12:06):
this in World War Two, you know, became a necessity,
you know, to beat back the forces of Nazism and
fascism and imperial Japan. We were forced into that.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
You know, one of the countries at bazol and gas
is Israel. So we're going to have a five hundred
percent tariff on Israel in the midst of you know,
the unending crisis that they have with their enemies surround.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
You know, we're going to We're going to tell all
these countries to buy their oil and gas from us.
That's what I would do.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Well, the thing is is, you know, I guess that
sounds pretty imperialistic to me, that we're going to make
the decisions for the whole world where they can buy
their long gas. Israel's already made a decision. Israel imports
thirteen looks like a million barrels a year from from Russia.
But Germany does, Egypt does, India does, Thailand? Does Italy?
(12:55):
Poland Columbia?
Speaker 1 (12:57):
And it's like, aren't they funding his warm Isshines?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Well, I know, but the thing is, you're right, Yeah,
we have an opinion. We don't like it. We can
tell them that. But a five percent tariff in double
every ninety days is a recipe for complete You think it.
You think there's been some chaos when six point six
trillion dollars is lost in the stock market on Liberation
Day on the threat of tariffs with all these countries.
Most of those tariffs weren't five hundred percent. They were
(13:23):
anywhere between twenty thirty percent and one hundred and fifty percent.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
We would you would you deny the ten trillion in
committed investment was a result of Donald Trump showing some
strength and a willingness to go where no one, no
other person went before. Or the fact that the Atlanta
Fed is predicting four point six percent GDP growth. That's
their estimate for the second quarter. Is a result of
all this, that all the fear mongering about tariffs didn't
(13:50):
pan out.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Now there's many good things. I think the story is
not yet, not yet finished. I think we're just getting started.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
I agree with you. I agree. I think you know
there's still and my hope is they get deal after
deal after deal, and then we move on with freer
and fairer trade. I'm on Free Trader.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
Our purpose isn't to simply say that the president's not
doing well. I'm in a huge supporter of the President's cabinet.
I've voted for the nominations in a support of the
tax I was part of getting the tax cuts do
in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Would like to know you agree, you agree. We agree
on a lot of things, and I don't want involvement
in foreign conflicts either, but I do want the killing
to stop. I mean, we saw the onslaught that killed
innocent men, when women and children, and frankly, I was
glad the Ukrainians took out all those those you know,
the forty two bombers of Russia. I think they have
(14:42):
every right to defend themselves at this point but it
should be European money, not American. Listen, you've got a
few more seconds. Do you have to run?
Speaker 2 (14:49):
I got a few more seconds?
Speaker 1 (14:51):
All right, quick break, We'll come back more with ram
Paul on the other side. Eight hundred and ninety four
one Seawan is our number. All right? We continue now
and shift gears with Kentucky Senator rampauls with us. You know,
there's a lot we agree on. I don't want American
in these long drawn out foreign conflicts, but I don't
want America being ripped off. I think the President is negotiating,
(15:13):
and I've known this guy for thirty years. I know how.
I think I have a pretty good understanding about how
his mind works. I think we have already reaped a
lot of benefits, and I'm hoping the result is freer
and fairer trade at the end of the day. Let
me move on to the issue of the Reconciliation Bill,
the one big beautiful bill. You have been pretty outspoken
(15:35):
about it and about the House version, which was not
easy to come by, and I don't want you to
think by any means I think it's perfect, because I
know it's not, and I know you've got a lot
of mine fields that you've got to navigate here, especially
over you have some Republican senators concerned about Medicaid provisions
in the House Past bill, you know Josh Halllesus and Collins,
(15:57):
Lisa Murkowski there, you know, Republican from states with large
rural populations, they are concerned about losing benefits. I know,
the snap issue is a big issue of Charles Grassley's
clean energy tax credits is a big one whether or
not we're actually cutting enough out of this bill. And
then you've got to get it by this one person,
(16:17):
the Senate Parliamentarian, and make sure that it passes the
Bird rule without getting too complicated in the Senate. If
you want to have if you want to overcome cloture,
which needs sixty votes for passage, reconciliations is a means
to do it. It's how Obamacare was passed, the Inflation
(16:38):
Reduction Act was passed. But there are very rigid, you know,
ourcane rules in the Senate that have to be approved
by one person, quote, the Senate Parliamentarian. So and they
must all have to do with spending. And I know
it sounds complicated because it is, and it's unnecessarily so,
but Ram Paul's with us. I really want your thoughts
(16:59):
on this and what would get Rand Paul to a
yes on this one big, beautiful bill. Knowing that you're
not going to get everything you want, nobody's going to
get everything they want here because of those rules.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Well, I think you're right. And the main thrust of
the bill is to make the tax cuts that I've
supported and voted for from twenty seventeen, to make a
lot of them permanent, to add in some new tax cuts.
I am always been in favor of letting the money
remain in the hands of those who earn it, you know,
try to keep it in the private marketplace, keep government small,
and not increase taxes. So that I'm for. There is
some spending cuts. I wish there were more. But even
(17:34):
though they're imperfect and I won't get everything I want them,
the spending cuts, I will support. What spending cuts. The
deal killer for me, and the heartburn and the heartache
comes from increasing the debt, sealing five trillion dollars. And
I've build the president this, but I've also told the
leadership for months and months now, I won't support raising
the debt sealing five trillion, because once I'm gone, once
(17:55):
there is no me or anybody else like me supporting.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Where are you going? You're a young man.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
Well, now what I'm seeing. What I'm saying is is
that once there are no more Conservatives left, if everybody
votes to raise the debt feeling five trillion, the Conservative
movement's gone. It's done for seeing the past. This has
always been a Democrat process. We've never ever raised the
debt ceiling without all the Democrats and the big government
Republicans voting for it. Conservatives have never voted to raise
(18:23):
the debt ceiling. Ever, this will be the first time
that the conservative movement gets behind raising the debt ceiling.
To me, it means that from now on the debt
will be owned by the Republicans. It will no longer
be a wedge issue where we say the big spenders.
You know, we have some bat ones on our side.
We got the Democrats. But now it's going to be
passed by the Republicans and it will be five trillion.
(18:44):
The deficit this year is going to be two point
two trillion, and in March most of the Republicans, not me,
but they are.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
In fairness though, the deficit this year is really Biden
and Harris's economy. You would agree with that, it's.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Actually both because in Marchblicans voted to continue the Biden
spending levels. So I voted no in March, but the
Republicans all voted yes, most of them, and they continued
the Biden spending levels to the end of the year.
So the first six months belonged to Biden, the second
six months we belonged to the Republicans, and come the
end of September thirtieth, the Biden spending levels, which became
the Republican spending levels halfway through the year, will end
(19:21):
up with the two point two trillion dollars deficits that
the Republicans who voted for this are now responsible for. Well,
what's even more.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Well, are you factoring in this? Let's go back to
the Reagan years, because I think we both were admirers
of Reagan the Reagan tax cuts, and these tax cuts
are way bigger than the Reagan tax cuts. This will
be the largest tax cut in American history. It resulted
in a doubling of revenues to the federal government, and
(19:49):
it resulted in the creation of twenty one million new jobs,
and it resulted in the longest period of peacetime economic
growth up in history up until that point. And we
saw with the first Trump turn the tax cuts again
putting aside COVID and the debt deficits that took place
as a result of that. Take those years, extrapolate out
those years twenty twenty, twenty twenty one, and if you
(20:13):
extrapolate that out, I mean, we had incredible, massive growth.
But you're right about spending. Now, isn't this about reducing
baseline budgeting, eliminating baseline budgeting, and reducing the rate of
growth of government. Like for example, every new dollar that
(20:33):
Reagan brought in, he doubled revenues. Congress spent a dollar
twenty five At the time didn't seem like a lot.
The deficit, you know, we're talking about five hundred millions
over a billion dollars, I mean, chump change compared to
what we spend today. But don't you think that if
the economy's going to have an infusion of ten trillion,
an investment, lower tax cuts, more Americans working workfare versus
(20:57):
you know, free benefits, that there's going to be cost
savings associated with that, and an increase in revenues that
hopefully can compensate and bring us to a balanced budget,
because that's what I'm hoping for.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
You're exactly right about the Reagan years. In the Reagan years,
taxes were cut significantly in revenue roads. When you let
people keep more of their money and they paid a
lower rate, they worked harder and more revenue came in.
But the debt went up dramatically under Reagan because they
weren't able to control spending, and it was a bipartisan problem.
It's the exact same problem we face now. I'm both
(21:28):
the tax cuts. I think the CBO is wrong. I
think they will bring in more revenue, but the spending
has gone on without any lessening. And so in March
of this year, the Republicans all voted to continue the
Biden spending level.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
You're talking about the cr the past.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Yeah, well they continued the same spending level.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Well what was the option if you didn't, if you
didn't continue to fund the government. And I'm not one
that fears government shutdowns, but at some point they would
would have. You would have needed a resolution, the same.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
Option as we all have. Somebody needs to have the
courage to stand up and say we're not going to
do it, and that the deficit's going to consume the
country and we have to reduce spending. But they didn't
do that. They voted for the Biden spending level. So
now the debt belongs to the Republicans. But if they
vote for the debt ceiling to go at five trillion,
it means that not only will the deficit be two
point two trillion this year, they're anticipating two point eight
(22:21):
trillion for next year. So they're borrowing five trillion dollars.
And we've never ever borrowed this much. And every time
we've set a limit, we always reach it. So if
you set a limit that high, it just means that,
you know, the roller coaster, you know, the descent into
this debt, it continues a pace, and I'm worried about it.
I'm looking at the bond market. I'm looking at interest rates.
(22:44):
We used to pay one point seven percent on average
for the US debt. Now it's three point five. But
that hasn't figured in the late the latest interest rates
when they get figured into all the Treasury bills, if
we're paying it five percent, if it goes from three
point five to five. It's going to devastate the whole
entire government's going.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
To be But don't you blame a FED chair Powell.
You know what has been Their implation is running at
two point one percent right now, okay, and the fedce
target is two percent. The Atlanta Fed has just put
out an estimate yesterday. The GDP growth over the first
two months of the second quarter is now four point
(23:24):
six percent. If you look at other indicators, consumer confidence
is up to a four year high. Employment is now,
you know, growing dramatically. Now we're going to have massive
amounts of increases in revenue, I believe because the President
opening up energy in this country to become energy dominant.
(23:44):
I think that will help the ten trillion dollars that
I refer to. I think that will help. The tax cuts.
I believe that will help. I also believe the Republican
Party now becomes the party of working men and women,
and the Democrats are the party of you know, woke.
Coastal LA leads. Job openings, by the way, showed another
unexpected increase in April. It's always unexpected when it's Trump.
(24:07):
When you factor in all of that, and I agree
in principle with you, I don't. I would have adopted
the Penny plan, Connie Max's Penny plan in your plan
years ago, but they didn't do it. And I would
actually think about bringing some maybe called the Nickel Plan
at this point. But we also have extenuating circumstances. We
have to secure our borders. We've we've got to expel
(24:30):
illegal immigrants. We've got that we need the next generation
of weaponry because we're behind. We don't even have hypersonics,
but China and Russia do, so I'm worried about all
those factors as well. There's a lot going on here
and a lot to consider.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
I think the cautionary tale is that, you know, they
went to sell ten ure bonds this last week and
there were many less offers for the bonds, and there
have been in recent times. And the interest they had
to pay is and this is the market determining and
not not foul. The market determined they had to pay
over five percent for ten year bonds. And so as
(25:05):
those interest rates rise, it means that people are getting
skittish and investors are getting skittish about buying American death.
I don't want our country to, you know, go into insultancy.
I don't want the country and we could wake up
one day and this happened. It might happen gradually, but
it might happen in a week or in six months.
You can have dramatic uphevils for people who's confidence. And
(25:28):
I think when both parties are blively spending money, no
one's willing to touch the entitlements we've taken Medicare, Medicaid
and SOB security off off of the table. There is
a great deal of concern that we get to a
point and there's going to be a sastrophe and there
has to be somebody out there, you know, you know,
some kind of canary in the coal mine saying we've
(25:49):
got a real problem and somebody's got to do something
about spending.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Listen. I'm in favor of all of it. And I
was actually sad to see Elon Musko, and I'm sad
to see what he went through because it's not a
small thing that he was able to identify over two
hundred billion dollars in waste for aud abuse and corruption.
And I'd like to see that DOGE mission continue in
every aspect and every crevice and corner of the federal government,
(26:18):
and I'd like to like you to return to constitutional order.
My take is is if the House and SENEC can
can go into conference and come out with a bill,
that's a good start, considering the tax cuts that are
the largest in history and all the things that we've discussed.
But then I think the next level is a return
(26:38):
to constitutional order, and that means putting forward budgets and
getting him done by September thirtieth for the next fiscal
year October first, and that's where I'd like to see
maybe the process of definitely reducing rates of increase and
eliminating baseline budgeting and more DOGE cuts across the board
(26:59):
in every apartment. I think there's a long way we
can go that. I think there's still a ton of
waste for odden abuse.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Well, I've told the President I'm supportive of the tax cuts.
I can support the bill if we separate out the
debt ceiling from the bill. So they need my vote.
I'm very much available. I've supported the president's commit I've
supported the president's nomination, so I was probably his biggest
defender on the sake impeachant artisan impeachment. So it doesn't
mean we're going to agree on everything, but on this,
(27:27):
you know, I can't be true to the things that
I've run for and the things that you know, we
say we're going to represent. And that is the deficit
is too large and we have to do something about it.
And so I just have to be honest that I'm
very worried about not not being more having more significant
spending cuts, and about borrowing so much.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
I just think there's got to be a way to
limit it. I mean, back in the day, didn't you
support the Penny Plan?
Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yep?
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Yeah, I mean you were want you were in the
Senate and Connie Act was in the.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
House, right, Yeah, And I've had it for almost a
decade now. It actually is a six penny plan because
the COVID spending went up so much that they you know,
it now takes a six percent cut to get the
balance in five years. But it only works if you
look at all the entitlements. See, we've the current plan
has taken all the entitlements off the table. Even the
(28:23):
Medicaid so called reforms may or may not say what
they said are going to say, but we're really not
going to have significant Medicaid savings.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
And the Medicaid expending has exploded. Senator. We appreciate the
extra time. Thank you, sir, We appreciate it. Ramfall eight
hundred and nine four one Shawn is a number.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
All right.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
That's going to wrap things so for today. Hannity Tonight,
nine eastern on the Fox News Channel. James Comer, Massive Investigations,
What did they know? When did they know it? Who
was really in charge? Who used the auto pen? Also Newkingridge,
Greg Jarrett, Steve Moore on the Incredible Economic News, Matt
Towry on polling, Clay Travis in our other News of
(29:04):
the day segments. Say you DVR tonight Hannity, nine eastern
on Fox. We'll see then back here tomorrow. Thank you
for making this show possible.
The Sean Hannity Show News
Host
Sean Hannity
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.