Speaker 1: Senator, Good morning, hope you're well today.
Speaker 2: Good morning. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Absolutely always like having you here. Hey.
Speaker 3: First of all, look, I don't want to get into
Speaker 3: you know, are your feelings hurt, whatever the case might be,
Speaker 3: but I do want to ask you about not being
Speaker 3: invited to the lunch yesterday with other senators at the
Speaker 3: White House with President Trump. I mean, it seems to
Speaker 3: me that you can have disagreements inside of a party.
Speaker 3: It's one thing to disagree with the other party, but
Speaker 3: you can have disagreements inside your own party yet still
Speaker 3: let all the voices be heard. I thought that was
Speaker 3: a mistake on his part. I assume maybe you feel
Speaker 3: the same way or no.
Speaker 2: Well, I try not to take it too seriously there.
Speaker 2: You know, people can be petty here and there, and
Speaker 2: you know, I could care less whether I'm invited in
Speaker 2: the lunch or not. But what I do think is
Speaker 2: that I'm on their mind, and that's a good thing
Speaker 2: because the things that I represent are basically balancing the budget,
Speaker 2: reduce spending, making government small and constitutional, and I stick
Speaker 2: to my guns on that. So when Republicans propose a
Speaker 2: spending bill, it will be two trillion in debt, which
Speaker 2: is going on right now. I oppose it. Democrats have
Speaker 2: proposed a spending bill it would be three trillion in debt.
Speaker 2: I pose that also. But there needs to be some
Speaker 2: part of the Republican Party that is still fiscally conservative,
Speaker 2: consistent and sticks to its principles. And so the thing
Speaker 2: is is I am on their mind. And the President,
Speaker 2: you know, may have thought it was kind of funny
Speaker 2: that I wasn't invited. But the other thing is is
Speaker 2: he's having to think about me. And when we posted
Speaker 2: that Thomas Massey and I were having lunch instead, we
Speaker 2: had two million people view that posting. So there is
Speaker 2: a constituency still out there for fiscal conservatism and I'm
Speaker 2: going to continue to try to represent that.
Speaker 3: Okay, But I got to ask you, knowing what you
Speaker 3: just said that the Democrats spending would be three million.
Speaker 3: The Republicans, I think you said two million, Why did
Speaker 3: you vote again, I'm sorry, why did you vote against
Speaker 3: just a clean CR on this deal?
Speaker 2: The clean CR are the Biden spending levels basically, so
Speaker 2: last December, the CR levels continuing resolution spending levels were
Speaker 2: set and these were the Biden levels, and you remember
Speaker 2: Republicans complaining I Evan in the election about biden Omics,
Speaker 2: Biden inflation, Biden spending. Most Conservatives voted against these spending
Speaker 2: levels last December. Come March, Republicans were in charge, Trump
Speaker 2: was in the White House. Then the Republicans, most of
Speaker 2: them other than me, flipped and voted for it. The
Speaker 2: interesting thing now is the Biden spending levels are now
Speaker 2: the Republican CR. All the Democrats voted for this in
Speaker 2: December of twenty four also, but now they've flipped. So
Speaker 2: it's kind of only in Washington. Can you imagine that
Speaker 2: all the Republicans now support other than me, support the
Speaker 2: Biden spending levels, and all the Democrats are opposed to
Speaker 2: the Biden spending levels. So it's a crazy topsy turvy world.
Speaker 2: But there has to be someone who's consistent in all
Speaker 2: this mess. So I voted against the Republican plan because
Speaker 2: they're at the Biden spending levels and it will lead
Speaker 2: to a two trillion dollars deficit this year and that's
Speaker 2: just untenable.
Speaker 3: Well, with that in mind, though, with the CR and look,
Speaker 3: you've forgotten more of this stuff than I'll ever know.
Speaker 3: But wouldn't a CR though. Senator rand Paul wouldn't at
Speaker 3: least give you the chance to negotiate through some of
Speaker 3: this stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, now is the time to negotiate. And the thing
Speaker 2: is is I put forward a proposal. They voted on
Speaker 2: my proposal two weeks ago, not because they wanted to,
Speaker 2: but because I forced them to, because it's a privileged
Speaker 2: vot vehicle, because neither party put forward a budget. So
Speaker 2: I put forward mind the Penny Plan about two weeks ago,
Speaker 2: and we did get a vote, and we got about
Speaker 2: thirty six Republicans, So that's not bad. We've got no Democrats,
Speaker 2: but it illustrates that there is a solution. My Penny
Speaker 2: Plan would balance the budget over about a five year period.
Speaker 2: That's what we need to be doing, and that's what
Speaker 2: I'm going to continue to be. And I just don't
Speaker 2: feel like, you know, taking a backstop of two trillion
Speaker 2: dollars in new debt next year. I mean, the interest
Speaker 2: payment now alone is a trillion dollars, and I think
Speaker 2: it's untenable and I think our country is at risk
Speaker 2: because of this. So I don't treat this lightly. I
Speaker 2: don't treat this as, oh, you know, I'm going to
Speaker 2: be petulant and vote against both I treat this as
Speaker 2: sort of life and death with the nation that we
Speaker 2: just cannot keep adding two trillion dollars every year in debt.
Speaker 3: Is there any resolution in sight for this government shut down?
Speaker 2: I think it's going to eventually, and either this week
Speaker 2: or next. And here's the reasoning the Democrats. These are
Speaker 2: Democrats spending levels. These are the Biden spending levels, now
Speaker 2: called the Republicans z R. They all voted for it
Speaker 2: last year in December. They're eventually all going to vote
Speaker 2: for it this time. What happened is their base, their
Speaker 2: left wing base, the socialist base of the Democrat Party,
Speaker 2: decided they wanted more. They didn't want just the Biden
Speaker 2: spending levels. They a to one of these add on
Speaker 2: Obamacare subsidies. It's important that your listeners know what the
Speaker 2: Democrats are asking for. The add on Obamacare subsidies give
Speaker 2: one thousand dollars to somebody who makes two hundred and
Speaker 2: twenty five thousand dollars. So if you make two hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty five thousand dollars a year, the Obamacare subsidise,
Speaker 2: the add on subsease give you one thousand dollars a
Speaker 2: year if you make one hundred and seventy thousand dollars
Speaker 2: a year. The Obamacare add on gives you thirty six
Speaker 2: hundred dollars a year. So this is insane. We're two
Speaker 2: trillion dollars short, and I think you're pretty well off
Speaker 2: if you make one hundred and seventy thousand, if you
Speaker 2: make two hundred twenty five thousand dollars, and you shouldn't
Speaker 2: get any government money. So I really think we're gonna
Speaker 2: end up winning this argument because giving rich people money
Speaker 2: for health insurance that passes on to billion dollar you know,
Speaker 2: multi billion dollar insurance companies. The only people that have
Speaker 2: gotten rich off. You know, the rich get richer and
Speaker 2: the insurance companies get rich. Yell. So it's a terrible situation.
Speaker 2: I think the Democrats will eventually fold.
Speaker 3: On this another topic, I'm kind of curious. Bear with
Speaker 3: me for a second, why I try at least to
Speaker 3: draw this sort of comparison. You have come out, you
Speaker 3: have come out sternly against some of these bombings, for
Speaker 3: lack of a better term, of some of these boats
Speaker 3: that are blowing getting blown up by our military that
Speaker 3: are trying to bring drugs into the country. You know,
Speaker 3: I was singing about this last night, tell me if
Speaker 3: I'm just completely mad about this, right, I look at
Speaker 3: this kind of like, Okay, what if somebody is trying
Speaker 3: to bring something deadly into my house and to hurt
Speaker 3: my family. I don't care what their rights are if
Speaker 3: they come in to try to bring something that would
Speaker 3: be deadly to my family, I'm going to do everything
Speaker 3: I can to protect my family from being hurt by
Speaker 3: whatever it is they're bringing in. What is the difference
Speaker 3: between that and again, if you tell me I'm crazy,
Speaker 3: I get it. What's the difference between that and these
Speaker 3: boats bringing drugs into our country that we know are
Speaker 3: going to kill people in this country?
Speaker 1: Why are we worried about their rights?
Speaker 2: The main difference is this, When someone comes into your
Speaker 2: house or tries to break into your house, they're not
Speaker 2: alleged to be doing it. You actually see them when
Speaker 2: you shoot them. They come in the door trying to
Speaker 2: kill you. So the difference is that these boats is
Speaker 2: there's a word called alleged. You don't know who these
Speaker 2: people are. We don't know their name, we don't have
Speaker 2: any evidence they're presenting, no evidence even have drugs. They're
Speaker 2: not all Venezuela, and some of them are Colombian, some
Speaker 2: are Equadorian. Think about this. We bombed a boat the
Speaker 2: other day, killed a bunch of them, found two of
Speaker 2: them swinging in the water. Did we pick up the
Speaker 2: debris and put it into a court case against SIMP
Speaker 2: drugs now that we found them floating in the water. Nope,
Speaker 2: we just send them back to Colombia Ecuador. Doesn't it
Speaker 2: seem bizarre if they really are in the drug trade
Speaker 2: that we wouldn't prosecute the very people that we blow
Speaker 2: up with these missiles. So the thing is there is
Speaker 2: a difference in our country. So if someone breaks into
Speaker 2: your house, you have the right to shoot them. But
Speaker 2: if someone you know committed an assault and you think
Speaker 2: that they live across you know, three streets over, you
Speaker 2: can't go over there and just shoot them or blow
Speaker 2: their house up. That's the difference. I mean. So if
Speaker 2: you're at sea, if the coastguard is at sea and
Speaker 2: they say to a boat, halt stop, we're going to
Speaker 2: search you for contraband or for drugs. If they don't
Speaker 2: they run away, the coastguard has the right to pursue them,
Speaker 2: has the right to shoot at them to disable them,
Speaker 2: and if they fire deadly shots of the Coastguard. The
Speaker 2: coastguard can sink them. This has been the rules of
Speaker 2: engagement for probably a couple of hundred years. The Coastguard
Speaker 2: can use deadly forced but there's an escalation of the
Speaker 2: rules on this. The reasoning is this, when the coast
Speaker 2: Guard finally boards the ships off of Miami, twenty five
Speaker 2: percent of those suspective of having drugs have no drugs
Speaker 2: on board. So if we're wrong twenty five percent of
Speaker 2: the time, would it be okay to blow people up?
Speaker 2: These are human beings for goodness egs. I mean, if
Speaker 2: it's you know, an eighteen year old fisherman who they've
Speaker 2: kidnapped his sister and that he's being made to do
Speaker 2: this or his sister's going to be raped or killed.
Speaker 2: So there's a lot of if sam's or butts about
Speaker 2: this that should be explored. And none of these drugs
Speaker 2: are at all likelihood even coming to America. This is
Speaker 2: an outboard boat two thousand miles away. These drugs, if
Speaker 2: there are drugs, because it's still alleged, are going to
Speaker 2: Trinidad and Tobago. This is a drug trade to the
Speaker 2: Lower Antilles, the Lesser Antilles. These boats have no means.
Speaker 2: It would take twenty tanks of gas. You'd have to
Speaker 2: stop and fill up twenty times on an outboard motor
Speaker 2: to get all the way United States from there. So
Speaker 2: they're not even presenting evidence of who the people are,
Speaker 2: whether they have drugs. But they're also not presenting evidence
Speaker 2: of these boats two thousand miles away have any intention
Speaker 2: of coming to America.
Speaker 3: Hey, last thing I want to ask you about, and
Speaker 3: this is way off topic here, but you know, depending
Speaker 3: on what happens here in the next couple of weeks,
Speaker 3: there is chance that the largest city in America is
Speaker 3: going to basically vote in certainly a socialist, if not
Speaker 3: an outright communist, to be the mayor of New York City.
Speaker 3: In your wildest dreams, could you have ever imagined that
Speaker 3: might happen in this country.
Speaker 2: No, and it's hard to believe it is, and it
Speaker 2: does happen. There's been a huge exodus from New York
Speaker 2: and particularly New York City. A lot of the means
Speaker 2: in capital, you know, it was the greatest financial city
Speaker 2: in the world, have been leaving for years. But I
Speaker 2: think there'll be a mass exodus and what you'll be
Speaker 2: left with is no financial engine and just a poverty
Speaker 2: and what comes from socialism. So no, it's a disaster
Speaker 2: that's unfolding in slow motion hopefully that people will see.
Speaker 2: But you know, there's not a whole lot of choices.
Speaker 2: I mean, you can vote for the corrupt Cuomo or
Speaker 2: mom Domi, but there also is another choice. I'd vote
Speaker 2: frankly for the Republican. I think Curtis Lee what would
Speaker 2: bring law in order to the place and would be great.
Speaker 2: He's just not polling high enough because there's not enough
Speaker 2: Republicans right now, but he's the best choice, all right.
Speaker 1: Senator Ran Paul.
Speaker 3: Can't thank you enough for your time as always, and
Speaker 3: we'll look forward to catching up with you again sometime soon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, all right, Senator Ran Paul from the Commonwealth
Speaker 3: of Kentucky.