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