Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2: I sat down with Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky, the
Speaker 2: loan Republican who has consistently voted against both Republican and
Speaker 2: Democratic spending bills that would reopen the government.
Speaker 1: He's still a no.
Speaker 2: I started by asking him if he thinks he's the
Speaker 2: last fiscal hawk in his party.
Speaker 3: Listen feels that way sometimes, Yeah. You know, the way
Speaker 3: I look at the spending proposals is what amount of
Speaker 3: debt will it add up to? So the Republican plan
Speaker 3: this year, the Continuing Resolution led to about a two
Speaker 3: trillion dollar deficit, and I look forward to see what
Speaker 3: will it do if we do the same thing next year.
Speaker 1: It's about a two point one trillion dollar deficit, so
Speaker 1: it's actually worse. Now.
Speaker 3: The Democrats are offering an alternative, but their alternative would
Speaker 3: be three trillion dollars in debt. So I think neither
Speaker 3: plan is a very good plan, and so I've offered
Speaker 3: an alternative called the Penny Plan budget, which would taken
Speaker 3: across the board, cut and the budget over about a
Speaker 3: five year period. It would still add some debt, but
Speaker 3: in the first year it would probably be half of
Speaker 3: what they're looking at now.
Speaker 2: I saw the penny plan that you posted on Twitter.
Speaker 2: What happens when you walk in the cloakroom and talk
Speaker 2: to your Republican colleagues, then, Senator, what do they tell
Speaker 2: you when you try to make your case?
Speaker 3: Well, I think they know where I'm coming from. When
Speaker 3: we had to vote two weeks ago, thirty six Republicans
Speaker 3: voted with me, So it's not like it's a minority.
Speaker 1: Over half of my call is voted with me.
Speaker 3: Now there's still sixteen big government Republicans who don't want
Speaker 3: to cut any spending, and typically they work with the
Speaker 3: big government Democrats and it is a bipartist spending problem
Speaker 3: that we have here. But most of them, I think,
Speaker 3: wish that they could be better and stronger. But I
Speaker 3: think a lot of them think, well, I can't stake
Speaker 3: out this position.
Speaker 1: But when I get home, I get nothing but encouragement.
Speaker 3: People at home are like, thank you for standing your ground,
Speaker 3: thank you for standing up for what you said you
Speaker 3: were running on, which was balancing the budget.
Speaker 2: Yeah, are people at home, I'm talking to you about
Speaker 2: healthcare as well, the extent to which there's concern about
Speaker 2: Obamacare subsidies expiring at the end of the year. This
Speaker 2: is the talk, and the President says that he's in
Speaker 2: discussions with Democrats about this. Is that the off ramp.
Speaker 3: Most of our conversations at home have been with people
Speaker 3: affected by tariffs. So the number one issue I get
Speaker 3: wherever I go in the state is tariffs are killing
Speaker 3: the family farm. Tariffs are killing the bourbon industry. Tariff
Speaker 3: is killing the cargo transport industry. So there's all kinds
Speaker 3: of talk, but mostly of tariffs. On the idea of healthcare,
Speaker 3: I hear mostly from small businesses that are not in
Speaker 3: the Obamacare exchange but feel like they don't have the
Speaker 3: leverage to get a good price. So what I've been
Speaker 3: offering for years for people who are worried about the
Speaker 3: price of healthcare is I'd like to let people buy
Speaker 3: it through an entity like Costco, which has forty four
Speaker 3: million members. I'd like to make it legal for you
Speaker 3: just to go Costco, and then somebody from Costco would
Speaker 3: negotiate for forty four million members and have the leverage
Speaker 3: to drive prices down. It's that individual a market of
Speaker 3: small business men and women who have trouble with the
Speaker 3: health insurance. Then there's a whole government subsidy part. But
Speaker 3: the reason you can't just give everybody money to is
Speaker 3: we don't have the money to give to them.
Speaker 1: We have to borrow it from China. That leads to
Speaker 1: inflation and poor people.
Speaker 3: Think they're getting something free on one hand, but the
Speaker 3: other hands in their pocket stealing their paycheck with inflation.
Speaker 2: Well, of course, you know that's what Chuck Schumer is
Speaker 2: calling for, and Democrats that they want to have a
Speaker 2: negotiation over these subsidies. When you hear Schumer shutdown, it's
Speaker 2: almost a drinking game around here at this point, Senator,
Speaker 2: we hear that every day from Republicans who join us.
Speaker 2: Is that a disingenuous line when it comes to describing
Speaker 2: this situation? Is it more complicated than that? Or actually
Speaker 2: how you see it from the other side of the aisle.
Speaker 3: I would say a lot of people are at fault
Speaker 3: for devolving this debate down to maybe a third grade
Speaker 3: level and not really thinking it through. The vote isn't
Speaker 3: on shutting government down or keeping government open. The vote
Speaker 3: is on what level of.
Speaker 1: Spending can you tolerate? What level of debt can you tolerate?
Speaker 1: And I think there can be.
Speaker 3: Valid reasons now The reason why I think the Democrats
Speaker 3: are less valid at this point are because forty eight
Speaker 3: of them voted or forty seven of them voted in
Speaker 3: December of last year for the identical bill. See, we're
Speaker 3: still living under the Biden spending levels. That's why I'm
Speaker 3: opposed to it. I voted against the Bidens spending levels
Speaker 3: when they came from Democrats and when they're coming from Republicans.
Speaker 3: But these Democrats voted for the identical bill in December
Speaker 3: of twenty four. They're faced with the exact same vote
Speaker 3: now and they've changed. Why because they've moved the goalpost.
Speaker 3: This whole idea of Obamacare subsidies has never been a
Speaker 3: part of the continuing resolution debate. It's something the Democrats
Speaker 3: put forward is expiring because the Democrats allowed it to
Speaker 3: expire in their own legislation. So there's a bit of
Speaker 3: disingenuousness on their part.
Speaker 2: Well, it is interesting as well, you didn't mention AOC
Speaker 2: which usually comes with the talking points on this, and
Speaker 2: it is Rich Irony the Senator that Republicans are now
Speaker 2: urging Democrats to vote on this bill that they once
Speaker 2: found toxic. And I guess this is why a lot
Speaker 2: of people have trouble understanding Washington here. What's your gut?
Speaker 2: Just before we move on, I'd like to ask you
Speaker 2: about a couple of other things. Does the government set
Speaker 2: a new record for shutdowns here? And is the President
Speaker 2: applying pressure on you?
Speaker 1: No? I think it lasts a few more days.
Speaker 3: The Democrats are have to put on a show for
Speaker 3: their left wing, so the social swing of the party
Speaker 3: is hitting them. They saying they don't stand up for
Speaker 3: you know, government subsidies for government welfare strong enough.
Speaker 1: So I think there's a rally this weekend in Washington.
Speaker 3: The rumor is the Democrats have to put on a
Speaker 3: show through the rally. Once they've made it through the
Speaker 3: rally and the left wing doesn't come after their and
Speaker 3: eat their own, then they'll capitulate and say that they
Speaker 3: want a deal and they'll open the government. You're still
Speaker 3: a no though, right, Yeah, I'm an know because I've
Speaker 3: been a no against the spending levels. But I'm gonna
Speaker 3: know for different reasons, not for partisan reasons, not for
Speaker 3: anything to do with the Obamacare substitutes. I'm gonna know
Speaker 3: because both the Republican and Democrat plan offer us too
Speaker 3: much debt.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you about what's going on in
Speaker 2: the Caribbean, Senator Ran Paul, and specifically when it comes
Speaker 2: to Venezuela, and you've been outspoken about this. You commented
Speaker 2: around fears of extraditional killings following the first boat. We've
Speaker 2: now had four. Your concern about the president's actions here?
Speaker 2: Is he looking for regime change in Venezuela?
Speaker 3: You know, I don't know, but we did discover today
Speaker 3: that the Coastguard, when they interdict boats, it's a common
Speaker 3: thing off the coast of Miami in California, about twenty
Speaker 3: five percent of the time, the boat that they bored
Speaker 3: doesn't have drugs on it, so they've made an error,
Speaker 3: but they.
Speaker 1: Don't kill them.
Speaker 3: But we've blown up four boats now, and if the
Speaker 3: percentage is hold true, did one of those four boats
Speaker 3: not have drug dealers on it? If they all had
Speaker 3: drug dealers on it? You know, the first eleven they killed,
Speaker 3: what were their names? What was the evidence linking them
Speaker 3: to being part of a gang? So I think there's
Speaker 3: a lot of unknowns here, and I don't think you
Speaker 3: can have a universal Coast Guard policy of just blowing
Speaker 3: up boats before their interdiction. There's decades long history of
Speaker 3: how we board votes. We say halt stop, we will
Speaker 3: board your boat. If they don't halt and stop, there's
Speaker 3: an escalation of use of force. But we don't just
Speaker 3: blow ships up. So there is a real problem.
Speaker 1: And yes, I think it might lead to regime change.
Speaker 3: And some of the more skeptical among us think that
Speaker 3: maybe this is a provocation to lead to real regime change,
Speaker 3: of provocation to get the Venezuelans to react so we
Speaker 3: can then insert the military.
Speaker 1: I hope that's not true.
Speaker 2: Well, I know you're very familiar with these rules as
Speaker 2: chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and there's been
Speaker 2: a question more recently about whether there's a congressional answer
Speaker 2: to this. Would you support a War Powers Act with
Speaker 2: eyes on Venezuela.
Speaker 3: Yes, I will cosponsor the War Powers Act later this
Speaker 3: week and we will be discussing this on the floor.
Speaker 3: I think it's one of the most important debates we have,
Speaker 3: and the idea that you can kill someone who you
Speaker 3: don't know their name and has had no process at all.
Speaker 3: People say, oh, you're going to give due process to
Speaker 3: fentanyl killers and.
Speaker 1: All of this.
Speaker 3: Even in our country, twenty thousand people commit murders, and
Speaker 3: as angry as we are, if it or my family,
Speaker 3: I would want to shoot them. But we still have
Speaker 3: trials because occasionally the accused is found innocent and not guilty.
Speaker 3: Occasionally we make mistakes, but we can't have a policy
Speaker 3: where we just blow up ships where we don't even
Speaker 3: know the people's names. It can't be the policy for
Speaker 3: drug interdiction, either in the country or outside the country.
Speaker 3: So I will support a war resolution to say the
Speaker 3: government shouldn't be doing this.
Speaker 2: Well, that's really that's news, Senator, really interesting that you're
Speaker 2: going to put your name on this. Do you have
Speaker 2: other Republicans that we'll support that legislation.
Speaker 3: There will be people quietly who will say it's the
Speaker 3: right thing to do, and will respect me for doing
Speaker 3: the right thing. I think most will be afraid of
Speaker 3: the response from the White House.
Speaker 2: President just announced a stake in Trilogy Medals. Now this
Speaker 2: is the fourth company by my count with a true
Speaker 2: a government equity stake. There is also the Golden Share
Speaker 2: when it comes to US steel. Is there any position
Speaker 2: in which you would support these moves as MP materials,
Speaker 2: for instance, an exemption in the name of national security.
Speaker 2: Are we going down the wrong road here. You've called
Speaker 2: this a step towards socialism. Now that we have more companies,
Speaker 2: are we ever closer?
Speaker 3: You know, I wrote a book called The Case against Socialism,
Speaker 3: and so I'm not for government ownership of the means
Speaker 3: of production. But I'm also not for the government owning
Speaker 3: ten percent of the means of production.
Speaker 1: There are all.
Speaker 3: Various forms and degrees of socialism. I do think that
Speaker 3: the law, also the statute that gave money to these companies.
Speaker 3: I was against it because I'm against subsidies, particularly when
Speaker 3: we have to borrow them. But the law didn't indicate
Speaker 3: any power or transfer any power to the president to say,
Speaker 3: instead of a grant we're going to give you, we're
Speaker 3: going to have stock in your company, and that's the
Speaker 3: only way you get it. Those conditions weren't contemplated in
Speaker 3: the law. So I suspect eventually this will go to court.
Speaker 3: I've been surprised how quickly the companies have acquiesced in it,
Speaker 3: but I guess it is free money from their perspective,
Speaker 3: and when you get free money, it's hard to turn
Speaker 3: away from that. But now I don't like it. I
Speaker 3: don't like the government sort of saying to Navidia. Hey,
Speaker 3: hey guys, yeah, you can sell in China this year,
Speaker 3: but we want fifteen percent. You know, we wont fifteen percent.
Speaker 3: There is no legal authority to do things like that.
Speaker 3: And you know, my problem is, imagine what this would
Speaker 3: be like if you had Mondami as president or as president.
Speaker 1: There's my talking point. It came back in if AOC
Speaker 1: were president.
Speaker 3: Can you imagine what would it mean for her to
Speaker 3: own the companies?
Speaker 1: What if she owned ten percent of Exon? What if
Speaker 1: she owned ten percent of the oil companies? Oh my goodness.
Speaker 3: So I don't want reveuvements order democrats to own the companies.
Speaker 1: It's a terrible idea.
Speaker 2: Duly noted when you think about what we're discussing here, though,
Speaker 2: socialism with regard to government stakes in publicly traded companies.
Speaker 2: In the case of Intel, you've got Trilogy Metals. Now
Speaker 2: we can talk about TikTok and the integrity of Congress
Speaker 2: authoritarianism when it comes to extra digital killings off Venezuela.
Speaker 2: We've all done this in just ten minutes, Senator. So
Speaker 2: is Donald Trump an autocrat?
Speaker 3: But the interesting thing is, despite my complaints, despite my pushback,
Speaker 3: I still think he's the best president of our lifetime. Frankly,
Speaker 3: I would vote him a million times over a socialist
Speaker 3: like Aaron's or a president like Biden who is unable
Speaker 3: to really perform the functions of the job. But yeah,
Speaker 3: on so many things, he's for lower taxes, less regulation,
Speaker 3: he's war pro business.
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean I agree with everything.
Speaker 3: But just because I have disagreements, and some of the
Speaker 3: things are big disagreements, doesn't mean that I actually, frankly,
Speaker 3: don't think he's a great president.
Speaker 2: You think federal workers should get back pay when the sents.
Speaker 3: They always do. It's not a matter of will they
Speaker 3: they always do, and it'll be part of the deal.
Speaker 3: The Democrats will fold within a week. But part of
Speaker 3: the deal is that all the union workers that work
Speaker 3: for the federal government we'll get back.
Speaker 2: Bay Republican Senator Ran Paul of Kentucky talking with US
Speaker 2: earlier today. He remains a no vote on this day
Speaker 2: seven of the government shutdown.