Iran War Cost Threatens the United States: Sen. Rand Paul

[00:00:00]37.5. I don't know how that number hits you, but if you do a little quick math in your head, the we're asking for about 60 and change in the supplemental budget request. Are we signing up for another 10 months of work? To be fair, I think you're underestimating it. He was clear in his testimony that they also want 1.5 trillion as the base budget. Well, that's right. So, we currently spend a trillion. He wants 1.5 trillion. That's $500 billion increase plus another, you know, poultry 37 billion on top of the 500 billion. No one in in the history of the country has ever asked for this much money. This is more money that you can't even print it that fast. All right. So, it's it threatens our country. You know, the biggest threat we have right now is our debt.

[00:00:45]>> We are less d we are more in danger of devaluing our currency than we are of Iran invading the United States. Well, the defense secretary testified that for national security, it is critical that they get the money that they are asking for. What would you say to someone that says the actual danger that the country is put in is the Pentagon?

[00:01:02]>> I would say that he's mistaken the problem. The threat, the greatest threat to our national security is our debt.

[00:01:07]That's what Admiral Mullen said 10 years ago and it's gotten 10 times worse. It is completely and utterly fiscally irresponsible to someone to ask for a 50% increase in the military. But they're not asking for the approval of Congress. We have a war that we have not voted upon. No congressional vote. Look, George Bush at the very least came to Congress. He asked for a war, an authorization for the use of military force for Afghanistan and for Iraq.

[00:01:34]Without a vote, and yet he wants us to give him a 50% increase. We're $2 trillion short this year. Increasing the military spending by 50% is absolutely irresponsible.

[00:01:46]>> So, where does that leave the war powers argument? I thought it was interesting that the president sent a letter to Congress announcing the resumption of the war. Doesn't that get a 60-day clock ticking again?

[00:01:55]>> No. The only way it works for the Constitution is the initiation or declaration of war is Congress.

[00:02:01]>> The War Powers Act says you can go to war if you're attacked. Yeah.

[00:02:04]>> Or if you're in imminent danger. The 60-day thing is misinterpreted that you get 60 days to fight the war. No, you're not supposed to fight any war unless you've been you're under imminent attack or that there's a self-defense need to do it. 60 days isn't a gift. Every time a president says, "Oh, I want a 60 days to start the war. Oh, we stopped yesterday. Oh, we'll start tomorrow.

[00:02:23]Give us 60 more days." No. The initi the initiation of war, the declaration of war was given specifically to the legislature. So, we're not adhering to the Constitution now. We have an unpopular war and we have a war that's increasing prices for people already pinched by. Look, we've had 25% inflation in the last 5 years. Inflation is cumulative. People don't say, "Oh, I don't care that I had 9% inflation under Biden." They still lost 9% of the purchasing power. It's all added up. And even with inflation going down, we've had 25% loss of purchasing power in the last 5 years. So people, let's say you make $50,000 and you have two kids, you're married and have two kids. And if you had have 25% increase in wages, you've lost money in the last 5 years.

[00:03:08]Add on top of that the gas prices, there are a lot of people being pinched. And I think the elections are going to represent people very unhappy that they aren't getting by as well as they did 5 years ago. Well, and if the reopening of the straight of four news may prove critical in at least getting the energy and gasoline costs people are paying down, why not just try to expedite the opening by finishing the job for good in Iran, going as hard militarily as possible as the president said he's considering.

[00:03:34]>> You see us closer or farther away from getting rid of militarization. So, let's just make the argument, are we better off now or before the war? So, before the war, there had been discussion, but never had been a militar militarization of the war. People have talked about it for decades, but it never happened. So now the straightfor is militarized. So that I would argue we're worse off. And people say, "Well, maybe we're better off because we have more leverage to get them to give up their nuclear weapons."

[00:04:01]I don't know. I see them dragging their heels and being sly and clever with this and knowing that we're probably not going to put troops in there. If you really want to control the Straits of Hermoose, you would have to send a couple hundred thousand troops in. I don't think the president's inclined to do that. I think the Iranians know that.

[00:04:18]Um I still hope for the best and the best would be open the straight of Hormuse and then maybe get them to trade sanctions relief for removal of enriched uranium. But I don't think we're closer to that. I think we're actually farther away. And if you tell me, oh well, we just need more bombs. We bombed the crap out of them. We have completely and utterly annihilated. We defeated them completely. But they just don't care.

[00:04:42]And you bomb them some more than you think they're going to. My favorite one is this though. They say, "Well, the new guys are a lot easier to work with." And it's like, "Oh, yeah. Oh, you mean the guy whose dad you killed and you blew his leg off and disfigured him and you call him insulting things all the time?

[00:04:57]Oh, he's going to be much more inclined to to sue for peace." No, they're more inclined to battle to the end. And they know if they allow too much to happen that the regime could be toppled. So, I think they will fight to the bitter end.

[00:05:10]>> So, what's the course of action with everything that you just said? Um if if there's going to be a deal that trade sanctions relief, do we start drawing down our presence? Do we start bringing men and women home? They've been hanging out there for 5 months, even more than that. Senator, when do Americans see their families again?

[00:05:27]>> So I think the military defeat hasn't gotten us closer to a deal. To get a deal, you have to give something. So the trade is this. We would have to trade sanctions relief for removal of the enriched uranium. Okay? And you could argue that we're in a better position maybe to get that because we've shown our military might. I I I'm hopeful but not certain that that's where we are.

[00:05:48]But that's a trade war happening. But realize there are many hawks in my party who don't want any deal with the regime.

[00:05:54]We don't trust these scoundrels. We're never dealing with them. And if that's our attitude, then we've got a whole lot more chaotic um you know, news for the world markets. Well, speaking of making deals, there's plenty of deal making happening here on Capitol Hill to try to get the president as much of what he desires as possible when it comes to the Save America Act. It seems that it's going to be folded, at least in part, into this budget resolution to pave the way for reconciliation 3.0. Is that effort to try to get the Save America Act passed hampering progress on other issues? Because the votes aren't here in the Senate. The math doesn't work that way. I'm for people showing an ID and showing that they're a citizen, but it doesn't have the votes to pass. What they're actually talking about now is not the Save Act.

[00:06:38]They're talking about starting a new federal program, $10 billion, and they're going to pay people to adhere to it. But you you've seen the government of California, you think they're going to take money to do what Republicans tell them to do? I think no way. And then some of the battleground states, they already do this. People need to realize that in Arkansas, in Arizona, which is a battleground state every year presidentially and maybe for the Senate, you already have to have proof of citizenship to to register to vote. Um, in some states, they looked at this. In Utah, they looked at 2 million voters and they found one person who wasn't a citizen. So, I'm all for checking to see if we were citizens. In Kentucky, we've already policed our roles. We don't need any money from the federal government.

[00:07:15]And creating a new federal program. I mean, you know, I think it was Reagan who said the closest thing to immortality is a federal program.

[00:07:23]>> We don't need more federal programs. So, I think we should try to fight some of this on a state-by-state basis. Uh try to get rid of unsolicited mail-in ballots and try to get rid of harvesting as statewide initiatives. I think those would be maybe a more realistic way of getting some of this done to get to a more valid election. You mentioned some of the hawks in your party and I immediately think of the late Senator Lindsey Graham. I think as well about Senator Mitch McConnell uh who was a vocal advocate uh as a hawk when it comes to Ukraine as well, >> right?

[00:07:59]>> How is he doing? Are you hearing from constituents about his well-being? And have you spoken with the senator?

[00:08:03]>> I haven't spoken to him directly. I've seen what the news reports are and I hope that he gets better and is back soon. But you're right. These are people now advocating for a new sanctions bill on Russia in memory of Lindsey Graham.

[00:08:15]But this new sanctions bill has 100% tariffs on the top five recipients of Russian oil. It' be 100% tariff on China, 100% tariff on India, 100% tariff on Turkey. It would be more disastrous to the world in to the world economy than the hooty smally hoot tariffs in the 1930s. It's a terrible terrible rotten bill. probably the worst thing I could have seen in a decade in Washington and everybody's glomming on to. It's like, oh, Russia's bad, Ukraine good. But you know what? You're going to devastate the world's economy. It also gives the president the authority the Supreme Court took away from him and said he didn't have. It's going to give wide vast uh tariff authority to the executive branch. And I think that's a huge mistake. It's a $500 billion tax increase.

[00:09:02]>> Wow.

[00:09:02]>> We do $500 billion worth of trade with China, India, and a handful of other countries. If you put a 100% tariff on them and if they were to pay it, it's a $500 billion tax increase.

[00:09:12]>> President says he wants to add to the economy.

[00:09:14]>> Add Iran and Hezbollah, he said.

[00:09:16]>> Say again.

[00:09:16]>> The president wants to add Iran to >> sanctions. Yeah. We have, you know sanctions we have on Russia.

[00:09:22]>> 26,000. Do you know how many behaviors Russia has changed since we put 26,000 tariffs on them?

[00:09:28]>> Yeah.

[00:09:28]>> So, what's the better way, Senator? How do you put pressure on Russia? Well, I think you one, you shouldn't be advocating for Ukraine to be in NATO.

[00:09:37]Two, you shouldn't threaten to steal their money. We have confiscated about $250 billion of theirs in foreign trade accounts. Uh, Senator Graham wanted to give it to Ukraine. That would be a recipe for an eternal war. You think Russia's going to quit the war if you take their money and give it to the people they're fighting with? Doesn't make Russia right in any of this.

[00:09:54]Russia's the aggressor. I agree with all that. Simply so with Ukraine. But adamantly stomping our feet and tap slapping our shoe and saying they must be in in NATO is a mistake. The same people who pushed for Ukraine to be a NATO want Georgia to be a NATO. It's a >> still a live conversation about Ukraine being a NATO. The European Union certainly, but they're not still advocating for their own membership. At least at this point, >> they they've advocated for for a decade.

[00:10:20]And if you still talk to the EU, they'll say everyone has the right to be a NATO.

[00:10:24]That is a stupid alliance if everybody has the right to be in it. Many of these people had nothing to to do with, you know, the original reason we had NATO.

[00:10:32]But Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union at one point. Georgia was too. I'm glad they have independent countries now. But we have to we we never can imagine things in reverse. What What if Mexico were in the Warsaw Pact in 1965 or wanted to join the Warsaw Pact? We would have gone to war for that. And yet we don't quite understand why Russia's at war when we agitate to put Ukraine, a former part of the Soviet Union, into a military alliance against Russia. So, uh, I think it was a huge mistake. And I think that, you know, the elections went back and forth in Ukraine for for decades. There' be a pro-Russian, then a pro- West, then pro-Russian, pro- West.

[00:11:12]And um, what we did didn't work, and it led to war. And um, I hope we won't repeat the same thing with Georgia. I wonder how many people remember the Warsaw Pact at this point. Senator, lastly, you subpoenaed Dr. Anthony Fouchy, who I believe is going to appear before your committee next week.

[00:11:29]>> Yes.

[00:11:29]>> Uh, as you try to challenge him on the roots of CO, how does that exploration, that conversation next week, help to prevent the next pandemic? I think it's important to know what mistakes we made.

[00:11:42]It was one of the worst medical decisions in our history for Anthony Fouchy to approve dangerous gain of function research in communist China.

[00:11:50]It's an opaque society. It's a society that often doesn't tell the truth about many things. And they weren't honest about it. At first they said it's not even being transmitted human to human when it was all over Wuhan. They were just being dishonest with us. But this gain of function research where you create a virus that gains transmissibility and gains the uh virolence or pathogenicity is a bad idea. And uh there are people doing it with the aven flu. There are people wanting to do it with Ebola. These are this is the type of research we shouldn't fund here, but we really shouldn't fund it in an opaque society that we really don't trust in many fronts.