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 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
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 quarter comes in anywhere near that number, wouldn't you say that that is a phenomenal success.
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 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 that bringing more money into the government wasn't the goal. Actually the goal was leaving more money in the private sector.
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 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 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 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.
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
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 came from China, we now have a trade deficit, and so people say, well, we were ripped off.
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 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.
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,
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.
It doesn't sound fair, but in reality it isn't fair.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 the sanctions with Iran, didn't that didn't that enrich them to the point where they can follment terror in the entire region.
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.
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 idly by and let him do it, and then, you know, basically use American money to fight that war.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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? Poland Columbia?
And it's like, aren't they funding his warm Isshines?
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 anywhere between twenty thirty percent and one hundred and fifty percent.
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 pan out.
Now there's many good things. I think the story is not yet, not yet finished. I think we're just getting started.
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.
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.
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 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?
I got a few more seconds?
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, 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 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,
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, 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 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 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.
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 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 there is no me or anybody else like me supporting.
Where are you going? You're a young man.
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
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.
The deficit this year is going to be two point two trillion, and in March most of the Republicans, not me, but they are.
In fairness though, the deficit this year is really Biden and Harris's economy. You would agree with that, it's.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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
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.
You're talking about the cr the past.
Yeah, well they continued the same spending level.
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.
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
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. 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.
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 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. 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. 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 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.
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 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 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 got a real problem and somebody's got to do something about spending.
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, 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 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 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.
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, 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.
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?
Yep?
Yeah, I mean you were want you were in the Senate and Connie Act was in the.
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 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.
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.
All right.
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 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.