Kentucky Senator Rand Paul Talks Iran War Cost

**SPEAKER_1** (0:02)
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio, News.

**Joe Mathieu** (0:07)
$37.5 billion, the number presented by the Secretary of Defense. And joining us now to kick off our coverage this evening is Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who's of course chair of the Homeland Security Committee as well a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. It's great to see you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for meeting us up here once again.
$37.5 billion, I don't know how that number hits you, but if you do a little quick math in your head, we're asking for about $60 billion in change in the supplemental budget request. Are we signing up for another 10 months of work?

**Rand Paul** (0:38)
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.

**Joe Mathieu** (0:45)
Well, that's right.

**Rand Paul** (0:46)
So we currently spend $1 trillion. He wants $1.5 trillion. That's $500 billion increase plus another paltry $37 billion. On top of the $500 billion. No one in the history of the country has ever asked this much money. This is more money that you can't even print that fast. All right? So it threatens our country. You know, the biggest threat we have right now is our debt.
We are more in danger of devaluing our currency than we are of Iran invading the United States.

**Kailey Leinz** (1:17)
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 if the Pentagon can't fund it?

**Rand Paul** (1:27)
I would say that he's mistaken the problem.
The greatest threat to our national security is our debt. 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. Without a vote, and yet then 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.

**Joe Mathieu** (2:12)
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?

**Rand Paul** (2:21)
No, the only way it works for the Constitution is the initiation or declaration of war is Congress. The War Powers Act says you can go to war if you're attacked 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'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 60 days to start the war. We stopped yesterday, and we'll start tomorrow. Give us 60 more days. No, 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.
Look, we've had 25% inflation in the last five 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. We've all added up. And even with inflation going down, we've had 25% loss of purchasing power in the last five 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 haven't had a 25% increase in wages, you've lost money in the last five years. 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 five years ago.

**Kailey Leinz** (3:45)
Well, and if the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz may prove critical and 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.

**Rand Paul** (4:00)