Senator Rand Paul talks with Kuhner about falling off the cliff
Dec 11, 2012|
Should the GOP give in to Obama and fall off the cliff? Senator Rand Paul tells Kuhner they should.
Are we really Boston Strong?
Tue, 15 Apr 2014
Today marks a year after the Boston bombings, are we really Boston Strong?
Armed militia defeats big government tyranny in Nevada.
Mon, 14 Apr 2014
What do you make of the Bundy ranch dispute?
Ted Cruz or Rand Paul in 2016?
Mon, 14 Apr 2014
Over the weekend Ted Cruz and Rand Paul were at the Freedom Summit. Kuhner thinks Cruz speech beat Paul's. What do you think?
Eric Holder crying racism?
Fri, 11 Apr 2014
Jeff says Eric Holder isn't the only Attorney General that's been grilled by a House committee.
Transcript - will not be 100% accurate
Coming up at noon Rush Limbaugh on AM to six CD WRK. No. I do -- coterie sports. From Boston for Boston in Boston we are now joined by senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Senator Paul thank you so much for coming on the corner report. Good morning glad to be with him. Server got so much to ask you but let me ask you this right off about everybody's talking about the fiscal cliff. You have come out and boldly said let Obama own the tax increases. Let him raise rates on everybody. And then when the economy tanks it'll be on his head and his pants. I think that's exactly right you know I didn't run for office and most Republicans didn't run for office to be just a -- little bit less bad in the president. To vote for just a little bit less of an increase in taxes in the president. Where especially the party of limited government and lower taxes and if we're not going to be that party I think we in my twelve disband. So I'm in favor of saying to the Republicans in the house they were raised taxes -- present. Let them have a majority when it comes in the senate all the Republicans no president can sign it. But it's -- working they've tried -- in England they're trying in California they're trying France and -- or fleeing. People fully money goes -- welcome and I think it's a big mistake to raise rates you'll actually get less revenue and less economic growth. We're talking us senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. One of the leading Tea Party Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the country. Senator in fact I argued for this about maybe three weeks ago. And let me so I completely agree with you let me ask you this though just to play devil's advocate. Where do you see data many grassroots Republicans who say well. We elected you to hold the line on taxes. And if you abstain if you vote present in mouse. You're essentially capitulated. To massive tax increases. And this is a betrayal what do you say to them. I guess the other alternative right now I was the speaker of the house is offering 800 billion dollars in tax increases and he wants Republicans to vote for a tax increase. This would at the -- this should be better than voting for the speaker's plan. The best thing would be in really what the Republicans ought to do -- first of all put up a puzzle that extends all the tax rate currently. And they've done this once before but couldn't do it again. So go ahead and vote for what we're four. And then if we cannot -- -- for the president would not negotiate with this and the speakers not inclined to stand firm. Then it's a better alternative -- voting for it is to allow them to vote for an increase in taxes that not to have any of our fingerprints on it that the Democrats on the taxing. Senator. If you could be king for a day. Emperor from a -- you're you're like me you're a small government. As small. -- the US government for an entire you know for for fruit for a year. What would you do to bring down our deficits and debt what do we need to do to turn things around in the United States. Well the first thing is to acknowledge that they're not to be trusted with your money they're not good stewards of your money. And they're not to be trusted even with adhering to their own rules the first thing you have status yet to amend the constitution to say we have to balance the budget short of that. Nothing will work I don't know that we elect enough good people. The people we elect and the capitulate over time to you really need to amend the constitution and Jefferson was in favor of this. Is to go and now balanced budget every year. We passed statutory caps which are rules on how much we can spend. We just -- to evade them every -- we're supposed to have a budget every year we don't do it. We're supposed to have appropriations bills while law and we still don't do it so I think the best thing to reform the country move forward would be about budget amendment the constitution. Senator. There's a story out in my paper today in The Washington Times about a growing rebellion. Among some house Republicans many of them Tea Party Republicans. Against speaker John Boehner is leadership. He's recently purged a lot of Tea Party Republicans from a lot of key committees. He's talking about maybe caving on tax increases for those making above 250000. Dollars a year. Do you think it's time for a leadership challenged speaker Boehner. But I would say is we need to listen to his conservative base and at the base is getting restless. Once you go and listen to us what we're saying is let's don't be the party of slightly less high taxes in the president. As the the party of lower taxes no way to do that. Is he needs to put forward something. Let assault that the house Republicans vote on it that extends all the tax rates permanently. And reforms entitlements and cut spending a real way. And I think -- have no trouble hanging on within the next step needs to be probably. Voting present in the Democrats passive or standing firm and bringing things to a standstill as he stood firm. Things are just come to a standstill. The president have to negotiate -- since he's already put out 800 billion dollars in tax increases. President knows that he guardian capitulate so president actually has doubled. Is that quest for the president wants. One point six trillion dollars in tax increases the president so emboldened. Thinking want to negotiate with the weakened Republican leadership. We're talking a senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. Senator I'm just curious. In terms of what's taken place in being Gaza. Where are we now in the investigation of Ben Ghazi gate. Do you think the administration politicize the intelligence. And do you think there should be an independent counsel. Of what or an independent prosecutor special prosecutor. To look into what happened with our embassy or consulate forgive me in Libya. Yes to all of that but I think what's being missed by a lot of people is the most important question in the -- Who with the State Department made the decision to have no uniformed Marines in Libya. Good to State Department in charge -- security. And why would they give that to a bunch of militias running around -- don't speak our languid with machine guns bungee -- it down the back they're cheap. -- -- right my I would say that's -- security we have for the ambassador. From the United States inciting a huge mistake. And even more egregious and let the politicization at rice did. Is who that it didn't provide adequate security because -- That means all embassies around the world have that person making that decision that's the person who needs to resign and should be replaced. And I think that question cannot be said. You know loud enough I'm also worried about selling new planes to Egypt I'm worried about a lot of things that are going on they're really need to be slow down or stopped. Senator you made a lot of news recently when you say it is time for a new Republican Party. Could you explain -- listeners. What you meant by that and what do you think this new Republican Party needs to look like. We're not winning you know we're not winning presidential elections we've lost twice in a row. We're not winning on the West Coast were long winning in New England or not winning. -- and around the Great -- I think the party needs to be a little more libertarian conservative but what what I mean by that. We need to believe in a strong national defense but believe it a little bit less aggressive foreign policy of foreign policy that says we go to war. We go to war reluctantly but don't mess with us when we go to war congress votes on a declaration of war -- founding fathers intended. And we go in and we went overwhelmingly. To that doesn't mean we have to be perpetually at war that we -- -- involved in every war around the world. I would say we need to be. A party that more understanding. People who have immigrated to this country understand that there assets. And not liabilities that most of this came from immigrant families and we need to say it over and over again. Know your family came here from overseas minded a couple of generations before that we all of the Stanley is immigrants and we need to say that over and over again that immigrants are asset. I think on some policy like drugs we need to acknowledge -- kids and some adults make mistakes. I'm not in favor of drug use and not in favor legalization. But I am in favor of a more compassionate. Approach that involves treating people as opposed incarcerating people for drug use. I think these things wouldn't allow us to be more appealing a little bit different. And you know I think there's a chance we could win but we're not gonna win with the same old same old. Senator would you support amnesty for illegal immigrants the way George W. Bush recently recommend. But I would support his probation. And what I would say is that if you come here illegally. Your penalty will be it's gonna take a long time to be normalized if you wanna work we can normalize you. I would say to normalize you we have to secure the border so I would do if we're gonna normalize the people here means giving them work pieces. What I would say is we have to secure the border otherwise we tell the rest of Max you know come on up and it's easy to get it work visa and stay be normalized. But for people have been here for dozens of years and decades I think the Republican Party needs to go head to admit and say we're not sending you home but we're not gonna make it. This is sort of open welcome mat for the world com source citizenship. It depends on what we're talking about how long period but I think the main thing is is that nobody gets anything easily and without work and that -- be disqualified. From about welfare current process. Senator would you say do you disagree would George W. Bush on this issue. You know I think we have to talk about how long were talking about as far as period of time where I've been thinking about is that we secure the border. That there's a report that comes back after a year from investigator general and if the report comes back in everybody's in the congress votes on again says the borders secure. They would be in the network pieces from bear you know I think as far as what happens whether or not that ultimately lead to citizenship. Or whether or not that means that these people now replaced. See for example before emigrating all the time legally from Mexico. One of my ideas is that we put those who were here illegal in the back of the line. But they occupied space in the line so really what you're doing is the people you would normally immigrate from Mexico. You're emigrating to people who -- already here. So as not as if there's a great increase in immigration in fact the people here replaced people who would be normally getting in line. I don't know Bush's exact proposal but I am willing to open the open minded towards immigration reform. I think as Republicans we do need to be open minded is at least thinking and talking about immigration reform. Senator your name has been bandied about it in fact I wrote an unsigned editorial for the times just last week. Saying there are really now three frontrunners in 2016. There's obviously Paul Ryan. There's Marco Rubio and of course there's you as the most prominent spokesman for Tea Party Republicans across the country. Are you thinking of running into when he sixteen. Do you see yourself following in your father's footsteps. And having a presidential run in new. Are we gonna see -- be a president Rand Paul and 116. I think what in order to win again we're gonna have to do something different and I think if we nominate the same old same old we don't have as much chance. I think one of the things that I've tried -- throughout my short Washington. Is to be a bridge between what is the hardcore libertarian wing of the party. And the more traditional conservative wing of the party and somewhere between in this sense I call myself a constitutional conservative. I'm not purely libertarian I'm not exactly traditional conservative. But I think that do approach things enough differently. If I can attract people who have been dissuaded from being associated with Republicans my -- did some of this he brought a lot of use young people in. I can't walk through the airport without meeting people all different races of all different ages of all the economic categories of comeuppance that it liked him. So there was some magic that he had he couldn't quite win the Republican primary. But there's a magic he had -- -- -- he was accumulating in attracting many Democrats and that's so we need to learn from if we're gonna grow as a party in capturing. Basically I think what I'm hearing you saying is our interest. Definitely interest in the national debate interest isn't what happened to the party's biggest itself. Had you ever heard equivocation I think you just heard. We have been talking to senator Rand Paul Kentucky Republican. Leader of the Tea Party in Capitol Hill across the country. And may be a presidential candidate and when he sixteen senator thank you so much for coming on the -- and a report. Gob bless you sir. So there you heard it. He sees himself as a bridge as a constitutional conservative he wants and -- Republican Party. And I sensed between you and me he's gonna Bryant when he sixteen will have more in the fourth hour of the corner report. At 11 o'clock CNN by.