Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on issues with Trump's bill: Adds $500 billion in new spending and debt

Key Concepts

• 100% Depreciation (Immediate Expensing)
• Debt Ceiling
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Special Interest Carve-outs
• Food Stamp Fraud
• Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017)
• Government Spending
• National Debt

100% Depreciation (Immediate Expensing)

• Senator Paul highlights the 100% depreciation provision as a positive aspect of the tax bill.
• This allows businesses to immediately deduct the full cost of capital expenditures (e.g., bulldozers, dump trucks) rather than depreciating them over time.
• He argues that this incentivizes investment and is pro-growth for the economy.
• He supported it in 2017 and is glad it remains and is permanent.

Opposition to the Bill: Debt and Spending

• Senator Paul voted against the bill primarily due to the increase in government spending and the national debt.
• He states that the bill adds $500-$600 billion in new spending, even with optimistic projections.
• He emphasizes that next year alone, it will add about $270 billion to the debt.
• He criticizes the $5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling, calling it historically the largest.
• He believes such a large increase allows Congress to avoid addressing the debt issue for an extended period.

Negotiation and Compromise

• Senator Paul describes a negotiation process where he proposed a shorter, three-month debt ceiling increase (approximately $500 billion).
• His rationale was to force more frequent discussions and oversight of government spending.
• He felt a shorter leash was necessary due to a lack of fiscal responsibility.
• He contrasts his position with special interest carve-outs, such as those benefiting Alaska.

Special Interest Carve-outs and Food Stamp Fraud

• Senator Paul criticizes special tax expenses for Alaskan whale captains included in the bill.
• He highlights a reform on food stamps where states with fraud rates above 6% would have to pay a larger share of food stamps.
• He points out that Alaska, with a 60% fraud rate, was exempted from these rules.
• He views this as an example of prioritizing special interests over fiscal responsibility and reform.

The Dilemma of Balancing Budgetary Concerns with Local Interests

• The interviewer raises the question of how lawmakers can advocate for fiscal responsibility while simultaneously pushing for special projects in their districts.
• Senator Paul's response focuses on the specific example of Alaska's exemption from food stamp fraud reforms, illustrating how special interests can undermine broader budgetary goals.

Conclusion

Senator Paul's opposition to the bill stems from concerns about increased government spending, the rising national debt, and the inclusion of special interest carve-outs. He advocates for greater fiscal responsibility and more frequent oversight of government spending through mechanisms like a shorter debt ceiling. He highlights the tension between advocating for budgetary discipline and accommodating local interests, using the example of Alaska's exemption from food stamp fraud reforms to illustrate this conflict.