Posted on 06/04/2024 3:35:50 AM PDT by RandFan
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioned former President Trump's commitment to slashing government spending in a heated exchange with top Trump ally Russell Vought during a recent closed-door meeting, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: Paul is among a dwindling number of Republicans who've refused to publicly back the former president as the party's 2024 nominee. And those in Trump's orbit are getting antsy.
"There's a growing sentiment in Trumpworld that Rand can't be trusted, and it's a great disappointment," Trump ally and consultant Alex Bruesewitz told Axios.
Driving the news: Paul grilled Vought on May 22 over the Trump administration's massive spending, comparing it to Democratic administrations, according to two sources familiar with what was said in the lunch.
Paul said Trump's team had "no credibility" on spending, one source said.
During the lunch, Vought urged Republicans to kick back this year's government funding fight to 2025 — in part to allow a potential future Trump administration to use the process to slash funding, as Axios reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at axios.com ...
Rand is not happy w/ the spending.
That’s actually one of the issues I have with Trump, he’s used to operating in the red. But then the rats have no fiscal responsibility so Trump comes out better when compared to the alternative.
What spending? Trump isn’t running anything. This isn’t the time for this.
This is Axios stirring up discord. This isn’t even about Trump. It says “top Trump Ally”
I didn’t know about President Trump’s commitment to slashing government spending ..............
I agree with Paul. Hold them accountable.
Spending was CONGRES’s problem, though- with the RINO congress behaving like democrat-lite while trump was in office.
Congress controls the money more than the president does. And congress refused to send the Obamacare repeal bill to the President. The exact same bill they sent to Obama 50 times.
LOL!
You are just fine.
No one is happy w spending.
Criticism shouldn’t be treated like betrayal. Trump was bad on spending, he was bad on draining the swamp, he was bad on Covid, he was bad on personnel. He was also, in every case, light years better than anything Hillary would have done, and that Biden has done or will do.
Could things have been better in the past? Yes. Should people like Rand and Massie keep pushing for things to be better in the future? Also Yes. Is it hurting the campaign to push for these things? Not any more than the other influence operations that normally go on behind the scenes in every campaign.
Paul and Kennedy need to have another friendly get together. The two of them have way more in common than with Trump imo.
Rand is a right, Trump spent too much and something needs to be done about this rampant spending going on now.
Ok, I had this discussion with a friend who’s conservative but said that Trump spent like a ... you know what (leaving sailors out of this). I’m not going to dig it up now but I sent him a link of the reaction of the house and senate for the first budget he sent over. I remember specifically the turtle saying (when it arrived) that it was dead on arrival. It had 20+% cuts in almost every letter agency. Not 20% cut in the increase but a 20% cut off the top. He had no support from the house or senate which were both under pubbie control at the time.
So, Rand I like you but on this subject, shut up! I’m surprised that your memory is that bad.
Seems like his beef should be with Congress. They are the ones that pass omnibus bills.
> This isn’t the time for this. <
Correct. Trump was horrible when it came to the deficit. Horrible. Spending under Trump was every bit as bad as it was under Obama. And the buck stops at the Oval Office.
But as you noted, this is not the time for throwing rocks at Trump. Unity now is critical. The day after Trump gets those 270+ electoral votes, that’s the time to start trying to get Trump’s head right on the deficit.
I agree.
One question I have is how much if Trump’s over-spending was due to COVID?
How were his first 2 years (i could look it up but maybe someone remembers)?
Unleashing US energy—and the resultant boost to all Americans & businesses—greatly boosts tax revenues. Coupled with govt. firings and agency decommissioning, Paul will be on the Trump team. Incomes up, expenses down is a winning formula.
Trump does like to spend, and there are past and present urgencies that need money: military, deportations, non-discretionary spending i.e. social security.
Paul could become a valuable partner in identifying the waste. If Trump has helpful legislatures, it can be done, or at least put back on the rails.
If you look at the Executive Branch spending under Trump, it was lower than under Obama. Trump trimmed the budget he had direct control over,
Yes, he signed the continuing resolutions, but he got little support from the GOP House and Senate.
I get that a reckless Congress is difficult to rein in. Nevertheless, it is my hope that Trump 2.0 vetoes the first deficit spending bill that comes across his desk. If nothing else it would send a message. A shot across the bow, so to speak.
Sigh. It’s probably too late, regardless. Even if Trump becomes a total deficit hawk, Congress simply will not change its ways. So I suppose hyperinflation is inevitable.
Talk is cheap.
Axios stirring the pot. Congress (House) sets spending.
A on going problem.
The weakling weasels of the GOP are sickening, yet more enemies of the USA. They are happy to get elected, skim a bunch of money , rinse repeat. Their constituents, us,are suckers, today’s politician is there to get theirs, sellouts with both hands full of cash.
Why would we take anything he says seriously?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.