EXCLUSIVE — “Should the American government spend taxpayer dollars to ensure the safety of Ukrainians while neglecting the safety of Americans?”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) posed this question during an exclusive interview last week. The same day, Paul and his Senate colleagues debated about funding aid to Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel. Paul’s question is at the core of the argument against continuing to give money to foreign countries. America is $30 trillion in debt. Is it fair for the American taxpayer to borrow money against our children’s futures solely to protect the borders of European countries while neglecting our own?
By a vote of 67-32, the Senate voted on February 8 to begin debate on a $95 billion aid package to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. This action, however, eliminated any consideration of voting on a bill about border security. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) shut down discussion on the proposed border bill to push through the bill giving money to Ukraine.
However, Sen. Paul is an astute, savvy legislator and fierce defender of how the country spends taxpayer money. It is a role he takes very seriously, unlike seemingly everyone else in the nation’s capital. He is committed to utilizing Senate rules that permit appropriate debate and consideration of the bill. It is something Congress should have been doing all along.
“I expect to be very unpopular around here during the next few days,” Paul told me on Thursday. “I don’t see any reason to pay for the security of other nations’ borders while ours is so insecure. So I will do what I can to have the Senate follow the rules allowed for debate and the passage of this legislation.”
Despite this, 12 Republican Senators joined Democrats to pass the bill. One has to wonder about their true interests and motivation.
“Why should the hardworking American farmer, factory worker, small business owner, plumber, or doctor be burdened by adding additional billions of debt to our already inconceivable and unconscionable $30 trillion national debt?” Paul asked exasperatedly.
The argument for giving money to Ukraine is that if we do not, Russia will invade other European countries. “It is a reiteration of the Cold War domino theory,” averred Sen. Paul
Is Russian irredentism a prelude to a total war in Europe? Historically, in Europe, reactions to border disputes, nationalism, and maintaining the ‘balance of power,’ have led to devastating wars. These wars resulted from the complex catenation of alliances among the European powers. The conflagration of World War I began because of the reaction to an assassination. A Serbian nationalist group killed the heir to the throne of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. However, instead of simply punishing the assassins, millions perished in The Great War.
World War II began because of Germany’s, Italy’s, and Japan’s desire to start empires. These nations were not trying to reclaim lands they felt belonged to them. As in WWI, a series of alliances went into effect. The result was the slaughter of more human beings in the most lethal conflict in human history.
According to Schumer, “If we don’t aid Ukraine, Putin will walk all over Ukraine, we will lose the war, and we could be fighting in Eastern Europe as a NATO ally in a few years.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
But Schumer’s words are a relic that belongs in a museum dedicated to Cold War history, strategy, and philosophies. He echoes the early 20th-century sentiments of renowned “Containment” architect George F. Kennan. But it is 2024, not 1954, and the conflict in Ukraine is not a rehash of the Cold War. Schumer’s words are about 40 years too late and have no legitimate standing today.
In reality, Schumer and the other senators so eager to spend U.S. taxpayer money on Europe’s conflict should follow Sen. Paul’s lead and, as mentioned above, prioritize this country’s interests. It should go without saying that senators should be more concerned with securing our nation’s borders than spending billions of dollars in taxpayer money to secure Ukraine’s.