肯塔基州参议员兰德·保罗。他说，他怀疑唐纳德·特朗普总统是否愿意代表政府接受卡塔尔的一架豪华喷气式飞机，他希望将这架飞机用作空军一号，但政府有办法在不引起潜在利益冲突的情况下接受它。
“有很多方式可以安排，但我认为，发出人们担心的信号是，它将暂时成为政府的一部分，然后在总统退休后，它将被送到总统图书馆。所以我认为所有这些事情都是可以解决的，可以纠正的。可能有一个完全合法的方式，但现在，它提出了更多的问题，我认为这是不值得的，”保罗周日对美国广播公司新闻的“本周”联合主持人乔纳森卡尔说。
保罗声称，飞机引发的问题给原本成功的旅行蒙上了阴影。
保罗说:“我认为我的担心是，这将有损于一次基本上成功的访问，总统在这次访问中谈到开放并与中东进行更多的贸易，这是一件好事，特别是在所有保护主义和远离贸易的情况下。”。
特朗普最近结束了他对中东的首次重要外交之旅。正如美国广播公司新闻(ABC News)首先报道的那样，特朗普访问的国家之一卡塔尔在出访前提议向政府提供一架豪华飞机作为礼物。特朗普表示有兴趣接受礼物，但这并没有在旅行中发生，这引发了对潜在利益冲突的担忧。特朗普声称，这架价值约4亿美元的喷气式飞机将是给美国政府的礼物，并将被改装为空军一号，直到他的任期结束。
中东特使史蒂夫·维特科夫周日表示，拟议中的卡塔尔飞机符合美国法律
“这是一笔完全合法的交易。它已经被白宫法律顾问和司法部审查过了。有外部律师事务所参与其中。因此，这是一个完全合法的，政府对政府，国防部对国防部的交易，发生在正常的过程中，并且一直在正常的过程中发生。政府交换服务，”维特科夫说。
以下是保罗采访中的更多亮点:
关于降低对…的关税中国
卡尔:好吧，参议员，让我来谈谈关税。总统还宣布暂时降低对中国的关税，尽管在他谈判时，对来自中国的商品仍征收30%的关税。沃尔玛警告说，这将导致价格上涨。你的评估是什么?
保罗:嗯，关税就是税收，当你对企业征税时，它总是作为成本传递，所以价格会更高。我认为这是人们谈论的重要的事情，哦，这是美国对中国。美国不与中国进行贸易。你和沃尔玛交易，或者和塔吉特交易，或者和亚马逊交易。美国人进去买一件产品。现在它可能来自中国，但是这样想想。想想和中国的整个贸易都是电视。一百万人去沃尔玛。他们都买了一台电视。他们喜欢质量，他们喜欢价格，而且它碰巧来自中国。但你在中国和美国周围画一个圈，你会说，天哪，这是贸易逆差。我们从那里购买所有的电视，但是每一笔交易，每一个购买电视的人都很开心。但是你怎么能在一百万个快乐的人周围画一个圈，然后说他们都被敲竹杠了呢?所以这里有一个经济学谬误。谬论是贸易赤字实际上意味着一切。他们是一个人工会计。唯一有意义的交易是购买东西的个人。这是唯一真正的交易，根据定义，如果是自愿的，是互利的，或者交易不会发生。
关于贸易逆差
卡尔:因此，与加拿大的实际贸易逆差实际上比1000亿美元少一点，或者少很多，但是，即使如此，贸易逆差补贴了加拿大吗?
保罗:不，他们，他们真的一点关系都没有。如果我们与另一个国家进行贸易，因为他们有更便宜的商品，我们会变得更富有。你也有更多的钱可以花。假设你是一个普通的美国人。你在沃尔玛购物，每年可以节省4000或5000美元，因为你可以从其他国家购买重要的商品。你用它做什么?我不知道。也许你会去迪士尼世界。也许你会去多莱坞。你知道，你可以在美国度过很多时光。也许你可以找人帮你割草。多出来的钱会发生各种各样的事情，但你更富有，因为你以更低的成本买到了产品。这就是市场所做的。它压低价格，提高效率。但这不是一个国家反对另一个国家。所有这些都是人工会计。保罗谈贸易逆差
论国会征收关税的权力
卡尔:在你走之前，有几个诉讼挑战这些关税。宪法明确赋予国会征税和征收关税的权力。你的这些关税合法吗?你认为这些法律会被废除吗?国会——正如你所建议的——会长出脊梁骨并坚持对税收的控制吗?
保罗:我认为对宪法的严格解释是税收来源于国会，更确切地说，税收来源于众议院。在进入参议院之前，他们必须先从众议院开始。然而，现在我们确实有一段很长的历史，两党放弃关税的责任，并将权力授予国会，这带来了另一个宪法问题:国会可以将宪法赋予的权力授予总统吗?在过去，法院允许这些事情，但我认为这将是一件有趣的事情，因为我们历史上的大多数关税都是由国会通过的。我们从未有过由总统下令实施的广泛关税，我对此表示反对。
Sen. Rand Paul: Proposed Qatari gift plane has 'raised more questions than I think it's worth'
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he has doubts over President Donald Trump's willingness to accept a luxury jet from Qatar on behalf of the administration that he hopes to use as Air Force One, but that there are ways the administration could receive it without raising potential conflicts of interest.
"There's a lot of ways this could be arranged, but I think what sent up signals that people were concerned about was that it was going to be temporarily part of the government, and then it was going to the president's library when the president retires. So I think all of those things could be fixed, could be corrected. There probably is a perfectly legal way, but right now, it's raised more questions than I think it's worth," Paul said Sunday to ABC News' "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl.
Paul claimed that the questions that the jet raised overshadowed an otherwise successful trip.
"I think my fear is that it detracts from a largely successful trip where the president is talking about opening up and doing more trade with the Middle East, which is a good thing, particularly amidst all the protectionism and directing away from trade that we've had going on," Paul said.
Trump recently returned from his first major foreign trip to the Middle East. Qatar, one of the nations Trump visited, proposed offering the administration a luxury jet as a gift before the trip, as ABC News first reported. Trump expressed interest in accepting the gift, which did not take place during the trip, raising concerns of potential conflicts of interest. Trump claimed that the approximately $400 million jet would be a gift to the United States government and would be retrofitted to be Air Force One until the end of his term.
Special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff said Sunday that the proposed Qatari plane falls within the laws of the U.S.
"It's a perfectly legal transaction. It's been vetted by the White House counsel, by the Justice Department. There are outside law firms involved. So, it's a perfectly legal, government to government, Department of Defense, to Department of Defense transaction that happens in the normal course and has been happening in the normal course throughout -- throughout our existence. Governments exchange services," said Witkoff.
On reducing tariffs againstChina
Karl:Okay, Senator, let me turn to tariffs. The president also announced a temporary reduction to those big China tariffs, although still 30 percent tariffs on goods coming in from China as he negotiates -- tries to negotiate a new deal, Walmart has warned that this will result in higher prices. What's your assessment?
Paul:Well, tariffs are taxes, and when you put a tax on a business, it's always passed through as a cost, so there will be higher prices. And I think this is what's important to know people talk about, oh, this is America versus China. The U.S. doesn't trade with China. You trade with Walmart, or you trade with Target, or you trade with Amazon. Americans go in and buy a product. Now it might come from China, but think about it this way. Think of the entire trade with China was all TVs. A million people go to Walmart. They all buy a TV. They like the quality, they like the price, and it happened to come from China. But then you draw a circle around China and the U.S., you say, 'Oh my goodness, it's a trade deficit.' We buy all of our TVs from over there, but each individual transaction, each individual who bought a TV was happy. But how can you draw a circle around a million happy people and say they all got ripped off? So there's an economic fallacy here. And the fallacy is that trade deficits actually mean anything. They're an artificial accounting. The only trade that means anything is the individual who buys something. That's the only real trade, and that, by very definition, if it's voluntary, is mutually beneficial or the trade doesn't occur.
On the trade deficit
Karl:So the actual trade deficit with Canada is actually a little less than, or quite a bit less than, $100 billion, but, but even so is a trade deficit subsidizing Canada?
Paul:No, they're, they're really not related at all. What happens if we trade with another country because they have less expensive goods, is we become richer. You also have more money that you can spend. So let's say you're an average American. You shop at Walmart, you save about $4,000 or $5,000 a year because you're able to purchase goods that are important from other countries. What do you do with that? I don't know. Maybe you go to Disney World. Maybe you go to Dollywood. You know, you go you can you spend a lot of it in America. Maybe you get somebody to cut your grass. There's all kinds of things that happens to that extra money, but you are richer because you've gotten a product at a lower cost. And this is what the marketplace does. It drives prices down and it pushes efficiency. But it isn't one country against another. All of that is in artificial accounting. Paul on trade deficit
On Congress' power to levy tariffs
Karl:And before you go, there are several lawsuits challenging these tariffs. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes, to impose duties. What is your -- are these tariffs legal? Do you think these laws -- do you think they'll be get knocked down? And will Congress -- as you suggested -- will Congress grow a spine and assert its control over taxation?
Paul:I think a strict interpretation of the Constitution says that taxes originate in Congress, and more specifically, taxes originate in the House. They have to start in the House first before they come to the Senate. Now we do have a long history, though, of both parties abdicating the responsibility on tariffs and granting power to Congress, which brings up another Constitutional question: can Congress delegate powers given in under the Constitution to the president? In the past, the court has allowed these things, but I think it will be an interesting thing, because most tariffs in our history have been passed by Congress. We've never had widespread tariffs that have been done by fiat by a president, and I object to that.
