Will Rand Paul's Actions Match His Rhetoric?

[thoughtone]

source: Yahoo News


Debt battle could lead to government shutdown


WASHINGTON (AFP) – Fresh from US election victory, Republicans face a rapid test of their debt-slashing resolve, one that could spark a [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]government [COLOR=#366388 !important]shutdown[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and, some fear, undermine efforts to aid the recovery.

Contrary to popular belief, the US government cannot spend at will. Like anyone with a bank account, Washington has a limited overdraft.

Instead of asking the bank for an extension, presidents have to get permission from Congress, and frequently do. But that might now be tricky for President Barack Obama.

Around a year after the last raise, Obama's administration is expected to run up against the current debt ceiling some time early next year.

Obama will then have to go cap in hand to a Congress that now includes many ultra-conservative Republicans and [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]Tea [COLOR=#366388 !important]Party[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] candidates who think the current level of 14.3 trillion dollars is quite enough, thank you very much.

One of the right's standard bearers, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, has called on Republicans to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, a move that would cause a government shutdown.

With a majority in the House of Representatives and a big enough minority to thwart action in the Senate, that threat is being taken very seriously.

"The government cannot function unless the debt ceiling is lifted," former labor secretary Robert Reich told AFP.

"Ordinarily, it's automatic," he added, "But the new Tea Party branch of the Republican party will insist on making a big issue out of raising the debt ceiling."

Throughout the election campaign, [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]Tea [COLOR=#366388 !important]Party [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]candidates[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] like Kentucky senator-elect Rand Paul pushed a policy of starving the government "beast" by cutting spending at the same time as lowering taxes.

Paul's election pledges to "fight to balance the budget and dramatically reduce spending" would be difficult to square with voting to enlarge the deficit.

Opinion polls show the [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]US [COLOR=#366388 !important]public[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] is angry at what it views as overspending by Washington at a time when many American families have been forced to tighten their belts.

And Republicans have voted to shutter the government before.

In 1995, Gingrich led the party to a vote against lifting the debt ceiling, causing all non-essential services to be cut to prevent a catastrophic US default that would have sent the global economy into free-fall.

According to Reich, who served under Democratic president Bill Clinton, the more hardline Republican new kids on the block will face opposition from the the party establishment, which is loath to reinforce [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]Democrats' [COLOR=#366388 !important]efforts[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] to paint them as obstructionist.

"More traditional Republicans, including (House speaker-in-waiting) John Boehner, won't want to because they don't want to get into a game of chicken with the White House of a sort Newt Gingrich precipitated," according to Reich.

"The public is in no mood for a government shutdown. They want their elected representatives to be able to work together effectively. So the interesting political question is who will win the showdown on this issue within the Republican Party."


There are already signs that the hard right may not be willing to once again engage the nuclear trigger of fiscal policy.

"No one regardless of who is in the majority wants to see the US default on its debt," said Mattie Corrao of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, which usually advises representatives to vote against raising the ceiling.

"What we will hopefully see in the future is people working to damp down on all of this reckless spending and work toward a point where we are not considering a debt ceiling, but the outlays in and of themselves."

Whatever the outcome of the political tussle within the Republican party, financial experts are warning that another government shutdown would be an unmitigated economic disaster.

"It would be a huge negative hit for the economy," according to David Min, a former Congressional staffer who now works for the [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]left-leaning [COLOR=#366388 !important]Center [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]for [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]American [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 !important]Progress[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR].

According to Min, shutting down the government would even neutralize the Federal Reserve's recent 600 billion dollar punt to prime the economy, a policy dubbed quantitative easing two, or QE2.

"If the Republicans shut down the government, any impact of QE2... will be dwarfed by the huge negative fiscal impact of shutting down the government."
"If you cut down the government, even for a week or two, you furlough workers, you shut down services, that is going to be a huge fiscal hit, the fact that money is a little bit easier to acquire through credit is not going to offset that," he said.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Nope.

He'll find out, just as a lot of newer politicos find out (including the President) that all stuff you say campaigning sounds good and gets good responses but it doesn't mean jack when it comes to actually getting it done in DC, no matter how sincere you were when you said it. When, not if, Paul and any other so-called Tea Party Repubs get out of line, McConnell and Boehner will slap them down. They're already getting to work on Michelle Bachmann.

 

[thoughtone]

He hasn't even been sworn in yet and he has already flip flopped!

source: The Huffington Post


Rand Paul Suggests He'll Fight For Earmarks He Earlier Promised To Ban

Less than a week after his election, Kentucky's Senator-elect Rand Paul already appears to be making a rapid departure away from one of his campaign promises: an earmark ban that stood as a conservative cornerstone, a position Paul touted to indicate he was serious about tackling the reckless spending practices of Washington.

Here's what Paul told the Wall Street Journal over the weekend:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.
​

Such statements would have seemed impossible back in March. Here's Paul's clear-cut pledge to tackle the "corrupting" carve-outs of federal money:

Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign. He has supported Sen. Jim DeMint's vocal support for an earmark ban and he supports news that House Democrats are even coming around on the idea of a partial ban.
​

The National Review noticed this vacillation Monday and wondered:

Is he selling out already? I am fully aware that the issue of earmarks is a very symbolic one. Getting rid of earmarks won't save us from the current debt explosion, nor is it likely to end the spending; it will just leave the decision in the hands of the agencies rather than selected lawmakers. Still, I could imagine that when a legislator submits his earmark request, the appropriations committee, at least sometimes, increases the overall budget for the agency by the amount of the earmark.
​

The transformation would have been simple enough there, but, despite his comments to the Wall Street Journal, Rand Paul displayed a clear aversion to earmarks in a separate interview over the weekend.

This from his appearance on ABC's "This Week":

AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks?​

Would you say no to earmarks?​

PAUL: No -- no more earmarks.​

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?​

PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget. Here's what happens. You go to the Transportation Committee and they say, "What do you want?" But it should be, "How much do we have?" No one asks, "How much do we have?" So we just spend it. And then, at the end of the day, if we don't have it, we either print it or borrow it. Those are bad things. There is no restraint, but that's why you need rules. In Kentucky, we have a balanced budget amendment. We have to balance our budget. So they have to be better legislators.​

The apparent flip-flop highlights the difficult position that Rand Paul has put himself in. Though earmarks are omens of what Paul's conservative base has deemed the evil spending ways of Washington, they are also an important tool for securing vital federal funds for useful state projects.

GOP Leaders Boehner and McConnell both appeared dismissive and brutally realistic about the possibility of an earmark ban last week, painting it as a token undertaking that would not actually cut deficits or spending.

The new cooled attitude hasn't stopped Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), however, who is largely responsible for the conception of the idea of an earmark ban amongst some GOP senators. On Monday, DeMint was reportedly collecting signatures from Republicans in a move to call for a vote to ban earmarks.

 

[QueEx]

So, you're trying to say like father, like son ? ? ?

 

[thoughtone]

So, you're trying to say like father, like son ? ? ?

I'm saying many white folk are pining for a mythical idealize time in the past that never exsited and their are more than a few negros that have bought in to the fairy tail.

 

[QueEx]

I'm saying many white folk are pining for a mythical idealize time in the past that never exsited and their are more than a few negros that have bought in to the fairy tail.

Oh. I thought you were saying Rand is just like his father Ron; both seem to practice do as I say, not as I do. If you were, I was about to agree with you. See, lawmakers who shunned stimulus lobbied for funds behind the sceneshttp://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?p=8976065&highlight=ron+paul+stimulus#post8976065.

QueEx

 

[thoughtone]

Oh. I thought you were saying Rand is just like his father Ron; both seem to practice do as I say, not as I do. If you were, I was about to agree with you. See, lawmakers who shunned stimulus lobbied for funds behind the scenes.

QueEx

Some think that their intentions are as good as GOLD!

A politician is a politician.