Sen. Rand Paul has posted on op-ed on National Review Online in which he reiterates his initial reaction to the Obamcare ruling and paints a way forward.
Plainly, this is a call to the Tea Party to rally for a new president, a new Senate and a return to limited government.
Here are highlights from Paul's op-ed:
[T]he 2010 Tea Party wave as an extraordinary assemblage of liberty-minded Americans who rallied around the Constitution in order to reclaim their country. One of the galvanizing forces was the passage of Obamacare — the national government’s takeover of our health care. Millions of Americans were enraged by this and other aspects of the Obama administration’s destructive political agenda, and they were sick and tired of their representatives’ failure to do anything to stop it. The 2010 wave election was a direct consequence of Obama’s unconstitutional ideals and czar-like power. And now, with the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare, it is my belief that the American people will be motivated to reorder our political priorities as they did in 2010.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The Supreme Court wrongly concluded that Obamacare can stand. But just because a majority of the Supreme Court declares something to be “constitutional” does not make it so. Millions of Americans simply won’t accept it and will act to help overhaul it.
Make no mistake: Obamacare is not constitutional. As a consequence of the Court’s ruling, Americans, whether they want it or not, will be compelled to purchase a product — health insurance — or pay a penalty.
The majority held that this penalty, for constitutional purposes, is also a tax. The dissenting justices concluded that the majority, by its actions today, rewrote what Congress actually intended when it enacted the law: “For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.” The dissent then immediately cites the Stamp Act of 1765.
The Stamp Act was a direct tax imposed on the colonies by King George III. This act inevitably led to the American Revolution. Just as the Stamp Act did in 1765, Obamacare should act as a wake-up call. . . .
Obamacare exists because Obama is in the White House. This decision is a direct consequence of the American people’s political decisions. And much like Obama himself, Obamacare was deceptively sold to the American people.
In 2009, President Obama firmly stated that the individual mandate was not a tax. Here are his exact words: “For us [the government] to say that you [the American people] must take personal responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.” After the ruling, Nancy Pelosi was asked if these reforms were a tax. Her response: “Call it what you will — it is a step forward for American families.”
Obamacare has caused up to 20 million Americans to lose their health-insurance policies. . . . . [It]will destroy 800,000 jobs. An analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation from November 2009 shows that in 2016, three-quarters of the tax imposed by the individual mandate will fall on those making less than $120,000 of income for a family of four or $59,000 for an individual. Families of four making $72,000 or less and individuals making $35,400 or less will bear nearly half of the mandate tax.
This is a direct tax on the middle class. It is clear that through its proposed $500 billion in tax increases, the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and the individual mandates and regulations, Obamacare will swiftly harm our country. . . .
Although the Supreme Court declared that the individual mandate should be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power, there was a minor victory for the Commerce Clause in that the Court did hold that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. This minor victory is not much of a comfort, however, because this ruling essentially grants the federal government the right to legally tax our every breath. And tax they will.
Today the Supreme Court — the ruling body that our Founding Fathers created to protect citizens from tyranny — decided to uphold Obamacare and thus stripped Americans of their personal liberties and freedoms. We have heard the Court’s opinion loud and clear, but now it’s time for them to hear us. It is up to us to reclaim our constitutional rights. It is up to the American people to end President Obama’s political agenda. Obamacare is wrong for Americans and it will destroy our health-care system. This now means that we must fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new president and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Excerpt From Sen. Rand Paul's Brief on "Spending Power"
Sen. Rand Paul's amicus brief in the Obamacare case focused on why the statute was unconsitutional under the Commerce Clause. (Disclosure: I was counsel of record on that brief.) A majority of the court agreed with his reasoning, but upheld it under the so-called Taxing and Spending power. This was the third layer of argument that the Obama administration advanced -- the fall-back to its fall-back.
Though it wasn't the primary focus of Sen. Paul's brief, he did address it briefly, focusing on the Framers' original understanding of the "Spending Power":
So, too, with PPACA, the statute’s proponents lean on the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the spending power to form a three-leggedstool to support the Act. None of these legs can support the Act’s constitutionality either in isolation or cobbled together in the regulatory morass that is PPACA.
. . .
The spending power is not a roundabout to evade the Constitution’s federalist plan of limited and enumerated powers. See Richard W. Garnett, The New Federalism, The Spending Power, and Federal Criminal Law, 89 CORNELL L. REV. 1, 24 (2003). Indeed, there is no “Spending Clause” per se, and there is considerable scholarly debate about what constitutional provision empowers Congress to spend. See, e.g., ORIGINALISM: A QUARTER-CENTURY OF DEBATE 253-85 (Steven Calabresi ed., 2007). For most of the first seventy years after the Constitution’s ratification, the spending power was understood to be limited to the enumerated powers, rather than a free-standing power. See John C. Eastman, The Spending Power, in THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION 95 (Edwin Meese III ed., 2005) (discussing narrow view of spending power leading to vetoes by Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe).PPACA cannot be squared with this original understanding.
Here's Sen. Paul's reaction to today's ruling:
“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right,” Sen. Paul said.
“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare,” he continued.
Though it wasn't the primary focus of Sen. Paul's brief, he did address it briefly, focusing on the Framers' original understanding of the "Spending Power":
So, too, with PPACA, the statute’s proponents lean on the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the spending power to form a three-leggedstool to support the Act. None of these legs can support the Act’s constitutionality either in isolation or cobbled together in the regulatory morass that is PPACA.
. . .
The spending power is not a roundabout to evade the Constitution’s federalist plan of limited and enumerated powers. See Richard W. Garnett, The New Federalism, The Spending Power, and Federal Criminal Law, 89 CORNELL L. REV. 1, 24 (2003). Indeed, there is no “Spending Clause” per se, and there is considerable scholarly debate about what constitutional provision empowers Congress to spend. See, e.g., ORIGINALISM: A QUARTER-CENTURY OF DEBATE 253-85 (Steven Calabresi ed., 2007). For most of the first seventy years after the Constitution’s ratification, the spending power was understood to be limited to the enumerated powers, rather than a free-standing power. See John C. Eastman, The Spending Power, in THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION 95 (Edwin Meese III ed., 2005) (discussing narrow view of spending power leading to vetoes by Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe).PPACA cannot be squared with this original understanding.
Here's Sen. Paul's reaction to today's ruling:
“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right,” Sen. Paul said.
“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system. This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare,” he continued.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
NRO: Rand an " Important" Romney Ally, possible Veep
National Review says that although Sen. Rand Paul has not née asked to submit the paperwork that is part of the vetting process, his name is continually mentioned by Romney advisers as a potential vice presidential nominee.
Paul will be campaigning as a a surrogate for Romney. He also will get to speak during the Republican National Convention,
Let's hope that Romney is smart enough to give Paul a prime-time slot. As anyone who has ever heard Paul speak knows, that could be a break-out performance -- to surpass Obama's speech at the Democratic National Comvention I. 2004.
Paul will be campaigning as a a surrogate for Romney. He also will get to speak during the Republican National Convention,
Let's hope that Romney is smart enough to give Paul a prime-time slot. As anyone who has ever heard Paul speak knows, that could be a break-out performance -- to surpass Obama's speech at the Democratic National Comvention I. 2004.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Rand Paul Explains Romney Endorsement:
Sen. Rand Paul clarified his endorsement of Mitt Romney, clarifying that he and Romney may not agree on how a president can constitutionally wage war. On NRO today, Paul outlined why he endorsed Romney:
I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy. I am afraid if that chokehold is not released quickly, our country may quickly follow Europe into destruction. Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments.
Where the two differ, however, is foreign policy, as Paul explained:
I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress. His exact words were:
I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.
This is a misreading of the role of the president and Congress in declaring war.
The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. The War Powers Act also clearly states that U.S. forces are to engage in hostilities only if the circumstances are “pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
Absent these criteria, the president has no authority to declare war.
Even if the president believes he has such authority, the War Powers Act goes on to require the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of conflict.
No president is above the law or above the Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the executive. They were quite concerned that the executive could rule like a king.
Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications, the authorization, and the motives of the war. James Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature.
I will hold accountable and oppose any actions from any president, Republican or Democrat, if he declares war without congressional consent.
This seems to be a polite way for Paul to put Mitt Romney on notice that notwithstanding the endorsement, Paul will stand on principle even if it means opposing a Republican president. That is, Paul has no problem being a burr in the side of politicians from either party who would disregard the limits of the constitution.
I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy. I am afraid if that chokehold is not released quickly, our country may quickly follow Europe into destruction. Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments.
Where the two differ, however, is foreign policy, as Paul explained:
I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress. His exact words were:
I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.
This is a misreading of the role of the president and Congress in declaring war.
The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. The War Powers Act also clearly states that U.S. forces are to engage in hostilities only if the circumstances are “pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
Absent these criteria, the president has no authority to declare war.
Even if the president believes he has such authority, the War Powers Act goes on to require the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of conflict.
No president is above the law or above the Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power to declare war to the executive. They were quite concerned that the executive could rule like a king.
Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications, the authorization, and the motives of the war. James Madison wrote that the Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature.
I will hold accountable and oppose any actions from any president, Republican or Democrat, if he declares war without congressional consent.
This seems to be a polite way for Paul to put Mitt Romney on notice that notwithstanding the endorsement, Paul will stand on principle even if it means opposing a Republican president. That is, Paul has no problem being a burr in the side of politicians from either party who would disregard the limits of the constitution.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Rand Paul Would Be a Good VP Pick
If Mitt Romney is not considering Sen. Rand Paul for VP, he should. It would be a "Team of Rivals" pick, a la Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about the Lincoln administration. Lincoln chose to keep his friends close but his enemies(primary opponents) closer by putting them in his administration.
A Vice President Rand Paul would have a hard time mounting a primary challenge to a President Romney, if Romney makes the mistake of governing like a moderate. I hope that Romney won't make that mistake; he seems solid on fiscal issues. But if Romney fails to govern like a conservative, he will draw a primary challenge from the Tea Party. Paul would be well-suited to that task.
The notion that the VP pick must come from a geo-politically important state is antiquated and irrelevant in an age of national media. It is therefor beside the point that Paul's state of Kentucky is safely red, or that it has few electoral votes.
The outrage among some in the Tea Party about Paul endorsing Romney is misplaced. Romney is the nominee, and he needs and deserves our support. Indeed, it would have been a mistake for Paul not to endorse Romney. But Romney should recognize that one way or the other, Paul and the Tea Party will hold him accountable. Paul can better do that if he is not VP, which is why it is in Romney's interest to pick him.
A Vice President Rand Paul would have a hard time mounting a primary challenge to a President Romney, if Romney makes the mistake of governing like a moderate. I hope that Romney won't make that mistake; he seems solid on fiscal issues. But if Romney fails to govern like a conservative, he will draw a primary challenge from the Tea Party. Paul would be well-suited to that task.
The notion that the VP pick must come from a geo-politically important state is antiquated and irrelevant in an age of national media. It is therefor beside the point that Paul's state of Kentucky is safely red, or that it has few electoral votes.
The outrage among some in the Tea Party about Paul endorsing Romney is misplaced. Romney is the nominee, and he needs and deserves our support. Indeed, it would have been a mistake for Paul not to endorse Romney. But Romney should recognize that one way or the other, Paul and the Tea Party will hold him accountable. Paul can better do that if he is not VP, which is why it is in Romney's interest to pick him.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Rand Paul Will Keep Romney From Going Wobbly
If Barack Obama is reelected, Sen. Rand Paul will declare his candidacy for president before the year is over. If Mitt Romney is elected, the spectre of a Rand Paul primary challenge may force Romney to govern like a conservative, rather than a Massachusetts moderate.
I take comfort in that thought when I see headlines like this: "Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare." That's the sort of headline that gives conservatives heart arrhythmia. It's a disingenuous headline, as it turns out, because the transition team member is implementing "exchanges," which could be done as a market reform to decrease the cost of health care. It is not as if Team Romney was arguing in favor of the individual mandate, for example
Sure, there are conservatives who oppose the state-run health insurance exchanges. The point here is not the merits of this part of Obamacare, but rather that conservatives will be closely monitoring how a President Romney governs. Many of us had doubts about him, but see him as out best chance of -- literally -- saving the country from the disastrous consequences of a second Obama term.
Romney has unified the base with the prospect of defeating Obama. If Romney then drifts to the center after elected, he will be risking a primary challenge. This is a real possibility -- one that Romney should keep in mind with each policy choice.
Conservatives are backing Romney now that he is the nominee. But unlike Sen. Paul, Romney is not in the Circle of Trust.
I take comfort in that thought when I see headlines like this: "Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare." That's the sort of headline that gives conservatives heart arrhythmia. It's a disingenuous headline, as it turns out, because the transition team member is implementing "exchanges," which could be done as a market reform to decrease the cost of health care. It is not as if Team Romney was arguing in favor of the individual mandate, for example
Sure, there are conservatives who oppose the state-run health insurance exchanges. The point here is not the merits of this part of Obamacare, but rather that conservatives will be closely monitoring how a President Romney governs. Many of us had doubts about him, but see him as out best chance of -- literally -- saving the country from the disastrous consequences of a second Obama term.
Romney has unified the base with the prospect of defeating Obama. If Romney then drifts to the center after elected, he will be risking a primary challenge. This is a real possibility -- one that Romney should keep in mind with each policy choice.
Conservatives are backing Romney now that he is the nominee. But unlike Sen. Paul, Romney is not in the Circle of Trust.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Rand Paul Explains Mourdock Win
Sen. Rand Paul deconstructs Richard Mourdock's victory in Indiana's Republican primary over Sen. Dick Lugar. This election, Paul concludes, manifests the Tea Party's continued vibrancy.
In an op-ed for the Washington Times, Paul is gracious about Lugar while nonetheless welcoming Mourdock as the sort of "statesman," not "horse trader" that Paul hopes to see in the Senate next year.
Paul notes that Mourdock's victory over Lugar is in some respects similar to Paul's victory over Trey Grayson in Kentucky's Republican primary last year.
Just days ago, when France and Greece lurched left, Democrats pointed to this as evidence that the Tea Party victories of 2010 were a fluke, not to be repeated this year. Mourdock's nomination says otherwise.
A few excerpt's from Paul's analysis of Mourdock's win, in which he lays out a de facto Tea Party Agenda. Reagan fans will enjoy the reference "painting with bold colors":
We win as Republicans when we paint in bold colors. We win when we stand up for issues such as smaller government, constitutional principles, true liberty and the protection of life. We win when we take strong stands for the Second Amendment and the right to work. We succeed when our vision is clear and our principles are sound.
What happened on Tuesday was not one angry group of voters rebelling. It was not one or two conservative groups pushing an agenda. It was all of them, acting as one, urging the Indiana GOP to nominate someone who would stand with them.
We must fight to continue the small battles we already have won. Hoosier voters rewarded the candidate who pledged to keep the earmark ban and rejected the senator who just weeks ago voted to restore earmarks. . . .
The Tea Party sprang up out of two main events in 2008-09: the TARP bailouts and Obamacare. These were huge new reaches for big government. They were massive intrusions into running the private sector. They were against everything we as a party were supposed to stand for.
Senators and candidates who either were on the wrong side of these issues or simply did not stand up and fight have been deservedly running for cover ever since.
The Tea Party is not a single-issue group. Rather, it is a group that is fed up with an attitude in Washington. Tea Partiers are fed up with politicians who spend money we don’t have, racking up trillion-dollar deficits year after year.
They are tired of politicians who do not see limits in the powers of Congress and the federal government to intrude into our lives.
They are sick of being told they have to accept a mealy-mouthed version of what they believe and what they know we must do to save our country.
We must balance our budget sooner rather than later, or we will face ruin. This will require entitlement reform. Tuesday, Hoosiers voted for a candidate who publicly pledged to support the Tea Party budget in the Senate, which balances in five years.
We must repeal Obamacare and ensure that nothing like it passes ever again. Hoosier voters nominated the candidate who stood the strongest for the Constitution and for freedom
Paul is correct that Lugar is a decent man who served honorably. However, he had become an Obama apologist, and was so entrenched that he no longer maintained a home -- not even an apartment -- in Indiana. Good for the Republican primary voters for voting for bold, unapologetic conservatism.
.
In an op-ed for the Washington Times, Paul is gracious about Lugar while nonetheless welcoming Mourdock as the sort of "statesman," not "horse trader" that Paul hopes to see in the Senate next year.
Paul notes that Mourdock's victory over Lugar is in some respects similar to Paul's victory over Trey Grayson in Kentucky's Republican primary last year.
Just days ago, when France and Greece lurched left, Democrats pointed to this as evidence that the Tea Party victories of 2010 were a fluke, not to be repeated this year. Mourdock's nomination says otherwise.
A few excerpt's from Paul's analysis of Mourdock's win, in which he lays out a de facto Tea Party Agenda. Reagan fans will enjoy the reference "painting with bold colors":
We win as Republicans when we paint in bold colors. We win when we stand up for issues such as smaller government, constitutional principles, true liberty and the protection of life. We win when we take strong stands for the Second Amendment and the right to work. We succeed when our vision is clear and our principles are sound.
What happened on Tuesday was not one angry group of voters rebelling. It was not one or two conservative groups pushing an agenda. It was all of them, acting as one, urging the Indiana GOP to nominate someone who would stand with them.
We must fight to continue the small battles we already have won. Hoosier voters rewarded the candidate who pledged to keep the earmark ban and rejected the senator who just weeks ago voted to restore earmarks. . . .
The Tea Party sprang up out of two main events in 2008-09: the TARP bailouts and Obamacare. These were huge new reaches for big government. They were massive intrusions into running the private sector. They were against everything we as a party were supposed to stand for.
Senators and candidates who either were on the wrong side of these issues or simply did not stand up and fight have been deservedly running for cover ever since.
The Tea Party is not a single-issue group. Rather, it is a group that is fed up with an attitude in Washington. Tea Partiers are fed up with politicians who spend money we don’t have, racking up trillion-dollar deficits year after year.
They are tired of politicians who do not see limits in the powers of Congress and the federal government to intrude into our lives.
They are sick of being told they have to accept a mealy-mouthed version of what they believe and what they know we must do to save our country.
We must balance our budget sooner rather than later, or we will face ruin. This will require entitlement reform. Tuesday, Hoosiers voted for a candidate who publicly pledged to support the Tea Party budget in the Senate, which balances in five years.
We must repeal Obamacare and ensure that nothing like it passes ever again. Hoosier voters nominated the candidate who stood the strongest for the Constitution and for freedom
Paul is correct that Lugar is a decent man who served honorably. However, he had become an Obama apologist, and was so entrenched that he no longer maintained a home -- not even an apartment -- in Indiana. Good for the Republican primary voters for voting for bold, unapologetic conservatism.
.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Rand Paul: No Cabal Between Ron Paul and Romney
Sen. Rand Paul clarified a remark he made this week that he would be "honored" to be Romney's VP nominee. Some have taken that to substantiate speculation that Ron Paul and Romney have cut some sort of a deal. Ron Paul's attacks on Santorum during the last debate added fuel to the rumor.
Sen. Paul said this on the Ron Paul website:
Sen. Paul said this on the Ron Paul website:
The media speculation about some supposed cooperation between
the Ron Paul campaign and Mitt Romney has gotten completely out of hand. Ron Paul is running for President of the United States. His son, Sen. Rand Paul, is supporting his father’s run for President of the United States. That’s all that’s going on here. There is no secret “conspiracy.” During a radio interview this morning in Chicago, Sen. Paul said:
“If there’s a secret deal they’re keeping it secret from me, I think that’s mostly internet chatter and fun for people to speculate on…”
Speculative fun is exactly right. Sen. Paul explained his own views on the supposed Romney/Paul connection this morning, including his comments about being “honored” if he were to be considered as the GOP vice presidential nominee:
I think the story kind of got misrepresented, because you know when I was asked, every time I’m asked these kind of questions, these are hypothetical questions, I always say you know what? I still have my first choice in the race and that’s Ron Paul. My first choice would be a Ron Paul presidency and my first choice for a position would be an unofficial adviser to a Ron Paul presidency…
But when they push and push and push, and say ‘What about Romney? Would you do it?’ I mentioned that it would be an honor, and what I meant by that is sort of like if you were nominated for an academy award, what’s your response? You’d say “It’s be an honor to be nominated’ and so I think it would be silly for me not to say that if anybody considered me that I’d be honored by it, but I think it was somewhat overblown, it sort of fits into this sort of cabal that people write about…
That there’s this big strategy between Ron Paul and Romney, really the Ron Paul strategy as far as I’m aware of it is to gather delegates and to try to win, and one of the unwritten stories really is that Ron Paul may have already won a couple of states but people haven’t realized it because the delegates haven’t been allotted in Iowa yet, and we still think there’s an reasonable chance we can win Iowa we they count the delegates, we think there’s a reasonable chance we can win Maine when they count the delegates, and this is sort of an unwritten story that’s out there, and also why I don’t like the story out there that somebody’s trying to angle for some other position other than I’m just trying to help my dad at this point…
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Sen. Paul's Amicus Brief on Obamacare
Sen. Rand Paul's amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court not only calls on the Court to strike down Obamacare, but to jettison the 1942 precedent that has allowed Congress to blow past its enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause. That case held that Congress can forbid a farmer from feeding his family and livestock with wheat he grew himself on his own farm; it ushered in the era of big government -- and big debt.
Here's a link to the brief. In full disclosure, I am counsel of record. Constitutional conservatives will appreciate that Paul calls for the Court to overrule Wickard v. Filburn when it addresses Obamacare. That's the case that Judge Silberman of the D.C. Circuit reluctantly concluded justified the individual mandate. Of course, the D.C. Circuit, as an intermediate court, is stuck with Wickard. But the Supreme Court is not. In all likelhihood, the Court will distinguish Wickard, if it strikes down Obamacare. However, look for Justice Thomas to echo Paul's call to make clear that Wickard was wrongly decided.
Sen. Paul spoke about the brief and many other topics yesterday at the Federalist Society's Louisville Lawyer Chapter. This is the first time that he has spoken to any Federalist Society chapter, and he drew a huge crowd. It's a natural fit, because like the Tea Party, the Federalist Society seeks for rule of law based on the plain text of the constitution as understood by the Framers: limited government, personal responsibility, liberty.
Here's some of the press coverage. WFPL had the best coverage of the brief. The C-J focused mostly on Paul's opposition to federalizing the criminalization of synthetic drugs. WAVE 3 fixated on Paul's assessment of the odds of a brokered Republican Convention, which he put at 30 percent. WHAS 11 made the point that Paul is "staying true" to his campaign message. (How sad that it is actually newsworthy for a politician to keep his word.).
The Daily Caller picked up on Paul's remark that he would be "honored" to be considered as candidate for Vice President. There is speculation that the reason Ron Paul is hitting Rick Santorum so hard, but not Mitt Romney, is that Ron Paul has cut some kind of deal to be Romney's V.P. nominee. In fact, Rand Paul would probably add more to the ticket than his father.
Here's what the media missed yesterday: in casual conversation, before the event started, when asked whether he would run for president, Paul very candidly said he was "thinking about it." In the event that Obama is reelected, I expect Paul to run.
A few observations on working with Paul on the brief. Law students of all ideological persuasions have thought for 70 years that Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided. It makes a mockery of a federal government, and particularly a Congress, that is subject to enumerated and hence limited powers.
To have a sitting member of the U.S. Senate show the courage and intellectual honesty to say what so many think -- that Wickard is wrong -- was extraordinary. It is the constitutional equivalent of telling the Court that the Emperor has no clothes.
I was struck by Paul's command of constitutional law; he is a non-lawyer who knows more than most lawyers. He is a voracious reader who loves history. I was also struck by his humility and sense of humor. Despite his intellect and position, he is modest and down to earth.
Although I still don't agree with him on all issues, I think that we are blessed to have his service.
Here's a link to the brief. In full disclosure, I am counsel of record. Constitutional conservatives will appreciate that Paul calls for the Court to overrule Wickard v. Filburn when it addresses Obamacare. That's the case that Judge Silberman of the D.C. Circuit reluctantly concluded justified the individual mandate. Of course, the D.C. Circuit, as an intermediate court, is stuck with Wickard. But the Supreme Court is not. In all likelhihood, the Court will distinguish Wickard, if it strikes down Obamacare. However, look for Justice Thomas to echo Paul's call to make clear that Wickard was wrongly decided.
Sen. Paul spoke about the brief and many other topics yesterday at the Federalist Society's Louisville Lawyer Chapter. This is the first time that he has spoken to any Federalist Society chapter, and he drew a huge crowd. It's a natural fit, because like the Tea Party, the Federalist Society seeks for rule of law based on the plain text of the constitution as understood by the Framers: limited government, personal responsibility, liberty.
Here's some of the press coverage. WFPL had the best coverage of the brief. The C-J focused mostly on Paul's opposition to federalizing the criminalization of synthetic drugs. WAVE 3 fixated on Paul's assessment of the odds of a brokered Republican Convention, which he put at 30 percent. WHAS 11 made the point that Paul is "staying true" to his campaign message. (How sad that it is actually newsworthy for a politician to keep his word.).
The Daily Caller picked up on Paul's remark that he would be "honored" to be considered as candidate for Vice President. There is speculation that the reason Ron Paul is hitting Rick Santorum so hard, but not Mitt Romney, is that Ron Paul has cut some kind of deal to be Romney's V.P. nominee. In fact, Rand Paul would probably add more to the ticket than his father.
Here's what the media missed yesterday: in casual conversation, before the event started, when asked whether he would run for president, Paul very candidly said he was "thinking about it." In the event that Obama is reelected, I expect Paul to run.
A few observations on working with Paul on the brief. Law students of all ideological persuasions have thought for 70 years that Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided. It makes a mockery of a federal government, and particularly a Congress, that is subject to enumerated and hence limited powers.
To have a sitting member of the U.S. Senate show the courage and intellectual honesty to say what so many think -- that Wickard is wrong -- was extraordinary. It is the constitutional equivalent of telling the Court that the Emperor has no clothes.
I was struck by Paul's command of constitutional law; he is a non-lawyer who knows more than most lawyers. He is a voracious reader who loves history. I was also struck by his humility and sense of humor. Despite his intellect and position, he is modest and down to earth.
Although I still don't agree with him on all issues, I think that we are blessed to have his service.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Rand Paul is Right About Egypt
But for Sen. Rand Paul's efforts to cut off aid to Egypty, there would not be one story about the U.S. citizens being held hostage in Egypt. Plainly, this assault to American sovereignty -- which now endangers Americans -- does not fit into the reelection narrative for the Appeasement Presidency. (How's that Arab Spring working out for you?)
Liberal apologist Dana Milbank directed his bile against Paul for holding up the confirmation of a Hispanic lawyer to the Eleventh Circuit. This was the hit piece in which Milbank made his chimichanga remark against the Republicans, which is too offensive and asinine to reprint here.
Milbank implies that Paul had no need for Hispanics because Kentucky's Hispanic population is only three percent of the state's total.
The ethnicity of the nominee is beside the point. Paul simply asked for the Senate to take ten minutes from the comfirmation to discuss the Americans being detained in Egypty. What nominee wouldn't happily have his confirmation postponed for a few minutes for the sake of American lives?
Mikbank's outrage on behalf of Hispanic jurists rings hollow. Dana, where were you when Democrats stonewalled the nomination of Miguel Estrada? Plainly, conservative Hispanics do not fit into Dana Milbank's world view of how a Hispanic should think or vote. It is difficult to know what is more disgusting: Milbank's hypocrisy or his condescension,
Liberal apologist Dana Milbank directed his bile against Paul for holding up the confirmation of a Hispanic lawyer to the Eleventh Circuit. This was the hit piece in which Milbank made his chimichanga remark against the Republicans, which is too offensive and asinine to reprint here.
Milbank implies that Paul had no need for Hispanics because Kentucky's Hispanic population is only three percent of the state's total.
The ethnicity of the nominee is beside the point. Paul simply asked for the Senate to take ten minutes from the comfirmation to discuss the Americans being detained in Egypty. What nominee wouldn't happily have his confirmation postponed for a few minutes for the sake of American lives?
Mikbank's outrage on behalf of Hispanic jurists rings hollow. Dana, where were you when Democrats stonewalled the nomination of Miguel Estrada? Plainly, conservative Hispanics do not fit into Dana Milbank's world view of how a Hispanic should think or vote. It is difficult to know what is more disgusting: Milbank's hypocrisy or his condescension,
Santorum Surges (Yawn)
By all accounts, Rick Santorum is a good guy. Everyone who knows him, even if they do not support him, comments on his decency -- an undervalued quality in these news cycles in which we are subjected to details of JFK robbing teenagers of their virginity.
Santorum will do. He is perhaps a little more conservative than Romney. Nonetheless, Santorum is an earmark-seeking statist, who opposed right to work and endorsed Arlen Specter. So forgive my lack of enthusiasm.
Again I wonder, why are our choices so poor in this field of candidates? This is why Republicana are fantasizing about a brokered convention. We want someone to save us from the RINOs.
Ron Paul will be a force at that convention, brokered or not. Therefore, if Marco Rubio takes pass on VP, look to Paul supporters to ask for the VP slot to go to Rand Paul to shore up the nominee's bona fixes on cutting the size of government. That is the critical issue for this election, and one which Santorum or Romney needs help to appeal to the Tea Party.
Santorum will do. He is perhaps a little more conservative than Romney. Nonetheless, Santorum is an earmark-seeking statist, who opposed right to work and endorsed Arlen Specter. So forgive my lack of enthusiasm.
Again I wonder, why are our choices so poor in this field of candidates? This is why Republicana are fantasizing about a brokered convention. We want someone to save us from the RINOs.
Ron Paul will be a force at that convention, brokered or not. Therefore, if Marco Rubio takes pass on VP, look to Paul supporters to ask for the VP slot to go to Rand Paul to shore up the nominee's bona fixes on cutting the size of government. That is the critical issue for this election, and one which Santorum or Romney needs help to appeal to the Tea Party.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Sen. Paul on Roe v. Wade Anniversary
Sen. Rand Paul did not get to deliver his remarks to the March on Life yesterday, due to the TSA treating him like a terrorist at the Nashville airport. Here's what he would have said, if TSA had not made him miss his flight. Note that Paul used the formulation of John Locke -- "life, liberty and property" rather than Thomas Jefferson's version, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The distinction is not relevant to anniversary of Roe, but is interesting nonetheless.
The question remains, can a nation long endure or can a civilization long endure that does not respect Life? Our Liberty comes from our Creator and our freedoms depend upon a respect for Life.
In order to protect the unborn from the very moment life begins, I introduced the Life at Conception Act during my first year in the Senate. I have also cosponsored several other pro-life bills including the Life at Conception Act, the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
I also strongly support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would confirm in law that an unborn child is a person entitled to the right to life and support legislation that would restrict federal courts from hearing cases involving abortion. State governments must be allowed to implement laws that protect life.
It is the government’s duty to protect life, liberty, and property, but primarily and most importantly, a government must protect life. Today, tragically our nation wavers; our moral compass is adrift. Today, I worry about our nation's future. Together a brighter tomorrow is possible if we join hands to restore our nation's virtue.
To respect life and to listen to the voice of God that lives and breathes and beckons and yearns for our attention. When America remembers and restores her respect for life, when America refinds her moral bearings then we will thrive again, then we will find our way.
I will never give up fighting for the lives of our unborn children. May God bless America.”
The question remains, can a nation long endure or can a civilization long endure that does not respect Life? Our Liberty comes from our Creator and our freedoms depend upon a respect for Life.
In order to protect the unborn from the very moment life begins, I introduced the Life at Conception Act during my first year in the Senate. I have also cosponsored several other pro-life bills including the Life at Conception Act, the Protect Life Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
I also strongly support a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would confirm in law that an unborn child is a person entitled to the right to life and support legislation that would restrict federal courts from hearing cases involving abortion. State governments must be allowed to implement laws that protect life.
It is the government’s duty to protect life, liberty, and property, but primarily and most importantly, a government must protect life. Today, tragically our nation wavers; our moral compass is adrift. Today, I worry about our nation's future. Together a brighter tomorrow is possible if we join hands to restore our nation's virtue.
To respect life and to listen to the voice of God that lives and breathes and beckons and yearns for our attention. When America remembers and restores her respect for life, when America refinds her moral bearings then we will thrive again, then we will find our way.
I will never give up fighting for the lives of our unborn children. May God bless America.”
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Rand Paul Responds to Obama's Joblessness Speech
Sen. Rand Paul's take on the president's "jobs speech":
If the President were to ask me my advice on how to deal with the worst recession since the Great Depression, I would politely ask him to turn off the teleprompter. It’s hard to have a conversation with the American people when speaking through scripted words. And besides, the script really isn’t working.
I would tell the President, politely, to turn off the teleprompters. To turn off and maybe to quiet the loudmouths who are calling us – those who oppose some of his plans – “terrorists.” Those who are hurling invective at us as if that is somehow constructive. I would tell him to turn off or disassociate himself with this type of rhetoric.
Leadership means accepting responsibility. Accepting responsibility for where we are after nearly three years of his administration. For the first year or two it was always Bush’s fault. The economy, the recession – it’s all Bush’s fault. But at some point and time leadership means accepting responsibility.
We have unemployment nearly 10 percent. This administration is set to accumulate more debt than all 43 Presidents combined. With the unemployment, 2 million new workers are out of work. Leadership means accepting responsibility. And I would ask at this point that he accept some responsibility for this failed economy and for these failed policies and that we try something new.
Leadership isn’t just attaching blame to the other side and saying it’s just the Republican’s fault. But likewise, it’s not us standing up and saying it’s just the Democrat’s fault. It’s both sides admitting that there’s blame to go around.
The No. 1 problem that fuels our deficit crisis – that has us pushing on toward this deficit problem – is entitlements. And this is not anyone’s fault. It’s not the Democrats fault. It’s not the Republican’s fault.
Entitlements are broken because of two incontrovertible facts: No.1, people are living longer; No. 2 there are less workers than retirees. When Social Security was started there were dozens of workers for every retiree. Now we’re less than three workers for one retiree and we’re headed toward a time where there’s going to be one worker for one retiree. Social Security now pays out more than it brings in. These are just facts.
We can fix these programs but we can’t fix them if we involve ourselves in the rhetoric where each side or one side is calling the other terrorists. Mr. President, we need to get beyond that type of rhetoric. We need to sit down together and try to figure out our nation’s problems.
Likewise, I don’t think it’s good for you to simply say it’s the rich, blame the rich, the rich are not paying their fair share. Well, the facts speak otherwise: We have a progressive income tax in our country. In fact, the top 1 percent of wage earners who earn about 20 percent of the income, pay 38 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent of wage earners which earn about 50 percent of the income, pay 70 percent of the income tax. So the only thing the facts could tell us about the tax code is that the wealthy are paying their fair share – their fair share and then some.
You point out examples and say, well, this corporation didn’t pay any tax or this individual didn’t pay any tax. Those are anecdotes and anecdotes do not make a trend and do not make the truth. The truth is that the middle class and the rich pay the vast majority of the income tax. In fact, the bottom 50 percent, nearly half of all income tax is paid by those above, nearly have of income tax, nearly half of wage earners don’t pay any income tax.
So really we need to get our facts straight and get beyond sort of this blame-the-rich game. This class war-fare, this class envy. We need to remember that this is America; where the American dream is open to all. You, Mr. President, are a product of the American Dream. You should be proud of those who gain wealth. You should be proud of those who make a profit. We should extol the successes of American businesses, of American individuals. That would help us to move forward.
Now we do face a problem, we do have great joblessness in our country. How would we fix it? I would have five different things we would do. I think if we did these then our economy would begin to rebound. We would see a recovery almost immediately.
No. 1: We need a balance budget amendment to the Constitution. For too long we have been running these massive debts and debt has a face. Some economists are saying that our debt causes a million people to be out of work each year. Debt also causes our prices to go up. Gas prices have doubled. That’s because we are financing our debt by printing new money, that’s what the rising price is. These rising prices hurt seniors; these rising prices hurt those who are on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. So the first thing we need to do is get rid of our debt problem: a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
Now in order to do that you also have to have a spending plan. The second thing I would say is that we need a spending plan. You did propose a budget, but everyone voted against it. All 100 Senators; all the Republicans and all the Democrats voted against your plan. So obviously it wasn’t a plan that was acceptable to representatives on either sides of the aisle.
But I think there is a spending plan that America would accept and I call it the Penny Plan. The Penny Plan would cut the spending by one percent each year for six years. Cut one penny of every dollar of federal spending. Families have to do across America when times are tight, is there any reason why government couldn’t cut one percent of spending? If you cut one percent of spending for six years, and then free spending for two more years, your budget will balance in eight years. So it’s not enough just to have a balanced budget amendment, we have to have a spending plan that tells us and shows us how we could get to a balanced budget.
No. 3: I think we should immediately cut in half the corporate income tax, we should eliminate the capital gains taxes and we should make the tax rates that are out there now, give them some permanence, so businesses could have some predictability.
No. 4: I think we need a regulatory moratorium; we need to add no new regulations. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to repeal one regulation every week until the economy starts recovering. The regulatory burden is adding $2 trillion to the economic woes that we have in our country. And if we could get a business-friendly, regulatory-friendly government that acknowledges that we need some regulations, but that we’ve gone way overboard. I think that you would see an enormous recovery to economy.
And No. 5: We have to have an entitlement reform. Like I say this is no one’s fault. We are living longer; they’re folks-there’s just not as many workers to pay taxes anymore. So we have to fix entitlements and we can fix them. I’ve mentioned these to you and to others in your Administration. We could allow the age to gradually rise for social security over a 20- or 30-year period and we could allow means testing. Which would mean the rich would bear more of the burden for paying for their benefits and their entitlements. These are things that both sides of the aisle could come together on and I think if we did you would see an economic boom like we haven’t seen in a long time.
In order to get there though, many people say “Oh we have to compromise.” Well compromise goes both ways. You’ve put forward your ideas tonight. You need to come talk to us about how we could work with you, but that means you need to entertain some of our ideas.
Thank you and God bless America.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Rand Paul: Sack Geithner
Sen. Rand Paul has called for the resignation of Treasury Sec Timothy Geithner, who told the country in April that America's credit rating would not be down-graded. Historians will debate whether Geithner was telling a whopper or just didn't know what he was doing. In any event, it is time for him to join the 9.1 percent of unemployed Americans who suffer the consequences of his policies.
Here is Sen. Paul's statement:
Sen. Rand Paul today issued a statement calling for the resignation of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner from his cabinet post, effective immediately, for his gross mismanagement of federal economic policy and for his role in the first-ever downgrade of United States debt.
“Secretary Geithner assured everyone that raising the debt ceiling without a plan to balance the budget would not result in a downgrade to our debt,” Sen. Paul said. “He was clearly wrong. Our debt has been downgraded for the first time in history, and now American taxpayers will have to suffer the consequences”
This is not the first time Secretary Geithner and his team have failed to correctly diagnose or manage an economic problem. During his tenure at the Federal Reserve and as Treasury Secretary, Secretary Geithner has had a direct role in the failure of the Fed to diagnose and act on the housing crisis. He presided over bank bailouts, auto bailouts and failed trillion-dollar stimulus plans.
Last year, he announced to the American people “welcome to the recovery,” when in fact the our economic crisis has continued. He has contributed not only to the first-ever debt downgrade, but is on the record as clearly disputing it could ever happen.
“There is plenty of blame to go around. Both parties have contributed to our $14 trillion debt. But it is hard to say this crisis wasn’t predictable, because it was. House and Senate conservatives clearly predicted this, and also offered the only solution that could have prevented our downgrade with our Cut Cap and Balance plan,” Sen. Paul continued. “We must rescue our finances through a Balanced Budget Amendment, and we must do it soon. We must cut spending immediately. And we must get new leadership, and put in place people who have seen problems coming and offered credible solutions, rather than those who continue to misdiagnose and mismanage our economy.”
Here is Sen. Paul's statement:
Sen. Rand Paul today issued a statement calling for the resignation of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner from his cabinet post, effective immediately, for his gross mismanagement of federal economic policy and for his role in the first-ever downgrade of United States debt.
“Secretary Geithner assured everyone that raising the debt ceiling without a plan to balance the budget would not result in a downgrade to our debt,” Sen. Paul said. “He was clearly wrong. Our debt has been downgraded for the first time in history, and now American taxpayers will have to suffer the consequences”
This is not the first time Secretary Geithner and his team have failed to correctly diagnose or manage an economic problem. During his tenure at the Federal Reserve and as Treasury Secretary, Secretary Geithner has had a direct role in the failure of the Fed to diagnose and act on the housing crisis. He presided over bank bailouts, auto bailouts and failed trillion-dollar stimulus plans.
Last year, he announced to the American people “welcome to the recovery,” when in fact the our economic crisis has continued. He has contributed not only to the first-ever debt downgrade, but is on the record as clearly disputing it could ever happen.
“There is plenty of blame to go around. Both parties have contributed to our $14 trillion debt. But it is hard to say this crisis wasn’t predictable, because it was. House and Senate conservatives clearly predicted this, and also offered the only solution that could have prevented our downgrade with our Cut Cap and Balance plan,” Sen. Paul continued. “We must rescue our finances through a Balanced Budget Amendment, and we must do it soon. We must cut spending immediately. And we must get new leadership, and put in place people who have seen problems coming and offered credible solutions, rather than those who continue to misdiagnose and mismanage our economy.”
Monday, August 1, 2011
Rand Paul Gets Creative for David Williams
For a guy who likes to tell us how he stands on principle, Sen. Rand Paul's direct mail piece for Republican gubernatorial candidate David Williams reads like an exercise in truthiness.
Take the first sentence: "It's clear that Governor Steve Beshear is one of Barack Obama's most loyal Governors."
Really? Then how come Beshear wasn't invited to join Obama in congratulating the Navy Seals at Fort Campbell? And how come Beshear faked us all into thinking (1) he had been invited to the Obama event but (2) declined because he was so busy (and Obama is so unpopular in Kentucky)?
"Snub-gate," as Joe Arnold has dubbed it, illustrates that Beshear and Obama are not BFFs. The Fort Campbell trip is the only time Obama has come to Kentucky since he was elected president; he hasn't even come to the Derby!
Moreover, as Joe Gerth points out, Beshear was not a big Obama supporter in 2008 and did not commit to vote for his nomination until Beshear arrived at the Democratic National Convention.
The "p.s." to Rand Paul's letter states that "With liberal Steve Beshear's brazen support of 'Obamacare' and the entire Obama agenda, it's little wonder Kentucky is in competition with Puerto Rico for among the highest unemployment rate in the nation!"
I don't recall Steve Beshear's "brazen support of 'Obamacare'" or the "entire Obama agenda."
Beshear requested that Kentucky be given a three year exemption from Obamacare. (The administration denied the request and will only exempt Kentucky for part of 2011.) Someone who asks to be exempt from a law can hardly be called a "brazen supporter" of that same law.
Gerth notes in the same article linked above that Beshear has criticized the Obama administration's proposed coal rules.
Obama is hugely unpopular here, no doubt. A campaign strategy that ties Beshear to Obama would work if it were based on something other than to two having a "D" next to their name on the ballot. The fact is that they appear to have no personal relationship and little ideological overlap. Kentuckians know that Obama is much more liberal than Beshear. The strategy is doomed to fail because it has such little basis in fact.
More is the pity that Rand Paul tarted up his letter with exaggerations trying to tie Beshear to Obama; Paul offered some really great ideas about how to make Kentucky better able to compete with Tennessee for jobs: reform the Kentucky tax code; repeal the prevailing wage; pass a Right to Work law. These are substantive issues that could transform the economy of Kentucky.
To be sure, these are complex issues, but Williams has the intellect to present them in a way to make Kentuckians not only understand but care about them. Williams needs to remember that voters are smart enough to get these sensible changes to make Kentucky competitive. And Kentuckians are smart enough to know that Steve Beshear is not some wild-eyed liberal in the tank for Obama.
Take the first sentence: "It's clear that Governor Steve Beshear is one of Barack Obama's most loyal Governors."
Really? Then how come Beshear wasn't invited to join Obama in congratulating the Navy Seals at Fort Campbell? And how come Beshear faked us all into thinking (1) he had been invited to the Obama event but (2) declined because he was so busy (and Obama is so unpopular in Kentucky)?
"Snub-gate," as Joe Arnold has dubbed it, illustrates that Beshear and Obama are not BFFs. The Fort Campbell trip is the only time Obama has come to Kentucky since he was elected president; he hasn't even come to the Derby!
Moreover, as Joe Gerth points out, Beshear was not a big Obama supporter in 2008 and did not commit to vote for his nomination until Beshear arrived at the Democratic National Convention.
The "p.s." to Rand Paul's letter states that "With liberal Steve Beshear's brazen support of 'Obamacare' and the entire Obama agenda, it's little wonder Kentucky is in competition with Puerto Rico for among the highest unemployment rate in the nation!"
I don't recall Steve Beshear's "brazen support of 'Obamacare'" or the "entire Obama agenda."
Beshear requested that Kentucky be given a three year exemption from Obamacare. (The administration denied the request and will only exempt Kentucky for part of 2011.) Someone who asks to be exempt from a law can hardly be called a "brazen supporter" of that same law.
Gerth notes in the same article linked above that Beshear has criticized the Obama administration's proposed coal rules.
Obama is hugely unpopular here, no doubt. A campaign strategy that ties Beshear to Obama would work if it were based on something other than to two having a "D" next to their name on the ballot. The fact is that they appear to have no personal relationship and little ideological overlap. Kentuckians know that Obama is much more liberal than Beshear. The strategy is doomed to fail because it has such little basis in fact.
More is the pity that Rand Paul tarted up his letter with exaggerations trying to tie Beshear to Obama; Paul offered some really great ideas about how to make Kentucky better able to compete with Tennessee for jobs: reform the Kentucky tax code; repeal the prevailing wage; pass a Right to Work law. These are substantive issues that could transform the economy of Kentucky.
To be sure, these are complex issues, but Williams has the intellect to present them in a way to make Kentuckians not only understand but care about them. Williams needs to remember that voters are smart enough to get these sensible changes to make Kentucky competitive. And Kentuckians are smart enough to know that Steve Beshear is not some wild-eyed liberal in the tank for Obama.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Rand Paul Proposes Compromise
Sen. Rand Paul's most recent statement has a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with respect to his comments about Harry Reid's filibuster (see below).
More importantly, he spells out a potential compromise that he -- and presumably, other Tea Partiers -- would support:
More importantly, he spells out a potential compromise that he -- and presumably, other Tea Partiers -- would support:
It seems odd that the Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid would decide to filibuster his own legislation. In fact, the Senate Republican Leader offered to move the vote on this legislation up, but Democrats objected. My Senate Republican colleagues and I are here waiting in the Senate for a vote on the debt limit bill but Sen. Reid would rather delay a vote until 1:00 Sunday morning, running down the clock instead of providing real solutions and real leadership on this issue.
“I remain committed to solving this debt crisis and again offer a compromise. I am willing to give the President what he wants – to raise the debt ceiling $2.4 trillion. But there must be a long-term fix to our debt problem in the form of a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Sen. Paul on Cut, Cap and Balance
Last night the House has passed legislation to address the nation's debt: "Cut, Cap and Balance." Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement last night, "implor[ing" the Senate to do the same. Unfortunately, Republicans just don't have enough troops to make that happen -- this term.
Here's Sen. Paul's statement:
Here's Sen. Paul's statement:
Tonight the U.S. House of Representatives voted with the voice of the American people in supporting the Cap, Cut and Balance Act. The gravity of our debt crisis weighs heavy on our nation’s shoulders, and I commend my colleagues in the House for passing legislation that leads us toward a solution. They have now passed the only current legislation that would both raise the debt ceiling and fix our debt problem.
I implore my Senate colleagues to follow the same path in voting in favor of this bill, and for the President and his Administration to stop playing games with this matter and support the important goal of defeating our debt and balancing our budget.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Rand Paul Attacks Dems on Debt
Sen. Rand Paul has issued a statement condemning Democrats' refusal to allow a vote this week on the debt:
When I joined my fellow concerned Republican Senators last week and demanded the Senate stay in session to discuss the dire threat of our national debt crisis, I wanted the opportunity for a transparent debate on the Senate floor about how to best deal with this situation. Instead, the Senate Democrat leadership offered unrelated legislation, wasted precious time, and now have declared no more votes for the remainder of the week.
“This lack of leadership is why Americans are demanding change in Washington. My colleagues and I have a plan and we are ready to move forward. Senate Democrat leadership does not.”
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.Thursday, June 16, 2011
Rand Paul on Libya
Sen. Rand Paul has long complained about unconstitutional wars, and in this release he schools the Obama administration on Libya:
The Obama Administration has failed miserably in its attempt to justify their unconstitutional war in Libya. Their attempt yesterday to convince Congress that we are in fact not engaged in hostilities was breathtaking in its implications for both Libya and for future presidential war authority.
“The argument that our military is not engaged in hostilities because the Libyan military is unable to effectively retaliate has two major problems. First, according to the Administration’s report, attacking Libyan air defense is one of the primary roles our military is playing. Of course they aren’t shooting back well, we blew up their air defense system.
“If you take the Administration’s logic to its natural, if extreme-sounding, conclusion, the bigger problem is this: Under their logic, the President could attack a country, even with nuclear weapons, and not consider it to be a war needing Congressional approval if the country is unable to retaliate. This policy completely violates his constitutional authority. It also sends a dangerous signal to rogue nations and schoolyard bullies alike: If we hit you hard enough that you can’t hit back, it doesn’t count as an attack.”
Monday, May 2, 2011
Rand Paul Reacts to OBL Death
Sen. Rand Paul has issued a statement in response to the killing of Osama bin Laden. In fact, Paul's staff is so on top of communications that their release went out at 12:12 a.m. Here it is:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Upon news reports of the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden this evening, Sen. Rand Paul issued the following statement:
“I commend our troops, the intelligence community, and the military leaders involved in both the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama for their perseverance and courage in pursuit of this most grievous enemy of the United States of America.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)