Tag: Rand Paul

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

The Un-Super Committee

Surprise, surprise — the so-called Super Committee isn’t very super.

It appears that the august micro-body of solons will fail to come to an agreement to reduce the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, not in any combination of new revenue or spending “cuts” by today’s effective deadline.

On the bright side, given the nature of the likeliest possible agreement this committee would conceive, its failure sounds like the best possible result.

We’re now over $15 trillion in debt, running a deficit of $1.5 trillion this year alone. Still, the Super Committee couldn’t sop up even 80 percent of the red ink they’re spilling just this year. Not even spread out over the decade.

It gets worse. “I think we need to be honest about it,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul pointed out yesterday on CNN. “Spending is still rising under any of these plans. We’re only cutting proposed increases in spending.”

“The curve of spending in our country is going up at about 7.5 percent a year,” Sen. Paul went on to explain. “If you were to freeze spending for ten years, no cuts . . . they would call that a $9 trillion cut.”

So, as we face a debt crisis, the Super Committee couldn’t even manage to lessen their planned massive increases in spending.

Or talk straight with the American people.

Why? Perhaps because official Washington knows that spending is the real source of their power.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies property rights too much government

Renegade Regulatory Agencies

Americans often express astonishment when they learn that many of the nation’s laws — the bulk of its “regulations” — have not been written by Congress. Though the Constitution grants to Congress alone the power to legislate, Congress cedes most of that power to Executive Branch bureaucracies.

Last Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul hosted a panel on government regulatory abuse. Covering this “round table” discussion, Lou Dobbs, the Fox anchorman, interviewed Sen. Paul, and the two highlighted a number of regulatory horror stories:

  • A man from Hungary was put in jail for three years for cleaning up an illegal dump that had been put onto land that he had purchased.
  • A family was harassed for raising rabbits without a license — fined $3,000,000 but given the out of a mere $90,000 fine if they paid within 30 days by credit card.
  • Members of another family found themselves face to face with EPA bureaucrats, who halted their housing project, demanded costly site restoration, and charged them with criminal liability for not immediately complying.

The law that’s directed against this latter family, by the way, “is about wetlands,” which, Rand Paul informs us, Congress has never enacted laws about: “‘Wetlands’ is something defined into existence by regulatory agencies.”

In The Road to Serfdom F. A. Hayek showed how undemocratic and abusive “central planning” becomes. Apparently, even without a grand, overarching plan, regulation of the micro-managing kind navigates the same path.

Demand more “regulation”? Expect arbitrary judgment and unreasonable requirements — tyranny — as the result.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

Don’t Spend that Penny

Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards succinctly explains that not only does Rep. Boehner’s budget plan fail to cut spending $1 trillion over the next ten years — as advertised — but it “doesn’t actually cut spending at all.”

Zilch. Spending goes up.

“Why doesn’t the House leadership propose real cuts?” asks Edwards. He means identify specific line items that can be cut back — now, as in today or this week — rather than setting optimistic and unenforceable spending caps on future congresses. This especially goes for “caps” that don’t actually cap spending, but allow it to grow by, say, $7–8 trillion over the next decade.

Boehner’s plan allows debt to continue to pile up at historically huge levels. But he’s not alone. Obama has no plan. Reid’s plan? Calling it “smoke and mirrors” gives smoke and mirrors a bad name.

The Penny Plan, introduced by Florida Rep. Connie Mack and endorsed by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, has some merit. It would cut the budget by one percent for six years and then cap federal government spending at 18 percent of GDP.

Yes, cutting federal spending by only one penny on each dollar (one percent) for six years, rather than increasing spending by upwards of 7 percent a year under the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline budget, would balance the budget in eight years.

But to restore balance and end the debt crisis, a penny cut has to actually be a cut.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies responsibility too much government

The Trademark of Irresponsible Politicians

Who doesn’t agree with President Obama? “We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences,” he said when introducing his budget in February.

But who believes he’s serious? He went on to say that we must not treat “the hard-earned tax money of the American people . . . like Monopoly money.” Yet, by spending at hyper-deficit levels and offering no reasonable plan to balance the budget, he demonstrates a preference to play Monopoly™, not Responsibility®.

Now, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has a plan. He spelled it out Tuesday, giving it a hopeful moniker, “The Path to Prosperity.”

“Prosperity’s Around the Corner” was already taken in the noösphere.

The most salient feature of the plan, though, is that it designed to take its own sweet time. The budget wouldn’t balance next year. Or the year after. Or even in five, like Sen. Rand Paul’s much better plan.

Besides, today’s Congress can’t control itself must less control future Congresses. That’s the trouble with all these procrastinating plans.

Remember, even Rand Paul thinks his plan takes too long and doesn’t go far enough.

Of course, Obama dislikes Ryan’s plan. The new White House press secretary offers, “The President believes there is a more balanced way to put America on a path to prosperity.”

But he won’t share it with us. Obama and congressional Democrats are playing the oldest game in the book: All talk but no responsibility.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Incumbents and Upstarts

Guess who said this: “My gosh, these people in Washington are running the country right into the ground.”

According to the New York Times, it was Senator Orrin Hatch who voiced that lament — “despite having lived and worked [in Washington DC] for the last 34 years.”

Those old-timers! They retain all the advantages of incumbency, but pretend to be exempt from criticism when the results of their habits become clear.

That’s why last week’s primaries auger well: Seems that being the establishment’s favored candidate — or a longtime incumbent — does not even guarantee winning a nomination.

In Pennsylvania, the unprincipled Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter sought to avoid getting clobbered in the GOP primary. Instead, he got clobbered in the Democratic primary — despite the support of the Democratic Party establishment.

Likewise, in Kentucky, Rand Paul wrested the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate from Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the party-backed candidate, with a 23 percent margin.

Paul, who explicitly allies himself with the Tea Party movement, was soon engulfed in controversy over the 46-year old Civil Rights Act, which outlawed racial discrimination in public accommodations. Meanwhile, Congressman Sestak’s charge that the Obama White House offered him a federal job in an attempt to keep him out of the race, possibly a federal crime, dampened the news of his triumph.

Still, it seems clear: the voters don’t want “Those people in Washington” running the country into the ground.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Will Tea Party Politics Change Party Politics?

Rand Paul’s supporters weren’t alone in celebrating his big win. The AP headline read: “Democrats relish Paul’s GOP win in Ky. Senate race.” Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chortled over the “stark contrast between Rand and his opponent, state Attorney General Jack Conway.” He thinks Paul’s easier to beat come November than the establishment opponent Paul clobbered.

That used to be the rule. The more radical a candidate, the more likely to be trounced by the status-quo alternative.

But something’s different this time, right?

Not long ago Rand’s father Ron Paul was regularly ridiculed for being too extreme and “nutty.”

Now it’s the centrists who look nutty. Or, as Rand put it, “The tea party message is not . . . an extreme message. What is extreme is a $2 trillion deficit.”

Across the country in Washington State, a state representative is being challenged by Tim Sutinen, who is running explicitly under the “Tea Party” banner. A local paper quoted Sutinen as advising the legislature to declare a fiscal emergency and renegotiate state employee contracts.

The Democratic incumbent showed less glee than his Kentucky colleagues: “Those folks that represent the tea party are obviously good folks who have a view of government and they are frustrated. A lot of people are frustrated about the economy.”

My reading? It’s not just the economy. Continued dishonesty and self-dealing by politicians even in the midst of the crisis — that’s what’s frustrating.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.