Rand Paul - Defense Spending Bill

[phill4paul]

So it is, at best, a neutral move. I'm probably the biggest Rand fan here, and I don't like this.

That's funny. I'm probably the least Rand fan here and I'm fine with it. I think it was an excellent political maneuver that will benefit him in the primaries.

 

[Krugminator2]

Might want to specify that in the thread's title then because a lot of people don't read further

I am not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination. But it is clear to anyone with a functioning brain that this vote was meant to show how little appetite there is to cut anything. It established Rand as both a fiscal conservative and someone who cares about defense and it got Rubio and Cruz on the record showing that they aren't willing to a make a tough decision to cut. It got four votes for a reason. And the other three people who voted for it were people Rand has endorsed and done political favors for.

Complaining about good votes and good strategic decisions is maddening. I can't even begin to understand why someone would object to this.

 

[Jeremy]

I am not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination. But it is clear to anyone with a functioning brain that this vote was meant to show how little appetite there is to cut anything.

That's not really true. The media kept saying Rand was proposing an increase to military spending / is now more hawkish without any context of the alternative.

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is kind of off topic but not really, I suppose. What do you guys think about Ted being on the science/tech board? Or heading up aspects of that. i'm not looking to debate it or anything. I'm just wondering about thoughts on that.

I've kept my mouth shut in large about it. I think I only mentioned him briefly there in the BRIC Summit thread. Ultimately, it was about defense/military spending and all that goes with that, though.

 

[phill4paul]

That's not really true. The media kept saying Rand was proposing an increase to military spending / is now more hawkish without any context of the alternative.

It's just begun. The vote was today. He will clarify on all the shows on the 'morrow. That's how he has played everything so far. I cringed when he brought up Hillary taking funds for the foundation from oppressive regimes. I just knew a reporter would bring up Ron taking money from white supremacists. Sure enough they did. He countered by saying if the media was so interested in his father taking money then why aren't they questioning Hillary. Or something to that affect. He has a way of throwing things back at people.

 

[serenityrick]

He should really stay away from the climate change thing. He will lose all independent votes.

Time and time again, "Climate change" consistently ranks at the very bottom of issues that people give a shit about.

The only reason why you and others think otherwise is because democrats and Al Gore won't shut the hell up about it.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

That's not really true. The media kept saying Rand was proposing an increase to military spending / is now more hawkish without any context of the alternative.

And he's still going to be hit in debates with the isolationist and military gutting labels.

People can say he'll have an answer all they want, but if you're explaining why your opponent is wrong rather than why you're right, you're losing in a debate.

 

[phill4paul]

And he's still going to be hit in debates with the isolationist and military gutting labels.

And it's not going to stick because he is going to throw it back at them. He is going to say that they voted for less funding over his plan. He is going to turn the screw by saying that they aren't fiscal conservatives because his bill would have required cuts to social programs.

Answered before the addendum:

People can say he'll have an answer all they want, but if you're explaining why your opponent is wrong rather than why you're right, you're losing in a debate.

Disagree. He'll explain why they were wrong while still explaining why he was right.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

"The Gist" of Rand Paul's Controversial Defense Budget Amendment 940

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) submitted a budget amendment calling for increased defense spending in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. As Time originally reported, the amendment called for increasing spending by a total of about $190 billion over those two years, or a 16 percent increase over current totals.

While the specific language of the amendment is not yet available, the senator's office has sent me the following summary of its provisions:

Background information on Paul Amdt 940:

Sen. Paul has offered an amendment to increase the levels of national defense spending (budget function 050) in both 2016 and 2017. The levels reflect the projected FY2016 levels, before BCA caps became law.

Amdt. 940 will increase, defense spending by nearly $190 billion over the next two years. This amendment continues to fulfill the President’s OCO request and mandatory defense spending.

In the proposed amendment, Sen. Paul provides an increase in defense spending with offsets from the following accounts:

• $21 billion from Foreign Assistance accounts (budget 150 function)
• $14 billion from the National Science Foundation and Climate Change research under the General Science, Space, and Technology (budget 250 function)
• $10 billion total from the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Commerce activities under Natural Resources and Environment (Budget 300 function) and Commerce and Housing Credits (Budget 370 function)
• $20 billion from Department of Education
• $41 billion in discretionary spending from the Department of Housing and Urban Development

These reductions would occur in both FY2016 and FY2017.

Those cuts in other areas come to $106 billion annually. According to the senator's office, the key gesture here is to pay for the increased spending by cuts made elsewhere in the budget.

That's something that other Republican proposals fail to do. As senior advisor Doug Stafford wrote me earlier today:

This amendment is to lay down a marker that if you believe we need more funding for national defense, you should show how you would pay for it. We can't just keep borrowing more money from China to send to Pakistan. And we can't keep paying for even vital things like national defense on a credit card.

Mercatus Center, Veronique de RugyMercatus Center, Veronique de RugySen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment to increase spending by about the same amount as Paul's, but Rubio's plan specifies no offsets in spending, says Bloomberg Politics' Erik Wasson. Like Paul, Rubio is a presumptive candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. According to various reports, declared candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has signed on to Rubio's plan and voted for its passage.

So in this narrow sense, one can see meaningful difference between Paul and his fellow Senate colleagues: He is willing to pay for increases in defense spending by stipulating cuts elsewhere. And it's worth pointing out that his insistence on trimming foreign aid by $21 billion has already raised the ire of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Yes, it's great news that Paul is serious about debt and deficit in a way that escapes Cruz and Rubio—and virtually all Republicans, especially when it comes to Pentagon spending.

Gallup, Feb. 2015Gallup, Feb. 2015But there remains a serious question about reducing the size, scope, and spending of government. Real federal outlays spiked massively under George W. Bush and a Republican Congress. They spiked under Bush and a Democratic Congress too. They spiked even more under Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress and then flattened temporarily not out of any commitment to restraint but because of government incompetency. Expenditures are back on their way up, as both parties have constituents they want to reward after the briefest of timeouts.

In this context, Rand Paul's full-throated argument for reducing federal spending overall and specifically on defense was nothing less than exceptional (that it was clearly in tune with the vox populi is less important). It's true that popular opinion toward U.S. military spending and involvement around the world shifted last fall in response to the beheadings of Americans by the Islamic State, aggressive actions by Vladimir Putin, and a bizarre turn of events that has the United States effectively fighting side by side with Iran and Syria in Iraq. The war impulse is especially strong among Republicans, of whom 56 percent say the U.S. is "spending too little" on defense. In Congress and the op-ed pages of the country, there is no shortage of right-wing hawks who want to see the U.S. flex its muscles in the Middle East, Russia, and elsewhere.
...
Rand Paul has captured the imagination of a large and growing number of conservatives (many of whom are also questioning the wisdom of being on a permanent war footing), libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans, younger people, and even liberals and Democrats precisely by speaking truth to the war power. Because of that, he will always be suspect to armchair warriors of the right who never think twice about sending young men and women to soak the ground of far-flung countries with their blood, or who never pause to break the back of the American economy in the pursuit of the next F-35 boondoggle.

It's to Rand Paul's immense credit that he, alone among even his Tea Party compatriots who were sent to the Senate to reduce federal spending, wants to pay for any and all increases in defense spending.
...
More: http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/26/breaking-the-gist-of-rand-pauls-controve

 

[phill4paul]

"The Gist" of Rand Paul's Controversial Defense Budget Amendment 940

Doug Stafford wrote me earlier today:

This amendment is to lay down a marker that if you believe we need more funding for national defense, you should show how you would pay for it. We can't just keep borrowing more money from China to send to Pakistan. And we can't keep paying for even vital things like national defense on a credit card.

I've heard that line before....somewhere.

 

[eleganz]

Chill out guys, the vote was lost something like 4-96, Rand knew it wasn't going to pass, he introduced a more fiscally conservative amendment anyone else and even got Cruz and Rubio to vote no. He's going to be able to use this in interviews and debates.

 

[acptulsa]

Chill out guys...

Nobody's agitated but the agitators. And it isn't in their nature to chill.

 

[KingNothing]

That's funny. I'm probably the least Rand fan here and I'm fine with it. I think it was an excellent political maneuver that will benefit him in the primaries.

I agree. I'd have rather him just done nothing though, from a philosophical perspective.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Chill out guys, the vote was lost something like 4-96, Rand knew it wasn't going to pass, he introduced a more fiscally conservative amendment anyone else and even got Cruz and Rubio to vote no. He's going to be able to use this in interviews and debates.

If you know something isn't going to pass and only get a handful of votes, why compromise to such a degree? Might as well introduce cuts in both if you know that's going to happen.

If Rand wanted something that could have at least made a little noise, he could have introduced an amendment that raises military spending by the amount they're requesting, but call for a greater amount of cuts. It'd be a smaller swing, much smaller in both directions than he called for, and more likely to receive more support.

If we're going to pretend that Rand still won't be repeatedly attacked in debates, the media, etc for being an anti-military isolationist, there are going to be a lot of disappointed and angry people here come primary season.

 

[acptulsa]

If you know something isn't going to pass and only get a handful of votes, why compromise to such a degree? Might as well introduce cuts in both if you know that's going to happen.

Because it's a better troll to introduce something they can in no way deny they and their whole philosophy consider reasonable.

If we're going to pretend that Rand still won't be repeatedly attacked in debates, the media, etc for being an anti-military isolationist, there are going to be a lot of disappointed and angry people here come primary season.

I'll be disappointed if he doesn't. If they never open the door for him to use this brilliant troll against them, that would be a real shame.

 

[phill4paul]

If you know something isn't going to pass and only get a handful of votes, why compromise to such a degree? Might as well introduce cuts in both if you know that's going to happen.

If Rand wanted something that could have at least made a little noise, he could have introduced an amendment that raises military spending by the amount they're requesting, but call for a greater amount of cuts. It'd be a smaller swing, much smaller in both directions than he called for, and more likely to receive more support.

If we're going to pretend that Rand still won't be repeatedly attacked in debates, the media, etc for being an anti-military isolationist, there are going to be a lot of disappointed and angry people here come primary season.

He basically did this. The amounts or extremes may vary by taste. He was never going to receive support. For the establishment he is the man to beat. He knew this.

He will be attacked. He's anticipating it. And with this he will cram protestations down their throats. On national T.V.

 

[acptulsa]

He will be attacked. He's anticipating it. And with this he will cram protestations down their throats. On national T.V.

He is setting up the chessboard so every attack can be immediately redirected against them. He is turning all their pawns into boomerangs, itching to smack the person who threw it upside the head.

This is going to be fun!

 

[eleganz]

If you know something isn't going to pass and only get a handful of votes, why compromise to such a degree? Might as well introduce cuts in both if you know that's going to happen.

If Rand wanted something that could have at least made a little noise, he could have introduced an amendment that raises military spending by the amount they're requesting, but call for a greater amount of cuts. It'd be a smaller swing, much smaller in both directions than he called for, and more likely to receive more support.

If we're going to pretend that Rand still won't be repeatedly attacked in debates, the media, etc for being an anti-military isolationist, there are going to be a lot of disappointed and angry people here come primary season.

I don't really want it to seem like I'm apologizing for Rand but I would assume he raised it to the number that he did was because Rubio and Cruz did the exact same thing. Rand showed that he could raise the budget to the same amount while at the same time slashing the overall budget. His budget was better than theirs and they voted against it.

Its going to look real good when he can throw it in their faces on national tv.

Rand will be attacked, point blank, we all should accept this and I'm sure he already has accepted it. Its better that he have a prepared response for his attacks rather than just sit there being called an isolationist with no real tangible evidence to say the contrary.

You can dodge all day but having a counter punch is the only way to defeat your enemy.

 

[WD-NY]

As for the politics of it:

Originally Posted by Brett85
I disagree. I think it gives him cover when Rubio claims that Rand wants to cut defense spending and is weak on defense. Rand can just point to this and say, "I believe in a strong national defense, but I also believe in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. If we're going to increase defense spending, then we should pay for it through cuts to other areas. Marco Rubio thinks it's more important to give money to Pakistan than to invest money on our military and defense infrastructure."

Bingo

He's putting himself in a position where he can attack the war-hawks for reckless spending, but they can't counter by calling him weak on defense.

It's a beautiful thing to behold.

This.

Replace Rand with Obama, and the media would be praising him on TV and unleashing a wave of articles explaining why this vote was such a "brilliant" ploy from a purely political perspective and how it proves that "Rand is the smartest politician in the room".

 

[Kotin]

I think its genius.. "I am for strong defense but the difference is that I want to pay for it with something besides more debt"