This morning, on Fox News Sunday, Paul said that his focus in the Senate would be reducing the “mountains and mountains of debt.” But when asked to square that with his desire to spend trillions of dollars on tax cuts, he replied that, when it comes to extending Bush’s tax cuts, “I’m not seeing it as a cost to government”:
Q: You said at the very beginning, the first issue you mention was the national debt. If you’re so concerned about the national debt, how are you going to pay for a $4 trillion loss of revenue from the tax cuts.
PAUL: I think, first of all you look at whose money it is. It’s the people’s money, who earned the money; we give up some to pay taxes, so I’m not seeing it as a cost to government.
Paul later promised to “introduce legislation that will reduce spending,” but when Fox News’ Chris Wallace noted “there’s no way you’re going to get $4 trillion by spending cuts,” Paul simply reiterated that he would cut spending without laying out any specifics.
Of course not. Because if he laid out any specifics, no one in his/her right mind would vote for this clown. Those who want to know what the magical candyland envisioned by teabaggers would look like need look no further than Ernie Scott Garrett, who represents New Jersey's Fifth Congressional District, which is alas the one in which I live. Garrett in just one week voted AGAINST a fund to benefit those workers who risked their health in the Ground Zero cleanup; voted AGAINST imposing import tariffs on nations that deliberately devalue their currency to increase sales in the US; and voted AGAINST funding NASA's space shuttle and International Space Station programs. That's just last week. Here's his record for all of 2010, and he's been at this since January of 2003. Appropriations for HUD and the Department of Transportation? No dice. Amending the IRS Code of 1986 to create jobs through increased investment in infrastructure and eliminate loopholes which encourage companies to move operations offshore? No dice. Unemployment compensation extension for the unemployed in his district? Uh-uh. Flood insurance reform? Nope -- not even when a good chunk of his district got deluged last week. No on supplemental appropriations for disaster relief. No on the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.
No and no and no and no and no.
But when it comes to lobbyists, even those from governments known to be sponsors of international terrorism, being barred from donating to political campaigns (including his)? He refused to make a commitment on that one and didn't even show up.
Soctt Garrett was teabag before tea was the flavor of the moment. We here in NJ-5 have already seen what Rand Paul's America looks like, we've been looking at it for nearly a decade. And what's tragic is that most people in this district aren't even paying attention.
Some rights of this page's plain text stuffs are reserved for the author.
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors of said opinions, and do not in any way represent the opinions of other contributors.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.