Thursday, March 10, 2011

Rand Paul Scolded by Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen

After some tough questioning by Senator Rand Paul of Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, Senator Paul was scolded by Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen.

Shaheen is neither the Chairman nor the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Committee that was in session hearing the testimony.

According to NYT:
Mr. Paul started to leave the hearing room shortly after his turn at questioning the witness, but he was called back into the room by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, who scolded Mr. Paul for being rude to Ms. Hogan.
The questioning by Senator Paul was actually the type of open and frank questioning that we need more of in Congress. Here's a blow-by-blow from NYT:
Senator Rand Paul’s toilets don’t work, and he blames the Department of Energy.

At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, Mr. Paul lambasted Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, telling her that the department’s “hypocrisy” and “busybody nature” has “restricted choices” for consumers rather than made life better for them.

“You don’t care about the consumer really,” Mr. Paul said. “Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house, and I blame you.”

The hearing was called not to examine toilet policy, but to consider two proposed bills, one that would update energy efficiency standards for appliances and a second bill that would repeal a measure passed in 2007 that will phase in new efficiency standards for light bulbs beginning next year.... While many Republicans have taken up the cause of the familiar 100-watt incandescent bulb, Mr. Paul said he took the law as a personal affront visited on Americans by “bureaucrats.”...

Mr. Paul also drew a pointed parallel with abortion, opening his questioning by asking Ms. Hogan, “I was wondering if you are pro-choice?”

Ms. Hogan said she was “pro-choice in light bulbs.” But Mr. Paul accused her, the energy department and Democrats in general with hypocrisy. “You favor a woman’s right to abortion,” he said, but “you’re really anti-choice on every other product.”
Don't think that Senator Rand was just picking on some bureaucratic flunkie. Here's what the DOE says about Hogan:
Dr. Hogan oversees a more than $900 million annual energy efficiency policy, program, and research portfolio including industrial, buildings, and vehicle technologies, along with federal energy management. As part of EERE's senior leadership, Dr. Hogan helps to oversee $16.8 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding.
Translation: She's on the government side of crony capitalism, handing out hard earned taxpayer dollars to crony capitalists.

UPDATE:Here's the video of Rand Paul's questioning:



  1. Wow. That was VERY impressive. I hope that video DOES go viral. He's 100% right. When incandescent bulbs were banned from the shelves a few years ago, I thought to myself 'we are in serious trouble when the government is getting down to the level of telling me what kind of LIGHTBULB I can and can't buy!' What next, toilet paper? Oh wait, don't have to, she already had toilets covered.

    And now I've seen the devil herself, thanks to Rand Paul. Thank you for illuminating, ahem, her and her agency for all to see, sir.

  2. Let's not mince words, the translation is she is an effing corrupt skank.

  3. He's absolutely right. There's a real disconnect when we are pro-choice in regards to abortion but can't even choose our own lightbulbs! Good for Rand Paul!

  4. Very good. Not great, but very good. Definitely impressive for a senator, though.

    There's all sorts of problems with the protectionist nonsense of "shipping jobs overseas," but the pro-choice analogy is probably the best thing I've heard in terms of rhetoric.

    I'm am still skeptical of him because of his stupid statements on foreign policy, but damn, he keeps impressing me. His pro-market rhetoric is good, and his budget plan was awesome. And while I consider him a mere shadow of his dad in terms of understanding and espousing classical liberalism, he's still the kind of guy that needs to be in the senate right now. I'd like to see more of these dept guys get grilled like that.

  5. @ Anonymous

    I've said it before in the comments on this blog. I truly think that Rand on Ron do not differ on their vision of a free society. The only difference is how they go about convincing people about their view. Ron is the ardent-abolitionist that get's people talking and awakes people to these ideas. Rand might be the smoother persuasive man that brings them over completely. It's difficult to convince people of your view when you tell them they're wrong on everything. Ron will tell them. Rand will be more delicate about it.

  6. I agree with the conservative views expressed on this site, on American Thinker, on, etc most of the time. Our nation is in trouble with debt, out of control government, etc, and a 20% cut in spending ACROSS THE BOARD annually until we have a balanced budget is needed - the Republican efforts to cut $60B is a joke - it isn't even a good start. BUT, when you have over 300,000,000 people flushing the potty several times per day, taking long hot showers, driving fuel burning cars, and turning on hundreds of watts of lights, etc, etc, etc all of that can add up to an environmental catastrophe and can endanger our nation with an energy crisis. AND yes we do have an energy crisis. I see nothing wrong with energy efficiency - it saves money - and makes the US more competitive globally. If I have to pay $50/month to light my home and $50/month for water and my asian counterpart has energy efficient appliances and only pays $10/mo for each, then I'll expect a larger paycheck, my products will cost more, and my job will soon be sent overseas.

    Rand got it wrong on this issue. His stance is incorrect. Yes, we want fewer gun laws, we do not want to be forced to buy ethanol in our gasoline, we want a simpler tax code, we want a government that does not spend more than it takes in taxes, etc, etc, etc. BUT energy conservation will be a requirement for our national survival - I do not think large amounts should be spent on it by the government, but some common sense standards are reasonable. Requiring use of maximum 1.6 gal/flush toilets is reasonalbe - they work with no problems. Requiring CFL bulbs is reasonable except in situations where they are needed for their heat output or in some situation where CFLs would not work.

    Abortion of a pregnancy should be between a woman and her doctor and her god. The goobermint should have no say - I don't see pro-lifers lining up to adopt crack babies, or any babies. If you oppose abortion, good, don't have one - pray that others don't do it - help them if you want - adopt their unwanted crack babies if you want - but do not place goobermint regulations on a womans reproductive choices.

    Rand is a good guy but he is clueless on these issues and they cost conservatives the house in Nov 2010. Conservatives will embrace conservation or they will not gain power in this country. Intentional waste of resources is stupid.

  7. In my previous comment I said conservatives lost the house in 2010 because of their anti-environment stance. I meant to say the senate, not the house.

  8. Although reasonable energy efficiency standards are acceptable, I do not think the goobermint should outlaw incandescent bulbs. It is reasonable to set a standard requiring a bulb with 1600 lumens light output not draw more than 23 watts of electric power. If a company can make an incandescent bulb meeting this requirement, that should be acceptable. Set the efficiency standard and let the market provide the products that meet or exceed that standard.

    Standards should not be draconian or such that they will put the US at a disadvantage in the global market, for example, with carbon taxes or credits, etc.

  9. Incandescent bulbs were available in the store as of last week.