Saturday, May 14, 2011

Mitch McConnell Disses Rand Paul

The Hill reports:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a favorite son of the Tea Party, wanted a seat on the Senate Budget Committee, but was passed over in favor of a more junior colleague.

The decision was made by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who instead picked Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), the only member of the Senate Republican conference with less seniority than Paul. (Paul and Ayotte entered the Senate the same day, but Paul has more seniority by draw.)


  1. The Tea Party folks want to save the economy of the USA. The 2 main parties want to destroy the economy of the USA, thus the intentional spending binge, tax cuts that increase the deficits, etc. There is no possibility, none, zero, that 535 people could be as stupid as our congress when it comes to their spending spree - it is blatantly obvious that they are intentionally destroying our currency. Probably to put in place some kind of world currency or world government. I cannot write here what these idiots deserve - I'd be thrown in jail, but you get the idea.

  2. Anon@5:37,

    In all fairness the Tea Party is no different than the other parties. By that, I mean to say that the polls show that the Tea Party members are just as apprehensive to make real and necessary changes to entitlement programs like social security as are bmembers of the other major parties.

    The politicians just want to keep their jobs.

    The system is failing because of greed.

    In the end, no one will "save the economy", because far too many people will always vote their own self interests.

    Prepare accordingly.....


  3. I think most people would accept some cuts in SS benefits, say 10% paycheck cuts, in order to help that program. But SS is not a big part of the budget problem since it pays for itsself with the payroll tax. We the people, have paid into SS our entire working lives, and it is insurance in the event of a market crash and we all have now seen those in real life, twice in the past 10 years. So, if a politician wants to modify SS slightly, then they should come out, explain the changes they want, and if they are modest, the people will probably go for them. HOWEVER, if they start talking raising the ages, or privatizing SS the the politician is going to have his ass handed to him on a platter as Bush can attest. We are all free, including YOU, to put as much money into any private investment we want with no restrictions -SS is insurance.

  4. Follow up to my previous post suggesting a 10% cut in SS checks might be acceptable to people:

    As far as other cuts in other programs go, I recommend 20% cuts across the board in all federal government spending, including defense. That means 20% in pension checks for government employees currently collecting and same for those in the future, and 20% hourly cut for employees - with no reduction in hours worked, and no working overtime to make up the difference. Your $100,000,000 contract is now a $80,000,000 contract - reduce scope of work to match the new budget. Next year, do it again. Also, hiring freeze for 10 years, with size of government reduced by attrition.

    To me this seems like common sense and I cannot understand why it has not been proposed by a politician. Craig may be right: they are only concerned about being reelected. Sad times for the USA are ahead.