"For goodness sakes, this is a 600-page bill. I got it this morning," Paul said Friday, according to The Hill, just before the Senate approved a massive bill extending highway funding, federal flood insurance and low student loans rates.
"Not one member of the Senate will read this bill before we vote on it," he added.
Paul also introduced related legislation Friday, S. 3359, that would prohibit the inclusion of more than one subject in a single bill.
Look, Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. He is not a libertarian; he is not a man of principle like his father. But come now, we all know that he is the least rotten apple on the poisonous tree. So as much as we give him a hard time, let us at least recognize that he would probably be the last person we would eject out of the senate if we had our way.
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a weird place to make this comment. I'm pretty sure Wenzel would approve of these two bills by Rand as would most of us who don't think all that highly of the man.
DeleteIn 1992 Ron Paul was contemplating a run against George H.W. Bush. He stepped aside for Pat Buchanan. Now Pat Buchanan is nowhere near the libertarian that Rand Paul is, but Ron Paul was willing to stand aside for him. Ron recognized that it was necessary for libertarians to make common cause with paleo-conservatives and others who share important fundamental principles even while disagreeing on others and on the details. We cannot afford to split the liberty movement by becoming lockstep libertarians who demand absolute obedience to all of our beliefs even as we disagree among ourselves. There's no contradiction between complaining about what you don't like and still supporting someone for the other things that you do agree with. I would rather have had Pat Buchanan than George Bush in 1992, but I think Rand Paul is better than either of those.
DeleteI think Rand is much closer to his father's views than you appreciate, but he has a different political style than his father. Ron Paul was great for building a movement and for educating people about libertarianism, but he wasn't effective for getting his (well intentioned) legislation passed. He was too anti-establishment and too idealistic to build political coalitions to pass his agenda. Rand wants to move the liberty ball down the field by working more with his party. If it works in giving us more peace and liberty, does it matter that he endorsed Romney (and whose election now btw would overturn Obamacare)?
DeleteInteresting comment. I am not a fan of the "least rotten apple" principle. That's like forgiving the thug with the smallest penis when you are getting gang-raped.
DeleteWhen there is a poisonous tree full of rotten apples, i have the tendency to just not eat any of them.
DeleteMaybe you are different.
Sure, Rand may be the least evil of them. But reporting only about open and honest big government statists is redundant and an exercise in futility. Reporting about a man who should know better and which we had hopes for is the opposite. He is, and will continue to be under a magnifying glass and justifiably so.
That some cheerleaders here would prefer we look the other way when it comes to Rand shows they fear the truth and have no standards.
Maybe they think Rand will do good using his current methods. Well, fine. But he neither needs nor deserves our support for those methods. With his current methods he'll probably do just fine becoming a GOP power player.
So why the constant crying about articles that examine Rand on sites like this?
You are all way too eager to get legitimate libertarians on board the system that you should know by now we reject.
"If it works in giving us more peace and liberty, does it matter that he endorsed Romney"
DeleteConsidering the fact that the man he endorsed is the opposite of "peace and liberty" and that Rand himself has voted for sanctions against Iran, and voted for privatization of the TSA rather than simply abolishing it, the answer is a resounding YES. It does matter that he endorsed Romney.
You seem to want us to simply ignore logic and actions in favor of baseless expectations and hopes.
Time is important but not as important as contesnt. Congress shoudn't need much time to consider proper legislation because most proper legislation would read something like:
ReplyDelete"Code section xyz is hereby repealed."
What a fucking disgusting joke the State is.
ReplyDeleteHaha, I was expecting you to rip Rand with something like "There's no need to read the bills, just vote against them." But yeah, even from a libertarian perspective, there is a chance a bill could actually be good (as robb points out).
ReplyDeleteGiving a day for every 20 pages would likely do some good in forcing legislators to be very straight forward in what they're going for. I don't think it's very common for complications in legislation to favor liberty, minus tax loopholes.
I agree with those who state this is a good idea. At least I agree in theory....
ReplyDeleteRand: For goodness sakes, this is a 600-page bill. I got it this morning....Not one member of the Senate will read this bill before we vote on it....
Just because they have the time to read the bill doesn't mean they WILL read the bill. For the conscientious like Rand (despite my disagreement with his chosen path, I believe he is more straightforward than almost any other national politician), this will matter. For the vast majority of Senators, they will vote based on the headlines and based on perceived political advantage - just as they do today. Most won't bother to read and understand the entirety of the bill.
Yeah no law is going to force our rulers to put forth an effort to read the bills or vote in an ethical manner, but it will slow the works down.
Deletethe point is to slow down bad laws noone have read from getting passed. Even if Senators are given plenty of time to read it but have not read it, at least its months before it get passed
DeleteImagine if these dumb SOB's in congress actually knew what they were voting on. What a novel idea. Imagine if your accountant didn't look at your finances before filing your taxes, or your doctor didn't look at your chart before performing surgery, or your lawyer didn't know what your case was about before going to court. These things would be very serious offenses for anyone else, but for congress that's just business as usual.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone really think congress will even get close to passing any legislation requiring or even allowing them to do their jobs right? Of course not.
This is a genius bill, contrary to what some commenters are writing. Congress shoves through these massive bills in short amounts of time so that the public will not have a chance to know what is in them, until it is too late and the bill has already passed. The health care bill is 1400 pages long. That amounts to 70 days of reading time according to Rand Paul's bill. Do you think the Obamacare monstrosity would have held up to 70 days of scrutiny? The opposition would have an opportunity to launch a full scale assault on these anti-liberty omnibus spending bills, health care bills, etc.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least, it would gum up the works, but it is no panacea. After all, TARP was 3 pages long.
You obvious put too much stock in Republicans somehow suddenly being in favor of less government power grab and intervention, when everything indicates that any opposition to any power grab is just bluster, bluster which grows increasingly louder but stays equally vapid as election time approaches.
DeleteHere's a quiz: if Republicans are against government intervention and power grab, should being unable to read a 1400 page bill prompt them to
A) Vote Yes without even reading it.
B) Vote No, for not being allowed to read a 1400 government healthcare bill.
Now you should, logically speaking, know enough about whether Republicans really cared about stopping Obamacare.
How Democrats feel about the issue should not even have to be asked.
The division of labor applies no less to members of Congress. Properly delegated staff could be on top of every piece of legislation in the works. The Senator him or her self need not personally read more than properly prepared briefs.
ReplyDeleteDo not infer from that comment I am defending government; only pointing out that this complaint is bogus.
I disagree. Congress is essentially signing a contract on behalf of their constituents when they vote for a bill. When I sign a contract, I read the whole thing because the devil is in the details. The overall synopsis of it can hide many things. I want my congressmen to be held accountable and read what they vote for. That way there can be no excuses for passing poor legislation. This is part of their job, and if reading the bills slows them down, it is probably for the better anyway.
DeleteWhy would anyone in Congress want to waste time actually "reading" a bill they've already been TOLD to vote for? Rand is just wasting their time... Duh.
ReplyDeleteNot that it matters, but as fiduciary agents it is obligatory for them to read and be knowledgeable of it's contents. There should be no need to pass a law that is already a requirement of office.
ReplyDeleteOh God! Puleeeze not that!!! Truly a fate worse than death - having to read legislation before you sign it into law.
ReplyDeleteCan't they just pass a bill allowing for a Cliff Notes version? Or how about "United States Senate bills for DUMMIES". And we wonder why the country is doing a swan dive into the porcelain receptacle. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. This legislation has zero chance of happening. Remember the root of the word bureaucrat is "RAT".
How about a day for every word.
ReplyDelete