Monday, January 28, 2013

Another Pro-Government Statement from Rand Paul


This evening, the U.S. Senate voted on a series of amendments to H.R.152, the Sandy Supplemental Appropriations Bill, to fund disaster relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy. The bill passed, with a vote of 62-36.

Following the vote, Sen. Paul issued the following statement.
When Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern coast of the U.S., I agreed that we needed to assist those in the affected areas. However, this bill lacked any fiscal restraint or responsibility. The bill was completely unpaid for, adding billions to the debt with money being used for programs known to fund cultural festivals and public art exhibits. In addition, of the $60 billion in total disaster funding provided, only a small fraction will be spent this year; more than half will be spent after 2015. Furthermore, while the cost of this bill will never be offset, the government will still just have spent every dollar of this year’s tax hike. We can help those in need, but we should do so providing them with only the resources they need today and prioritizing this funding by reducing spending elsewhere.
Note the tone of this statement. There is nothing here for a libertarian or true conservative to applaud. Rand does not question at all whether government should have a role in disaster relief, rather he is just questioning the budgetary structure and size of such payments.

A libertarian, or true conservative, would question government's role in disaster relief, itself. Isn't government disaster relief just creating moral hazard, encouraging people to build houses in harm's way, knowing that should disaster strike the government will be there to bailout those exposing themselves to the risk? And as far as those truly caught in unexpected disaster, why shouldn't the private sector handle it? It is an insult to the American people when government officials like President Obama and Senator Paul call for government disaster relief, which implies that Americans are not charitable enough to give on their own and must be forced to do so with a tax-taking gun pointed at them.

15 comments:

  1. Pick your battles. Rand Paul 2016!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This dude seriously learned absolutely nothing from his dad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appears your accurate. Which bums me out..

      Delete
  3. One apple that fell waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off the tree.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah he's tinkering around the edges too much. Deliberately avoiding the heart of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It would be impossible to oppose this on libertarian grounds when disasters in other parts of the country have already been helped. You can't go from 100 mph to 10 mph in 1 second, It is impossible. He was pushing back and making people see the waste. The more people wake up, the more libertarian their perspective will become, but if you oppose it and it makes him look like a nut who won't help people in need. They think I do not want this guy in leadership if my area has a disaster.They will never hear another word he says.
    People are really stupid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, just keep believing in your own nonsense about Rand Paul doing this to "help people" get a more libertarian perspective.

      Not only is it possible to oppose this on libertarian ground; it is MANDATORY.

      Your defense of Rand is based on nothing but wishful thinking.

      Delete
    2. "Mandatory" a word often not spoken by Libertarians.

      Delete
  6. Amazing, yet so many people are convinced that Rand is one of us, playing a smart game, or the best shot we have. That's is what a majority of members at the Ron Paul Forums seem to think. Check out my recent post there about Rand Paul and libido dominandi.

    If that's really true, and it could be, there remains the question, is this an effective strategy? I think EPJ has convincingly explained why it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People in the current liberty movement can be divided into three groups:

      - Libertarians who do not need Ron Paul (but may respect him) to inform their opinions.
      - Ron Paul supporters who have never understood the very thing he really stands for (libertarianism)
      - Ron Paul supporters who understand what he stands for.

      The supporters/apologists of Rand Paul fall into the 2nd group. They worship the man (Ron Paul), and would have followed him even he would have betrayed his own principles, because they are politician-worshippers, and not independently thinking libertarians. And so they now jump on the Rand bandwagon.

      Personally i think this group should be cut loose as far as pretending that they are really in the liberty movement.They will only drag libertarians down.

      Delete
  7. Contrast Rand Paul's response with Grover Cleveland's famous veto statement regarding disaster aid for Texas in 1887.

    http://mises.org/daily/3627

    ReplyDelete
  8. the trouble with libertarians is the inability to compromise

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no compromising with evil.

      That's what sets us apart from all the con men and their supporters, who have managed to turn America from a constitutional republic into a statist s***hole.

      Compromise sure has helped America along since its founding, hasn't it?

      Delete
  9. Would you rather have someone say the right things while doing the wrong things (which is what the vast majority of pols do) OR do the right thing while not explaining it to your satisfaction? They aren't mutually exclusive as Ron Paul often proved, but if I had to pick one I'd settle for voting correctly, which Rand and 35 others did. Agree? http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00004

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think Rand voted against the bill.

    ReplyDelete