Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Rand Paul: Above All Else, Pay the Crony Banksters Their Interest

Senator Rand Paul wants crony banksters and anyone else who supports the state by buying US government securities to be first in line for your tax dollars.

This afternoon, Sen. Paul introduced the Default Prevention Act, which would require the President to prioritize federal revenue to interest on the national debt.

“Some of my Republican colleagues in the House have decided to surrender to the Democrats’ annual plan to increase the debt ceiling. I believe we should stand and fight for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution before we raise the debt ceiling. My legislation takes the possibility of default off the table so we can continue to push for fiscal restraint. There is no reason the government would – or should – responsibly consider the idea of default,” Sen. Paul said.


To elaborate on what is going on here. Rand is, in a fashion similar to his TSA proposal, which I discussed with Doug Wead on the Robert Wenzel Show, attempting to micro-manage government in ways that will help expand the government instead of shrink it. The best thing that could happen is for investors to get nervous about holding government paper, which would make it much more difficult for the government to finance expansion. Rand, however, comes up with a proposal that will protect debt holders and eliminate their fears of holding US government debt. Thus, preventing market imposed discipline on the US government.


  1. You're right Bob. It would be much better if he did nothing like his father and then voted no when the bill came up to vote.

    Actually working to reduce spending is dumb. Trying is for losers. Its better to do nothing and bitch about how the world is going to hell. Rand should get a blog and whine about how impure and unRothbardian everyone else is.

    He should start with the statists at Cato because they are the biggest threat the country faces. They spited Rothbard 30 years ago and need to pay. The worst thing you can be is an impure libertarian and nobody is more impure than Cato.

    All hail dear leader Rothbard,


    1. While I'm not a fan of Social Security or Medicare, recipients have a much more sound claim to government revenue than bond holders. SSers had no choice but to pay into the system. Bond holders had the option of investing elsewhere. Not my fault they didn't.

    2. 2 buckets. The great Ron Paul (who did nothing?? REALLY?) and the great Rothbard in one bucket. Aqua Buddha in the other bucket.

      Choose a bucket.

    3. America is now a dump. Political compromises aren't going to help it.

    4. Exactly Anon @ 9:43.

      It's all rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic....no need to even give a shit what Rand is doing anymore as the whole rotten thing is going to rightfully implode.

    5. Better to do nothing than to do something STUPID.

      But you're one of those politician-worshipping guys that says "Washington should do something (about problem X, Y, or Z). Anything. Just do something."

      And politicians trying to do "something" has always worked out so great, hasn't it?

    6. Well said, Tony! ^^^

      Emotional knee-jerk reactions to "problems" are what get us into these situations. I'd rather they do nothing than something stupid.

    7. Steve, I would say that waking up more Americans and bringing them over to the intellectual side of actually being against government in the millions, especially among the young, is far, far more than his son will ever do in cutting spending. In fact, not even Ayn Rand has had as much influence as Ron Paul will end up having on the cause of liberty and fundamentally changing minds.

      In order for change to happen in a statist system, no amoung of wheeling and dealing is going to do it - it takes an intellectual revolution and movement which now exists thanks to Ron paul. From this point, these millions will go to work helping the educators in the movement have more influence and bring more people into the fold.

      What is Rand going to do exactly?

    8. @ Anonymous January 23, 2013 at 1:44 PM

      "What is Rand going to do exactly?"

      Something, anonymous. Rand is going to do "something".

      Didn't you read Steve's message? It is horrible for a politician to do "nothing" (in terms of political action); and waking people up to the truth doesn't count.
      Voting "no" against horrible bills is the same as doing "nothing" (apparently proposing a bill to audit the FED doesn't count either), according the Steve. Good politicians must vote "yes" at least sometimes.

      Hey, sure Rand tries to sugar-coat governmental turds like the NDAA bill, but hey, it's *something*, right?
      Voting "no" would not be an option. Better to add something to it that would not amount to anything (since the whole NDAA bill proves precisely the point that government doesn't CARE about the constitution), so that Rand offers the gullible sheep in America the illusion that he is actually doing "something".

      No, a politician must do "something"; ANYTHING. The mantra of the politician-worshipper.

  2. He should be proposing the DeFault Now bill.

    If Rand were honest, he'd want to get this circus over with ASAP.

    I don't trust Rand Paul one bit.

  3. Steve/Mark - reducing spending? Who cares? Reducing robbery and counterfeiting (aka taxation and money printing) is a worthwhile goal. Stopping the stupid thieves from blowing all their loot as soon as they can - isn't. The more they spend, the sooner their time is up.

  4. Is he attempting to set the stage for a redux Shays' Rebellion?

  5. So Bob, you would rather the government prioritize money to programs like the TSA, EPA, DoE, Dept of Commerce etc?? If all the money going to Washington was immediately going back out to "investors" I would think it a paradise compared to what the money is being used for today.

    1. You don't actually think they're going to cut spending to these departments, do you?

      Rand and whom else?
      Have you seen anybody lately that is willing to cut into their own flesh? Why do you think virtually nobody that says "cut spending" is willing to be open about WHERE to cut?

    2. If there was no cuts, there would be no need for this bill.

    3. I'm sure that "Iron Dome" Rand Paul was talking about is gonna cause some serious cutting in federal spending.

      Furthermore, he does not want to abolish the TSA, but make it more "efficient". Of course, making the government more efficient, requires people to watch for efficiency (a.k.a. bureaucracy).

      And since when do politicians "need" anything (other than justification for their own jobs) in order to present a bill

  6. That is NOT the point. Clearly we'd like to see the funding for ALL of these programs stop. If anything, the SS and Medicare recipients who were looted from their whole lives should be paid before anyone else.

    But what this is really about is the idea of "public debt" and "default". We should cheer for the government to default, and to relieve the citizens of the burdens it has placed on us. By Rand prioritizing "not defaulting" over anything and everything else, he is assuring that, at the very least, government looting will continue unabated.

    I wrote a longer piece about this earlier tonight.


    1. This was meant as a reply to "anonymous" above, btw

  7. Where does he draw the moral authority to levy unjust debts upon the backs of the citizenry by birth not choice? If not by moral authority, a phrase in which he has himself used in the past, not grant him this, then what is the rational utilitarian argument that supports what he is saying? I am not seeing it anywhere. In fact, what I do see is him being very vocal about screwing future generations for the debt of past generations and essentially towing the "Obama-line" of not being a deadbeat.

    I am beginning to think that Rand Paul does not have the willpower to stand up to the crony tactics used in D.C..

  8. Think about this, though.

    Our government will always be able to borrow unhealthy amounts of money. But as investors get more nervous, the interest rate they demand will rise. Now what is the more likely outcome: (A) rising rates will force government to stop the exponential growth of wealth-redistribution spending, or (B) our leaders will insist that we must proceed with full wealth-redistribution spending, interest rates be damned? If you are leaning toward (B), rising rates are unhelpful; they merely accelerate the collapse. (A) is the sane policy that the "low-information voters" defeated in the 2012 election.

    Rand's proposal gives some legal teeth to the verbal promise the government has always made: the national debt is backed by "the full faith and credit" of the government. This will tend to keep interest rates low (which may not be a bad thing; see above). But more importantly: the left always gins up fear of default if the debt ceiling is not increased. If the debt is truly backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, there should be no fear of default if the debt ceiling is not increased, because we have more than enough revenue to service the debt. For now, anyway.

    Thus Rand's proposal, if enacted, would take power away from those who want to raise the debt ceiling. That is surely a good thing, right?

    Marc wrote, "We should cheer for the government to default, and to relieve the citizens of the burdens it has placed on us."

    A default would be Mad Max-ugly. Are you prepared for what you're advocating? Do you have 30 years' worth of MREs and shotgun shells stockpiled? I don't.