Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Rand Paul Makes a Strong Statement on the Easy Ones...

But he still hasn't said a word about Obama's deal with Iran.

Here is knocking a softball pitch (The Ryan-Murray Budget Deal) almost out of the park:
There is a recurring theme in Washington budget negotiations. It's I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. I think it's a huge mistake to trade sequester cuts now, for the promise of cuts later. The small sequester spending cuts were not nearly enough to address our deficit problem. Undoing tens of billions of this modest spending restraint is shameful and must be opposed. I cannot support a budget that raises taxes and never balances, nor can I support a deal that does nothing to reduce our nation's $17.3 trillion debt.
I say "almost" because he somewhat qualifies his opposition to raising taxes by linking with a budget that "never balances," suggesting that perhaps he would be in favor of some increase in taxes if it balanced the budget.

As Murray Rothbard put it, when it comes between balancing the budget and tax cuts, always take the tax cuts.


  1. He did not hit it out of the park. The deal reduces the national debt relative to GDP which is the only relevant measure of sovereign debt. He also does not specify which spending cuts he supports and he won't specify spending cuts ever because if he does then he has no chance of getting the GOP nomination. He needs to explain to the public that he opposes all forms of entitlement spending because entitlement spending violates the Biblical role of civil government and encroaches upon church govt. Remember that Rand Paul is a Christian Reconstructionist and that means he believes there are three instituations of govt: civil, family and church. Each institution has a Biblically defined role. The Civil Govt is responsible for protecting the other two institutions of govt. So if you do something which harms family govt, then you are stoned to death (family must participate).

    1. Critiques of Rand Paul should be honest. Yours is not, but is instead the same sort of scurrilous slander, innuendo and conjecture partisans of all stripes thrive on.

      Tell us when he's claimed to be a Christian Reconstructionist, cite the speech or article, or offer some other forms of proof beyond the vague guilt by association progressive mouthpieces are trying to embed in the public consciousness (and which are analogous to the old allegations about Obama derived from his association with characters like William Ayres and Jeremiah Wright which I have no doubt you abhorred).

  2. The Rothbard link video is marked as "private" for me and I cannot watch it.