Rand Paul

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz Try to Out-Fiscal-Hawk One Another

It's no coincidence that the would-be Tea Party presidents were the only GOP votes against the Senate budget

|

What's going on w/ Ted's tie? ||| Sodahead.com
Sodahead.com

In the brouhaha last week over Sen. Rand Paul's defense-spending amendment (with offsetting cuts), an interesting dynamic got a bit overlooked. And that is: Outside of the blatant trolling exercise of the budget-amendment process, when it came time to pass a budget resolution for 2016 and the next decade, the only GOP senators voting "no" were Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Both presidential aspirants—each of whom are vying to be the Tea Party/anti-establishment/fiscal-conservative champion—explained their votes in terms of fiscal responsibility. Projecting a balanced budget in 10 years, as the Senate blueprint did, was not enough. Among Paul's quotes:

"It is irresponsible and dangerous to continue to put America further into debt, even for something we need," Mr. Paul said on the Senate floor. "We need national defense, but we should pay for it." […]

"America does not project power from bankruptcy court. We need a strong national defense, but we should be honest with the American people and pay for it[.]" […]

"No one should be seeking increased funding for anything by increasing our debt," said Doug Stafford, a senior adviser to Mr. Paul.

The Texas senator stressed long-term entitlement reform:

[G]iven the gravity of the debt facing our children and grandchildren, I believe that Americans expect us to do more. We need meaningful entitlement reforms, without budget gimmicks, and I cannot support a budget that claims to balance in the year 2025 by utilizing revenue increases generated by Obamacare taxes.

For those of us who would like to cut government spending now, rather than shave off imagined trillions from 10-year projections of spending growth, the Cruz-Paul contest should provide some edifying moments. As I told the Washington Times, the two are already battling to see who can be "the biggest hard-ass on spending, period."More quotes from me:

"He is doing a dance there, where he is trying to make his brand of skepticism toward military spending and intervention [palatable] in the [context] of a GOP primary and at a moment where that electorate is more hawkish by a lot than it was 18 months ago," Mr. Welch said.

He said that Mr. Paul is "storing up ammo for the GOP debates" and wants to be able to say to his rivals that "your hawkishness is fiscally irresponsible."

Mr. Welch added it is a delicate balancing act for Mr. Paul, who is trying to broaden his appeal without losing the base of support that his father, Rep. Ron Paul, had during his presidential bids.

"He has to distance himself from his father's fan base, without distancing himself from his father's fan base — and everybody knows it," he said.

Advertisement

NEXT: Supreme Court Vacates State Court Ruling Which Allowed Lifetime GPS Monitoring of Sex Offender Via Ankle Bracelet

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What difference does it make. I heard someone say over the weekend that he could never vote for Cruz because he is a “climate denier”. We are doomed.

    1. Between the two of them, I think Paul has a better chance at the nomination, but I might vote for Cruz in the general if in the meantime it sounds like his focus would be on slashing and burning government and not some of the other nonsense he spouts. We simply can’t go on the way we are, and there’s no other option on the table that will even make noises like spending needs to be cut.

      1. that’s my point there are like a million different reason’s to criticize Cruz but to say you can’t vote for Cruz because he’s a climate denier might be the dumbest.

        1. Not to the truly faithful.

          A week or so ago I was listening to a piece on NPR about some guy who did a documentary about how Big Oil has been going around raising doubts about climate change, in a similar way as to how Big Tobacco used to raise doubts about the connection between smoking and lung cancer. The bitch doing the interview managed to work the word “denier” into almost every sentence out of her mouth.

          The faithful view deniers in the same way devout religious people view atheists. Their lack of faith makes them dangerous and untrustworthy.

        2. To even label someone as a climate denier either means you are incredibly stupid or incredibly corrupt to begin with.

          I would say that you can just stop paying attention to the person entirely after that.

    2. So it boils down to’the world is going to end soon’ ,no it’s not,’denier!!!’

    3. Once upon a time it was unthinkable that a non-Christian could be elected president.

      Now Christianity has been replaced with the Church of Environmentalism.

      1. Bow before you green goddess!!!

      2. I mean honestly its not a logical position to have. Even if you believe it’s occurring how could you not have a more nuanced view of it than that? What can we possibly due to avert it, realistically? and even if we were to address it how does that magically prevent India and China from existing? Don’t we have more pressing needs than something that may lead to a net increase of an average of one to two degrees over the next hundred to hundred and fifty years? What fucking fantasy land do you live in?

        1. Obviously we need a world government to take control of global energy production and every facet of daily life. Only then can we save the planet from ourselves.

          1. Wouldn’t a vote for Cruz be a step in the right direction than? At least he would make sure our military was up for the task of global defense.

    4. I heard someone say over the weekend that he could never vote for Cruz because he is a “climate denier” Republican.

  2. As I told the Washington Times, the two are already battling to see who can be “the biggest hard-ass on spending, period.”

    That kind of potty mouth might fly here at Reason

    Anyway, what will happen is this gives the other would-be nominees a chance to stake out the defense uber alles position and distinguish themselves from these two RINO’s-slash-rightwing extremists.

    1. Well,if spending continues on the same path since 2001 the debt will be what,25 trillion soon? I have a ex -wife who thought as long as she had checks she had money.Maybe she should be in congress.

    2. the other would-be nominees

      There doesn’t seem to be a shortage of those in this cycle.

      1. And they need to be distinguished.

  3. And the Hihn flare has been lit. There will be dead thread raping will begin around 1am.

    1. (laughing) The dead thread raping will begin around 1am.

      (LOLing spazmotically) NEEDS COFFEE!!!

      1. I just read comment in Russian accent, makes complete sense to me…

        1. Thank, Bean! I tried that and it was actually quite effective!

      2. The puppets mindlessly repeat each other’s derp, as if chanting in unison.

        The fallacy is immediately visible to independent thinkers. Dead “thread”
        The dumbasses ignore how much traffic is still commenting on the …page (gasp)

        Or even wackier — yes, wackier … they’ll say I (or somebody) has already commented on a dead thread because … wait for it … they are still reading it! OMG

        Some will likely now spew a wave of personal attacks, denying the simple and obvious truth described here. That’s how bullies operate.

        (snicker)

    2. Apparently, that’s easier than dealing with anything of substance,
      where you’d just lose again anyhow.
      But if that’s how your parents raised you …

  4. “When it came time to pass a budget resolution for 2016 and the next decade, the only GOP senators voting “no” were Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.”

    The GOP wouldn’t have a breath of life if it wasn’t for the Tea Party.

    1. Nah, they’ll always have the Democrats, who do everything they can to give power back to the only alternative people recognize. And vice versa.

  5. Republican “fiscal hawks” are what used to be called “tax collectors for the welfare state”, since when push comes to shove they generally opt to balance the budget with higher taxes, rather than cutting welfare.

    1. Republicans are totally down with cutting government. Just not defense or anything that might jeopardize someone’s paycheck or entitlement. But other than that everything’s on the table!

      1. We didn’t get here because of either party’s love of fiscal sanity, that’s for sure.

      2. Republicans are totally down with cutting government. Just not defense or anything that might jeopardize someone’s paycheck or entitlement. But other than that everything’s on the table!

        I’ll assume that’s sarcasm! I’ll never forget how Reagan’s massive spending cuts were buried without a hearing … in a Republican Senate. The get a tear in their eye today, but stabbed him on the back in office (also the 1986 tax bill)

    2. Republican “fiscal hawks” are what used to be called “tax collectors for the welfare state”,

      Precisely backwards. That’s how Gingrich described Bob Dole — Dole hardly a fiscal hawl.

      since when push comes to shove they generally opt to balance the budget with higher taxes, rather than cutting welfare

      Uhhh, when?
      (Not to defend the GOP, but fairy tales do NOT come true, even if you’re young at heart.

  6. My roomate’s mom makes $74 /hr on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her income was $20654 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    look at here now????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  7. Between the two of them, I think Paul has a better chance at the nomination,

    I wish we could be certain that NO extreme social conservatives could win nomination in the party of Goldwater and Reagan. They’d get slaughtered in the general anyhow. The attacks on Rand Paul’s bigotry could damage the movement severely — as Goldwater correctly predicted the “Moral Majority” would do to his party.

    Nobody even needs pandering to the extreme socons, as almost all locally elected libertarians would confirm.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.