First ID, Now SSM »« Gallagher: SCOTUS Declares War on Half of Americans

Rand Paul: We Don’t Need No Fancy CBO Study

Rand Paul did his best impression of an ignorant misologist (yep, that’s a real word; it means someone with a distrust or hatred of reasoning) on a radio show, dismissing the CBO’s immigration study and demanding the firing of the non-partisan agency — all with no substance whatsoever.

Paul: The bill is going to cost $6.5 billion. How do you spend $6.5 billion and it saves money?

Larson: I don’t know. I asked a Senator about that and said, what’s the logic that the CBO uses that this will cut the deficit? He said that in the CBO’s report it doesn’t actually explain the mechanism. Is it that they think that more illegals made legal will pay taxes, or that their costs will be lower in American society or they won’t use as much welfare? Do you have any idea what they mean by ‘this will cut the deficit’?

Paul: No, but I don’t believe it. It’s sort of like, they tell me they’re going to give everybody free health care in the country and that’s supposed to cut the deficit too.

Larson: Well that was a lie that a lot of Americans bought not once but twice, didn’t they?

Paul: Yeah I’m not sure anybody believes that stuff anymore. It’s partly why we ought to fire the CBO and just sort of tell people what we want to do and let’s go ahead and just get it done.

Or you could actually read the study, which does indeed spell out exactly why immigration reform will reduce federal spending and save money. The biggest reason is that it will move millions of now-illegal workers from the underground economy to the real one — the one that pays taxes — producing nearly half a trillion dollars in new tax revenue over the first ten years. But Rand Paul ain’t never had no need for book learnin’ and that fancy, high-fallutin’ socialist math.

Comments

  1. shouldbeworking says

    Math is a tool of the elitist socialists to keep real Americans depressed oppressed.

  2. John Hinkle says

    Paul: The bill is going to cost $6.5 billion. How do you spend $6.5 billion and it saves money?

    Larson: I don’t know.

    And that should’ve been the end of the conversation.

  3. Chiroptera says

    Paul: The bill is going to cost $6.5 billion. How do you spend $6.5 billion and it saves money?

    Man, this sounds like that light bulb fiasco.

    “Yeah, and even if it does, we’re going to spend that $6.5 billion just to show ‘em!”

  4. eric says

    I don’t think the problem here is that they haven’t read the study. Its that they are blatantly lying to their audience. Miseducating them, in fact – making their audience stupider.

    The argument they’re using is a rejection of the entire concept of investment. They’re basically claiming that no initial outlay can lead to long term savings. That its not possible…how could that happen??? But of course this must be disingenuous; it would be incredible if they actually thought that or didn’t know how it could happen. They are simply playing on the igorance of their audience, and in fact increasing it by claiming something they know can happen is impossible.

  5. says

    Paul: How do you spend $6.5 billion and it saves money?

    Larson: I don’t know.

    Paul: Can you cut $6.5 billion in taxes and it raises revenue?

    Larson: Of course!

  6. gshelley says

    It’s the same old story, policy based evidence is preferred to evidence based policy.

  7. says

    Slightly OT, but:

    Paul: No, but I don’t believe it. It’s sort of like, they tell me they’re going to give everybody free health care in the country and that’s supposed to cut the deficit too.

    I wish someone had been there to ask Randy how a plan to enroll more people into private, for profit health insurance is “free health care.” Is he lying of does he just not understand that making coverage more affordable is not the same thing as making it “free”?

  8. says

    When I was in school, the word was “obscurantist.” Of course that was applied to Russian Orthodox anti-rationalists, back in the Tsarist era, so maybe someone decided American anti-rationalists had to have their own word.

  9. Taz says

    The bill is going to cost $6.5 billion. How do you spend $6.5 billion and it saves money?

    I wonder if Mr. Paul ever changes the oil in his car.

  10. says

    “It’s sort of like, they tell me they’re going to give everybody free health care in the country and that’s supposed to cut the deficit too.”

    Bastards! Ignorant self-centered Bastards!!*

    Every country with a national, single payer health system has much less expensive (and in many respects better) care.
     
     
    (*With apologies to William I and anyone else whose parents weren’t married)

  11. Reginald Selkirk says

    doublereed – that’s not really new stuff. The only news is that anyone is paying attention to it.

  12. Michael Heath says

    Pretty stupid, but not as stupid as the 2012 Libertarian candidate for president promising he could eradicate the deficit in his first year in office. Or much of the GOP’s leadership describing the federal budget and its resulting deficit as analogous to the family checkbook.

  13. gertzedek says

    @6 — Note the irony of the party that worships private business being unable to understand long-term investment or deficit spending.

  14. Ichthyic says

    so, nobody is concerned about Paul saying…

    just sort of tell people what we want to do

    sounds to me like he’s saying the US would be better as a dictatorship, where he just tells the peons what he wants to have done,and they do it without question.

    Fuedalism, US style.

  15. yoav says

    While his daddy was more like the dishonesty institute, trying to wrap his realty free economic policy in the pretense of reasonable sounding arguments Paul Mk2 is more like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham.
    sailor1031

    Illegal aliens can get welfare? who knew?

    Does that really awesome lab under area 51 I saw on that Will Smith documentary, Independence Day, count as welfare?

  16. says

    “Larson: I don’t know. I asked a Senator about that and said, what’s the logic that the CBO uses that this will cut the deficit? He said that in the CBO’s report it doesn’t actually explain the mechanism.”

    Wait, what? Isn’t this sort of the holy grail that the GOP’s candidates aspire to? Making promises about melting deficits and burgeoning surpluses at the state and federal levels while cutting taxes to the point where we only have to have a national disbursement office for sending dividend checks to the 1%? All without the slightest hint about how it might fucking WORK?

    OTOH, Rand Paul is even more odious than his asshole father; otoh, he appears to be less capable of subterfuge.

  17. caseloweraz says

    Larson: “Well that was a lie that a lot of Americans bought not once but twice, didn’t they?”

    I know this refers to Obama being elected twice to the presidency. But it’s interesting how it can be turned around:

    Paul “Yes, and the first time was in Massachusetts under what was his name? Rodney? Oh, Romney — that was it!

    Oh, wait…”

    Then there are Paul’s actual words:

    Paul: “Yeah I’m not sure anybody believes that stuff anymore. It’s partly why we ought to fire the CBO and just sort of tell people what we want to do and let’s go ahead and just get it done.”

    Because they’re the Deciders. Seems like I’ve heard that before, from someone…

Leave a Reply