The Worldnetdaily was at CPAC, in the person of Gina Loudon, and she got the chance to interview Rand Paul while she was there. The result was an article so full of irony that they could not have ducked into the punch any harder if they’d done so purposely to make themselves look ridiculous.
What is wrong with the people who don’t understand why conservatism works, and why liberty is so important?
Even with a doctorate in human development, WND’s Gina Loudon was puzzled.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., had the answer to her question.
“I tell people it’s the ‘big heart, small brain syndrome.’ Liberals have big hearts, but they’re not using all their brain capacity,” explained the senator in his exclusive interview with WND at CPAC, the annual convention for conservatives, just outside of Washington.
Paul indirectly referred to the famous definition of insanity as trying something again and again while expecting a different result.
“I don’t know,” he said. “Liberals don’t seem to get the point that if you’re trying something and the objective evidence shows that it’s not working, why not try something different?”
The Kentuckian used the example of “what we’ve done for the people of Appalachia in my state. For 40 years, we’ve been sending money there but it’s still very poor.
“So, what I’ve been saying is, ‘Why don’t we do something different? Why don’t we dramatically cut the taxes in Eastern Kentucky, in Detroit and other places that are suffering?”
Paul explained how tax deductions are particularly effective in helping people “because they go directly to people who have businesses and create jobs.”
Ah yes, cut taxes and unleash the economic boom, aka the only economic plan Republicans ever have. He could not have picked a better example of trying the same thing over and over again even when the evidence shows that it doesn’t work. The Congressional Research Service studied this question going all the way back to 1945 and guess what they found? Cutting taxes does not spur more economic growth, but it does increase income inequality, reduce government revenue and increase deficits.
When Ronald Reagan cut taxes on the wealthy in 1981, it did not boost growth. In fact, we soon were in what was then the deepest recession since the Great Depression (a record we unfortunately broke in 2008 and 2009). But it did drop government revenue and dramatically increase the deficit. When Bill Clinton raised tax rates in 1993, it did not slow down growth. In fact, we had the longest period of sustained economic growth since the 1950s. It also boosted federal revenue and eliminated the deficit. When George W. Bush cut tax rates against in 2001, we had sluggish growth for the next few years followed by a near-depression, along with flagging revenue and a huge increase in the deficit. Still wanna stick with that definition of insanity, Sen. Paul?