All we have to do is look at the budgets he has proposed in the past to see why he’d be catastrophic. A few highlights:
-
A flat tax. While I welcome the simplification of filing, I think millionaires would be even more overjoyed.
-
Cutting the CDC by 20%.
-
Cutting the NIH by 20%.
-
Cutting NASA by 25%.
-
Cutting the USGS by 20%.
-
Cutting the NSF by 62%.
-
Cutting the EPA by 29%.
-
Cutting programs that help the working poor entirely.
I think there’s a pattern here: the destruction of the government and selective destruction of programs that counter the excesses of capitalism.
I don’t think I’ll be voting for him.
I have, inexplicably, received some deliciously clueless emails from Paul’s campaign today. A sample of my response:
“Hi Rand,
I’m a left wing atheist who lives in the UK. I have no idea why you’re sending me these emails, as I can’t vote for you anyway what with the whole “being British” thing, but you should probably know that if the choice was between you and a stuffed alligator, then I would proudly vote for the alligator.
Best of luck in your outstanding and admirable career as an ophthalmologist.”
Alberta had a flat tax for many years. When oil prices plummeted, our economy got hit so bad that our right-wing government that flattened the tax in the first place started unflattening it (ever so slightly in the income tax, more so in the “health care levy” that’s a tax without being called such).
I’ve also been receiving campaign appeals for money. I’ve never had any contact with the campaign, or expressed any interest, yet this morning I received this gem. The arrogance is astounding.
“Michael,
Rand asked me to email you.
Is everything ok?
He announced his candidacy for President of the United States, and I know he is counting on your support for the campaign’s “Stand with Rand” Money Bomb.
The entire political world is watching this Money Bomb and it’s vital this effort be as successful as possible.
They know a big Money Bomb for Senator Paul means the Washington machine’s Big Government, big spending days are numbered.
To get Senator Paul’s campaign off the ground and running, he’s going to have to post a fundraising total that makes heads spin.
And he is counting on your support to make it happen.
However, our records show you haven’t made a contribution.
M_DUCHEK@HOTMAIL.COM
Contributed to the Stand With Rand Money Bomb?
## NO DONATION ##
So please chip in your most generous contribution to the “Stand with Rand” Money Bomb immediately.
Chip in $10 immediately >>
Chip in $25 immediately >>
Chip in $50 immediately >>
Chip in $100 immediately >>
Or donate another amount >>
In Liberty,
Alexandra
From: Rand Paul [rand.paul@randpaul2016.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 7:28 AM
Subject: Michael’s donation
Alexandra —
Can you please follow up with Michael?
I’ve sent two emails regarding our “Stand with Rand” Money Bomb and haven’t heard back.
The great news is we’re over $650,000 raised, but we need to keep going.
I’m counting on Michael’s support, so please send an email right away.
With their support, we can defeat the Washington machine and take our country back.
In Liberty,
Rand
From: Rand Paul [rand.paul@randpaul2016.com]
Subject: announcing for president
Michael – Today I’m announcing I’m running for President of the United States of America because I want to defeat the Washington machine.
Our country is run by and for the special interests, and the career politicians in both parties let it happen.
We look around and see the same old, tired career politicians from yester year running. Hillary Clinton? We know how that movie ends… trillions more in debt, more taxes, and more Benghazi’s. Radical Islam thrived and grew while Hillary was on the top floor of the state department. Now she wants a promotion?
The elites that run the Washington machine at our expense will throw everything against us.
That’s why we need your help today, right now, to help fuel our campaign to defeat the Washington machine.
Will you contribute $25, $50, $100, $250, $1,000, or even the maximum $2,700?
No amount is too small. The biggest thing we need is you on board today.
Here’s the thing: we’re announcing for president today. That means the media, pundits, and the elites will immediately jump all over how well we do out of the gate. They’ll want to know how many people got on board.
Today’s Money Bomb might very well be the most important of the entire campaign because it will set the tone.
You see, the experts say a dollar contributed early on is worth $2 or $3 later. That’s been one of the tricks of the power brokers. Hillary will raise gobs of cash out of DC, New York, San Francisco, and LA within moments of announcing.
So we need early support. It’s crucial.
And with your support here’s my plan to defeat the Washington machine and unleash the American Dream:
Term limits to get rid of the career politicians.
Require Congress to read legislation before they actually vote on it—read the bills!
Audit the Fed—we deserve to know what’s happening with our money.
Pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution—no more adding trillions in debt—time to pay it down.
Boldly overhaul the tax code—no more loopholes for the biggest corporations with the best lobbyists—give workers a tax cut.
Stop Common Core—school choice is the way forward.
And on and on and on.
Basically it’s the opposite of what Hillary would do. Term limits, read the bills, Audit the Fed, cut debt, overhaul the tax code, ending Common Core…
… and I’ll take this message to every corner of America. I’ve been to Detroit. I’ve been to Ferguson. I’ve been to Berkeley. I’ve been to Chicago. I’ve been to Howard. Everywhere I go I bring the conservative message to the young, to those who are struggling, to those who the Left has failed… and they respond!
Ours is the winning message, but it is one that scares those who have profited at our expense.
So today I announce my candidacy for President of the United States.
I humbly ask you to help us defeat the Washington machine.
Today—right now—is when I need your help most.
Thank you.
Rand Paul
Sent from my iPad
Paid for by Rand Paul for President”
It’s a long-standing bit of BS to conflate a flat tax with a simpler tax code. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Taxes are complicated because of the myriad of deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. that you can use to reduce your adjusted gross income. Once you have that number though, figuring out your tax rate and money owed are simple. (There’s a helpful table in the back of the book, or these days, the software just calculates it for you.) Eliminating tax brackets doesn’t simplify anything, it just makes sure that richer people pay less. You can simplify the tax code without changing the brackets, and vice versa.
weatherwax, I also got the same email from the lovely Alexandra. My response:
“Hi Alexandra,
As I mentioned in my email to Rand, I am a British left wing atheist, and I have no idea where your campaign got the idea that I would support Rand, given that I disagree with pretty much everything he stands for and I’m not even registered to vote in your country. I sincerely hope that he really is counting on my personal support to make his candidacy happen, as that would mean he would never be President, but I doubt it.
Hilarious though it is that I am on your mailing list, I fear you are wasting your time. Best of luck for the future.
Yours etc.,”
Best of luck in your outstanding and admirable career as an ophthalmologist.
…which he used to give himself an air of “authority” when lying to spread irrational fear about ebola. I won’t forget that bit of irresponsible racist demagoguery, even as our entire media establishment seem determined to do so.
I have no idea why you’re sending me these emails…
He probably got your name from some other scammer’s email list. I’m sure there’s plenty of expatriate princes, desperately trying to protect their money from uppity collectivist takers, who would be happy to lend Rand Paul a hand.
I actually like this one. Michael Moore issued a challenge to the Senate to actually read NAFTA before they voted on it; the one senator who took him up on it changed his vote from yes to no. Knowing what they’re voting on might be a good thing, instead of having everything filtered through their aids and the lobbyists. O
Of course, with the number of bills and the average length of the bills, if they took time to read every one, they’d never have time to vote…or campaign…or eat, or sleep, or…
I received the same unwelcome emails from the Rand Paul campaign.
Rand Paul is a disingenuous gas bag. I am disturbed by the number of young people that buy his “freedom” rant when it means freedom to starve, freedom to despoil the environment, etc.
Paul is rebranding himself in a slimy way:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senator-paul-becomes-doctor-paul
Here’s the text of the 16th:
Must require those special libertarian glasses to see what Paul sees.
Lynna, OM,
Don’t forget the freedom of states to form theocracies! The Pauls are not against Big Government, they are against Big Federal Government, but are for Big States.
Require Congress to read legislation before they actually vote on it—read the bills!
Here’s an even better idea: go back to the tried-and-true practice of spending more money to hire more staffers (for both individual Congresspersons’ offices and committees), who will then do all the reading for their respective bosses, and explain to said bosses what all the text means and how to change it to make it better.
The Republican Congress destroyed its own ability to process information way back in 1994, when they simply dumped about two-thirds of their staffs across the board. From that moment on, Congresspersons were literally UNABLE to keep up with all their daily reading needs; and that’s why so many of the bills they pass are written by lobbyists. (And yes, I have no doubt that that’s a feature, not a bug.) And Rand Paul’s continued silence about this only proves he has no intention of solving the problem. “Read the bills!” is just a simpleminded pretend-solution offered by lying demagogues and con-artists.
Must require those special libertarian glasses to see what Paul sees.
Ever notice how the libertarian interpretation of the Constitution is indistinguishable from Michelle Bachmann’s?
embertine, you were much more polite and understanding in your response than I was.
I find it amazing that those Rand Paul for President e-mails could convince anyone to donate. They are ridiculous, and the faux personal tone is weird, I would feel insulted if someone I supported sent something like that, obviously trying to engender a feeling of closeness that does not exist. It would almost make me feel insulted.
Travis, exactly – I find particularly the “is everything OK?” odd. I am very tempted to thank Alexandra for her interest in my welfare and tell her all about my day.
I’m certain that if you huffed glue, hit yourself in the head with a ball-peen hammer hard enough to crack its bony shell, then read Ayn Rand’s works, you would then become a member of the tribe and vote accordingly.
Freeeeeeeeeedddddooooooommmm!!!
I, too, inexplicably received that “personalized” e-mail, and responded (which I’m sure will do no good) with a curt, single sentence.
Which included the word “asshole”.
Ugh, my brain is not working. I said I would feel insulted twice. Time for some coffee.
Usernames!, I think I’ll just go for the coffee, and leave out the glue and skull crushing. This is freedom I do not want. Then again, not being from the US it is also freedom I cannot vote for.
zenlike #11
Whenever I hear someone advocate for state’s rights in the US I just assume they have some sort of horrible, truly big government ideas, that they want to impose on people. The idea that big federal government is bad, but somehow big, invasive state government is okay is a very strange version of freedom.
@weatherwax et al.:
I got mail from Alexandra in Rand Paul’s campaign as well, along with several other, more conventional solicitations.
They were sent to Sevil Natas, an alter ego at a mailbox I originally set up when I asked for some free materials from Creation Science Ministries, or whatever Kent and Eric Hovind’s outfit was called then.
Lyanna, OM, and others receiving emails, e.g.:
Hey! I voluntarily submitted my email* to Rand Paul and have received nary a peep. I’m feeling damn well left out now! Guess they screened me out somehow. :)
* Lived in Kentucky for a while, and signed up for his weekly newsletter. Figured at least it would serve as a weekly dose of humor & horror. Didn’t receive an update last week — guess all his constituent service people have been repurposed.
If you can make it through Atlas Shrugged, my friend, then you are a stronger person than I. I was able to force myself through about 250 pages before my brain said, “ENOUGH” and refused to read further.
Isn’t he overlooking Social Security and the Department of Education? Maybe we should get Rand Paul and Paul Ryan together to fix our economy properly.
I wonder if one can ask Rand Paul how many bills he personally reads? Surely if he is insisting everyone in Congress read the bills, he’s up to date on these things.
Let me guess, he’s one of the ones who lambasted Obama for not responding adequately to ebola.
Can’t be much worse than the ones I received last week for Ted Cruz.
A flat tax wouldn’t stay simple. There’d be just as many folks arguing for carve-outs for various reasons as there is with the existing tax code. And of course, paring it with the abolition of taxes on capital gains and corporate income would generate a thriving industry in consulting rich people how to structure their compensation to avoid having it taxed as regular income (like with the carried-interest loophole).
It comforts me that the capital gains tax abolition wouldn’t last long. Imagine the outrage that would be generated once one or more news sites runs a big story about how many millionaires aren’t paying any tax under the system. It’s the same type of thing that generated the Alternative Minimum Tax back in the 1960s.
when in his announcement speech he declared that he was running to take our country back from the special interests I was topped in wounder how he could just stand up there and lie so blatantly like that.
I have to wonder just who the “we” are that he identifies with personally. Pretty sure it is not anyone in my neighborhood.
here is a list from Yahoo news of contributors
Club for Growth, the conservative political-action group. Donations to Paul since 2009: $106,515.
Mason Capital Management, a hedge fund with offices in New York and London: $44,200.
Alliance Resource Partners, a coal producer with a significant presence in Kentucky: $40,650.
Senate Conservatives Fund, a private political-action group founded by former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint: $32,085.
National Right-to-Work Committee, a private anti-union group: $27,500.
Corriente Advisors, a Texas-based hedge fund: $24,200.
Impala Asset Management, a Connecticut-based hedge fund: $21,700.
Bluegrass Committee, a political-action group run by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a fellow Kentuckian: $20,000.
Koch Industries, the conglomerate run by conservative activists Charles and David Koch: $17,000.
University of Kentucky: $16,500.
uncle frogy
I noticed at Rand Paul’s announcement event that his campaign signs are only using his first name “Rand 2016” as his logo. That is quite interesting since when he ran for US Senate here in KY, his campaign clearly tried to stay away from any connection with the Ayn Rand philosophy. He has been asked if he was named after her on several occasions. He always denies it. Now it seems like he might be embracing a not-so-subliminal Randian image.
What’s the problem with that? Don’t you know “special interests” mean “any group I don’t agree with”? Millionaires are never special interests. They are “the stakeholders”.
I usually challenge my libertarian encounters with the following sentence:
“All Illinois needs…
… is for our state government…
… to have more power and authority…
… and less oversight.”
It’s impossible, as an Illinois resident, to make it through that sentence without either laughing or weeping.
When Libertarians say they want less government, they usually mean they want a government that doesn’t stop them from doing whatever they want, even if it brutally oppresses others.
To be fair, Rand Paul also calls for pretty substantial funding cuts to the DoD and he at least recognizes how out of whack the gap between gov’t revenue and gov’t spending is.
Might be worth while to vote for him in the Republican primary from my perspective, (but not the general) depending how much Clinton has the Democratic nomination wrapped up.
Travis @ 19
The usual libertarian reply is that under their social model you are always free to leave and find a society that caters to your political beliefs…assuming you can find one. If not? Well, the Invisible Hand and the Maketplace of Ideas have spoken!
As we have witnessed here and elsewhere, equality, justice, health, safety, and society are not libertarian priorities. “FREEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM” is their only consideration
tbtabby :
Fixed that for you.
What the? That should have been a strikethrough. Let’s try that again:
Well, he did, kinda sorta. Then it turned out that his “cuts” were mostly just the end of supplemental war spending, and then he did a complete about-face and proposed to spend an extra $190 billion on the Pentagon baseline over two years.
But at least, unlike his Republican colleagues, he proposes to pay for the increased spending with cuts to education, the environment, and scientific research. Even though it would require zeroing out the budget for each of these things, and given his plan to eviscerate them before trying to find yet more savings, it would come nowhere close to paying for his military largesse.
That particular part of his budget is very telling. Libertarians try desperately to differentiate themselves from the religious right yet they display the same anti intellectualism when it comes to science and it is clear in their libertopia the only science that would get priority is that which helps the bottom line of corporations. Basic research is the cornerstone of some of civilisation’s greatest achievements and a clearer understanding of the universe around us is just good for the sake of expanding our knowledge. Libertarians like Rand however, seem to see such research as “wasteful government spending” and would rather we just focus on the glorious market to fund science. But because basic research will not always lead to a profitable outcome, then corporations are far more risk averse and will play it safe which will further cripple scientific progress. Because doing science only for profit would forbid certain branches of science to ever develop which is not too dissimilar from a theocracy forbidding certain branches of science because it threatens their religion. “How can I get rich off of this” is the most unenlightened way to find out anything in the world and yet libertarians love jerking off about how they are such rational paragons of reason which is why in many ways, they piss me off more than the religious right. At least they are upfront about their anti intellectualism and disdain for science and don’t hide behind a veneer of rationality.
If it’s any consolation, the Democratic donation spam I got for years (I’m now unsubscribing – not that I had ever knowingly subscribed, of course) sounds exactly the same that way.
Can we bring back the Aqua Buddha jokes now?
Oh, wait: that really wasn’t funny, was it?
The idea that a flat tax simplifies filing is complete BS. When you do your current forms is the hardest thing to do to look up in the table how much you owe? Nope, it’s putting in all the things that are income, listing all the things that are deductions, tracking down the kid’s social security numbers and then figuring out what “taxable income” is.
The only way to simplify is to completely eliminate all deductions, and treat everything as income – no difference between regular income and capital gains income. If you multiple sources of income your form will still be a bit more complicated but then you just add everything up as income.
A progressive tax can do exactly the same thing, with exactly the same form, except the “tax owed” line is looked up in a table (as it probably would be for a flat tax since nobody will round correctly without a table).
A flat tax might conceivably work out if it were along the lines of 40% on everything over 50kpa, no further exemptions, every bit of money in counts. Make it apply exactly like that to businesses too; buying equipment is no different to a person buying a car.
But no matter what the details of rate or exemption, it would somehow end up with powerful people getting away with paying nothing.
Like Big Daddy I’m sure he meant he’d cut that amount of funding to each organization on an annual basis. Rand Paul, like his daddy, is a dangerous lunatic shitbag.
I never liked Rand Paul, in part because anyone named after Ayn Rand has to be awful, and Libertarianism, which sounds good in theory, almost always turns out to be a ‘I got mine’ sort of plan. I had some respect for him because he seemed to have a principled stance and would make noises about excessive military spending, intervention, chauvinism, and getting government out of people’s private lives, with seemed like an implied liberal social agenda.
I lost that respect when he recently announced he really wasn’t serious about cutting defense spending, protecting a woman’s right to an abortion, or allowing people to marry who they chose. He revealed he would increase military spending, defend the unborn over the woman, and defend the right’s version of marriage.
He is still pushing everything I find wrong about Libertarianism and has abandoned those few things libertarians seem to often get right. I used to have some grudging respect. Not any more.
So I’m assuming PZM won’t be wearing a pair of Rand Paul “Freedom Socks”?
https://store.randpaul.com/index.php/apparel/navy-socks-59.html
Or even better, a “Rand On A Stick”
https://store.randpaul.com/index.php/other/rand-on-a-stick.html
DEFEAT THE WASHINGTON MACHINE!
UNLEASH THE AMERICAN DREAM!
Akira MacKenzie @34:
Come now. That’s not their only consideration.
They are also deeply, deeply concerned about property rights. Much, much more than those pesky civil or human rights.
He is still pushing everything I find wrong about Libertarianism and has abandoned those few things libertarians seem to often get right.
What libertarian HASN’T abandoned the few things they “get right?” Sooner or later, they all realize the liberties they pretend to cherish can never be attained or preserved without significant government intervention in public life; and that’s when they abandon those liberties. They hate Big Gummint, and the liberals who fight for liberty, more than they love liberty.
That’s why libertarians are so dead silent on issues that should be red meat for them, such as police misconduct and use of traffic-citations as revenue-sources for local governments: they all know that you can’t seriously fight such abuses and still have small government — in fact, such abuses are CAUSED by small-government policies. Somewhere deep in their stunted little hearts they know this, and this is why they tend to stay the fuck away from such sensitive issues.
Yeah, well.. Probably also doesn’t help when you take a week off, then another week off, then another, then decide you don’t like something the president does, so decide to try to shut down the government for another week, which is so tiring that you decide to take another week off… I mean, when are some of these assholes ever actually “in” congress to read anything in the first place?
Raging Bee@47,
Actually, I have seen libertarians object to police misconduct, civil forfeiture and similar. What they don’t do, in my experience, is recognise that these injustices systematically bear much more heavily on racial and gender-sexual minorities than on others. Because that would mean acknowledging that there are serious problems to which “small government” cannot even be pretended to be a solution.
Nick: what they also don’t do is get behind specific policies to remedy the situation effectively. The policies they DO advocate — such as tax and spending cuts, mass layoffs of cops, judges and other civil servants, rollbacks of Federal “interference” in “States’ Rights,” and mindless opposition to anything remotely resembling “reverse discrimination” — make the problems worse, not better. And supporting “Second Amendment remedies” and opposing any attempt to control the availability of guns to whoever wants to shoot a cop don’t help either.
The idea that big federal government is bad, but somehow big, invasive state government is okay is a very strange version of freedom.
It’s the version enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.
If I were ever to receive one of those e-mails I’d be very tempted to reply I’d like a conversation to discuss possible help, and, being careful to point out I happen to be in France at the time, supply them with the number of the FN (Le Pen’s fascists). Or perhaps more amusingly, daesh, albeit I rather not have a history of browsing for information on either collection of feckwits.
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to anything either Paul espouses to in public, The folks over at fivethirtyeight.com put together a lovely graph of the relative conservatism of potential Republican candidates based on: a) what they say in public, b) what they say to people they want to get money out of, and c) how they actually vote. Its necessarily imperfect, and they point out some of the problems with their methods of measurement with links to the sources in this article (which is otherwise irrelevant; skip down til you see the graph.)
Here’s the graph itself.
The moral? Most of the scumbags at least admit to being scumbags, with varying degrees of consistency… except the Pauls. Both Pauls make public statements that rank amongst the least conservative, but actually vote so conservatively that it’s well beyond the pale (so to speak.) So if they’ve proposed something ridiculous or horrid in a public statement; assume they’ll vote for something considerably worse.
Got one of those Rand emails as well so I reported the email as spam then went to the campaign web page then filled out a Web of Trust comment that the site is untrustworthy and sends spam. I have already trashed the email and forget the name of who they contracted with to handle the mass mailings but mine came through a company with a reputation for being unethical.
no surprise.