Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) -- who just declared earlier this week he's running for president in 2016 -- voted with Rubio, Cotton and Graham but not for the Paul amendment.
Audit the Head!
Posted on 03/27/2015 1:35:59 AM PDT by z taxman
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) fired at Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), among others, calling their ideas “fiscally irresponsible and dangerous to the country” and “just as bad as the Democrats” after they voted to raise defense spending on Thursday without offsetting that with spending cuts to discretionary federal programs.
Paul had introduced an amendment that would have raised defense spending, but offset that increase with cuts elsewhere, such as the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce. That amendment competed with an amendment from Rubio that would have increased defense spending with no offsetting spending cuts—just a blanket increase in spending.
Paul’s amendment failed 96-4, and Rubio’s amendment—introduced alongside Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)—failed as well, 32-68.
Paul’s amendment would have increased defense spending by $190 billion over the next two years, but offset it entirely with spending cuts. Rubio’s would have increased defense spending by nearly $190 billion over the next two years but would not have paid for the increase with any spending cuts—meaning that that $190 billion over two years would have been added to the deficit.
One of the biggest advocates for Rubio’s plan over Paul’s was Graham, something that highlights an interesting breakdown between potential 2016 presidential candidates. It’s also worth noting that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)—who just declared earlier this week he’s running for president in 2016—voted with Rubio, Cotton and Graham but not for the Paul amendment. ...
Paul added that it is “real problem” that so many Republicans across the party talk about cutting wasteful spending and how they’re concerned about the national debt and the deficit, but then turn around and vote to add to it.
“You have to be willing to actually put the cuts forward or you’re just as bad as the Democrats on this,” Paul said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I like many things about Rand Paul.
I do NOT like his self-nomination to be our “holier-than-thou” “messiah”.
I hope his pride does not lead him to self-destruct...
For once, I agree with the second Paul instead of the first Cruz.
I don’t trust Rand, but he seems right on this.
Rand is unstable and that is what makes it so difficult to keep up with his pandering and groveling.
He suddenly switched from being an Obama-like anti-military budget cutter, to calling for increased defense spending, it is similar to what he does on everything, even abortion.
Cruz would have reasons for rejecting it, Cruz is strong on defense.
What do you have against him being part of the process?
Rand isn’t interesting, he is just a lightweight, pandering and rambling and skipping his way around, looking for something to take.
As far as him and the establishment, he is part of it, from campaigning for Romney to supporting McConnell, to refusing to help the tea party in it’s battle against Cochran.
He is weak on conservatism, abortion, defense, gay marriage, social issues, why would you be fighting for him, and why doing it while claiming to be a Cruz supporter.
Here is an example of the strong on defense/Reagan-like Cruz opposing Paul on defense, when Paul is known to be weak/Obama like on defense, yet you sided with Paul.
Paul and Cruz are contrasts, not a pairing.
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) -- who just declared earlier this week he's running for president in 2016 -- voted with Rubio, Cotton and Graham but not for the Paul amendment.
But Rubio’s plan with only 32 votes wasn’t “Kabuki theater”?
These defense spending amendments are completely in line with Sen. Paul’s first proposed budget in 2011. You’re just regurgitating MSM lies.
Being libertarian and a phony, Paul is still anti-national defense, just like in 2011, he still wants to cut the size of the military and reduce their fighting weapons.
This was just libertarian theatrics like his dad was known for, it was not a serious amendment.
This was actual legislation to increase defense spending. Seems more tangible than your hunches or telepathy or whatever it is you’re going by when not just regurgitating MSM talking lies.
No, Paul has been fighting for years to shrink our military and reduce their weapons, and funding, and this was a fake to continue that political position, that is why it only received 4 votes, while Paul voted against the one with a chance.
Do you think that Ran Paul has made a permanent and sincere switch to supporting increasing military spending and weaponry and the size of our military?
Do you anticipate that his future politics will now represent and support that?
It only received four votes because there are only four Sneators who are serious about the budget deficit. The other 96 are big-spending fakes.
Do you support Paul and Obama in their shared goal to make us weaker?
Here are his recommendations for the 2012 budget.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.