Posted on 02/08/2018 1:39:03 PM PST by Red Badger
Sen. Rand Paul was blocking the Senate's move to quickly pass its massive budget deal Thursday with only hours until government funding lapses.
For the Senate to hold a vote on the spending package Thursday, all senators must agree. The Kentucky Republican held out as he sought a vote on an amendment to maintain budget caps.
"All Senator Rand Paul is asking for is a 15-minute vote on his amendment to restore the budget caps. He is ready to proceed at any time," Paul spokesman Sergio Gor said in a statement.
As Paul railed against lifting spending caps, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would cost about $320 billion. Most of that would come in the first year.
Paul, a fiscal conservative, opposes the boost to military and domestic spending proposed by bipartisan Senate leaders. The bill before the Senate would set up a roughly $300 billion increase in the budget caps over two years.
When the Senate gets to a vote, the measure appears to have enough support to pass.
"I think it will all work out. But it's up in the air," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, according to Politico.
If the Senate approves the proposal, the House would then have to pass it before midnight Thursday and send it to President Donald Trump for his signature.
In the House, both fiscal conservatives and liberals who sought a deal to protect young immigrants from deportation threatened the plan's passage. On Thursday morning, House Speaker Paul Ryan said he believed his chamber had enough support to approve it.
GOP Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Steve Daines of Montana said they would oppose the plan over spending concerns.
Flake said in a statement that "fiscal responsibility is more than a talking point to trot out when the other guys are in charge."
In his statement announcing opposition, Corker said, "to say I am discouraged by the outcome of these negotiations would be an understatement."
The vast majority of the Republican lawmakers who are opposing the budget agreement, including Paul, voted for the GOP tax law. The massive tax cuts are estimated to add more than $1 trillion to budget deficits over 10 years, even after economic growth is taken into account, according to the CBO.
— CNBC's Ylan Mui contributed to this report.
We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. I think we can handle spending a little less there.
Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't already. Normally you see that by the 3rd comment.
GOP = Gutless Old Party
Good for Rand Paul.
Deficit spending mattered little to republicans during the Bush years. Establishment of both parties only care about deficits when they don’t get to make the decisions on the sending. They do not care how much gets spent, they just want to be the ones driving it.
I don’t agree with Rand all the time, but he is right now. To bad Ryan isn’t right or right anymore.
Here’s the problem with your statement, what you consider entitlements may be different than what other people consider entitlements. Let’s look at last years budget.
Social Security, Unemployment & Labor - $1.39 Trillion 33%
Medicare & Health(Medicaid)- 1.17 Trillion 28%
Military - 632 Billion 15%
Interest on the Debt - 303 Billion 7%
So just those four things alone account for 83% of the federal budget. So even if we cut everything after these four items we would still have to borrow money to cover the expenses. Moving on.
Veteran’s Benefits - $179 Billion 4%
Food & Agriculture - $138 Billion 3%
Transportation - $109 Billion 3%
Housing and Community - $90 Billion 2%
Education - $85 Billion 2%
Energy & Environment - $51 Billion 1%
International Affairs(Foreign Aid) - $45 Billion 1%
Science - $32 Billion 1%
Government - $8 Billion less than 1%
I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but unlike most fiscal conservatives I don’t just scream about cutting taxes. I want the budget balanced and the debt reduced by any means necessary. If its cutting spending or raising revenue (taxes, tariffs, selling off government land, etc.) or a combination of the two I don’t care.
This is why I do not like the recently passed tax cuts, didn’t like Bush jr’s cut taxes and spend, or Obama’s cut taxes and spending.
I expect Paul to yield in time to prevent a shutdown. Because, otherwise, it relieves the Dems of being the only obstructors. \
But he's right, and it's up to him.
I love my Senator Paul...
A lot of us are thinking we can grow our way out of the deficit.
Let’s face it: talk of cutting spending is easy but it never gets done because every one is against it.
The spending caps have negatively affected our military without reducing overall spending.
If someone has a pain-free way to get us smaller government, I’m all for it. But it doesn’t exist.
I love my Senator Paul...
and well you should. I’m from a state (VA) that has probably the 2 worst senators of any. We watched his speech tonight, and he was fantastic. I even sent him an email extolling his speech.
You are very lucky to have him.
Sickos...
“The rules say that they can’t vote before 1 [a.m.] and then the rules say that I can talk for an hour after that so I would imagine we’ll vote at 1 a.m. and then we’ll vote again at 2 a.m. If other people decide to speak it could go on longer,” Rand Paul just told reporters.
Hooray Rand Paul, for standing up for fiscal sanity..
Democrats = raise taxes and spend more
Republicans = cut taxes and spend more
Your absolutely right. The saying use to be tax and spend liberals. Now it’s cut taxes and spend conservatives.
Social Security is our biggest budget item, and the social security trust fund is the largest part of our debt (16%). Here is how I would change the social security law.
1.I would create a minimum insurance amount of $1500 and a maximum insured amount of double the minimum.
2. I would make all income subject to the social security tax. (Right now only the first $114000 is taxed.
3. The social security trust fund would be eliminated off the books. (It’s an accounting gimmick anyways, the bonds can only be redeemed to the government.)
Like any good compromise there is something for both sides to love and hate. The Democrats get to brag about the new minimum insured amount and raise taxes on the “rich”. Conservatives can brag about helping to make the budget more balanced and reducing the national debt by 16% or 3.2 Trillion dollars. No one comes away completely happy and no one comes away without something. But I now believe conservatives don’t really want to balance the budget or reduce the debt anymore that liberals want to.
I thought we were supposed to be the party of limited government. We’re supposed to be the constitutionalists. Why are FReepers attacking Rand Paul for standing up for our principles? Good for him.
We have too much government anyway. I stand with Rand.
Sounds to me like the reduction in military spending was poorly implemented. Again, we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. If they can't find fat and ways to increase efficiencies in a budget that large, they aren't trying hard.
If someone has a pain-free way to get us smaller government, I’m all for it. But it doesn’t exist.
I've never claimed it would be "pain-free". Sometimes pain is a good thing. In this case, it would probably be a very good thing. If it isn't listed explicitly in Article 1, Section 8, then it needs to be scrutinized very closely.
Great plan for SS you have.
Oh the conservatives like the idea of balancing the budget alright, but the power they get with control to spend lots and lots of public’s money is more intoxicating.
It is like we love our wife alright, but if our drop dead secretary is available for a romp, few can resist.
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.