Rand Paul: I'll only vote to raise the debt ceiling if we attach a balanced budget

[disorderlyvision]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/09/sen_paul_wants_ironclad_balanced_budget_rule_in_or der_to_raise_debt_ceiling.html

"I'll vote to raise the debt ceiling. But only if we have an ironclad balanced budget rule that we attach to the debt ceiling," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told "FOX News Sunday."

MOD NOTE: Misleading Title Fixed

[malkusm]

Sounds fair to me.

[Wren]

The topic titles disappoints me

[Brett85]

That's a misleading title.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

"I'll vote to raise the debt ceiling. But only if we have an ironclad balanced budget rule that we attach to the debt ceiling," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told "FOX News Sunday."

I think Rand knew what he was saying because there is no way that they will go for a balanced budget rule.

[Sola_Fide]

I think Peter Schiff makes the point that you could balance the budget in the short term by just not raising the debt ceiling at all, and only spending what you take in.

[TCE]

I think Peter Schiff makes the point that you could balance the budget in the short term by just not raising the debt ceiling at all, and only spending what you take in.

...That would be Rand's point as well. He's been saying that for months.

[MaxPower]

That sounds like the sort of compromise I could tolerate from him; however, I suspect that there is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 100% chance that an ironclad balanced-budget law will not be passed along with the debt ceiling vote, and so- assuming my estimate proves correct- I fully expect him to vote against raising it, and will be very disappointed if he does not.

[speciallyblend]

That sounds like the sort of compromise I could tolerate from him; however, I suspect that there is somewhere around a 100% chance that an ironclad balanced-budget law will not be passed along with the debt ceiling vote, and so- assuming my estimate proves correct- I fully expect him to vote against raising it, and will be very disappointed if he does not.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ yep

[Daamien]

I think Peter Schiff makes the point that you could balance the budget in the short term by just not raising the debt ceiling at all, and only spending what you take in.

Exactly. Hopefully Rand votes against it.

[TheDriver]

In other words: Rand will vote against raising the debt ceiling (status-quo will not accept BB rule), or this will be like the last Balance Budget rule - no one followed it.

[jtstellar]

the quotation mark shouldn't be put after the word "ceiling" because that's not the whole sentence, nor does the period belong there.

you're a liar

[RonPaulwillWin]

Common' man. Simi troll post, unless you haven't been following Rand for the last few weeks.

[Arion45]

Can there be a debt ceiling of zero?

[nocompromises]

If he votes to raise the debt ceiling he is a big government monster.

There is no reason to raise the debt ceiling. All we need to do is cut the military and many other programs.

[agar]

Unlike dad, Rand likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth. This guy never gives a straight answer.

Why would we need to raise the debt ceiling if they really intended to balance the budget?

[Slutter McGee]

Unlike dad, Rand likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth. This guy never gives a straight answer.

Why would we need to raise the debt ceiling if they really intended to balance the budget?

Are you fucking serious?

Slutter McGee

[specsaregood]

Are you fucking serious?


A quick review of it's posting history will confirm that it isn't worth your time. max/sofia/tonyfromthebronx must have referred it here.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

That's a misleading title.

Really. For a second it was worrisome thinking Paul had made a definitive statement in support of raising the debt ceiling. Then, after a quick Google News search yielded nothing, I knew this thread was the same one about the balanced budget rule but disguised with a misleading-as-hell thread title.

[Brett85]

There's some people here who won't like Rand no matter what he does. Rand is still going to be the most libertarian member of the Senate by far, but if he doesn't vote exactly the same as Ron on every single issue some people will just hammer him. Never mind the fact that Rand is his own person.

[fisharmor]

Are you fucking serious?

Slutter McGee

Yes, I second that sentiment.
I see Ron frequently run into people who accuse him of talking out of both sides of his mouth - like how he gets attacked for his stance on earmarks.
Then he opens his mouth - all of it - and clarifies that he has a consistent position.
It's harder to pin Rand down.

[sailingaway]

If he votes to raise the debt ceiling he is a big government monster.

There is no reason to raise the debt ceiling. All we need to do is cut the military and many other programs.

troll much?

The left has been trying to turn this vote into a litmus test for months.

[sailingaway]

Yes, I second that sentiment.
I see Ron frequently run into people who accuse him of talking out of both sides of his mouth - like how he gets attacked for his stance on earmarks.
Then he opens his mouth - all of it - and clarifies that he has a consistent position.
It's harder to pin Rand down.


Yes, it is. I believe it isn't to confuse US, but others, but I don't like the slipperiness myself. However, if his votes are right, I will forgive it.

And I DO expect the votes to be right, having followed and having supported his campaign. Rand wants to build some coalitions before slapping people in the face with points that won't carry the day in any event, is my opinion. I think Ron learned his no compromise position after long examination of the slippery slopes in congress, and Rand may come to regret his different approach..... but then again, he may get things done. Let's give him a chance.

[Matt Collins]

I think Rand knew what he was saying because there is no way that they will go for a balanced budget rule.

That sounds like the sort of compromise I could tolerate from him; however, I suspect that there is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 100% chance that an ironclad balanced-budget law will not be passed along with the debt ceiling vote, and so- assuming my estimate proves correct- I fully expect him to vote against raising it, and will be very disappointed if he does not.



Why would we need to raise the debt ceiling if they really intended to balance the budget?



That's the point!!!

Rand knows there is no way that a balanced budget will ever come to fruition anytime soon. And if it did, then there would be no reason to raise the debt ceiling.

Rand is very smart about this stuff.

[ctiger2]

Wouldn't you want to have a balanced budget law instead of a rule?

[sailingaway]

Wouldn't you want to have a balanced budget law instead of a rule?

Yeah, and he wants an amendment, (a regular law could just be amended when they raise the debt limit next time, as well, just like a rule) but the timing doesn't allow for it. He is essentially saying he'll go along once with an attempt in good faith to get this under control without refusing to vote for this, but only on these terms.

[nocompromises]

troll much?

The left has been trying to turn this vote into a litmus test for months.

Anyone who votes for increasing the debt ceiling is for big government. It is a litmus test.

[Stary Hickory]

If they balance the budget they dont need to raise the debt ceiling...or is this some kind of Freudian mind game?

[anaconda]

But I think Ron is correct on this. One of Ron's complaints is that they never followed any of the balanced budget rules in the past. So he feels comfortable dismissing this as any incentive to vote for a debt ceiling increase. So I would ask Rand: "What is IRONCLAD?
We all know (and so should he..) that they will never follow any "rule." In fact, I doubt that they would even follow a "law" requiring a balanced budget. They would invoke some national emergency executive order to overrule it. So what's the point of Rand making this overture? My only explanation is that Rand is in this for the long term and he is playing smart politics by 1) looking like he's giving his fellow members of Congress a fair deal and chance, and 2) giving himself some good ammunition if and when he votes "no" or possibly filibusters the vote.

[anaconda]

Unlike dad, Rand likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth. This guy never gives a straight answer.

Why would we need to raise the debt ceiling if they really intended to balance the budget?

Everyone in Congress is nervous about voter blowback from too much spending. So, both Democrats and Republicans might go along with a balanced budget law so that they can be forever on the record in favor of fiscal responsibility. But they don't want to be voluntarily on the record as shutting down government. So they need this one last fix. If they pass a law, then they can't be blamed in the future for shutting down government (unless they simply fail to pass a balanced budget).

[Matt Collins]

troll much?

The left has been trying to turn this vote into a litmus test for months.
Ron Paul has said the same thing:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul706.html

"The upcoming vote [to raise the debt ceiling]will provide an interesting litmus test for the new Republican congressional majority, especially those new members closely identified with Tea Party voters. The debt ceiling law, passed in 1917, enables Congress to place a statutory cap on the total amount of government debt rather than having to approve each individual Treasury bond offering. It also, however, forces Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote to approve more borrowing."

[MikeStanart]

Unlike dad, Rand likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth. This guy never gives a straight answer.

Why would we need to raise the debt ceiling if they really intended to balance the budget?

Politics, my friend. Rand is bloody brilliant.

If Washington rejects his idea of a "balanced budget ammendment" then Rand gets to continue to hammer on the "establishment" because they wouldn't go for it. By doing this, Rand can vote against raising the debt ceiling without looking like too much of an "extremist". He gets the best of both worlds. He appeases his constituents (us), his own morals, and he gets a bunch of talking points for the future! He's building clout, dude!

[anaconda]

Politics, my friend. Rand is bloody brilliant.

If Washington rejects his idea of a "balanced budget ammendment" then Rand gets to continue to hammer on the "establishment" because they wouldn't go for it. By doing this, Rand can vote against raising the debt ceiling without looking like too much of an "extremist". He gets the best of both worlds. He appeases his constituents (us), his own morals, and he gets a bunch of talking points for the future! He's building clout, dude!

This is what I was trying to say but you put it much more clearly. This is exactly what Rand is doing. The only question remaining is whether he might filibuster the vote. My guess is definitely "no."

[purplechoe]

I think that Rand is much more intelligent than I and many here have given him credit for. In his speeches he does not inspire me like Ron does, he seems like more of an intellectual revolutionary who has learned many lessons from his father spending all these years in politics spreading the message of liberty. I think he's very much like his father in his beliefs about the role our government should have in our lives, he just goes about in a different way, one which I think will appeal more to the regular "Joe-six-pack".

With that said, I still think Ron should run in 2012, if for nothing else, to keep spreading the message of individual and economic liberty even if he knows he won't win. We need to keep educating the American populace and hopefully keep paving the way for a future Rand Paul presidential candidacy if we can't get Ron elected...

[PreDeadMan]

Let the politicians pay for the corruption in which they partake in.. leave my wallet alone thank you

[HazyHusky420]

Why is there even a debt ceiling? Why should we be allowed to be in debt in the first place? Debt is for irresponsible people, not government.

[specsaregood]

Politics, my friend. Rand is bloody brilliant.

If Washington rejects his idea of a "balanced budget ammendment" then Rand gets to continue to hammer on the "establishment" because they wouldn't go for it. By doing this, Rand can vote against raising the debt ceiling without looking like too much of an "extremist". He gets the best of both worlds. He appeases his constituents (us), his own morals, and he gets a bunch of talking points for the future! He's building clout, dude!

The majority of stuff he has said/positions he has taken that got the purists upset are just like that.

[sailingaway]

The majority of stuff he has said/positions he has taken that got the purists upset are just like that.

People forget that Rand is being used as 'Exhibit A' by Dems for modifying / killing the filibuster for any purpose we'd want (like Rand standing alone against the patriot act). The modification would take 40 people to filibuster rather than one to trigger the need for a 60 person vote. It becomes ineffective for calling Congress to its conscience.

And they are saying he will filibuster the debt ceiling to terrify people. Rand's very reasonable response that he'd vote for it if there were a binding balanced budget amendment defuses their game plan. Unfortunately, in my opinion the establishment GOP want to 'pull the teeth' of the few GOP with integrity as well, and may go along with the Dems changing the rule -- voting against it but with a wink and a nod and not raising the stink about the 'nuclear option' the Dems raised when they were in the other seat.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul has said the same thing:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul706.html

"The upcoming vote [to raise the debt ceiling]will provide an interesting litmus test for the new Republican congressional majority, especially those new members closely identified with Tea Party voters. The debt ceiling law, passed in 1917, enables Congress to place a statutory cap on the total amount of government debt rather than having to approve each individual Treasury bond offering. It also, however, forces Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote to approve more borrowing."

Ron is in the House which has a majority. He is saying they need to put their substance where their mouth is, and USE that majority. Rand is in the Senate, in a minority which can't win on the vote, and he is trying to aviod changes in the filibuster rule. He is in a different position.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KoWRh1Y9IY

[Matt Collins]

null

[Zippyjuan]

Not a dis on Rand since he is the only one so far suggesting anything serious in the way of budget cuts, but even his "extreme" $500 billion in proposed cuts is only a third of what it would take to actually get a balanced budget (unless of course you put in massive tax cuts as well). Just to say how incredibly difficult it will be to try to get one.