Rand Paul: It's time to vote

[YesI'mALiberal]

Rand Paul: Republicans Won't Defund Obamacare In Government Shutdown Fight

...While Paul joined Cruz in his 21-hour talkathon -- which outlasted Paul's 13-hour talking filibuster earlier this year -- the senator from the Bluegrass State conceded Wednesday afternoon that the Senate should no longer delay sending a revised continuing resolution to the House GOP leaders, who will only have one day to pass the measure in order to avert a government shutdown.

"We've spent a lot of time on this, and it's time to vote," Paul said. "I think the sooner we're done with this, the better chance we have of not having the government shut down."

"I think it's presumptuous of me to tell the House what to do, but I think the goal of everybody should be to try to do something right and at the same time not shut down the government," Paul added.
...

more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3990944.html

[Christian Liberty]

"We've spent a lot of time on this, and it's time to vote," Paul said. "I think the sooner we're done with this, the better chance we have of not having the government shut down."

Shut up, Rand.

[JCDenton0451]

"We've spent a lot of time on this, and it's time to vote," Paul said. "I think the sooner we're done with this, the better chance we have of not having the government shut down."

My thoughts exactly!

The time for theatrics is over. Everyone knows Republicans oppose Obamacare (I oppose it too). Now, just get your act together and pass this CR.

[jtstellar]

"All I know is at this time, my conclusion is -- and apparently a lot of people's conclusion is -- we ought to get to the votes," Paul added later, as reporters continued to press him on Cruz's strategy. "If we're going to send something to the House, I think get something over there sooner rather than later. That's always been my opinion."

seems like a perfect case of anarchism v limited government example here..

what's interesting is cruz and lee are more anarchist than rand on this one. they fundamentally distrust any negotiation would produce good outcome of any scale that they don't even want any talk to occur in the first place.. it's interesting and a little muddy, sort of like framers arguing back and forth whether to have bill of rights written into words because that erodes the sense that these laws should be natural and not endowed by the government.

i'm not sure there's a definitive answer in this and actually both sides might be required to complete the picture, to provide a yin yang kind of approach to drive the debate. it's rather complicated and i'm glad we're getting where we can have complexity and ponder about things already instead of just pointing out idiocies from the other side as pasttime. this is progress

[phill4paul]

And "shutting down the government", which is not what will actually happen, is detrimental....how?

[Rudeman]

And "shutting down the government", which is not what will actually happen, is detrimental....how?

The Republicans are trying to look like the reasonable ones, even Amash has said something similar. They don't want to be pinned down with the negatives of a govt. shutdown.

[angelatc]

And "shutting down the government", which is not what will actually happen, is detrimental....how?

It will give the Democrats unlimited talking points in the next election, for starts.

[phill4paul]

The Republicans are trying to look like the reasonable ones, even Amash has said something similar. They don't want to be pinned down with the negatives of a govt. shutdown.

Again. The government will not "shutdown." It's all in how it is framed. The GOP is not framing it correctly.

[jj-]

It will give the Democrats unlimited talking points in the next election, for starts.

If the cost of not funding Obamacare is that, it will be worth it.

[phill4paul]

It will give the Democrats unlimited talking points in the next election, for starts.

Depends on how it is framed. See post my above.

The government, REPEAT, the government will NOT "shutdown.

[brandon]

And "shutting down the government", which is not what will actually happen, is detrimental....how?

I'm still searching for exactly what this means. The example I heard Rand give is that people will stop receiving checks from the government. Poor people will be going hungry when their food stamps don't refresh and widowed military wives won't be receiving their monthly stipend that keeps the electric on. Thinking about it this way it really would be pretty disastrous. Too many people are dependent that we really can't shut it off completely without some sort of transition plan.

I would be interested in hearing more of the details though.

[erowe1]

My thoughts exactly!

The time for theatrics is over. Everyone knows Republicans oppose Obamacare (I oppose it too). Now, just get your act together and pass this CR.

Why?

[ClydeCoulter]

Is Rand saying "Let's do the vote" on the House version? If so, Yep!

[erowe1]

I'm still searching for exactly what this means. The example I heard Rand give is that people will stop receiving checks from the government. Poor people will be going hungry when their food stamps don't refresh and widowed military wives won't be receiving their monthly stipend that keeps the electric on. Thinking about it this way it really would be pretty disastrous. Too many people are dependent that we really can't shut it off completely without some sort of transition plan.

I would be interested in hearing more of the details though.

None of that happened in the '95 government shut down.

Plus, even if it did, if tax payers wanted to give their money to people, they could still do it. Nobody needs the government for that.

[satchelmcqueen]

damn

[Christian Liberty]

I'm still searching for exactly what this means. The example I heard Rand give is that people will stop receiving checks from the government. Poor people will be going hungry when their food stamps don't refresh and widowed military wives won't be receiving their monthly stipend that keeps the electric on. Thinking about it this way it really would be pretty disastrous. Too many people are dependent that we really can't shut it off completely without some sort of transition plan.

I HATE this transitional mentality. Nothing personal against you, but this position is insane and its killing the liberty movement. If something is wrong, such as institutionalized murder or institutionalized theft, it should be ended ASAP. This is one area where I feel Ron Paul could have done better, even if it might have hurt him politically, he should have taken the Rothbardian radical approach rather than constantly talking about transition.

Mind you, I recognize that this is an "in house" debate. And I'm completely fine with transitional measures if that's the best that can be done in a different situation. But we should never take our eyes off the ball. Whether your ideal is anarchism, minarchism, or constitutionalism, or whatever else, you should be willing to take ANY movement in your direction. In the case of "government shutdown" (which I understand only actually shuts down certain parts of government) for people calling themselves libertarians to complain that "Its happening too fast" is simply ridiculous, IMO. That goes for Rand Paul, and anyone who agrees with him.

All that said, Cruz and Lee are not "more anarchist" than Rand. First of all, while libertarianism is a continuum, anarchy is not. I would say a minarchist is more libertarian than a typical conservative, but they aren't "more anarchist". Anarchy is a very specific descriptive term. Either you are one, or you're not one. Sometimes I joke that I'm a "libertarian, borderline anarchist" when talking to someone who I suspect doesn't know what anarcho-capitalism really is, but ultimately, I'm just a Christian ancap and that's that.

[Christian Liberty]

None of that happened in the '95 government shut down.

Plus, even if it did, if tax payers wanted to give their money to people, they could still do it. Nobody needs the government for that.

Absolutely. Most people are just way too comfortable with theft.

[phill4paul]

I'm still searching for exactly what this means. The example I heard Rand give is that people will stop receiving checks from the government. Poor people will be going hungry when their food stamps don't refresh and widowed military wives won't be receiving their monthly stipend that keeps the electric on. Thinking about it this way it really would be pretty disastrous. Too many people are dependent that we really can't shut it off completely without some sort of transition plan.

I would be interested in hearing more of the details though.

The question was answered by erowe1. Do you honestly think the government is going to end that which it has morphed to provide? There would be a true torch and pitchfork march on Mordor and NONE of those shills want that.
It AIN"T gonna happen.

[ObiRandKenobi]

let's win the next election! everyone knows republican victory = libertarian golden age. if you doubt that, just look at the libertarian utopia of president bush and republican congress and supreme court.

"just win baby!" -- ron paul quoting bastiat.

[Christian Liberty]

The question was answered by erowe1. Do you honestly think the government is going to end that which it has morphed to provide? There would be a true torch and pitchfork march on Mordor and NONE of those shills want that.
It AIN"T gonna happen.

Unfortunately, the radicalism vs gradualism debate is one I feel Ron Paul himself took a weak position on. I'm honestly not sure why he implicitly accepted things like "Obviously we must not cut off social security for those who are dependent on it immediately." It may be that he felt like arguing for immediate abolition would turn off too many people from looking deeper. Maybe it was misplaced Christian compassion (And I say misplaced because an abolition of legalized theft should never, ever be seen as "uncompassionate" regardless of the results.) Maybe he simply saw state-sponsored murder as the greater threat (which I certainly agree with) and wanted to take one thing at a time (Which I do not agree with, liberty is a holistic system.) Maybe it was something else, I don't know.

In any case, in lieu of Ron Paul's position, much as I admire and respect him, I'd side with Rothbard on this one (Although there are other issues, like abortion, where I would side with Ron Paul and not Rothbard), as he explains his position here:

http://mises.org/daily/5342/Do-You-Hate-the-State

[69360]

Distancing yourself to avoid blame if a shutdown occurs is very smart if you are running for president.

[Christian Liberty]

Distancing yourself to avoid blame if a shutdown occurs is very smart if you are running for president.

A valid point. Its sad, but its probably true. Rand is a tactician.

What I think is funny is that some of you think this is an "anarchist vs limited government split" as if Cruz or Lee were anarchists, or even true limited government supporters(lol)

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm not clear on how this would work. If the Senate votes on it. Does Harry Reid modify it before or after that vote? Does he do that behind closed doors with members of the House? Doesn't the House have to approve the modifications?

[jj-]

I'm not clear on how this would work. If the Senate votes on it. Does Harry Reid modify it before or after that vote? Does he do that behind closed doors with members of the House? Doesn't the House have to approve the modifications?

1. After
2. Not behind close doors.
3. Yes, but the House members don't want to be the only ones who fight, so Ted Cruz wants the Senate Republicans to fight as well, which means filibustering until getting a 60-vote threshold for amendments. This won't happen, there are too many Republicans squishes.

[Brian4Liberty]

According to this description, if Harry Reid changes it, it must go back to the House for another vote.

Conference

Once a bill leaves the House and the Senate, it must be checked. If anything in the two versions of the bill differ, in any way (even in something as minor as punctuation), the bill must be reconciled. The house in which the bill originated is given a copy of the bill with its differences. For example, if the House originated a bill, then sent it along to the Senate for consideration, and the Senate made changes, the bill is sent back to the House. If the changes are minor, they might be accepted by the originating house with no debate. If changes are of a more substantial nature, however, a conference is called for.

In a conference, a number of Representative and a number of Senators meet to work out the differences in the two versions of the bill. The people in the conference committee are known as managers. The number of managers from each house of Congress is of little concern, because the managers from each house vote separately. So, for example, a conference committee might have ten Representatives and seven Senators. Managers are not allowed to substantially change the bill. They may add an amendment from one bill into the other, or take out an amendment added but not in the other. But they cannot add new amendments to both versions of the bill. When there is disagreement, new text, which might be a compromise between two versions, can be proposed. But the changes must be consistent with the bill itself.

Following negotiations, the managers make reports back to their houses, that they were able to agree on the bill, able to agree only on some parts of the bill, or were unable to agree at all on the bill. If the first case, the bill is revoted upon in both houses. If the latter two cases, the bill may go back to a new conference committee, referred back to the committees in the two houses, or it may just die because the differences are too vast to bridge.


http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html

[LibertyEagle]

The Republicans are trying to look like the reasonable ones, even Amash has said something similar. They don't want to be pinned down with the negatives of a govt. shutdown.

This is what it is about, I'm pretty sure.

However, I would be happy for the damn thing to just shut down. In reality, such a small part would shut down, hardly anyone would notice, but it would be a good thing, nonetheless.

[Brett85]

The Senate voted 100-0 today to proceed to the budget bill passed by the house. Doesn't that mean that Reid now has the power to add his amendment and get the Obamacare funding added back to the bill? I thought Cruz was filibustering to get the Republicans to vote against the bill that was passed today, and then Cruz turned around and voted for that bill.

[Brian4Liberty]

1. After

I assume that after the vote for cloture to end debate (if they get it), Reid and the Democrats will then change it any way they want, but there will still be votes on Amendments and final passage in the Senate? Then it goes to Comittee.

[Brian4Liberty]

The Senate voted 100-0 today to proceed to the budget bill passed by the house. Doesn't that mean that Reid now has the power to add his amendment and get the Obamacare funding added back to the bill? I thought Cruz was filibustering to get the Republicans to vote against the bill that was passed today, and then Cruz turned around and voted for that bill.

Yeah, but that was to start debate, not cloture to end debate.

[1836er]

The Senate voted 100-0 today to proceed to the budget bill passed by the house. Doesn't that mean that Reid now has the power to add his amendment and get the Obamacare funding added back to the bill? I thought Cruz was filibustering to get the Republicans to vote against the bill that was passed today, and then Cruz turned around and voted for that bill.

No that wasn't the cloture vote. I copied and pasted this explanation from a post on another site (got to keep a close eye on your allies) that I think explain it pretty well as I understand it.

The vote today was to start debate on the House CR bill. It passed (as was expected). In the next step of the process, Harry Reid will introduce an amendment that strips out the language de-funding Obamacare. This will happen during debate this week.

There will be another vote on Friday or Saturday to accept the "Senate Version" of the CR (Continuing Resolution Budget Bill). We will have to filibuster that (a real filibuster) to NOT END debate. Once they vote for Cloture on Friday/Saturday (Voting to end debate on the new version), requiring 60 votes essentially, then they will immediately (likely Saturday) have a vote to pass the new version and send it back to the House. They will only need 51 votes on the final version. It will go down party lines and pass.

Once it goes back to the House, the House will have to vote to either reject it or accept it. Voting no on the Senate Version "shuts down the government". The House will fold at that point. This is why we have to call Senators. We need to filibuster the cloture vote after Reid introduces his amendment that WILL include funding of Obamacare.