Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 148

Thread: Rand Paul - Defense Spending Bill

  1. #1

    Rand Paul - Defense Spending Bill

    Please read the part in bold before you go too crazy.

    His amendment would add $76.5 billion to the defense budget

    Just weeks before announcing his 2016 presidential bid, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is completing an about-face on a longstanding pledge to curb the growth in defense spending.

    In an olive branch to defense hawks hell-bent on curtailing his White House ambitions, the libertarian Senator introduced a budget amendment late Wednesday calling for a nearly $190 billion infusion to the defense budget over the next two years—a roughly 16 percent increase.

    Paul’s amendment brings him in line with his likely presidential primary rivals, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who introduced a measure calling for nearly the same level of increases just days ago. The amendment was first noticed by TIME and later confirmed by Paul’s office.

    The move completes a stunning reversal for Paul, who in May 2011, after just five months in office, released his own budget that would have eliminated four agencies—Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Energy and Education—while slashing the Pentagon, a sacred cow for many Republicans. Under Paul’s original proposal, defense spending would have dropped from $553 billion in the 2011 fiscal year to $542 billion in 2016. War funding would have plummeted from $159 billion to zero. He called it the “draw-down and restructuring of the Department of Defense.”

    But under Paul’s new plan, the Pentagon will see its budget authority swell by $76.5 billion to $696,776,000,000 in fiscal year 2016.

    The boost would be offset by a two-year combined $212 billion cut to funding for aid to foreign governments, climate change research and crippling reductions in to the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Education.

    Paul’s endorsement of increased defense spending represents a change in direction for the first-term lawmaker, who rose to prominence with his critiques of the size of the defense budget and foreign aid, drawing charges of advocating isolationism. Under pressure from fellow lawmakers and well-heeled donors, Paul in recent months has appeared to embrace the hawkish rhetoric that has defined the GOP in recent decades. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in February Paul warned of the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS). “Without question, we must now defend ourselves and American interests,” he said. Asked about federal spending, he added, “for me, the priority is always national defense.”

    The amendment was filed on the same day as House Republicans overwhelmingly supported a plan to alter their budget to give billions more to the Pentagon.

    It’s not the first time that Paul has adjusted his position on a foreign policy matter to find greater appeal within his own party. Early in his Senate career, Paul advocated for the elimination of all aid to foreign governments, including Israel, but after criticism has since backtracked on that proposal.

    Paul’s change-of-heart on the budget highlights the importance of the funding document to many likely presidential candidates. In addition to the increased defense spending, Rubio provided a roadmap to his all-but-certain presidential campaign, introducing over 25 amendments stating his desire to deliver weapons to Ukraine, create education tax credits, strengthen pro-life legislation, weaken collective bargaining agreements and ensure Medicare wouldn’t be “raided” by Obamacare.

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is considering a presidential run, pointed to Rubio’s measure to increase defense spending as an example of how budget votes will impact the 2016 race. “That’s a great amendment,” says Graham, one of the Senate’s preeminent foreign policy hawks. “I think if you voted against Marco’s amendment you’d be probably on the outside of most people in the primary.”

    Outside of Congress, other GOP presidential candidates have used the budget process to insulate themselves from tough political questions. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has relied on his outsider status to avoid commenting on everything from immigration to the gas tax. In New Hampshire earlier this month, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush dodged a question on securing the border by pointing toward dysfunction in Washington.

    “I think that Congress needs to pass a budget and put conservative priorities on the table,” he said at a house party. “And in that budget there are ways that you could show the opposition to the use of executive orders, and so I hope they do that, and I hope they fully fund the department of homeland security…because how else are we going to secure the border. This is the only way that we can do it.”

    “I think we need to increase spending on defense and homeland security,” Bush added.
    UPDATED AT 11.50 A.M.: Doug Stafford, senior advisor to Rand Paul, emails:

    It is done in response to others in both chambers who are attempting to add to defense spending—some way more than Senator Paul's amendment—without paying for it. Senator Paul believes national defense should be our priority. He also believes our debt is out of control. This amendment is to lay down a marker that if you believe we need more funding for national defense, you should show how you would pay for it. We can't just keep borrowing more money from China to send to Pakistan. And we can't keep paying for even vital things like national defense on a credit card.

    Doug Stafford. Senior Advisor
    http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
    Last edited by Brett85; 03-26-2015 at 05:13 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I think ron proposed we cut military pending, but keep or increase defense spending. I just forgot where i heard it from...

    I do agree that we need good antiballistic missile abilities... with state of the art anti air and anti sea along our coasts.

  4. #3
    How about cutting funding for aid to foreign governments, climate change research and crippling reductions in to the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Education and replacing it with....nothing.
    76.5 billion is probably what the the Pentagon wastes out of it's budget. Cut the waste and the budget is more than should be allotted in the first place for a "defensive" armed force.
    Of course Rand knows his proposal will never pass muster. But, he can use it to say in the debates that he proposed a bill to raise the budget.

  5. #4
    What, the annual amount more than the rest of the world combined, repeated, still isn't enough?

    Let's just go ahead and change the official name to the Department of Empire.

  6. #5
    I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I'm starting to get sick of Rand pulling all these BS stunts that will get him absolutely nowhere.

  7. #6
    I wonder if Rand knows that the Pentagon consider climate change as one of the biggest cause for world insecurity? Cutting climate change research funds is penny wise pound foolish if you believe the pentagon. Also I think a lot of people consider foreign aid as a cheap way to keep world peace, a lot of the people he has to convince believe there would be more conflicts without them and there are more conflicts, the pentagon budget will have to be raised to fight it

    Also why not just cut waste from the budget? that alone should be able to fund the defense for another 2 yrs. The problem with all these new ideas by Rand is that it is not going to convince anyone. They want additional money along with the money they spend now. The only good thing with his idea is that he is not calling for a cut in food stamp so he can raise defense spending. I hate food stamps and other domestic welfare programs but the only thing that pains me more than people calling for increase in defense spending is people who want to cut food stamps in order to increase defense.

  8. #7
    If this is just Paul trying to make himself seem like more of a neocon, then Mission Accomplished, I suppose.
    If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.

  9. #8
    *Sigh*

    The republican gambit is always to say they're going to increase defense spending and offset it by crippling cuts in the welfare state.

    The democratic gambit is always to say they're going to increase welfare spending and offset it by crippling cuts in the warfare state.

    Ron Paul's gambit was "End the empire and get rid of unnecessary departments and you can balance the budget and help more people with the savings."

    Glad to see Rand is talking at least about cuts in foreign aid. But it's not Ron's "end the empire" proposal.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    This looks like it is revenue neutral.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  12. #10
    Rand should be focusing on messaging that is going to win him over the social conservatives in Iowa like Huckabee or Santorum instead of this imo, unless this is somehow part of the messaging that appeals to them. If the strategy is to to bend over backwards and act more establishment (or whatever the tactic is, might as well go whole hog) there should be more focus on what specific target groups that are going to matter in the Iowa cares about, do social conservatives and evangelicals really care about this?
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    This looks like it is revenue neutral.
    Which means it is zero help to the people in this country.

  14. #12
    I'm having a hard time understanding this apparent flip flop. I'm interested to see what he'll say about it. I always give him the benefit of the doubt based on his proven record of supporting limited government, so I'm not going to jump to conclusions too quickly.

    Edit/Update:

    Turns out there was already an increase planned, but Rand's amendment offsets its spending. This is why I said I don't jump to conclusions.

    Rand's team has responded, see my post below.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 03-26-2015 at 12:04 PM.


  15. #13
    Excellent. I'm glad Rand Paul is calling for reducing the budget. Reducing spending is a good idea. Thank you Senator Paul for having the courage to calling for the spending cuts!
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    This looks like it is revenue neutral.
    It's revenue neutral because it won't go anywhere. Those cuts are not going to happen therefore the deal is dead in the water. However, in the debates he can say he supported raising the Pentagon's budget and even put forth a bill to do exactly that. Note that his budget is greater than Rubio's. Rubio calls for the Pentagon's $611 billion while Paul's ups the ante to $697 billion. And he'll be able to use that in the debate. It is his way of spanning the divide between fiscal conservatism and defense hawk spending.
    Last edited by phill4paul; 03-26-2015 at 09:53 AM.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by orenbus View Post
    Rand should be focusing on messaging that is going to win him over the social conservatives in Iowa like Huckabee or Santorum instead of this imo, unless this is somehow part of the messaging that appeals to them. If the strategy is to to bend over backwards and act more establishment (or whatever the tactic is, might as well go whole hog) there should be more focus on what specific target groups that are going to matter in the Iowa cares about, do social conservatives and evangelicals really care about this?
    Most socons are big believes more military spending means you love the troops. Don't support the troops by bringing them home. Support them by helping them get replacement legs.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  18. #16
    Yes the bill decreases spending over all. But he has proposed decreasing military spending in the past as well. So what's he doing? Giving himself a defense to fall back on in the debates?




  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Cutting climate change research funds is penny wise pound foolish if you believe the pentagon.
    The Pentagon is full of $#@!.
    Last edited by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo; 03-26-2015 at 10:01 AM.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Yes the bill decreases spending over all. But he has proposed decreasing military spending in the past as well. So what's he doing? Giving himself a defense to fall back on in the debates?
    That's the way I read it. There is no way these cuts to offset will pass. However, in debates he will be able to say that he called for an even bigger budget than the Pentagon asked for while covering the cost by cuts. His proposal satisfies both fiscal conservatives and war hawks.

  22. #19
    Message to Republican primary voters: This is what you say you want. Rand Paul tried to give it to you. How do you feel about it? Is it what you want? What does Fox News have to say about it? Anything at all? Are they telling you that you don't want it? How many of the 'Good Republicans' you habitually support will be voting against it? Do you believe sufficiently in the republican form of government to do your duty as voters and pay attention?

    He's trolling the whole society. He's daring Republicans to stand for what they claim to stand for.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 03-26-2015 at 10:06 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    This looks like it is revenue neutral.
    In theory yes. In practice what happens is that republicans pledge to cut domestic spending and democrats pledge to cut defense and they "compromise" by increasing both. At least Rand has cutting foreign aid as part of the package.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  24. #21
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Most socons are big believes more military spending means you love the troops. Don't support the troops by bringing them home. Support them by helping them get replacement legs.
    Who says the money goes to the troops? These people are completely off their rocker.

  25. #22
    Here's an intersting comment I saw on Hot Air, commenting about the time piece:

    LMAO. While Paul’s proposed 2011 budget reduced the DoD’s budget by around 23% over four years, it included a reinstatement in 2012 of $120B that would be cut via the Sequester.
    Notably, Paul’s budget planned a DoD budget of $641B in 2012, and falling to $548B by 2016. Contrast that with actual budgets since*:
    2013: $495B
    2014: $496B
    2015: $495B
    So, Rand’s desire to add $159B is really bringing the DoD budget back up to the range that he proposed in 2011.
    * DOD’s fy2015 Budget Request Overview
    It’s like Time doesn’t even bother to know what it is talking about and uses a Dem Operatives with Bylines Propaganda Generator to fill out it’s stories.

  26. #23
    UPDATED AT 11.50 A.M.: Doug Stafford, senior advisor to Rand Paul, emails:

    It is done in response to others in both chambers who are attempting to add to defense spending—some way more than Senator Paul's amendment—without paying for it. Senator Paul believes national defense should be our priority. He also believes our debt is out of control. This amendment is to lay down a marker that if you believe we need more funding for national defense, you should show how you would pay for it. We can't just keep borrowing more money from China to send to Pakistan. And we can't keep paying for even vital things like national defense on a credit card.

    Doug Stafford. Senior Advisor


  27. #24
    He should really stay away from the climate change thing. He will lose all independent votes.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Another problem with this bill is that there will be a panel with top military brass in it testifying to congress in the near future where they all will be testifying how Rand's bill will end up costing the country more down the road. Again if you believe the Generals, Rand proposal is akin to diabetic cutting his testing supply cost in order to save money on healthcare. Time and time again, they have come out to speak of the many conflicts caused by climate change that the US military have had to fight. Cutting foreign aid and climate change funds will no help fix the problem of increasing foreign conflicts if you happen to believe them.

    Mark my words, that panel will soon happen and they will all come out thrashing Rand's bill.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by supermario21 View Post
    I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I'm starting to get sick of Rand pulling all these BS stunts that will get him absolutely nowhere.
    I disagree. I think it gives him cover when Rubio claims that Rand wants to cut defense spending and is weak on defense. Rand can just point to this and say, "I believe in a strong national defense, but I also believe in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. If we're going to increase defense spending, then we should pay for it through cuts to other areas. Marco Rubio thinks it's more important to give money to Pakistan than to invest money on our military and defense infrastructure."

  31. #27
    Not surprised. The Pauls have always been defense hawks. Neither of them were in favor of defense cuts. Only military cuts

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Havax View Post
    He should really stay away from the climate change thing. He will lose all independent votes.
    I don't think so.

    http://www.unh.edu/news/releases/201...w24climate.cfm
    Climate Change Beliefs of Independent Voters Shift with the Weather, UNH Study Finds

    Read more: http://www.unh.edu/news/releases/201...#ixzz3VVqVsJM1
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  33. #29
    So is this a move to expand his base of primary voters, or a move to appease the military industrial complex so they fund instead of torpedo his campaign?

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    *Sigh*

    The republican gambit is always to say they're going to increase defense spending and offset it by crippling cuts in the welfare state.

    The democratic gambit is always to say they're going to increase welfare spending and offset it by crippling cuts in the warfare state.

    Ron Paul's gambit was "End the empire and get rid of unnecessary departments and you can balance the budget and help more people with the savings."

    Glad to see Rand is talking at least about cuts in foreign aid. But it's not Ron's "end the empire" proposal.
    This

    /thread
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Was Rand Paul's defense spending bill a good play?
    By Saint Vitus in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-03-2016, 04:58 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-06-2013, 02:56 PM
  3. Replies: 85
    Last Post: 10-13-2012, 02:14 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-26-2011, 06:17 PM
  5. Time to protest the defense spending bill.
    By Pepsi in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-18-2009, 08:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •