‘Recipe For Disaster’: Rand Paul Attacks Rubio’s Seriousness On Deficit

[jct74]

‘Recipe For Disaster’: Rand Paul Attacks Rubio’s Seriousness On Deficit

by Alex Pappas
5:56 PM 03/26/2015

In an interview with The Daily Caller, Rand Paul took a shot at potential 2016 rival Marco Rubio for proposing to increase military spending without offsets elsewhere.

Earlier Thursday, both Paul and Rubio offered separate amendments that would have increased military spending. While Paul’s amendment included specific cuts in the budget to make up for the increase in spending, Rubio’s didn’t.

Neither amendment passed. But Paul is arguing the episode foreshadows a significant divide in the upcoming Republican presidential race.

Speaking by phone Thursday, Paul said: “I think it shows a lack of seriousness, in regard to the problem of the deficit, if you’re willing to increase spending $190 billion dollars without cutting any spending. That is reckless and a recipe for disaster.”

“I think there’s a very important distinction, or separation, that occurred on that vote,” Paul added. “Particularly among people who are considered to be potential candidates.”

...

read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/26/re...ss-on-deficit/

[jct74]

RAND FIRES AT RUBIO, GRAHAM: VOTES WERE ‘FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND DANGEROUS TO THE COUNTRY’ FOR DEFENSE SPENDING INCREASE WITHOUT OFFSETTING CUTS

by MATTHEW BOYLE
26 Mar 2015

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.

...

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.

“There are two groups of people on the Republican side in the Senate. Both groups, I think, want to have a strong national defense,” Paul said in a phone interview with Breitbart News after the votes.

"Both groups think that we can spend more on national defense. But one group wants to do it by borrowing the money. My amendment would have done it by saying we increase defense spending, but we only do it by offsetting it with spending cuts."

...

Paul added that he thinks this will have big implications for those Republicans seeking higher office in 2016.

...

read more:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...fsetting-cuts/

[jct74]

2016 brawl breaks out on Senate floor
Paul lashes Cruz, Rubio for ‘dangerous' and ‘reckless' positions on government spending.

By Manu Raju
3/26/15 5:38 PM EDT

The 2016 Republican nomination contest spilled onto the Senate floor Thursday, turning a marathon budget debate into a battle over which candidate is prepared to lead the country at a time of war.

Four GOP senators are trying to gain the upper hand on the commander-in-chief test — Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham — and their competition was on vivid display as the Senate took up a Rubio plan to pump tens of billions of dollars more into the Pentagon budget. Sen. Rand Paul blasted the idea because the new spending wasn’t offset by other cuts. And caught in the middle was Cruz, who’s pitching himself as a fiscal conservative who can appeal to the hawkish and libertarian wings of the GOP but ultimately sided with Rubio and Graham.

In an interview with POLITICO, Paul lambasted his foes for engaging in “reckless” and “irresponsible” behavior, showing that they lacked the “courage” and conviction to rein in the country’s mountain of debt. He said there are now two camps in the GOP primary field: One that cares about the debt, and another that does not.

...

read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...et-116434.html

[jct74]

more from Politico:

As the Rubio plan was moving forward, Cruz was clearly torn. The Texas senator stood quietly at the well of the Senate chamber for several tense minutes, reading the text of the Rubio amendment and checking his smartphone.

Finally, with his colleagues watching, Cruz gave a thumbs-up sign, siding with Rubio in the growing debate inside the party between fiscal hardliners and defense hawks that has dominated the GOP’s budget fight.

[phill4paul]

“I think there’s a very important distinction, or separation, that occurred on that vote,” Paul added. “Particularly among people who are considered to be potential candidates.”

He said there are now two camps in the GOP primary field: One that cares about the debt, and another that does not.

[Brett85]

That seems like an odd vote coming from Cruz, considering that he's said that he wants to win over liberty voters in Iowa. This vote certainly won't help him do that.

[Crashland]

This is why Paul's move was brilliant. The media runs with stuff like this, it is already all over the place. Everyone knows Rubio and Cruz talk a big game about controlling government spending but they don't have the balls to follow through with it. Rand will be able to use this vote to jab them over and over and over again on their hypocrisy.

[phill4paul]

That seems like an odd vote coming from Cruz, considering that he's said that he wants to win over liberty voters in Iowa. This vote certainly won't help him do that.

Cruz couldn't vote against his own amendment and vote for Rand's. Political suicide. Either way. Rand won this round. He didn't do it with a bluff. He had a Royal Straight Flush.

[Matt Collins]

Rand is playing chess, not checkers.

[Brett85]

Cruz couldn't vote against his own amendment and vote for Rand's. Political suicide. Either way. Rand won this round. He didn't do it with a bluff. He had a Royal Straight Flush.

What was Cruz's amendment? I don't see it anywhere in the roll call votes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_114_1.htm

[FSP-Rebel]

Epic ammo that Rand just scored here. Cruz just fell for the trap because his addiction for all things military just caught up with him w/o thinking the situation through. I mean, damn, Cruz just got swindled by the likes of Rube and Graham and then shot himself in the foot w/ a shotgun. Will the real fiscal conservatives please stand up!

[phill4paul]

What was Cruz's amendment? I don't see it anywhere in the roll call votes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...menu_114_1.htm

Thanks for the correction. Rubio's amendment. And it seemed to come down to the last minute for Cruz to move to support as well. Rand was playing a Flush and it worked. In Spades.

[francisco]

To me, the outcome here was so one-sidedly favorable for Rand and unfavorable to Cruz & Rubio, that if I were prone to believing in conspiracy theories, I'd say that Cruz and Rubio were in on it and took a deliberate dive. Oh, how I wish that was true. But, in this world, incompetence (here, on the part of Cruz and Rubio) is a far more likely explanation for anything.

[eleganz]

I wonder if Rand is going to make Steve Deace's "winner of the week" again, lmao~

P.S. #SteveDeaceSucks

[asurfaholic]

To me, the outcome here was so one-sidedly favorable for Rand and unfavorable to Cruz & Rubio, that if I were prone to believing in conspiracy theories, I'd say that Cruz and Rubio were in on it and took a deliberate dive. Oh, how I wish that was true. But, in this world, incompetence (here, on the part of Cruz and Rubio) is a far more likely explanation for anything.

Incompetence is hardly the right word to use. I think to be an insider, you have to show that you are willing to take hits if it's coming down to the wire on a vote that means a lot to the masters ( in this case the MIC / Israel lobby?)

My guess is the calculated move on the Cruz campaign was based on a cost benefit analysis. He thinks he can still woo voters with his phoney rhetoric and keep the establishment favor/ money.

Cruz is a snake and despite his "tea party" ties he is on the establishment team. He should not be trusted.

[JohnGalt1225]

Cruz and Rubio are just exposing themselves for the faux-liberty candidates that they are. They don't really care about liberty or fiscal conservatism, those are just pretty ideas they talk about to differentiate themselves from hardcore chickenhawks like Lindsey Graham or John McCain.

[Vanguard101]

Rand won this one? He basically told the liberty movement he's staying a defense hawk

[westkyle]

Rand won this one? He basically told the liberty movement he's staying a defense hawk

Gotta play the game to win. Who would you vote for other than Rand?

[asurfaholic]

Rand won this one? He basically told the liberty movement he's staying a defense hawk

Good.

Not sure what the problem is.

Also curious if the word hawk is thrown in there to discredit by association. What is a defense hawk?

[Crashland]

Rand won this one? He basically told the liberty movement he's staying a defense hawk

As the liberty movement moves in mass numbers to investigate why the word gullible is written on the ceiling

[Bergie Bergeron]

He wasn't serious about increasing the defense budget. He did that just to prove a point, he knew it would never pass.

[helenpaul]

We must constantly blast the lying rear area Rubio.