Putin’s grand scheme bommerangs back to hit U.S. politics

Via-My article in The Brenner Brief

Putin’s grand scheme dividing his biggest threat,the GOP

CREDIT: Wiki Commons

As the Ukraine situation devolves into an uncertain future it is having the effect of clarifying the U.S.  domestic political picture. By highlighting the Republican Party’s divide on future American foreign policy, Russia’s intervention into Ukraine has pit two strong elements of the GOP coalition against one another.

The two factions, the so-called neocons who have in the past held great sway over Republican Party policy and politics and the rising power within the GOP of the more libertarian elements on the right, have not as yet reached a means for peaceful coexistence and the Ukrainian crisis highlights this divide.  Unlike the schism which has been created between the “establishment” and the grassroots “Tea Party” element of the GOP this foreign policy divide cuts across all elements of the Republican Party landscape. In 2010 as the Tea Party swept the Republicans into power in the House it was also primarily responsible for sending two of the GOP’s rising stars to the U.S. Senate, Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul from Kentucky.  Although Rubio’s light has dimmed somewhat with the grassroots due to his foray into the immigration quagmire, he is still seen by most on the right as an articulate spokesman for individual freedom and a champion for constitutional conservatism.  Rand Paul has spent much time and effort in an attempt to reach out and draw new constituencies into the GOP fold, primarily the youth, which he hopes to attract to his libertarian philosophies and principles.  Both Senators are considered not only to be rising stars in the Republican Party, but also potential 2016 presidential candidates. These two “Tea Party” senators though have vastly different views on the Ukrainian situation. Rubio put out a Press Release on the crisiswhere among other points he recommended:

…. We should also stand with Ukraine as the interim government attempts to deal with these provocations. This includes immediately providing the lethal assistance they requested weeks ago. We also need to take measures to reassure our allies in Central and Eastern Europe by deploying more alliance assets to their territories to reinforce our NATO commitments to their security.

Rubio’s statements on and prescriptions  for the Ukrainian situation virtually mirror those of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) perhaps this generationsleading spokesman for the neocon viewpoint. Given his background as the son of Cuban immigrants, it is not surprising that he would have a more aggressive stance on  international matters  as it relates to foreign tyrants.  When  Senator Tom Harkins (D-IA)  recently took to the Senate floor and gave a speech praising the Cuban healthcare system, Rubio responded with an  impassioned and well received rebuttal showing not only his gifts as an orator but his sincere passion in regards to tyrannical foreign regimes. At the same time that Rubio is promoting the Right’s typical response to foreign interventions and bullying by tyrants such as Putin, Rand Paul is counselling what for the GOP is a new direction in foreign policy. Paul has put out only one press release on Ukraine, which in itself is telling, and that was back on February 28, 2014.  In the statement the Kentucky Senator took a more “internationalist” tone calling on the Russians to remember “that stability and territorial integrity go hand in hand with prosperity.” Since his initial formal response, Paul has made statements that indicate that he has absolutely no desire to be drawn into what he sees as a European problem but would use every non-military tool at the United States disposal to punish Russia. In an op-ed for Time he set out what a Paul Administration would do in response to Russia’s aggression, though slightly more aggressive than the Obama Administration’s feeble response, it is far from the cold warriormentality which has dominated GOP policies for the past several decades.  Perhaps most telling in his opinion piece he attempts to remind his Tea Party base what America’s biggest enemy is, and it is not Putin:

America is a world leader, but we should not be its policeman or ATM. At the end of the day, I still agree with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen — the greatest threat to America’s security is our national debt. Russia, the Middle East or any other troubled part of the world should never make us forget that the U.S. is broke. We weaken our security and defenses when we print money out of thin air or borrow from other countries to allegedly support our own.

Two “Tea Party” Senators with different views of how the United States should proceed in what still is a hostile world in the twenty-first century.  The foreign policy debate between the factions was ongoing but under the surface of other policy matters, Putin through his aggression has just brought it to the surface. It is not that Marco Rubio does not believe in fiscal responsibility or that Rand Paul does not believe in a strong national defense both men believe in both.  What this particular schism brings to the fore of Republican politics is more about priorities and tactics than divisions.  The fact that some are attempting to paint either man as somehow not “right” enough because of their differing priorities is actually counterproductive.  both men represent views which reflect their different backgrounds and has nothing to do with either man’s commitment to the constitution or the nation. Personally I might prefer one man over the other as President, but I have no doubt that either man would lead the nation in a different and better direction than it is heading now and upon that there ought to be no debate on the right.

THE ROAD BACK-Rand Paul, Liberty & Civil Rights

From- RCP

Senator Rand Paul joined the students at Howard University to discuss civil rights, liberty and the future of freedom in America today. Text of his prepared remarks below.

I’d like to thank President Ribeau, the Howard University faculty, and students for having me today.

Some people have asked if I’m nervous about speaking at Howard. They say “You know, some of the students and faculty may be Democrats…”

My response is that my trip will be a success if the Hilltop will simply print that a Republican came to Howard but he came in peace.

My wife Kelley asked me last week do you ever have doubts about trying to advance a message for an entire country?

The truth is, sometimes. When I do have doubts, I think of a line from T.S. Eliot, “how should I presume to spit out all the butt ends of my days and ways, and how should I presume.”

And when I think of how political enemies often twist and distort my positions, I think again of Eliot’s words: “when I am pinned and wriggling on the wall, how should I presume?

And here I am today at Howard, a historically black college. Here I am, a guy who once presumed to discuss a section of the Civil Rights Act.

Some have said that I’m either brave or crazy to be here today. I’ve never been one to watch the world go by without participating. I wake up each day hoping to make a difference.

I take to heart the words of Toni Morrison of Howard University, who wrote: “If there is a book you really want to read, but it hasn’t been written yet, then you must write it.”

I can recite books that have been written, or I can plunge into the arena and stumble and maybe fall but at least I will have tried.

What I am about is a philosophy that leaves YOU – to fill in the blanks.

I come to Howard today, not to preach, or prescribe some special formula for you but to say I want a government that leaves you alone, that encourages you to write the book that becomes your unique future.

You are more important than any political party, more important than any partisan pleadings.

A duty to preserve the Second Amendment

Via-Washington Times

The right to bear arms ‘shall not be infringed’

By Sen. Rand Paul

When Congress reconvenes next month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring gun control back to the Senate floor. If this occurs, I will oppose any legislation that undermines Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms or their ability to exercise this right without being subject to government surveillance.

Restricting Americans’ ability to purchase firearms readily and freely will do nothing to stop national tragedies such as those that happened in Newtown, Conn., and in Aurora, Colo. It will do much to give criminals and potential killers an unfair advantage by hampering law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves and their families.Potentially on the table are new laws that would outlaw firearms and magazines that hold more than just a handful of rounds, as well as require universal “background checks,” which amount to gun registration.We are also being told that the “assault weapons” ban originally introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein is not happening. We can only hope. But in Washington, D.C., bad ideas often have a strange way of coming up again.


These laws are designed to sound reasonable, but statistics have shown that gun control simply does not work.What constitutes reasonable? If limiting rounds and increasing surveillance were really the solution to curbing gun violence, why should we stop there? Because everyone knows that none of this actually curbs gun violence.

Gun control itself is unreasonable.Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the entire country — and one of the worst gun-crime rates, with more than 500 homicides last year. Compare this to Virginia, where in the past six years, gun sales went up by 73 percent, while violent gun crime fell 24 percent. The types of firearms and clips the left is currently so intent on banning are used in fewer than 2 percent of gun crimes — and how many of those crimes involve registered weapons? Few to none.

For every national tragedy that happens, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of Americans preventing similar killings from happening, thanks to the use of personal firearms. Last June, for example, a 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an armed intruder who broke into his home while he was baby-sitting his three younger siblings. The children were home alone on a Saturday afternoon when an unrecognized woman rang their doorbell. After the 14-year-old boy refused to open the door, he heard a loud bang, which indicated that someone was trying to break into the house. The boy hurried his younger siblings upstairs and collected a handgun from his parents’ room. When the boy rounded the top of the stairs, there was a man standing in the doorway with a gun pointed at him. The boy shot at the intruder and saved the lives of his three younger siblings.

There have been would-be mass murderers who have walked into schools, churches, shopping malls, movie theaters and other public places who didn’t get very far because, thankfully, an armed citizen was nearby. There have been countless home invasions, armed robberies and other assaults in which lives were saved, thanks to citizens possessing private firearms.These stories are heroic, but they don’t become big headlines. We should all be glad that they don’t become such headlines, thanks to the unsung heroes who prevent them from becoming potential national tragedies.

For these reasons, I will oppose any attempt by President Obama, Mr. Reid or anyone else in Washington who works against Americans’ right to bear arms. Sens. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz have decided to join in this effort.We do this not only because it is right — but because it is our duty as United States senators.

When I stood up for the Fourth and Fifth Amendments during a filibuster a few weeks ago to address drones and executive power, it was not because I was partial to those amendments, important as they are. When I came into office, I took an oath to uphold the Bill of Rights.

I took an oath to uphold the First Amendment. I took an oath to uphold the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment reads: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “might be” infringed. Nor does it say “could be” infringed. It read “shall not” be infringed. The current gun-control legislation being proposed unquestionably infringes.For these reasons, I will work diligently to stop any such gun-control legislation. Our Constitution, individual liberty and personal safety depend on it.

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Homeland Security committees.

Paul Takes on Crotchety GOP Establishment

Via-RCP

By John Kass,

Republican Sen. John McCain is pushing 80 now, but he still has those jaws and the Teddy Roosevelt teeth that look as if they could chomp through a baseball bat.

Yet no matter how vital his bite, the Arizona Republican is getting up in years. So he can't help but add to the litany of stupid things he's said.

We all say stupid things, but what came out of McCain's mouth the other day about fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul's heroic filibuster on the Senate floor wasn't merely foolish.

It was Homeric in its stupidity.

Paul, a young libertarian whippersnapper from Kentucky, took to the floor for some 13 hours, arguing that the Constitution was sacred, and that President Barack Obama can't use drones to execute Americans without trial.

Paul's courage became a sensation. Tea party folks on the right and even some on the left were thrilled that someone would stand for civil liberties.

But McCain, crotchety establishmentarian that he is, wasn't impressed.

"If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids," McCain said. "I don't think what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people."

Impressionable libertarian kids?

Finally, the old establishment Republican bulls express their true feelings about young Americans who dare think the Constitution is worth keeping.

It sounds like the first shots in a war that the crotchety establishment types are destined to lose. And if they don't lose soon, the Republican Party is finished. It might as well just crawl up onto grandpa's bookshelf, plop down next to the Whigs and begin collecting dust.

"I will speak until I can no longer speak," Paul said at the outset of his filibuster. "I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."

Radical stuff? Perhaps to modern America, the nation primed by the department called "Homeland Security" that pumps fear into the national heart as a means to increase its power.

It's happened so quickly — under both Republicans and Democrats — that we've grown numb to freedom lost. We've accepted cameras watching us on our streets and the airport guards eager to pat our private areas. And now there are flying robots in the skies that watch and kill.

But Paul said no. That must have sent an uneasy tingle up the president's leg. Because he changed course.

For weeks now, Obama's government had insisted he had the right to use drones and kill Americans without trial. Obama's drone-protecting grand vizier, Attorney General Eric Holder, made a fool of himself defending the idea.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, fixed Holder like a bug on a board. He asked Holder in committee if the Constitution allowed for killing Americans suspected of terrorism, even if they were merely sitting quietly in a cafe.

Holder kept weaseling, saying it wouldn't be appropriate. But Cruz didn't care whether it was appropriate. Cruz demanded to know if it was constitutional. Holder broke.

"Translate my 'appropriate' to 'no,'" Holder sighed. "I thought I was saying 'no.' All right? 'No.'"

On Thursday, the president had Holder write Paul a letter of surrender.

THE ROAD BACK:Rand Paul Says Sequester Is First Step To Solving Spending Problem

Via-IBD

By Sen. Rand Paul

Last Tuesday, President Obama proclaimed that the sequester's "brutal" and "severe" cuts will "eviscerate" America's domestic spending.

But "eviscerate" is not the adjective I would use; in fact, I believe the sequester is a pittance.

First, I want to point out that these "brutal" and "severe" cuts were President Obama's answer to the 2011 debt-ceiling debate that was later passed by Congress; however, I voted against the sequester in 2011 because I knew that this was not the solution to our spending problem.

I believe that the sequester is a pittance that does not cut enough. If the sequester were to take effect, our spending would only be cut by 2.3%. Let me repeat that — these "eviscerating" cuts will leave our country with 97.7% of our current spending, cutting a mere $85 billion from this years $3.6 trillion budget.

The sequester barely begins to skim the surface of the problem. Since taking office, President Obama has increased federal domestic agencies' budget by 17%. This 17% increase since 2008 will have to endure a 5% cut.

Even with the sequester, the federal government will spend more in 2013 than it did in 2012 — or more than $15 billion

This expansion of government is equivalent to the entire chain of Whole Foods or Macy's department stores, in just one year.

President Obama has dramatically expanded our federal government, and the American taxpayers should not have to endure more tax increases to fund it.

We have to start cutting back.

Kentucky Republican Rand Paul Writes $600,000 Check to US Treasury

Tea Party State of the Union Response with Rand Paul

Why I like Rand Paul

Rand Paul on drowning

Via-Daily Caller

Do you expect anything less?....

Where were the Marines?

Buck stops with Obama in Benghazi security breach

Via-Washington Times

Senator Rand Paul

Monday’s foreign policy debate between President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney was designed to help voters better understand each man’s vision for America’s role abroad. While I have publicly taken issue with both candidates on aspects of their foreign policies, there is no question that Mr. Romney remains the right choice for Americans on Nov. 6.

However, it is also clear neither candidate adequately addressed the gross intelligence failure in Libya that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. Too many important questions remain unanswered concerning Mr. Obama’s entire mishandling of the recent siege of Benghazi.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the questions Americans want answered.
The first and most pressing question for Mr. Obama remains: Where the hell were the Marines?

Rand vs. Rubio

Via-The American Spectator

By W. James Antle, III

The Tea Party scored its two biggest triumphs last year with the election of Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Both were discouraged from running by leaders of their own party. Both had to overcome the determined opposition of the Republican establishment to make it through their primaries in the first place.

Paul and Rubio were both uncharacteristically honest about the need for entitlement reform, going so far as to contemplate means-testing Social Security even though they needed the votes of senior citizens. Paul was running in Kentucky, where about 60 percent of the registered voters are Democrats. Rubio stood for election in Florida, a retirement mecca.

Both won in November by double-digit margins and have pressured Republican leaders from the right on spending now that they are in office. Rubio has railed against increasing the federal government's debt ceiling. Paul has proposed his own five-year plan to balance the budget and has chastised Paul Ryan for not going far enough. Both senators voted against the budget deal struck by President Obama and House Republicans.

Their similarities stop at the water's edge. True, when Obama decided to wage "kinetic military action" against Libya, both senators recognized it for what it was -- war -- and demanded that Congress authorize the intervention. But Paul and Rubio diverged sharply from there.

In April, Paul introduced a sense of the Senate resolution affirming the following 2007 quote from then-candidate Barack Obama: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." The move so flummoxed Democrats that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid abruptly adjourned the Senate for the weekend rather than have his colleagues vote on the amendment while Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) bizarrely claimed President Bush had broken precedent by consulting Congress before going into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senator Paul also insisted that Congress vote to formally declare war against Libya and made fairly clear he intended to vote against any such declaration. Neither of Paul's Libya proposals went anywhere. The Senate ultimately voted down his language agreeing with Obama nearly four years ago, since the Democratic majority wanted to agree with Obama today.

Rubio also proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya. But his idea was to make regime change the official policy of the U.S. government, and unlike Paul he fully intended to vote in favor. "This resolution should... state that removing Moamar Qadhafi from power is in our national interest and therefore should authorize the President to accomplish this goal," Rubio wrote in a late March letter to Reid. "To that end, the resolution should urge the President to immediately recognize the Interim Transitional National Council as the legitimate government in Libya."

Libya is just one specific example of a broader disagreement between the two Tea Party favorites over U.S. foreign policy. Paul, the son of the noninterventionist presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, believes restraint in the resort to arms is an integral part of limited government. Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles, sees a robust foreign policy as indispensable to American world leadership.

On the campaign trail in Kentucky, Paul answered a question about issues of war and peace this way: "I think the most important thing we do with the federal government is our national defense, bar none, but then I think it's open to debate what's in our national defense." In his recent book The Tea Party Goes to Washington, Paul complained, "Many Republicans treat war like Democrats treat welfare."

In a fascinating interview with Robert Costa of National Review Online, Rubio sounded a very different note by inveighing against what he described as isolationism. "There is no replacement for America in the world," Rubio told Costa. "If America withdraws from the world stage, it will create a vacuum, and that vacuum will not be filled by someone better than us."

"It is so important that conservatism does not translate into isolationism," Rubio continued. "Isolationism has never worked for America. It is not going to work in the 21st century." Rubio's chief of staff is Cesar Conda, the former Dick Cheney aide who during the 2010 primary season fired off an email warning to Republican hawks: "On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us."

This debate is only going to intensify after the death of Osama bin Laden. Many conservatives are likely going to look at the successful strike on the al Qaeda leader and conclude it is possible to fight terrorism without nation-building or invading and occupying countries until they are democratic. Afghanistan is hardly more a functioning democracy than when bin Laden fled a decade ago. It is unclear how sincerely our putative ally in Pakistan was really helping us search for the 9/11 murderer. Some Pakistani forces may have been sheltering bin Laden as much as the Taliban.

Still other conservatives will contend that without a U.S. military presence overseas, complemented by the intelligence gathered through enhanced interrogation, there is no way to identify and disrupt terrorist networks. "It's important that we remain vigilant in our efforts to defeat terrorist enemies and protect the American people," House Speaker John Boehner said in his post-bin Laden press conference. "This makes our engagement in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan more important not less."

Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have already established themselves as two of the most conservative members of the Senate. Rubio invokes Jesse Helms, Paul Robert Taft. They both quote Ronald Reagan. On most issues, they will be allies. On foreign policy, they couldn't be further apart.

Rand Paul lets it rip

Via-Right Scoop

Anthem

Sen. Paul Unveils 5-Year Budget Plan: Eliminates Four Federal Agencies

Via-ABC

ABC News' Mary Bruce reports:

Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., unveiled today his five-year path to a balanced budget, leaving several federal agencies behind. Among the items on the cutting room floor are the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development.

“There’s a lot of things in here that everybody could agree to, Republicans and Democrats, but nobody’s leading on the president’s side and on our side we felt we needed to put this forward to get the debate started, at the very least,” the freshman Senator explained at a Capitol Hill press conference this afternoon.

The proposal also calls for the repeal of “Obamacare,” but leaves entitlements untouched.

“There’s an argument for every federal program up here… Nobody’s coming up here asking me for money that’s not for a good reason. But the alternative is that we get into a point of financial disaster where nobody gets any money,” he said.

According to Paul, a Tea Party conservative, the proposal will bring spending to the “historic average since World War II” in just one year. He further claims the budget achieves a $19 billion surplus by FY2016 and will bring all non-military discretionary spending back to FY2008 levels.

Paul’s proposal gained support from freshman Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, who today challenged anyone who opposes the plan to come up with a better option.

“There may be some in this town who will disagree with the manner in which we’re proposing moving toward a balanced budget over a five year period. That’s fine, that’s understandable, that’s what this town is about... but to those who may disagree with it, to those who might want to attack it. I would ask that they come up with their own five year plan,” he said at the press conference.

As for the sweeping cuts, South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint said balancing the budget requires “letting things go” back to the state level.

“There are functions and departments at the federal level that need to be devolved to the states. Part of balancing the budget is restructuring and devolving federal functions back the states, local communities and people,” he said.

DeMint said he did not agree with “every particular thing in here,” but stressed the importance of balancing the budget.

Truth to Power

Rand Paul At CPAC: The Point of No Return

Via-Human Events

by John Hayward

Senator Rand Paul is not without a sense of humor, as he demonstrated with a bit of prop comedy, highlighting the “stupidity of government” with a gas-powered alarm clock the EPA has approved as an “energy-saving device.” He can also be blunt, as when he criticized the spending cuts proposed by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, a Republican from Paul’s own state of Kentucky, by saying “it’s too little, it’s not enough, it’s too timid, and we must be more bold.”

He’s a loyal son, using a CNN interview to cheerfully inform Donald Trump that his chances of winning the presidency are “less than my father’s,” after Trump told the Ron Paul cohort at CPAC that their man had a “zero percent” chance of sitting in the Oval Office. Rand Paul nevertheless looked a bit annoyed with his dad’s most ardent supporters during his own CPAC presentation, which they interrupted more than once.

Such are the contradictions of the freshman Senator from Kentucky, slapped with a media caricature of eccentricity because he asks big questions about an insane system. The romance of Big Government has no appeal to Rand Paul. He has calculated the doom of Obama-style socialism to four decimal places, and he has no patience for symbolic gestures or feeble half-measures.

“My aim is not to pass bills, but to repeal them,” Paul explained, “especially those that do violence to the Constitution.” He acknowledged that his job as a Senator is to represent the interests of his constituents, and insisted “the main interest of my constituents is liberty.” He pursues that interest in the shadow of a system whose critics were told to be silent until it began to implode… and are now denounced as “extremists” for laying out the drastic measures required to save it.

Paul is especially eager to beat the Commerce Clause monster back into the basement where it belongs. “For sixty or seventy years, we worked with the notion the Commerce Clause means we can do anything,” he said, illustrating his point with the infamous Wickard v. Filburn case from 1942. As Paul explained it, farmer Filburn was slapped with a fine for growing too much wheat, even though he used the surplus for his own consumption. The fine was justified under the Commerce Clause because Filburn’s home-grown wheat made it unnecessary for him to engage in interstate commerce, and thus affected the price of wheat in other states.

This was the pivotal act of judicial hocus-pocus which transformed the limited government of the Founders into the leviathan of the New Deal, and Paul thinks it’s time to find a counter-spell. He sees a revolution brewing if the Supreme Court upholds the Florida judge who struck down ObamaCare, hoping it will begin the unraveling of Wickard v. Filburn unlimited-government jurisprudence. At stake will be the answer to “whether our government can be restrained by the Constitution.” For this reason, he emphasized the importance of winning presidential elections with strong conservative candidates, because “it is important who sits on the Supreme Court.”

Paul warned we are approaching the “point of no return,” where the national debt equals the entire output of our economy – a limit he notes Japan has already passed, and from which no government has ever recovered. To avoid passing this point, he asserted, “we must be more bold” than declaring spending freezes, or passing puny symbolic spending cuts. His concept of boldness includes abolishing the entire Department of Education.

He also insisted those bold spending cuts must include entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare, coupled with “a long and hard look at our military budget.” This was the most contentious line of his speech. “The most important duty of government is national defense,” Paul acknowledged, “but the doubling of our military budget over the last 10 years has not been spent wisely.” Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who would later take the stage to accept the Defender of the Constitution Award (and insist on sharing it with the men and women of the United States Armed Forces), responded to this assertion by pointing out that defense bills have been just as liable to gain a coating of pork-fried earmarks as any other legislation.

It remains to be seen whether trimming this fat would be good enough to satisfy Rand Paul’s call for “compromise” on spending cuts from conservatives. It’s fair to say there is plenty of room for “long and hard looks” at everything, when you’re creeping around inside the haunted house of a $3.6 trillion federal budget.

Whatever one’s opinion of his specific proposals, Rand Paul is commendably forthright in saying that we cannot solve a massive problem like government insolvency by thinking small. When he asks the Tea Party faithful to join him in “defending the Constitution,” he cautions them it won’t be an easy task. The hour is late, and the timid content themselves with dreams of bravery, while the bold prepare to get a little crazy in doing battle with utter madness.

A Modest $500 Billion Proposal

My spending cuts would keep 85% of government funding and not touch Social Security or Medicare.

Via-WSJ

By RAND PAUL

After Republicans swept into office in 1994, Bill Clinton famously said in his State of the Union address that the era of big government was over. Nearly $10 trillion of federal debt later, the era of big government is at its zenith.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will be the third consecutive year in which the federal government is running a deficit near or greater than $1 trillion. The solution to the government's fiscal crisis must begin by cutting spending in all areas, particularly in those that can be better run at the state or local level. Last month I introduced legislation to do just that. And though it seems extreme to some—containing over $500 billion in spending cuts enacted over one year—it is a necessary first step toward ending our fiscal crisis.

My proposal would first roll back almost all federal spending to 2008 levels, then initiate reductions at various levels nearly across the board. Cuts to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation would create over $42 billion in savings each, while cuts to the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development would save about $50 billion each. Removing education from the federal government's jurisdiction would create almost $80 billion in savings alone. Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and we arrive at over $500 billion.

My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity. But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt. It would keep 85% of our government funding in place and not touch Social Security or Medicare. But by reducing wasteful spending and shuttering departments that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as the Department of Education, we can cut nearly 40% of our projected deficit and at the same time remove thousands of big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency.

Examples of federal waste are more abundant than ever. For example, the Department of Energy's nuclear-weapons activities should be placed under the purview of the Department of Defense. Many of its other activities amount to nothing more than corporate handouts. It provides research grants and subsidies to energy companies for the development of new, cleaner forms of energy. This means nearly all forms of energy development here in the U.S. are subsidized by the federal government, from oil and coal to nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels. These subsidies often go to research and companies that can survive without them. This drives up the cost of energy for all Americans, both as taxpayers and consumers.

The Commerce Department is another prime example. Consistently labeled for elimination, specifically by House Republicans during the 1990s, one of Commerce's main functions is delivering corporate welfare to American firms that can compete without it. My proposal would scale back the Commerce Department's spending by 54% and eliminate corporate welfare.

My proposal would also cut wasteful spending in the Defense Department. Since 2001, our annual defense budget has increased nearly 120%. Even subtracting the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending is up 67%. These levels of spending are unjustifiable and unsustainable. Defense Secretary Robert Gates understands this and has called for spending cuts, saying "We must come to realize that not every defense program is necessary, not every defense dollar is sacred or well-spent, and more of everything is simply not sustainable."

For those who take issue with any of the spending cuts I have proposed, I have two requests:

First, if you believe a particular program should be exempt from these cuts, I challenge you to find another place in the budget where the same amount can feasibly be cut and we can replace it.

Second, consider this: Is any particular program, whatever its merits, worth borrowing billions of dollars from foreign nations to finance programs that could be administered better at the state and local level, or even taken over by the private sector?

A real discussion about the budget must begin now—our economy cannot wait any longer. For 19 months, unemployment has hovered over 9%. After a nearly $1 trillion government stimulus and $2 trillion in Federal Reserve stimulus, the Washington establishment still believes that we can solve this problem with more federal spending and the printing of more money.

That's ridiculous, and the American people have had enough.

Many in Washington think that a one-year, $500 billion spending cut is too bold. But the attendees at the newly formed Senate Tea Party Caucus say, "Bring on the cuts! And then, bring on more!" My Republican colleagues say they want a balanced-budget amendment. But to have any semblance of credibility we must begin to discuss where we will cut once it passes. My proposal is a place to start.

Mr. Paul is a Republican senator from Kentucky.

Rand Paul

Via-RCP

Video-The Senator and client #9