Rand Pauluses and Minuses - Special GOP Debate Edition!
In the wake of Rand Paul finally taking charge and having his best debate - by far- last night, it was decided an emergency session of Rand Pauluses and Minuses had to be called. For those who missed it, here are all of Rand's debate responses from last night:
...lay some blame at the — the feet of the Federal Reserve. I think the Federal Reserve has made this problem worse. By artificially keeping interest rates below the market rate, average ordinary citizens have a tough time earning interest, have a tough time making money. They’re actually talking now about negative interest. The money as it’s created through quantitative easing or other means tends to start out in the big banks in New York. And because we’re now paying interest for them to keep the money there, much of that money has not filtered out into the economy. So what we’re finding is there is increasing income disparity and income inequality.
I'm a huge fan of Paul talking about quantitative easing and negative interest, though I doubt the average American will follow along with him. This enters a bit of Ron Paul territory, where clearly Rand has far more of a mastery of economics than any of his on-stage competition, but in showing that off he loses his audience who don't have the sophistication to follow along.Paul also went into the boom and bust cycles created by the Federal Reserve, although without detail as to how these cycles are created - admittedly difficult to do in a short window of time - I worry again that this would be a lost point on the majority of the audience. Still, it's an important economic worry that effects every American and only Paul and Cruz seem to care about it of those on stage.- PAULUSOn taxes and deductions:When given his opportunity to highlight his tax plan - the "Fair and Flat" tax of 14.5% for both businesses and individuals - Paul very cleverly also mentioned that his tax plan not only cut taxes but also was already incorporated into a balanced budget plan. This was an understated masterstroke in my opinion, as many of the candidates on stage have zero experience creating a government budget.
My tax plan, however, is the only tax plan among any of the candidates on the stage that is part of a balanced budget plan. I put forward three plans that actually balance the budget over a five-year period. Each of these plans have details on exactly where we would cut. The question came up earlier, where would you cut? Nobody likes to say where they would cut. I’ve put pencil to paper and done three budgets that actually balance. I’m also in favor of a plan called the penny plan where we’d just cut 1 percent across the board and the budget actually balances in less than five years. So I think what is extraordinary about my tax plan is it is in the context of balancing the budget.
Paul's tax plan also eliminated the payroll tax, something that isn't novel in comparison to some of the other plans that were proposed (Huckabee's for one) but is nonetheless a fantastic move forward. When further questioned about his plan's deductions, Rand clarified that the sole deductions that would still be incorporated would be for charity and for mortgages. - PAULUS Paul vs. Rubio, Round 1 One of the more entertaining and laudable interactions during the debate was Senator Paul taking it to Marco Rubio not once, but twice. The first was on tax credits for families with children included in Rubio's plan. The second we'll get to in just a bit.
We have to decide what is conservative and what isn't conservative. Is it fiscally conservative to have a trillion-dollar expenditure? We're not talking about giving people back their tax money. He's talking about giving people money they didn't pay. It's a welfare transfer payment. So here's what we have. Is it conservative to have $1 trillion in transfer payments -- a new welfare program that's a refundable tax credit? Add that to Marco's plan for $1 trillion in new military spending, and you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative.
I love the concept and phrasing of referring to giving extra credits to people as a "welfare transfer payment." It's an adept and clever way to describe what Rubio is proposing. Even though I don't think it's wholly accurate, as Rubio's proposal would return money removed from the payroll tax, it's a measure that should be opposed. There is a libertarian talking point in this that Rand addresses, though not explicitly, in that the government is favoring people who have children, clearly an inequality under the law. Having a child shouldn't give one citizen an entitled position over the rest of the populace. - PAULUS Rand vs. Rubio, Round 2 Rubio then attempts to defend his position by pulling out the now tired and worn accusation that Rand is an "isolationist" - which made no sense at the time and indicated Rubio was foundering and had already lost this mini debate with Paul.
RUBIO: I know that Rand is a committed isolationist. I'm not. I believe the world is a stronger and a better place, when the United States is the strongest military power in the world. PAUL: Yeah, but, Marco! Marco! How is it conservative, how is it conservative to add a trillion-dollar expenditure for the federal government that you're not paying for? RUBIO: Because... PAUL: How is it conservative? RUBIO: ...are you talking about the military, Rand? PAUL How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You can not be a conservative if you're going to keep promoting new programs that you're not going to pay for.
Rubio then goes even further down the sad and desperate hole he's dug himself in, citing beheadings and ISIS. It's always a pathetic display when a politician starts playing the fear card that has worked so well for Republicans since 9/11 and Rubio isn't shy about pulling it out. And as a double-bonus, he also drops in that he feels safer when America is the strongest military power in the world. Rand's response is worth noting.
No. I don't think we're any safer -- I do not think we are any safer from bankruptcy court. As we go further, and further into debt, we become less, and less safe. This is the most important thing we're going to talk about tonight. Can you be a conservative, and be liberal on military spending? Can you be for unlimited military spending, and say, Oh, I'm going to make the country safe? No, we need a safe country, but, you know, we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined?
"Can you be a conservative, and be liberal on military spending" was one of the lines of the debate. The U.S. can cut the military budget immensely and still be the biggest military superpower easily, especially if the aggressive foreign policy and interventionism are reigned in that bloat the budget.- PAULUSRand makes Trump look like a fool on the TPP and ChinaOne of Paul's finest debate moments followed a Trump rant about the Trans Pacific Trade Partnership (which is a terrible agreement that should have never been signed) having been a nefarious plot by China that didn't include any text about China's currency manipulation. Of course, China isn't a part of the TPP, and Trump doesn't know what he's talking about, as Rand pointed out to the joy of us all (moderators included).
There is an argument that China doesn't like the deal, because in us doing the deal, we'll be trading with their competitors. You're exactly right. But I think we've sort of missed the point a little bit here. There is an important point, though, about how we discuss these trade treaties that I do agree with Mr. Trump on. We should negotiate from a position of strength. And we also should negotiate using the full force and the constitutional power that was given to us. I think it's a mistake that we give up power to the presidency on these trade deals. We give up the power to filibuster, and I'm kind of fond of that power. We give up the power to amend. And I think, really, one of the big problems we have in our country is, over the last century, really, so much power has gravitated to the executive branch. Really, Congress is kind of a bystander. We don't write the rules. We don't make the laws. The executive branch does. So even in trade -- and I am for trade -- I think we should be careful about giving so much power to the presidency.
Moderator Gerard Baker of the Wall Street Journal actually turned to his co-moderators and distinctly said "excellent" after Paul's response. An additional point to note was that Fox Business producers were forced to roll back the "we're going to commercial" music because Rand's answer was so compelling. Has a new era begun, where Rand is actually given respect by Fox? Doubtful, but maybe.- PAULUSThe Putin IssueI won't include all the quotes and video of the back and forth exchange between Carly Fiorina and Rand on Vladimir Putin, but long story short, Fiorina wants to take an incredibly aggressive stance against Russia. She essentially advocates antagonizing Putin via added troops, no-fly zones and additional missile defense installments.As he has publicly stated in the past numerous times, Paul opposes this because of the potential for an incident with Russia that could and would arise from the US imposing a no-fly zone over Iraq and/or Syria. To enforce this zone, the US would have to threaten to - or physically - shoot down Russian planes. Doubtless that wouldn't go over too well with Putin.Rand summed up his arguments by citing that the US doesn't have to be "involved in every civil war around the world" to be a power and also touched again on his opposition to "arming our enemies." This, of course, is a reference to arming the Syrians, who went on to morph into our good pals at ISIS.- PAULUS On energy and climate:
The first thing I would do as president is repeal the regulations that are hampering our energy that the President has put in place. Including the Clean Power Act. While I do think that man may have a role in our climate, I think nature also has a role. The planet's 4.5 billion years old, we've been through geologic age after geologic age. We've had times when the temperatures been warmer, we've had times when the temperatures been colder. We've had times when the carbon in the atmosphere's been higher. So, I think before we -- we need to look before we leap. President's often fond of saying he wants a balance solution, but, really we do need to balance both keeping the environment clean, and we will have some rules for that. We got to balance that with the economy.
Rand went on to say that America should embrace an "all of the above" solution, incorporating coal and alternative energy sources together. While I support the rollback of regulations and the removal of the Clean Power Act and others, I have to give Rand a minus here for not expressing that the free market can and should provide our energy infrastructure without government involvement.Considering the massive amount of money wasted by government investment in failed solar companies, crony capitalism via special tax breaks to manufacturers of electric cars, and the ridiculous ethanol mandates, there is ample evidence to make a point here that isn't a mealy-mouthed placating of alternative energy honks.- MINUSThe only fiscal conservative on stage:Rand finished strong in his final statements, which were short and to the point.
We're the richest, freest, most humanitarian nation in the history of mankind. But we also borrow a million dollars a minute. And the question I have for all Americans is, think about it, can you be a fiscal conservative if you don't conserve all of the money? If you're a profligate spender, you spend money in an unlimited fashion for the military, is that a conservative notion? We have to be conservative with all spending, domestic spending and welfare spending. I'm the only fiscal conservative on the stage.
This is an important position for him going forward and one that clearly he and his camp have decided is their best chance to move up in the polls and with voters at large. Paul is the most fiscally conservative on stage and likely the only one that will appear in the big boy debates moving forward who will cut military spending and has created a balanced budget. His stance that we can't project strength while being economically weak and in debt is a powerful argument.- PAULUSThis was by far Rand's strongest performance to date.How did you feel about Rand's debate performance? Head on over to our private Facebook Group: The Lions of Liberty Forum to discuss!Check out the full Rand Pauluses and Minuses Archive and also the latest RPM podcast! The Lions of Liberty are on Twitter, Facebook & Google+Check out our YouTube Channel!Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!
