On the occasion of the summer solstice some years ago, a friend was looking glum. “What's the matter?” I asked, surprised to find him sad. “The days are getting shorter,” he replied, reminding me that it's at the time when the days are longest, they are also beginning the long process of swinging back the other way.
In his acceptance speech tonight, Rand Paul said:
“The American people are unhappy with what's going on in Washington.”
That may be so, Mr. Paul, but keep in mind that at the moment you said it, the truth of what you say was perhaps not what you imagine. Your supporters were cheering, not unhappy. But you're right there are unhappy people, and they are Americans. I am one of them. And it is now your official duty to join others in improving that situation.
The Republicans have had a free ride for while. Not being in the majority in either House or Senate, they didn't have to take responsibility for the outcomes, even sometimes legacy outcomes of the Bush Recession or the side effects of their record number of filibusters.
But now that the Republicans have reclaimed control of the House, they can't just pretend they're not part of it. Now they have to expose their agenda and take some responsibility. Will they make it a priority to restore the Bush tax cuts, even though it will cost $5 trillion dollars to do it? What really is their commitment to fiscal responsibility? I guess we'll see.
I've heard the suggestion the Republicans will “pay for” reinstating tax breaks for the wealthy by cutting “unnecessary” government services. For example, the Libertarians usually identify the Department of Education as an example of unnecessary government services. Again, we'll see.
Paul also said:
“America will remain great if we remain proud of America—if we remain proud of the American system, the system that is enshrined in our founding documents, the system that promotes the free exchange of goods, the system that protects capitalism that has made this country great.”
This quote is very revealing, for the way it defines greatness in terms of exchange of goods. No mention of health, jobs, or just plain happiness. Perhaps he thinks we can be a great country without that. I doubt it. Or perhaps he thinks those things will just take care of themselves if megacorporations are allowed to rule the day without government interference. I doubt that, too.
And, finally, Paul said:
“Do we wish to live free or be enslaved by debt?”
A great many of us who have become enslaved by debt have done so for lack of good regulation of consumer credit. Mr. Paul seems to express the notion that private businesses shouldn't be told how to behave, they should just be expected to behave well. He perhaps didn't notice that just letting them loose without regulation has been tried and ended badly. And now we'll get to watch him and his team try again.
Many candidates seemed to run this time on the notion that after Bush left us with the worst financial disaster in quite some time it “wasn't already fixed” as if there'd been plenty of time. Well, that hourglass has been turned and the sands are falling anew on their watch. They have the same amount of time before the next election as the Democratically controlled House had. When the 2012 election comes around, they should expect people to ask why the Republicans haven't fixed everything. And it's no fair blaming lack of results on not getting help from the opposition party either, because they offered no better to the Democrats this last time around.
No, Rand Paul's rhetoric did not change tonight. But the nature of his responsibility did. He is now officially part of the problem. Let's see how well he and his comrades in the Republican party do having to again take some responsibility for the mess they have brought us.
In fact, following the script they've written, since we're now playing the opposite role, I guess this is already my cue to ask: “What is taking you so long, Mr. Paul? You've had several hours. Isn't everything fixed yet?”
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
Rated with hugs
so much to take in
Just sorry Paul Rand ,
although he is an Opthamologist,
will never be able to see the finer points he missed!
The Teabagger and their big mouths with no plan
need to get it together now
and put their money where their mouths are!
Trish, welcome. Based on your remark, here are a couple of other articles I've written that might have ideas you'd enjoy reading:
• Credit Cards: A Tax on “Being Poor”
• Name Your Own Credit Card Rate!
• An All-Volunteer Army of Credit Card Users
Alien thoughts. i can grok that.
Gorlockness, I'm glad you grabbed some useful grokkage here.
Abrawang, the real problem is that the Dems won't have the stomach for doing the icky thing the Republicans did. They could assure nothing positive comes out of the Republican proposals, certainly if they hold control of the Senate but even if they just become a minority with access to a filibuster. But they will selflessly put the health of the nation above their own health, in a way the Republicans did not, and the Republicans will take credit for having “fixed” things when the only change will have been that they've stopped saying “No” to everything, something they could have done all along.
You jest, of course, when you talk of "fixing it". They'll more easily unscramble an egg. Mind you, none of them are really concerned about making things better unless they can clearly see how it will benefit them personally.
The whole attitude of politicians and politics is sick these days. The truthful motto of ANY politician could be written as: "Elect ME,ME,ME,ME,ME,ME, so I can be the one to steal food from your children's mouths.
Smart people ought to be working on a design for a whole new socio/political/economic system. Or are y'all just going to fall into the pit of socialism by default?
In the dark of night all cats are grey.
Skypixie0, that's a too-pat oversimplification.
The Demos were stupid in their attempt to get the vote. Jack Conway had a close race then went stupid in attacks, which seemingly helped the other side.
I can only hope that Senator Paul will not do too much damage in his time in office or I can wish Senator Baucus(D-MT) will eat him on his first day!!! :D
I can also wish that some day, instead of attack ads on either side, they talk about the issues, like jobs, the economy, what their plans are, not some rhetorical speech handed to them from the Party Line that includes nothing but crappy headline material.
I've had that dream for a long time...
Rated.
Tom, it's a great point. Make a post of it.
I expect we'll have more than a few hilarious moments of gaffes - and having the crazies out in the open is always for the best. The Teaparty is OVER.
They can only complain about themselves, now.
In reality, government is a finger puppet of the lobbyists. With the GOP in control of the House, one of two things will happen. Either the Republicans will stick true to their principles of balancing the budget and reducing taxes on the rich, in which case we're screwed. Or the Repugs will go back to the GW years where they never saw a defense contract they couldn't vote for. With military Keynesianism abroad and austerity at home except for defense contracts, we're screwed.
You can take your pick. death or booga booga.
Interesting to note how the "give the guy a chance" mantra applied by the OS collectivists to Obama even to this day is somehow unavailable to the victorious Republicans even before they've taken office. But then intellectual consistency has never been a strong suit with OS regulars.
If Gordon Osmond thinks your title was misleading, I wonder now that his favorites will be said to control the House, which of those two definitions he finds to be inaccurate.
Ayn Randy Paul will be able to sit on his high horse and do nothing, because the Democrats just wont play nice with the new sherrifs in town. All talk of compromise and non-partisanship will be just that, talk.
Two years from now little Mr Paul will be able to say, "Look we tried and the Democrats just dont play fair. Give us the presidency and we'll show you how we'll really clean up." And clean up they will, loaded with Citizens United money, an undereducated electorate even more frustrated by lack of progress on anything, and Newt and Karl cheerleading the demise of republican democracy like Nero playing his fiddle.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
His quote about economics gives meaning to the term "Republicorp" which was stomped out and the angry voters elected him anyway. These people are voting based on their emotions without understanding what they are electing.
I think we can only expect more of the same, experience tells them they won't be blamed, Obama will be
the best we can hope for is that with the increasing influence of fringe fanatics like Paul, they'll overreach, as the Gingrich mob did, but everything depends on an economic recovery that reaches further than the executive offices of Wall Street, my feeling is that the Repubs will do everything they can to prevent that from happening until they get the White House back
Credit cards, bad mortgages, serial refis...yes we have, because we couldn't keep up, and we thought were customers and clients, not marks.
Ths is priceless. Well stated.
"He is now officially part of the problem."
Tim, I think that's the plan. I would have written the same timeline, in uninterestingly different words, which is to say I totally agree. If we start now, perhaps there is time to respond.
Zachery, I tend to agree with your analysis there.
I'll be following up in coming days with some analysis about what the Democrats must do to navigate this—not that anyone in the Administration listens to me. I actually expect them to blow it unless they seriously start to confront the Republican strategy. It's unfortunate that present politics require the Democrats not to “play nice.” Not that I think all Democrats do, but I think that's a chief element of the Obama strategy, and I think if he wants to be effective he has to be willing to get dirty. Not by dirty tricks, but by taking firm action that gets results even at the risk of being thought less bipartisan.
Steve, it's a great point! Thanks for visiting.
o'steph, do I get my own VISA commercial now? Uh oh, at this hour I bet some spammer will stop by to oblige. Shhh.. Forget I said it. Thanks for visiting and for the support, though.
Trish Rainbow, Gorlockness, Steve Klingaman, o'stephanie, and anyone else I may have missed as I made this list just now, I also wanted to thank you for the particular practice of calling out particular quotes you like in the article. I really appreciate that. It helps me see where I'm hitting the right note so I can usefully follow up on the styles and themes of such messages.
Having said that, I think you lack a grasp of the facts.
But before I get to that, let me say...it is not the responsibility of the government to make you or anyone else "feel" anything, whether that be happiness or otherwise. The government is an administrative body, nothing more.
And this is not a "Bush recession", it is a recession that is decades in the making - granted the runaway spending of the Bush administration hastened us toward oblivion - the Obama administration has done all it can to continue the carnage.
Allowing for tax cuts to continue is not an expense, it's time those on the left understood this...cutting taxes is not an expense, if you reciprocate by cutting spending. Will it hurt people who have become dependent on government checks to have spending cut? Yes. Is it necessary to get us out of our current pickle? Yes. Either you want to fix this country or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
The Department of Education is a huge waste of money. Privatize all schools; make them all compete in a free market, and watch costs come down - and hiring standards (along with quality of education, and test scores) go up.
Health care should be treated as a good exchanged on the open market. That would also keep costs down, and quality up. It would keep lobbyists, big insurance, and big pharma out of politicians' pockets and put choice back into the hands of consumers.
Jobs will come back when the cost of opening and doing business is greatly reduced by cutting government interference in the marketplace. When prospective employers find it cheaper to run a business states-side, they'll come back...and the jobs will come back with them. Governments cannot create jobs, all they can do is take capital away from the private sector...capital that is best used to start and build companies that will hire/keep people employed.
People have not been enslaved by debt because of a lack of government...just the opposite. Onerous taxation, and regulation has created a system of less competition, and thus less choice for the consumer...less choice means being forced to pay more for a good or service than you would were market forces allowed to rule. People cannot keep up with the cost of living today, because taxes, and regulations have driven up the cost of doing business in all sectors of the economy...and been the cause of the consolidation of more and more businesses - so we have a handful of mega-corporations with their hands in nearly every corner of the market place.
No, private businesses should not be told how to behave, and you're wrong to say it's never worked.
The greatest period of prosperity the world has ever seen took place in America; from the end of the Civil War to the beginning of the first World War, America was a true land of opportunity, innovation, and rapid growth.
Finally, don't equate Rand Paul with most of the Republicans in power...there is a big difference. Rand Paul is a true Republican. Most of the Republican party, including the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is neo-Conservative. They are every bit as in favor of a big government as the Democrats...they like to spend money hand-over-fist just as much...they just prefer it spent on different - yet still illogical - things...i.e. the warfare state/imperialism for starters.
As for cutting taxes not being an expense if you pay for it, the projected cost of the Bush tax cuts is $5 trillion dollars, and first of all no one in authority is offering on-the-record specifics about where that money would come from. But second of all, even when you hear the occasional disclaimable remark by someone who later claims is not offering the official line, the cost is not borne by the people seeing the benefit.
Money begets money, so please don't tell me that somehow the rich worked harder for their money than many of the poor did for theirs. The reason some people have billions is not that they worked millions of times harder than people who didn't. And it's not even that they offered an irreplaceable service that no one else could have offered. So no matter what happens, they come out ahead. But we're talking about cutting things like health care to seniors who may not be able to afford it themselves but yet have earned respect over a lifetime, education for people who might get ahead and earn money in the future. And we're calling the cutting of those programs “paying for” the tax cuts? I don't think so.
I do actually think we have to cut spending, but until we see the rich do their job and invest in America, not making profits by offshoring work, shutting down American factories or R&D shops, etc., I see no reason to give the rich a tax benefit. And, in fact, even when they do start to invest in America, I want the tax advantage to flow to them because they did that not because they are rich. That is, just because one rich guy does good doesn't mean I should reward others who are not. The rich ask no less of the poor when they say they don't want to pay welfare to one person because they think someone else on welfare is cheating. It cuts both ways.
I don't agree with you about health care as a good to be exchanged. The facts don't bear that out. Most other developed nations have better and more comprehensive health care systems, with better overall lifespans, with no one left out, and with cheaper costs. Moreover, even just from a business standpoint, I want to see businesses not factor the cost of health care into their decisions. As a small business owner myself, I want to concern myself with the cost of product so I don't want health care in my business at all, yet I want to be able to choose among a healthy population for possible employees, without feeling like working for me might compromise their health because I can't afford the same health benefits as a competitor. I'll write more about this on another occasion where there's more room to discuss it directly, so stop back then. For now I just wanted to make the point that I'm not anti-business.
My posture is a repurposing of a Reagan quote: Trust, but verify. I'm all for tax cuts for people with money who are using it for the public good. I'm not for tax cuts for people with money merely because sometimes people with money do good things. That's a recipe for disaster.
Oh, and as for prosperity, most of that came under times when tax rates on the rich were huge amounts compared to now, sometimes 90%. We did fine. I'm not suggesting going back to that, only that that's not an obstacle that can't be overcome. In fact, it was when we made the tax rates such that money just flowed to the rich freely that seemed to go out of whack and people got selfish. I'm not sure if that was correlated, but it certainly is not the case that lower tax rates correlate with more public spirit.
As for people being enslaved by debt, I've written a number of articles on that. See my first comment to Trish above, where I cross-reference some of those articles. But I think you're wrong that the free market is adequately addressing this.
I'm not anti-business, but I think business needs government checks to make sure it is kept from making selfish choices that work against the general welfare.
Thanks for visiting, Kenneth. I don't agree with your politics, but you get points for being civil.
The Tea Party folks are likely to give the Republican leadership some problems. It may be that both parties are weakened by this outcome, and I would rate that as an outcome "greatly to be desired".
The Tea Party, if it stands for anything (doubtful, but...) stands for fiscal restraint. You'll recall we had a balanced budget once. Happen to remember who was president then? And who was president when we no longer had one?
To give the Tea Party credit -- they want to fix things. They don't want to accept the status quo. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, of course. Newt wanted to change things too, and did. But the Tea Party's roots are different.
Of course, as you point out, they're now part of the problem, rather than being outside of it.
But I've never regarded the Tea Party as being all bad. Full of bad ideas, magnet for bigots, and politicos on the make (think Palin). And manipulated behind the scenes -- but populated with people taking democracy seriously, and with many legitimate concerns -- even if their proposed solutions have often been crazy. That hardly puts them outside the mainstream in American politics!
Anyway, I am impressed at how well the Democrats handed these folks so many issues that they could have owned, had they the vision and courage.
A New York Times analysis notes that since 1929, about 40 years have been under a Republican president and another 40 under a Democratic one. If you invested $10,000 and let it grow (using the S&P stock market index) only under Democrats, it would be worth $300,671 right now. If you grew it only under Republicans (and even left out Hoover, where it did the worst), it would be worth $51,211. If you include Hoover, it's only $11,733. This is really stunning. There are additional useful factoids at crooksandliars.com.