Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) delivered his maiden speech on the Senate floor this morning, and it’s safe to say that his remarks will be discussed at far greater length than, say, those of Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), who delivered his first floor speech last night.
In what was largely an address to his fellow Republicans, Paul engaged in a rhetorical debate on how conservatives and Tea Party members should conduct themselves in the 112th congress as they seek to head off an impending fiscal crisis.
Noting that he would be sitting at the desk of famed Kentucky statesman Henry Clay — known as the “Great Compromiser” — Paul proceeded to ponder the merits and efficacy of compromise (or lack thereof):
Is compromise the noble position? Will compromise allow us to avoid the looming debt crisis?
Henry Clay’s life story is, at best, a mixed message. Henry Clay’s great compromise was over slavery.
One could argue that he rose above sectional strife to carve out compromise after compromise trying to ward off civil war.
Or one could argue that his compromises were morally wrong and may have even encouraged war, that his compromises meant the acceptance during his 50 years of public life of not only slavery, but the slave trade itself.
Paul pointed out that abolitionists who refused to compromise over slavery — William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Frederick Douglass, and Clay’s own cousin Cassius Clay — “are heroes because they said slavery was wrong and they would not compromise.”
Which Clay, then, should our lawmakers seek to emulate, Henry the Compromiser or Cassius the True Believer? He didn’t quite come out and say it, but Paul made it pretty clear which camp he considers himself a part of.
Then, as if to intentionally provoke MSNBC, Rachel Maddow et al., Paul went on to equate the issue of slavery to the current debt crisis:
Today we have no issues that approach moral equivalency with the issue of slavery. Yet we do face a fiscal nightmare and potentially a debt crisis.
Is the answer to compromise?
Should we compromise by raising taxes and cutting spending as the Debt Commission proposes?
Is that the compromise that will save us from financial ruin?
Paul was adamant that when it comes to raising taxes, Republicans should steer clear of compromise. “Any compromise should be about where we cut federal spending, not where we raise taxes,” he said. “The problem we face is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem.”
In other words, the compromises that Paul — and other members of the Tea Party — should accept are those related to “where to cut spending and by how much.” And while raises taxes isn’t an option, he said nothing should be off the table when it comes to spending — that conservatives must compromise by agreeing to cut military and defense funding while liberals must compromise on the domestic side.
In closing, Paul laid out a general philosophy that would govern his actions as a senator:
As long as I sit at Henry Clay’s desk, I will remember his lifelong desire to forge agreement, but I will also keep close to my heart the principled stand of his cousin, Cassius Clay, who refused to forsake the life of any human simply to find agreement.
Those familiar with Paul can probably guess which half of that sentence is likely to carry the most weight.
Here’s the video:
I like Paul, but he is off when he says "Today we have no issues that approach moral equivalency with the issue of slavery"
Abortion is at least as awful as slavery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe more I see and hear of Rand Paul, the more impressed I am.
To say I'm not a fan of his father would be a MASSIVE understatement. While Ron Paul and I would agree on probably about 90% of positions, it's that 10% that I find so hard to stomach: the reflexive isolationism, the obsession with the Fed, his regrettable indulgence of conspiracy theories of all terrible stripes.
But so far at least, I think his son is doing what his father couldn't do-- *broadly* appeal to the sensibility of ALL Americans, and not just to the shut-in's subscribing to a ranting newsletter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI saw a youtube of an interview between Buckley and Rand's Dad, and Buckley was suggesting Ron (then in 1988) adopt a compromise position for which Buckley was trying to get traction. Ron, running an educational campaign at the time, said that that position would concede the principle that income tax was appropriate. Buckley retorted that the position merely acknowledged that the tax existed. Then Ron pointed out, which I had not realized before, that indentured servants who came to this country only had to pay their masters 20% of their income, whereas income tax is much higher.
Buckley looked taken aback, and appeared to concede the logic, at least, of that position.
'Extreme' is name calling. Rand Paul is moving the Overton window on spending cuts far to the right of where leadership of either party had aimed the window to fall.
And it's a good thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHear hear to the new Senator. Defense spending is a greater threat to our national security than any external threat that, once upon a time, defense spending was intended to check.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst off, as a Kentuckian, I am happy to see our Junior Senator stepping up like this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSecondly, I have to agree that when it comes to budget cuts, there should be no sacred cows. The DOD could easily cut out a large swath of its budget by streamlining the acquisition and certification processes. How can you justify a 10-15 year program just to certify a simple modification to a weapons system? The LCAC program is a perfect example of this. New engines, replace the steel fan cowling with a composite cowling, and some minor skirt modifications. The Marines are looking to field the updated LCAC sometime around 2020. This is the "streamlined" certification process. Under the normal process it would have been be certified by 2030
Make no mistake, Rand Paul is a rising star! I agree with John Derbyshire!! Rand Paul for President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen Ron pointed out... that indentured servants who came to this country only had to pay their masters 20% of their income...
until the debt was retired. When does my income tax stop?
Is that his idea of a clever remark?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusechris00nj beat me to this punch, but I'd still add that Paul's failure to recognize abortion's similarities as an issue to slavery (right down to the deeply flawed Supreme Court decisions that underlay both issues) is morally obtuse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst: "I was told there would be no math." But I was able to answer the question nonetheless.
Regarding Rand Paul: I consider myself a lifetime student of both politics and history. And that is why I am both ashamed and elated Rand Paul is first to bring Cas. Clay to my attention. I had only known Cas. Clay to be the previous monniker of Ali. And, with that now in my little brain, I find my view of Ali has changed dramatically.
While I begrudge no man their religion of choice (to a degree, of course - thinking Kool Aid), I find it fascinating that Ali was originally named after a man who refused to bend to slavery. A man who fought tooth-and-nail as an abolitionist. That Ali would change a name which embodies such a legacy, in the midst of turmoil and racial issues of the 60's, to me shows quite a lack of foresight.
Of course, that somewhat discounts his religious sentiments and core beliefs. This I do not wish to do, as I respect the devotion Ali has shown toward religion throughout his life.
But, having just learned about Clay (the good one), I am a bit taken aback. Very interesting. I love how history can do that to a person/mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"To say I'm not a fan of his father would be a MASSIVE understatement. While Ron Paul and I would agree on probably about 90% of positions, it's that 10% that I find so hard to stomach: the reflexive isolationism, the obsession with the Fed, his regrettable indulgence of conspiracy theories of all terrible stripes."
I agree with Dave on this one. At first, during the 2008 campaign I was getting impressed by what Ron Paul was saying. And then the list of things Dave mentioned popped up (although I do have a problem with the Fed) and he lost me.
I've got my eye on his son and so far I am impressed.
As to abortion not being mentioned - I think Rand is doing the smart thing:
Discussions on abortion have a place when the country is not otherwise falling apart. It's not that we put abortion on hold, it's just that we need to concentrate more on keeping the Republic together and that means the economy, shrinking the gov't and national security.
Whether or not people get abortions means nothing if the country collapses.
And it doesn't mean that I'm not pro-life; I am.
But our priority right now is getting this economy moving again, getting the housing market fixed, getting the gov't to shrink (by A LOT) and making sure we are secure as a nation (terrorism and illegal immigration).
If abortion pops up as a related issue (like federal funding for it) then let's discuss. Otherwise, right now is not a time to do more than that.
We need to rally Americans to the CORE things that are important for this country to get back on track.
Then we can dicker about abortion later. I still believe it is the case that while many Americans are personally pro-life, for others they are pro-choice. Beating the drum on socially conservative issues may cause us to lose support for the fiscal and constitutional problems we have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like Rand Paul. He makes a lot of sense. However talk of him for president is nuts. He'd never win. Put aside that he'd be easy for Democrats to demagogue, his biggest problem is his appearance of having a cold personality, and his boring speech making skills. Maybe he can improve that, but I have my doubts.
I agree with him 100% though on fiscal matters. We have to find a way to prevent this country from committing suicide through debt. We are so close to the cliff right now, and people need to wake up to it. Spending just has to be cut, and it's got to be cut everywhere. We will never be a strong country with debt like this. Never. We are headed into secondary status as a nation of the world because of this debt. China will be the sole super power in 20 to 40 years if we don't address our debt now. Can you imagine a world where what they say goes? Yikes. I can't imagine too many people on the right or left think that will make for a peaceful, or stable world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"To say I'm not a fan of his father would be a MASSIVE understatement. While Ron Paul and I would agree on probably about 90% of positions, it's that 10% that I find so hard to stomach: the reflexive isolationism, the obsession with the Fed, his regrettable indulgence of conspiracy theories of all terrible stripes."
Ron Paul is hardly an isolationist. Even mainstream conservative economist Thomas Sowell calls the Federal Reserve a cancer.
External Link
And what conspiracy theories does the congressman believe in??
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse