It looks like the Patriot Act is going to be extended for another four years. Both the House and Senate voted to renew some key provisions that were set to expire at midnight tonight. But the truly notable story from today is that of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).
It started yesterday, when the freshman senator wanted to offer amendments to the legislation, including one to prevent warrantless access to some gun records. Although Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had promised a week of debate and an open amendment process, he chastised Paul, ”The national security of the United States is at stake, and the junior senator from Kentucky is complaining that he has not been able to offer amendments…When the clock strikes midnight tomorrow, we would be giving terrorists the opportunity to plot attacks against our country, undetected.” Paul called this a “scurrilous accusation” and said, ”To be attacked of such a belief when I’m here to discuss and debate the constitutionality of the Patriot Act is offensive and I find it personally insulting.” Then, Reid said, ”It’s hard to imagine why the senator from Kentucky would want to hold up the Patriot Act for a misguided amendment that would make America less safe.” Well, maybe because it would make America more free, which is anything but misguided.
Today Democrats in the Senate agreed to hold votes on two of Paul’s amendments. But Republican leaders tried to stop this, according to Paul because they did not want to alienate supporters of Second Amendment rights by voting down the gun-records amendment. During debate on this amendment, Paul said, “It’s very important that we are always vigilant, that we are eternally vigilant about the powers of government…Are we so afraid that we’re giving up all of our liberty for security?” Sadly, the amendments were defeated, the provisions were renewed, and the legislators left for their Memorial Day recess a few hours later than planned.
Senator Paul, I salute you for your courage. Although you inconvenienced a few people and did not ultimately stop the renewal of the Patriot Act, you succeeded in making individual liberty and the constitution subjects of discussion, and most importantly, what you said was right. Thank you for the work that you do.
Late Friday night, barely averting a government shutdown, President Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reached a compromise budget deal which included $38.5 million in cuts. While this is not as much as the $62 million that Tea Party members pushed for, or the $100 billion that Speaker Boehner mentioned after the 2010 election, it is a victory for small government.
The good things about the budget:
- The $32 billion in cuts that Boehner originally proposed were called “extreme” and “draconian,” yet Democrats ended up agreeing to even more
- The budget bill requires audits of many of Obama’s programs, denies additional spending on the IRS, and cuts $2 billion from the Department of Defense
- It is the largest spending cut in American history
The bad things about the budget:
- It does not cut Pell Grants, medical research, the Race to the Top initiative, PBS, or NPR
- It only slightly cuts foreign aid
- $18 billion of the cuts come from programs whose budgets “run largely on autopilot” and might not actually be spent anyway
- The debate about cutting funding to Planned Parenthood still has to be resolved
Considering our national debt of $14 trillion, the budget deal might be a baby step toward solving America’s money woes and restoring freedom and justice, but baby steps are better than nothing. Instead of our leaders arguing about how much additional spending to add, they are arguing about how much to cut. Now that is an encouraging change.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on “Meet the Press” yesterday:
“The Tea Party will disappear when the economy gets better and the economy’s getting better all the time. And I wouldn’t — I don’t think the Tea Party had the vigor and support that people thought it would. You know, a couple of them won, but most of them lost.”
He is basically suggesting that the Tea Party movement consists of a bunch of people who are angry about the economy and looking for a scapegoat. It is insulting to imply that one’s opponents hold the beliefs that they do out of unthinking anger. In reality, the Tea Party is a movement that, although diverse and encompassing many different ideas and beliefs, focuses on individual liberty and limited government. It doesn’t make sense to say that people will change their basic political philosophy just because the economy changes.
My message to Senator Reid: If you disagree with someone’s political philosophy, argue against it. But at least give them credit for sincerely believing in that philosophy.
I have been so sad about the fact that the Dems seem to have the 60th vote in the Senate for their health “reform” bill that I haven’t been blogging about it. I use quotes because the bill doesn’t really reform anything at all. The only big change is that everyone is required to have health insurance, which is evil and blatantly unconstitutional.
Some pretty messed-up things have been going on:
- The Senate voted for cloture at 1 AM last night. What’s up with that?
- President Obama called the bill “a big victory for the American people.” A big victory for the insurance companies, yes, since everyone will be required to buy their product. A victory for the American people, no. This bill is a huge blow to people who believe in liberty and individual responsibility.
- RNC Chairman Michael Steele (very reasonably and sensibly) said “I am tired of the Congress thumbing their nose and flipping a bird to the American people.” Right on, Steele! But then Harry Reid fired back at him and said…”I’m more worried about an example being set by a party leader with something so obscene.” What is he talking about?? How is it obscene to say “flipping the bird”? Flipping the bird is obscene, but not saying “flipping the bird.” What Reid and the Dems in the Senate are doing, now that’s obscene.
- And of course, it looks like Sen. Ben Lincoln of Nebraska, sold his vote in exchange for millions of $ for his state. Just like Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Big surprise!
I oppose this bill for one main reason:
The government has no right to require people to buy a product.
Compared to this, I don’t really care whether the bill reduces the deficit, increases the deficit, increases taxes, increases spending, lowers costs, raises costs, hurts the economy, helps the economy, expands coverage to more people, or whatever. For the government to require people to buy a product is just wrong, period.
