Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rand Paul and Mike Lee should be ashamed of themselves.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rand Paul and Mike Lee should be ashamed of themselves.

    The Senate voted 97-2 today for permanent funding of the 9-11 victims fund. The two NO votes coming from Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee.

    I am all for prudence in government funding and asking the hard questions, even regarding sensitive subjects, and as little as I like Rand Paul, he did raise some valid points worth discussing. In the end, though, they were not worthy enough to warrant a NO vote on the bill. In my opinion, this was one area where Congress had a fairly easy choice to do the right thing and I'm glad to see they did.

    There is a time and place to stand your ground on principles and vote against something even when you know it will not affect the outcome. This was not that time. You asked the questions to make sure it was not another example of government graft and mismanaged. Due diligence was served, now vote for the funding and take care of the citizens who selflessly served their fellow citizens in a time of the worst tragedy since Pearl Harbor. Shame on these gentlemen.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Blackhat View Post
    The Senate voted 97-2 today for permanent funding of the 9-11 victims fund. The two NO votes coming from Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee.

    I am all for prudence in government funding and asking the hard questions, even regarding sensitive subjects, and as little as I like Rand Paul, he did raise some valid points worth discussing. In the end, though, they were not worthy enough to warrant a NO vote on the bill. In my opinion, this was one area where Congress had a fairly easy choice to do the right thing and I'm glad to see they did.

    There is a time and place to stand your ground on principles and vote against something even when you know it will not affect the outcome. This was not that time. You asked the questions to make sure it was not another example of government graft and mismanaged. Due diligence was served, now vote for the funding and take care of the citizens who selflessly served their fellow citizens in a time of the worst tragedy since Pearl Harbor. Shame on these gentlemen.
    If we put up with bottom feeders like Pelosi, AOC and Omar, we have to tolerate these two as well. Be nice to know why thy decided to vote no.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Tired of "putting up with" the swamp. I would like to hear a valid explanation as well. Paul was calling it a manufactured crisis as there was a billion dollars in the fund currently. Can't say I heard Mike Lee's validation. Oh well, their conscience not mine. But it's almost 10pm, time to go be a DJ and make some scratch!

      Comment


      • #4
        Rand Paul's objection to the bill was it put no dollar value on the funding. It was opened ended and could ultimately cost anything. He simply wanted a dollar value put in it. That's not an unreasonable objection.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, the summer doldrums are in effect and it's slow, so a little time to keep up with things.T.A. I agree, not unreasonable at all. That said, considering how government works anymore today with so many programs expanding unchecked and raided for other purposes,of all things, this one could be put through with objections noted, given it's nature.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            ...Rand Paul's objection to the bill was it put no dollar value on the funding. It was opened ended and could ultimately cost anything. He simply wanted a dollar value put in it. That's not an unreasonable objection...
            I agree. Nothing to be ashamed of.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Blackhat View Post
              Well, the summer doldrums are in effect and it's slow, so a little time to keep up with things.T.A. I agree, not unreasonable at all. That said, considering how government works anymore today with so many programs expanding unchecked and raided for other purposes,of all things, this one could be put through with objections noted, given it's nature.
              Considering how those programs wind up going, putting a dollar cap on it is about the only way to ultimately keep it from going to some ridiculous extreme. I think his objection was reasonable given that so many other programs have bloated into areas far outside their scope, and he has a legitimate fear that this program could expand out of control if there wasn't a way to cap it so it's forced back to Congress for review.
              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                Considering how those programs wind up going, putting a dollar cap on it is about the only way to ultimately keep it from going to some ridiculous extreme. I think his objection was reasonable given that so many other programs have bloated into areas far outside their scope, and he has a legitimate fear that this program could expand out of control if there wasn't a way to cap it so it's forced back to Congress for review.
                Rand Paul's worry, other than that it had now cap on spending is that the program will never die as a result. That is, a hundred years from now it will still be getting funded and run simply because of this feature. The bureaucrats running it will continue to request funding to pay out to the children of the children of 9/11 "victims" because that ensures they keep their cushy jobs and get a good retirement.

                Obsolescence is no excuse to kill a government agency once it exists. It can have no useful purpose but it will get funded. Take for example these:

                The National Technical Information Service (NTIS). It compiles and sells copies of government and private technical and scientific papers. Only problem... Since the Internet now exists all of this is free online from numerous, duplicate services.

                In line with the 9/11 survivor's fund, you have the Navajo Housing Authority. Part of HUD it's supposed to provide free or low cost housing to the Navajo Nation reservation. The agency per house the cost of houses the agency covers stands right now at about $750,000, when the average price of a non-agency home on the reservation is around $67,000.
                Not only that, but they have a massive backlog of required construction and repair they'll likely never get to. The primary place the several hundred million a year this agency gets goes to paying bureaucrat's salaries.

                How about the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration? 537 employees total and an annual $3 billion dollar budget. That's about $5.6 million per employee. What does it do you ask? Promote methods to reduce and treat those issues. That's it. They're an advertising agency. https://www.samhsa.gov/

                Of course, that isn't even the tip of the government waste iceberg, but it illustrates the problem.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I support funding health care for the 911 first responders as I'm sure anyone with half a heart would..
                  Why does the new bill fund it till 2092? Assuming the youngest first responder was 10 years old that makes sense. But I doubt that's the case.
                  Is this going to end up like the tax on phone service to pay for the Spanish American War that was never cancelled?
                  Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                  Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                    I support funding health care for the 911 first responders as I'm sure anyone with half a heart would..
                    Why does the new bill fund it till 2092? Assuming the youngest first responder was 10 years old that makes sense. But I doubt that's the case.
                    Is this going to end up like the tax on phone service to pay for the Spanish American War that was never cancelled?
                    Pretty Much. As TAG said, we'll be paying for the children of the children of 9/11 victims.

                    I don't mind paying for 9/11 first responders healthcare, continuing care, and such.

                    I don't mind paying some basic level for the children of 9/11 victims

                    I don't mind paying some basic level for the children of affected 9/11 first responders.

                    I do mind potentially paying for multiple generations, that's welfare by another name.
                    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Gentlemen, you have argued some very valid points, and I must admit that I was guilty of of an emotional, knee-jerk response to a very emotional situation. I can't give any argument to anything you've said.

                      Perhaps my post (especially, in retrospect, the title) is indicative of the political cost of voting no, and the reason why only 2 did. Feels like a no win situation, given the subject. Thinking through your points, I don't think most thought of it from a point of an opportunity for more graft but simply that there was no way they were hanging their political hat on a "no" vote on this emotional topic.

                      I may have been wrong, but it still grates against my conscience some. I can't deny that. I guess I would simply say that, given all the area of government programs over-reach, it just feels like a crappy place to put your foot down. Even a conservative can be guilty of operating from a "feels" standpoint sometimes. Perhaps if more had voted with them I wouldn't have had the immediate emotional reaction I did.

                      *On a side note - these types of intelligent discussions are why I still come here every day, regardless of the partisan vitriol and kool-aid. Summarizing J. S. Mill, untested beliefs become worthless dogma.
                      Last edited by Blackhat; 25 Jul 19, 12:29.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Blackhat View Post
                        Gentlemen, you have argued some very valid points, and I must admit that I was guilty of of an emotional, knee-jerk response to a very emotional situation. I can't give any argument to anything you've said.

                        Perhaps my post (especially, in retrospect, the title) is indicative of the political cost of voting no, and the reason why only 2 did. Feels like a no win situation, given the subject. Thinking through your points, I don't think most thought of it from a point of an opportunity for more graft but simply that there was no way they were hanging their political hat on a "no" vote on this emotional topic.

                        I may have been wrong, but it still grates against my conscience some. I can't deny that. I guess I would simply say that, given all the area of government programs over-reach, it just feels like a crappy place to put your foot down. Even a conservative can be guilty of operating from a "feels" standpoint sometimes. Perhaps if more had voted with them I wouldn't have had the immediate emotional reaction I did.

                        *On a side note - these types of intelligent discussions are why I still come here every day, regardless of the partisan vitriol and kool-aid. Summarizing J. S. Mill, untested beliefs become worthless dogma.
                        In commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, I launched a new thread about how 9/11 went from being a tragedy to being an industry to being a joke. (Seems we've lost it in the migration to the new software. Anyways, here's a piece from the ultimate bleeding heart rag, The Village Voice of that time that echos my point.) As a native New Yorker my anger at those who've turned 9/11 into a vehicle for gain knows no bounds. The problem is is that no agency -- Federal, state, or local -- has proven competent or even willing to take on these cry-me-a-river fraud cases. To be honest I share Sen Paul's skepticism. There's every reason to believe that this 9/11 fund will be paying out in perpetuity. The end result is that hucksters will be able to line their pockets on public feel-good money, and that genuine 9/11 veterans will struggle to obtain the care they need. By resorting emotional appeals, guys like Jon Stewart haven't helped those sickened by 9/11 fallout one bit. They've enriched con men, and ultimately will damn by association those with actual need who are sincerely worthy of help. In the years to come every person making a 9/11 related claim will be looked upon as a scammer. That's the greatest shame of all.
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Rand Paul's objection to the bill was it put no dollar value on the funding. It was opened ended and could ultimately cost anything. He simply wanted a dollar value put in it. That's not an unreasonable objection.
                          Not at all. But, our outrage culture is at it again.
                          "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                          - Benjamin Franklin

                          The new right wing: hate Muslims, preaches tolerance for Nazis.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            How many bills are pushed through Congress using shame, guilt or the fear of being labeled unpatriotic or unsympathetic to minorities?
                            Both parties use these tools to push bills that on their face seem like the right thing to do. Who wouldn't want to save the children? Who wouldn't want to provide care for veterans or first responders.
                            But way we all learn later Congress used the emotional hook to fill the pockets of businesses in their districts, or pass taxes intended to be temporary but never go away.
                            Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                            Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X