Comedy Defense Spending

Anti-War Hero Rand Paul Proposes Massive Increase in Defense Spending

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has introduced an amendment that would increase defense spending dramatically over the next two years at the expense of other vital programs.

The measure, first spotted by Time, would allocate an additional $190 billion to the Pentagon -- amounting to an approximately 16 percent increase to its budget. To offset the increase in spending, Paul calls for substantial cuts to U.S. foreign aid, the Environmental Protection Agency, and departments of Education, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development.

The idea that supposed anti-war hero Rand Paul would call for increasing defense spending by nearly 20 percent is hilarious, to say the least, but his rationale is even more entertaining.

“This amendment is in response to others in both chambers who are attempting to add to defense spending — some way more than Senator Paul’s amendment — without paying for it. Senator Paul believes national defense should be our priority. He also believes our debt is out of control,” Paul senior adviser Doug Stafford said in a statement.

Dramatic increases in defense spending are okay with Rand Paul as long as you pay for it by cutting environmental protection, education, and federal housing. Offsetting increased defense spending by cutting other programs doesn't actually do anything to reduce our debt, but as least we're not adding to it, right?

Cloaking this with a pitch for fiscal responsibility does not hide the fact that this is a significant ideological break that arguably began last Summer when Rand son of Ron positioned himself to the right of Hillary Clinton and President Obama on defense in series of op-eds. Paul's ideological incoherence culminated in an epic floor speech last September in which he delivered a lengthy rebuttal to himself.

Is there a point at which libertarians and supporters of Ron Paul no longer support Rand Paul, or is the Kool-aid just too strong?

  • swift_4

    I think this is the first step in a piece of fuckery designed to cut the government. He matches the cuts he wants with an increase in defense spending to make it appear balanced. Then later when people complain about the defense spending being too high, it gets cut. The net result is cuts to the EPA and the poor.

  • Rand Paul’s GOP primary season transition from libertaryan isolationist to Wilsonian Idealist/neoconservative warmonger is now complete.

    Will Rand’s latest platform revision be the straw that broke the libertarian camel’s back? I doubt it. On libertarian blogs, Rand’s fans see through the charade and openly reassure one another that his ideological and rhetorical flexibility is a legitimate political strategy necessary to conceal his true beliefs as he ‘plays the game,’ stealthing his way into mainstream Republican acceptance.

    I doubt he’d be interested in my suggestions, but IMO, Everclear’s ‘Everything to Everyone’ would be the perfect theme song for the Paul scampaign.

  • LTanya Spearman

    American voter need to start looking at politicians record and stop falling for media narratives to portray them as something they’re not. The old saying, “Trust but verify,” or as Joe said, “Don’t tell me what you about, show me your record and I’ll tell you what you about.”
    This is a lesson that the voter election should have learn from ‘2014 midterm election.’ But we shall see, how much people are paying attention..

  • muselet

    Rand Paul is an R who really, really wants to be President. Therefore, he must advocate shoveling even more money at defense contractors so they will build ever more complicated and expensive weapons systems that don’t work as promised, while at the same time demanding cuts to “U.S. foreign aid, the Environmental Protection Agency, and departments of Education, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development” because that’s the way the game’s played on that side of the aisle.

    It doesn’t matter (much) what Paul said a year ago, a month ago, or even yesterday; it doesn’t even matter what he actually believes, as long as he makes the right—Right—noises now.

    It also helps him that our glorious news media find him endlessly fascinating and so won’t call him out on his abrupt ideological reversals, but that’s a separate rant best left for another time.

    I do wonder how good Paul’s message discipline is. Trying to keep straight what he believes this week has to be exhausing. That could be fun to watch.


    • JMAshby

      He hasn’t had any message discipline for at least a year.

      • muselet

        Good point. It’s still going to be fun to watch him flail around.