19 votes

Rand Paul Votes in Favor of $631 Billion U.S. 'Defense' Legislation

EPJ: Rand Paul's To Do List before officially running for president:

Visit is Israel (scheduled for January)
Make sure Military-Industrial Compex is funded (Check)

The Senate, by a 98-0 vote, authorized $525.3 billion in baseline military spending, trimming only a small chunk from the administration’s $525.4 billion request. Thebill also authorizes $88.5 billion more for ongoing wars."

Continue reading at: Economic Policy Journal

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

When you vote to fund the US Miltary...

You are voting to fund murder and theft, War is just "legal" wholesale slaughter and plunder.

Need anymore proof that Rand is not a libertarian?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Maybe not if it were only enough for rational defense

Which I would think would be a lot less than 600+ billion dollars. How much adjusted to inflation did the U.S. spend on defense in the 1800's? Pretty weak argument for supposed libertarians to now say they're okay with unlimited military spending in the name of defense just because Rand Paul is supporting it. When that goes counter to everything that we were fighting for with Ron.

How exactly is the spending

How exactly is the spending in this bill "unlimited?" I thought it was an exact number of $630 billion?

1) Rand didn't vote for

1) Rand didn't vote for war.
2) Rand would probably get about 1% support in the 2016 GOP primary if he listened to you and had an anarchist voting record in the Senate. Rand is a libertarian, (strong on defense libertarian) but not an anarchist.

If the best argument you can

If the best argument you can manage is to argue that critics of Rand are expecting him to be an "anarchist" then you must not have much an argument.

He voted to fund those who carry out war.

But who am I to point out this immorality?

Apparently Rand has been ordained as our next leader by virtue of his last name, might as well join the madness.


After all the pipe dream of gaining power is more important than doing the right thing, right?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Like Rand said, this bill

Like Rand said, this bill doesn't actually fund anything. The main appropriations bill contains the actual funding, and he said he would vote against that.

He voted to authorize them to use funds apropriated later...

Apples and Oranges.

He voted to give them permission to spend this money, a good portion of which will go to harming innocents abroad.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Rand doesn't believe in a $0

Rand doesn't believe in a $0 defense budget, so obviously he's going to support authorizing use of funds. It's how much we're spending that is the problem

I call Rand a NeoLib.

Like the neocons, the neolibs support whatever wars and sanctions that Israel asks them to.

Like the neocons, the neolibs give lip service to cutting spending, but when push comes to shove, they support the warfare/welfare state.

What makes neolibs different from neocons? Well, the neolibs give lip service to civil liberties issues of course! However, the only neolib actions are supporting laws or amendments that don't actually change existing laws, or the occasional protest vote that doesn't impact anything.

I would love to see what Rand would actually do if his vote alone would determine the outcome of something like raising the debt ceiling. My guess is he would vote for perpetuating the debt problem, then offer some excuses and hand wringing about why he had to do it. Just like the neocon G. H. W. Bush did when he said he had to destroy the free market in order to save it.

How about if you just run for

How about if you just run for Congress and show us how it's done.

88 billions?

I thought that was just for Afghanistan?

That should just tie their military and police for about 8 years.

What are the soldiers going to be paid?


Not all sons are like their fathers

John Quincey Adams was different from his father, as well as Ronald Reagan's son, who is opposite of his father. I think many have so much faith in Rand being like his father because they love his father, and become in denial when Rand doesn't act like his father.

He's playing the game

I hope it doesn't consume him though

Dixie is on target

And making a cogent argumenr in this thread. Frankly I thought Ron spent a disproportionate amount of political capital on non intervention. Rand is building a realistic new conservative coalition.

Why a true limited government

Why a true limited government conservative can't support worthless wars:

"We cannot leave our topic without saying at least a word about the domestic tyranny that is the inevitable accompaniment of war. The great Randolph Bourne realized that "war is the health of the State."[13] It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion ()()()()()()()()()over the economy()()()()()()()() and the society. Society becomes a herd, seeking to kill its alleged enemies, rooting out and suppressing all dissent from the official war effort, happily betraying truth for the supposed public interest. Society becomes an armed camp, with the values and the morale – as Albert Jay Nock once phrased it – of an "army on the march."


We JUST lived this during the Bush era. Where the f*** were you?

Ventura 2012

I am a Rand supporter and Voter, but...

THANK YOU for saying what other posters here wont admit to explicitly but do imply. That you are willing to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers and innocent men women and children around the world, including the attendant civil liberties violations that ALWAYS come with war. For what you are willing to sacrifice this for is unclear, my guess is its not principled nor based in any knowledge of history whatsoever. Its certainly not patriotic to knowingly send our young men to die for pointless endeavors just to score cheap political points to be spent on domestic issues.

Ventura 2012

SteveMT's picture

"a realistic new conservative coalition."Pretty dangerous stuff.

New conservatism is also called Neoconservatism, which can be shortened to neocon.

As for the realistic part, McCain called it pragmatism:

John McCain, who was the Republican candidate for the 2008 United States Presidential election, endorsed continuing the second Iraq War, "the issue that is most clearly identified with the neoconservatives". The New York Times reported further that his foreign policy views combined elements of neoconservatism and the main competing conservative opinion, pragmatism, also known as realism.

Not neoconservatism

Which is a progressive coalition. But an alliance between constitutionalists/Jeffersonian libertarians and those that consider themselves Reagan Conservatives. I think Rand is trying to get both extremes within these existing coalitions to moderate their stances a bit. Eject the neoconservative influence but do so in a more reasonable fashion than Ron advocated. Split off the reluctant interventionists from the ideological imperialists. The troops can't just "march home tomorrow" as Ron often says. That statement alienates many would-be supporters who see it as untenable. I think if his rhetoric was milder on this issue Ron could have actually won the nomination. He would have lost some anti-war liberals but gained a lot of garden variety conservatives. I know many of them and they say they cannot support Ron Paul because of this issue. They aren't ideological neocons. They simply support the military and the use of force in some circumstances. They can come around with a little support and coaxing. Focus on troop buildup in Europe, Japan, etc, and wasteful Pentagon spending rather than Arab wars to start. Rand Paul is clearly not an anarchist, nor is he a neoconservative. He's probably closer to Pat Buchanan but with a little less olde time religion. I like it.

The trouble with your grand

The trouble with your grand strategy theory is that it ignores the ample evidence of Rand's pure opportunism including the needless cruelty to his father in 2008 e.g the announcement on Hannity, who had LED the chair to smear his dad, the failure to lift a finger at the state conventions, etc.

Even you are right, however. Rand is on a fool's errand. The Hannitys and Becks (who he is very much targeting for support) are never going to throw their support to an "unreliable" person like Rand. In the end, they will choose a down the line pro-Israel warmonger like Rubio. Also, Rand can never tap into the enthusiasm of the Ron Paul foot troops. For your grand stategy to work, Rand needs both.

The current rightwing praise of Rand is not to be taken seriously. They only like Rand to the extent that he can undercut the Ron Paulites and antiwar libertarians. Nothing more. Rand is their useful idiot.

SteveMT's picture

We will go bankrupt before this strategy works.

Neocons will not change quickly enough to stop the economic collapse. Rand knows history. Ron Paul tried to stop these people for 30 years. Although he failed, he did succeed in exposing them for what they are. That exposure was a big victory. By Rand getting into bed with them, he is already getting dirty. Neocons love undeclared wars of aggression, which this bill continues to fund while hoping to stop only one. This is not a good strategy when you look like, talk like, and vote like the rest of the lying warmongers.

Some people don't seem to

Some people don't seem to have the sense of urgency we do.

Ventura 2012

funding the national defense

funding the national defense is unconstitutional since when? national defense is actually one of the main purposes of the government. once again everyone bugs out and acts on a largely emotional basis.

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

SteveMT's picture

When it is national offense

It is not defensive to have 900 bases in 130 countries?

Undeclared wars are unconstitutional

You really don't remember Ron Paul saying that about a million times? In what way are the present UNDECLARED wars the USA is involved in "national defense"?? Our country's national security does need legitimate defense...but consider the national debt and the raising of the "debt ceiling" every year and think about the utter lack of security of a bankrupt country.

Ron Paul voted for an

Ron Paul voted for an "undeclared war" when he voted for the AUMF back in 2001. So why does Rand get criticized for voting for some level of funding for a war that Ron originally voted for? Why doesn't Ron get criticized for voting for an "undeclared war?"

Why did my comment get 9

Why did my comment get 9 negative votes? What I said is absolutely true. You can't deny it. Ron voted in favor of an undeclared war when he voted for the AUMF in 2001.

He did and he made a mistake.

He did and he made a mistake. He's only human. They're downvoting because they don't see why you feel the need to bring Ron Paul bashing into it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Are you going to bring up the newsletters too? Its only natural to question the loyalty of alleged Ron Paul supporters who will attack Ron Paul to win an internet argument.

Ventura 2012

I just brought Ron Paul into

I just brought Ron Paul into it to point out that no one is perfect.

Two wrongs don't make a

Two wrongs don't make a right! Please don't take it upon yourself to debate progressives, they'll have you over a barrel with "Jefferson broke the Constitution with the Louisiana purchase" so fast it'll make your head spin.

Ventura 2012