Paul: I’ll raise the debt ceiling in exchange for a balanced-budget amendment

posted at 9:30 am on April 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

CNN’s Candy Crowley interviewed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on the debt-ceiling increase and the issues of government spending, and got perhaps a mild surprise for an answer. Yes, Paul will vote to raise the debt ceiling — but only in exchange for a balanced-budget amendment that ends deficit spending in Washington. Furthermore, Paul rejects the notion that a compromise on the budget involves raising taxes. A compromise means that conservatives will have to give up some defense spending as liberals give up some social-policy spending. Under no circumstances should Washington be trusted with even more money:

CROWLEY: I want to just add that the president has said in recent interviews that his vote against raising the debt ceiling was a political vote by a novice senator and he regrets it. But moving you along here, if — it just seems completely unlikely to me that there will be a vote for a constitutional balanced budget amendment. It seems unlikely to me that the president would agree to just use existing funds to pay off the interest on the debt. Seems to me that the only way this is going to go is that there will be the prediction (ph) of a bill to raise the debt ceiling. So if there is that, could you see yourself just voting no and letting it go at that, or would you stop at any means?

PAUL: I think we haven’t yet determined what our strategy will be, but I can tell you that the people of Kentucky elected me to shake things up. They didn’t elect me to raise the debt ceiling. They didn’t elect me to pass budgets that add — you know, the president’s budget will add $7 trillion to the debt if you believe his numbers. But whatever the numbers are, our government and our leaders are still adding enormous amounts of debt, heaping this burden on our kids and our grandkids. It is precisely why I was elected, to oppose this type of behavior.

CROWLEY: As you know, there is a so-called gang of six on the Senate side, three Republicans, three Democrats, trying to come together to come up with a bill that could pass, that would deal with the debt that you’re talking about here. Because the president has a plan, House Republicans have a plan, there’s not a lot of middle ground there other than everybody thinks — everybody says we’ve got to cut the deficit. I want to read you something that Senator Tom Coburn, a fellow Republican from Oklahoma said about these negotiations and about how to bring down the deficit — the debt. And he said. “I agree that we ought to cut spending. But will we ever get the spending cut to the level that we need without some type of compromise?” He’s talking tax increases here. Can you see yourself agreeing to a tax increase to help with this debt that you’re so concerned about?

PAUL: Yeah. I think there is a compromise. But the compromise is not to raise taxes, the compromise is for conservatives to admit that the military budget’s going to have to be cut. We’ve doubled military spending. I believe in a strong national defense, but conservatives will have to compromise and we will have to cut military spending. Liberals will have to compromise and we will have to cut domestic welfare. The compromise is where we cut, not where we raise taxes. The problem is, if you give them more money in Washington, they’re not to be trusted. I mean, there was $100 billion in last year’s budget that is unaccounted for. They don’t even know where the money was spent. Recently when we bailed out the banks in our country, guess who got bailed out? The Libyan National Bank. It was a pass-through. AIG became a pass-through for foreign banks. We don’t know where all of our money is going to be spent.

When I want to turn in money for my office, I want to turn a couple hundred thousand dollars back in that I’m not going to spend? It is unclear where that money goes. We cannot even be confident that the couple hundred thousand I want to give back goes towards the debt. Our government is out of control. They don’t need more money, we need to give them less money.

Expect to hear more of the argument that Republicans agree with Barack Obama — circa 2006, though, not 2011, on debt ceilings. Crowley notes that the White House now says that Obama regrets the vote, and it’s clear that he does, but for all the wrong reasons. Republicans have a good argument in this case that a vote against a debt-ceiling hike is a mainstream and not extreme position, but that enabling trillions more in deficit spending is not just extreme but also extremely dangerous. For the White House to argue otherwise is to admit that Obama really was the emperor who wore no clothes in 2006, just a year before he claimed to have all the expertise necessary to be President of the United States.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Unfortunately, the novice President of 2010 is as much of a hack as the novice Senator was in 2006.

Jorge Bonilla on April 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM

They had better fight for a BBA of some description. They told us that throwing the fight on the 2011 CR was a way to bring focus on the debt ceiling. Now, I’m hearing “controls on spending,” but not the words “balanced budget amendment.” This is the time for such a thing.

American awareness of our borrowing and debt is high, there is widespread opposition to raising the debt ceiling, and Americans want a balanced budget. Timmy Geithner’s trying his idiotic fear tactics and every other word that comes out of his mouth is “default,” but the GOP can win this PR war – if they’re willing actually to fight it.

KingGold on April 18, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Rand is da man. If no one has said so lately, thank you Kentucky. I take back all the hating I do on Wildcats b-ball. Rand makes it up for your state.

Sugar Land on April 18, 2011 at 9:38 AM

O/T Dow down 170pts looks like a black Monday is setting up.

unseen on April 18, 2011 at 9:40 AM

S&P moves US outlook to negative. The collapse is beginning.

andy85719 on April 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Exercises in frustration.

Sarah where are you?

davidk on April 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Obama constantly gets a pass and all of the pressure is put on Republicans to compromise. They call it ideological when Republicans want to cut spending but not when democrats call for raising taxes when in fact both positions are ideological. That right there is all the proof anyone should need to see how hard the media is working to cover for The Won.

Mord on April 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Rand is da man. If no one has said so lately, thank you Kentucky. I take back all the hating I do on Wildcats b-ball. Rand makes it up for your state.

Sugar Land on April 18, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Apology accepted, and look for us in the Final Four again next year.

fossten on April 18, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Ug. Defense should be almost the entirety of the budget.
On the other hand, we should probably move tax credits and the money going to deductions over to a liability on the spending side of the equation, because that is really closer to what there effect on the economy is. I’d love it if someone went back and re-examined the budget numbers historically, so we could how things have changed.

Count to 10 on April 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Tru dat king gold…the gop needs to fight these scare tactics….however, we’ve got some in the gop who rather play nice and thus feel like they need to compromise on deals that the dems and dear leader will just renig on as soon as it is done….look at the signing statement dear leader just did

cmsinaz on April 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Be careful what you wish for: a balanced budget amendment would give the Dimocrats license to raise taxes every year in the name of “balancing the budget”. It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but…

Old Fritz on April 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Obama constantly gets a pass and all of the pressure is put on Republicans to compromise. They call it ideological when Republicans want to cut spending but not when democrats call for raising taxes when in fact both positions are ideological. That right there is all the proof anyone should need to see how hard the media is working to cover for The Won.

The people know what’s really going on (I think). The MSM is just a bunch of hacks. See how they labled the CNN clip? “Paul wants more cuts” as though he had nothing to say about balancing the budget.

What are the chances of a grassroots effort as the balanced budget ammendment?

demotheses on April 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Well said mord

cmsinaz on April 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Exercises in frustration.

Sarah where are you?

davidk on April 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM

she will be on Greta tonight.

unseen on April 18, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Paul: I’ll raise the debt ceiling in exchange for a balanced-budget amendment

The balanced-budget amendment should also include a provision for debt reduction.

rukiddingme on April 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM

“Novice Senator” in 2006. What does he call himself today. I have some ideas.

Paul-Cincy on April 18, 2011 at 9:50 AM

cmsinaz on April 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Thanks.

Rand Paul has quickly exceeded all expectation I ever read about him. The guy is going to have a very bright future I think. I didn’t know anything about him except who his father is before he was elected.

Mord on April 18, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Part of the BBA should be a 2/3 majority requirement to raise any form of government revenue, even through regulation.

SDN on April 18, 2011 at 9:54 AM

The problem is, if you give them more money in Washington, they’re not to be trusted.

That is the absolute truth! Washington (both sides of the aisle) never sees a dollar of your money they won’t spend along with the dollar you haven’t earned yet.

Herb on April 18, 2011 at 9:54 AM

On the other hand, we should probably move tax credits and the money going to deductions over to a liability on the spending side of the equation, because that is really closer to what there effect on the economy is. I’d love it if someone went back and re-examined the budget numbers historically, so we could how things have changed.

Count to 10 on April 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM

There is no such thing as ‘money going to deductions’, unless you assume that all income belongs to the government and is ‘allowed’ to be given to us serfs.

fossten on April 18, 2011 at 9:55 AM

It is simply astounding to me how the media are letting Obama get away with this “oops, my bad, I was a rookie” nonsense about his 2006 vote against the debt ceiling. Everyone in Washington knew the day he walked in the door he was running for President. (Except maybe Hillary Clinton, and that isn’t saying much.) They are setting this up to accuse Republicans of taking nakedly political votes just like the Dems did in 2006, when we wouldn’t NEED such a vote if the budgte had stayed where it was in 2006!

rockmom on April 18, 2011 at 9:56 AM

If I could trust this guy with a policy on Israel that doesn’t cuddle up to Islam, I would quit my job and volunteer to work for his Presidential election.

Alas…

Jaibones on April 18, 2011 at 9:56 AM

A balanced budget amendment is a bad idea. It gives cover to the politicians to raise taxes.

“We have to raise taxes because of the BBA. We have no choice.”

ladyingray on April 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Rand Paul has quickly exceeded all expectation I ever read about him. The guy is going to have a very bright future I think. I didn’t know anything about him except who his father is before he was elected.

Mord on April 18, 2011 at 9:53 AM

I’m originally from Kentucky and I love this guy. He is like a younger, saner Jim Bunning. I would love to be a fly on the wall when he meets with Mitch McConnell these days.

rockmom on April 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM

I doubt tax increases would raise any extra revenue anyway, so the argument for them is essentially political. More to the point, since when has government needed to raise either taxes or revenue to go on compulsively spending? If I thought the fig leaf of more taxes here or there would produce grand and sustainable spending cuts I would adjust to the prospect of Democrats wearing them. Needless to say, I have my doubts. On the other hand, it is dangerous to mandate a balanced budget in all circumstances. It’s an excuse to spend gratuitously in fruitful years (as Palin could tell you) and it may be inadequate medicine in fallow ones. But at least we’re taxi-ing down the runway.

Seth Halpern on April 18, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Be careful what you wish for: a balanced budget amendment would give the Dimocrats license to raise taxes every year in the name of “balancing the budget”. It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but…

Old Fritz on April 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM

This argument always comes up in these threads. First, the BBA proposals on the table also cap spending at 20% of GDP so the Dems may raise taxes but they can only spend so much and then they have to stop. We can deal with tax-raisers at the ballot box. Our grandchildren are stuck dealing with the handiwork of our deficit-spenders.

Second, most states have a BBA. We have one in Texas and we are not taxed to death. In fact, Texas has one of the lowest tax rates in the country. If you think that’s because Texas is a red state, think again. Until 2010, the Texas legislature was nearly half Democrats.

I think this is a good play by the GOP. However, unlike the border-security-for-amnesty deal in the 1980′s, I hope they have the good sense to insist on sending the BBA to the states before they raise the debt ceiling.

Kafir on April 18, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Ug. Defense should be almost the entirety of the budget.

Count to 10 on April 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Try to keep in mind that there are a lot of other responsibilities spelled out in the Constitution other than national defense. Post office, patent office, standards and measures, etc.

Also, just because defense is a primary responsibility, does not mean that we aren’t spending too much on it. If we were spending $700 billion to deliver mail all around the world, I think we’d all agree that it was way too much.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Rand/anybody 2012

james23 on April 18, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I’m originally from Kentucky and I love this guy. He is like a younger, saner Jim Bunning.

rockmom on April 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Yes, but has he ever pitched a perfect game?

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM

OT- has there been any post about the recall petitions of a fleabagger being stolen over the weekend? GWP has had it up but I haven’t seen it here…

journeyintothewhirlwind on April 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Crowley notes that the White House now says that Obama regrets the vote, and it’s clear that he does, but for all the wrong reasons. Republicans have a good argument in this case that a vote against a debt-ceiling hike is a mainstream and not extreme position, but that enabling trillions more in deficit spending is not just extreme but also extremely dangerous.

Worth repeating. Buck Ofama, lying piece of Shiite.

Jaibones on April 18, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Why do I feel like the Republicans are Charlie Brown perrenially running at that football that Lucy (obviously a Democrat) is holding?

Don’t raise the debt ceiling, Rand, because there won’t be a balanced budget ammendment (not in the true sense of what Rand thinks that means).

Fallon on April 18, 2011 at 10:08 AM

A balanced budget amendment is a bad idea. It gives cover to the politicians to raise taxes.

“We have to raise taxes because of the BBA. We have no choice.”

ladyingray on April 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Sure but raising taxes is almost always unpopular. There is a tug-o-war in our society between those who want entitlements and those who pay for them and going in to debt has been the go to option to hide the fact from those who pay for entitlements that they are paying for them. At the very least a balanced budget ammendment would make it so politicians no longer had a ‘pretend this choice has no consequences/pain’ option. Every time the government wanted to increase spending it would need to immediatly risk the ire of tax payers.

gwelf on April 18, 2011 at 10:09 AM

CROWLEY: I want to just add that the president has said in recent interviews that his vote against raising the debt ceiling was a political vote by a novice senator and he regrets it.

And for the last few years, he has been implementing the political agenda of a novice President. Will America survive to the time when he comes to regret it (will that day ever come?)?

Ordinary American on April 18, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Barry will see Rand’s balanced budget amendment and raise a signing statement ignoring the balanced budget amendment.

Dusty on April 18, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Game On.

Dr Evil on April 18, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Yeah. A BBA that has no chance of passing. This is just like getting the up/down vote on PP funding – didn’t do a damn thing.

But hey, we had a vote, right?

The debt ceiling is going to be raised because it must be. There are no pols in Washington who are going to make this stand. Rand Paul is evidence of it.

Maybe I’m just being too cynical…

catmman on April 18, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Raising taxes for spending cuts compromise isn’t a compromise. The taxes will stick and the spending cuts ( both welfare and military ) won’t stick. The Democrats would have an incentive to not stick to the budget cuts: it would show that it’s pointless to elect Republican congressmen.

There won’t be any constitutional amendments so Republicans are left with one option: Give the Democrats a take it or leave it budget and let them accept it or let them shut down the government. Obama won’t put his scimitar to the necks of the troops again. He’s happy the Republicans let him off the hook the last time he tried that.

Buddahpundit on April 18, 2011 at 10:14 AM

A balanced budget amendment is a bad idea. It gives cover to the politicians to raise taxes.

“We have to raise taxes because of the BBA. We have no choice.”

ladyingray on April 18, 2011 at 9:58 AM

The pivotal element of a BBA is a spending cap linked directly to GDP. They should fight for a cap of 18%, but I don’t think they’ll get it. So, they should push for 20%.

The taxes will be irrelevant if spending caps are in place. Entitlement reform, of course, is the linchpin of that effort.

KingGold on April 18, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Hey Rand, how about throwing in the repeal of ZeroCare into the deal?

parteagirl on April 18, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Doesn’t Mark Levin, along with Friedman, strongly suggest capping spending as a percentage of the GDP, I think at 17%, over a BBA?

parteagirl on April 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM

For the White House to argue otherwise is to admit that Obama really was the emperor who wore no clothes in 2006, just a year before he claimed to have all the expertise necessary to be President of the United States.

And we’re supposed to be surprised by this? BHO was a fraud in 2006. He’s a fraud now.

S&P moves US outlook to negative. The collapse is beginning.

andy85719 on April 18, 2011 at 9:41 AM

See George Soros.
See George Soros the Puppet Master.
See George Soros gleefully rubbing hands together.

GrannyDee on April 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Doesn’t Mark Levin, along with Friedman, strongly suggest capping spending as a percentage of the GDP, I think at 17%, over a BBA?

parteagirl on April 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Two points on that:

1) We will never, ever, get a cap of 17%, even if there were nothing but Republicans in the Congress. There are too many departments in the government to sustain that kind of level.

2) “Spending caps” can be ignored by putting up some silly “emergency” title on the legislation. A BBA, as its name would suggest, is a constitutional amendment. Not negotiable, and the only proviso would probably be with a state of declared war – which we do not currently have. If you want Democrats to obey the rules, you have to force their hand.

KingGold on April 18, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Would a balanced budget amendment work as well as paygo? Given that our dear leader will ignore parts of laws he doesn’t like, why is Sen. Rand even bothering to think up this stuff.

Kissmygrits on April 18, 2011 at 10:24 AM

No, no, and more no. A balanced budget amendment is window dressing.

SouthernGent on April 18, 2011 at 10:25 AM

@unseen: Definitely not O/T.

Seth Halpern on April 18, 2011 at 10:29 AM

“Senator Obama acted stupidly.”

President Obama

Khun Joe on April 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Rand stop blowing smoke up our as* a balanced budget amendment has no chance of passing the states. and if it does all it will do is give the pols in Dc cover to raise taxes.

Just cut the credit card up and do the serious work of cutting the bloated government down to size. The BBA is another smoke and mirror effort to appease us fiscal conservatives….

unseen on April 18, 2011 at 10:35 AM

CROWLEY: I want to just add that the president has said in recent interviews that his vote against raising the debt ceiling was a political vote by a novice senator and he regrets it.

Carry that Obama water, Candy!

Just be sure to bend at the knees so you don’t hurt your back!

David2.0 on April 18, 2011 at 10:42 AM

@unseen: Definitely not O/T.

Seth Halpern on April 18, 2011 at 10:29 AM

You have a good point

unseen on April 18, 2011 at 10:44 AM

If I could trust this guy with a policy on Israel that doesn’t cuddle up to Islam, I would quit my job and volunteer to work for his Presidential election.

Alas…

Jaibones on April 18, 2011 at 9:56 AM

You Israel-firsters kill me.

Do you honestly think that the State of Israel makes a single decision by asking the question: “Is this good for America?” Trust me, they don’t.

I will say that the Israeli’s DID attempt to warn us about 9-11 and I am grateful to them for that.

David2.0 on April 18, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Defense spending was SLASHED in the 90′s, while Social Engineering spending has gone through the roof. There should be no compromise here, only an ideological isolationist like Paul would push this as a backdoor way to implement his unicorn vision.

The Navy has a fraction of ships in commission today that it had when Reagan left office. The REagan military was already gutted in the 90′s….and it cost us a FORUTNE Fiscally as well as our other Liberties in doing so.

jp on April 18, 2011 at 10:47 AM

With have half as many Combat Brigades today, compared to when Reagan left office…..we slashed Defense spending in the 90′s after Soviet Union fell, foolishly buying into the “End of History” thesis that floated around Washington.

Slashing defense even more, is a recipe for the ultimate Fiscal disaster, as well as whiping out Americans most basic Civil Liberties.

jp on April 18, 2011 at 10:51 AM

also, most of our FOreign Military bases are financed by the host countries.

For example, South Korea pays us $700 Million per year. and those bases have made the US more secure financially, as we have help foster a major world economic player in South Korea and along with that a great Trading partner. They provide us with strategic access the police the shipping lanes and keep bad actors in check that would thwart our Economic Activity(much like the Barbary Pirates) in the absence of the American Military in the region(s).

This makes us more fiscally sound, not less.

jp on April 18, 2011 at 10:57 AM

You Israel-firsters kill me.

Do you honestly think that the State of Israel makes a single decision by asking the question: “Is this good for America?” Trust me, they don’t.

I will say that the Israeli’s DID attempt to warn us about 9-11 and I am grateful to them for that.

David2.0 on April 18, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Here we go, a new ‘wacko’ term, like ‘truther’ and ‘birther’. Let the ad hominem and straw man arguments begin.

What part of ‘Israel is our ally’ do you not understand?

fossten on April 18, 2011 at 11:10 AM

The one part of the Federal Budget that is grossly UNDER-funded is defense. Our Navy is half the size it should be, and the lead time for new ships is exceeding a decade. (During WWII it was under six months.) Our Air Force soon will be half the size it should be, and the lead time for new aircraft designs is also up around a decade. Our ground forces, including the USMC, are about half of what we need, and it would be hard to add more than about five percent per year. But the more we overwork them, the more servicemen retire–and right now we have the oldest ground forces since before WWII.

We need to cut large parts of the social budget, double the size of our economy (it’s only about two-thirds the size it SHOULD be now) and double or triple our defense procurement budgets.

njcommuter on April 18, 2011 at 11:10 AM

What part of ‘Israel is our ally’ do you not understand?

fossten on April 18, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Well, to start with, the part where they engage in espionage against us.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 11:20 AM

when JFK was president, Defense spending was about 65% of the Federal Budget. Now its a small fraction of that thanks to welfare and all the defense cuts we’ve had since end of Cold war.

jp on April 18, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Here we go, a new ‘wacko’ term, like ‘truther’ and ‘birther’. Let the ad hominem and straw man arguments begin.

What part of ‘Israel is our ally’ do you not understand?

fossten on April 18, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Yes. Israel is our ally, as are many other countries. The USA should treat allies as allies, yes. Of course, Israel has more to fear from the establishment than Rand, but some people need a strawman to distract from the argument.

What good is being an ally to Israel when we can’t fund our military? What good will being an ally be when our military is spread so thin that we can’t assist.

The Protect Israel at all costs camp forgets what happens when the USA runs out of money, just like the Progressives forget what happens when the USA runs out of money.

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Hey Rand, how about throwing in the repeal of ZeroCare into the deal?

parteagirl on April 18, 2011 at 10:16 AM

And cap it off with a bill to move national elections to April.

Dongemaharu on April 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM

If I could trust this guy with a policy on Israel that doesn’t cuddle up to Islam, I would quit my job and volunteer to work for his Presidential election.
Alas…
Jaibones on April 18, 2011 at 9:56 AM

While I wouldn’t go ad far as trusting him to be stalwart, I believe he personally met with AIPAC to discuss their concerns, and that people from AIPAC, while not agreeing with him on everything, came away with a favorable impression.

Normally I wouldn’t take anything like that at all seriously, but I get the sense that Rand Paul is a bit more open minded than his father – the AIPAC source described him as genuinely curious to hear their take on things. Again, not something I’d normally give weight to, but I do get the vibe of a reasonable man. He is certainly very thoughtful in his speeches, a stark contrast to Obama’s vapid strawman wars.

I’m cautiously optimistic about this guy.

RINO in Name Only on April 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Ryan has it exactly right. I might quibble a bit about the where to cut, defense…, but Washington needs to be shut down until they are willing to produce a balanced budget that doesn’t get balanced by raising taxes.
 
Actually, I wouldn’t mind if they raised taxes, on the 50% of Americans that pay no tax. No more free rides. Everyone with income should share in the cost of and responsibility for this government.

ClanDerson on April 18, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Balanced budget amendment is worthless if it has a trigger
for automatic increases in taxes to balance. It should have
an automatic spending cut to balance and only a spending cut.

lilium on April 18, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Well, to start with, the part where they engage in espionage against us.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Have they done this regularly or repeatedly? How many times have they done this, and when was the most recent, credible documented incident?

I am genuinely curious about this. I don’t mean it in an argumentative way, though I admit I probably disagree with you on this issue.

RINO in Name Only on April 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM

MAKE SURE YOU GET THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT FIRST.

tarpon on April 18, 2011 at 11:39 AM

You Israel-firsters kill me.

David2.0 on April 18, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Funny coming from a group of people that, 70 years ago, identified themselves as “America-firsters”.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 11:20 AM

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 11:25 AM

As an aside, which of you is the real John Galt? I’ve been wondering for weeks just who precisely this Galt fellow is.

RINO in Name Only on April 18, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Funny coming from a group of people that, 70 years ago, identified themselves as “America-firsters”.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Well, you see, we are Americans. We are not Israelis. There is a difference between the State of Israel, and the United States of America. Israel is a sovereign state, and not s subdivision of the USA.

A fact that, as you have made sufficiently clear on any number of occasions, eludes you and the rest of the Amen Corner.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 11:52 AM

A fact that, as you have made sufficiently clear on any number of occasions, eludes you and the rest of the Amen Corner.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 11:52 AM

I’m a Christian, but I’m not in the Israel first corner.

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM

That comment was directed at MadCon. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Well, you see, we are Americans. We are not Israelis. There is a difference between the State of Israel, and the United States of America. Israel is a sovereign state, and not s subdivision of the USA.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 11:52 AM

That’s cute and all, but citing the title of the linked group as some sort of patriotic stand, rather than as an isolationist Jew-disliking club is rather disingenuous. Pat Buchanan’s Hitler-admiring endorsement speaks volumes.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM

That comment was directed at MadCon. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM

I understood, I just wanted to point out that there are some Believers who see the situation for what it is. There are really only two kinds of people in this world: Statists and individualists, or people who desire control, and those who don’t.

The Christians who think we should protect Israel at all cost obviously haven’t read their Bible, or they’ve misinterpreted the Bible. Not that such a goal – protect Israel – has good intentions, it’s just that it’s not possible from the Christian perspective of the new testament, in my opinion. So many focus on the future, they forget the present.

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Pat Buchanan’s Hitler-admiring endorsement speaks volumes.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM

As does your unflagging, if not worshipful, support of a nation that engages in espionage aginst your country.

The US is your country, isn’t it? Or have you already pledged allegiance to Israel?

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 12:09 PM

As does your unflagging, if not worshipful, support of a nation that engages in espionage aginst your country.

Waiting for your citation, which was requested earlier by someone else.

The US is your country, isn’t it? Or have you already pledged allegiance to Israel?

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Protip: not supporting complete abandonment of Israel ≠ “pledging allegiance to Israel”. I can’t help it that a certain subsect of paleocons like Ron Paul would jerk off at the notion of Israel getting reduced to ashes, so that they could stop worrying about the bulls**t they swallowed after reading The Protocols.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM

You Israel-firsters kill me.

Do you honestly think that the State of Israel makes a single decision by asking the question: “Is this good for America?” Trust me, they don’t.

David2.0 on April 18, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Ah, yes…David. To see the security of Israel — the middle east’s only functioning Democracy and only ally of the U.S. — as an important interest to America makes me an “Israel Firster”.

Nice hyperbole.

Jaibones on April 18, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Waiting for your citation, which was requested earlier by someone else.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Jonathan Pollard

But I guess in the Amen Corner, Israel gets one freebie.

Until the next time, when they get another freebie.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Protip: not supporting complete abandonment of Israel ≠ “pledging allegiance to Israel”.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Just like insisting Israel be responsible for its own defense != anti-Semitism.

Except of course in the Amen Corner.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 12:33 PM

And for the others in this discussion: Surely the U.S. and Israel have issues and policies on those issues which differ, and where we will part ways. Not many, I suggest, when it comes to global security.

But on the defense of Israel, where the enormous percentage of our economic aid really goes, I see no room for weakness, or as Rand Paul has put it: “I would end all aid to Israel immediately”. Disagreed, RP. 100%.

Jaibones on April 18, 2011 at 12:34 PM

was a political vote by a novice senator

The same “novice senator” that was then promptly elected as leader of the world’s largest superpower? /facepalm

jnelchef on April 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Ah, yes…David. To see the security of Israel — the middle east’s only functioning Democracy and only ally of the U.S. — as an important interest to America makes me an “Israel Firster”.

Nice hyperbole.

Jaibones on April 18, 2011 at 12:31 PM

How’s that Afghani deomocracy working out for you? How about that Egyptian democracy? How about that Iraqi democracy? *&%& How about the good ole’s USA democracy?!? How’s our own democracy working out for us?

Seriously, give up the spreading democracy nonsense, because the wonders of democracy is currently killing our our country.

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM

More Citations:

Israeli spying in the US

In 2004, the authoritative Jane’s Intelligence Group noted that Israel’s intelligence organizations “have been spying on the U.S. and running clandestine operations since Israel was established.”

Of course, in the Amen Corner, Jane’s is clearly the center of anti-Semitism.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Except of course in the Amen Corner.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 12:33 PM

What the hell is this, now? This ridiculous little quip you’re spamming which doesn’t make much sense, given that I’m not Christian.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 12:54 PM

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM

What’s amazing about that article is that they state this:

This is because Israel runs one of the most aggressive and damaging espionage networks targeting the U.S..

…yet fail to demonstrate how, other than to cite one captured spy(the extent of his damage left to the reader to wonder, and your wiki article doesn’t clear that up any further) and the Jane’s Intelligence Group conclusion…which doesn’t prove much. Ultimately, the biggest question is left unanswered: if Israel poses such a threat to our intelligence agencies and national security, why are we still doing business with them? We locked up the one agent we found…and that’s it.

Could it be, perhaps, that they’re not a threat? Nah, too easy an answer, I suppose.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM

MadisonConservative, are you Jewish? I only ask, because many of my Jewish friends support Israel without question and often for reasons that contradict their other professed beliefs.

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 1:10 PM

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM

You asked for citation… I provided it. That Ronald Reagan’s own SecDef thought Pollard should be shot for his offenses speaks for itself.

Save for in the Amen Corner.

And whether you are Christian or not doesn’t matter, given your faith in a sovereign state other than your own… one that, once again, engages in widespread espionage against this country.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM

and got perhaps a mild surprise for an answer

No surprise here. It is just what I would expect a conservative to say.

burt on April 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Of what earthly use is a balanced budget Amendment? Lots of states are constitutionally required to have balanced budgets. We all know the kind of crap that goes on so legislatures can meet that requirement. It would be no different in the federal government, only exponentially worse.

SukieTawdry on April 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM

MadisonConservative, are you Jewish? I only ask, because many of my Jewish friends support Israel without question and often for reasons that contradict their other professed beliefs.

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 1:10 PM

No, I’m agnostic.

And whether you are Christian or not doesn’t matter, given your faith in a sovereign state other than your own… one that, once again, engages in widespread espionage against this country.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 1:13 PM

“Faith”…how adorable. Support of a state is now equivalent to religious belief. Let me counter your demagoguing: hmmm, you reduce support of Israel to “faith”. I wonder if that has something to do with the primary faith Israelis hold.

You enjoying this?

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 1:27 PM

No, I’m agnostic.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Sorry, I wasn’t asking about your beliefs. Were you or any of your relatives born in, or members of, the State of Israel – the one created by men after WW2?

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM

The United States spies on its allies. Those same allies spy on the United States.

France and Japan were mentioned above as the leading infiltrators against American firms. France’s spy agency, the Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE) , aims its effort at the same U.S. technology that is of interest to the SVR: computers, aerospace, and production tools and processes. The DGSE’s specialty is infiltrating spies into U.S. and foreign offices of high-tech U.S. multi-national corporations. In 1993, a French government document listing as worthwhile targets two dozen U.S. companies – including Boeing, IBM, and Texas Instruments, was leaked to newspapers. The French are aggressive. Former CIA director Richard Helms says, “They [the French] have admitted to me in private that they go through the briefcases of visiting businessmen.”

In Japan, the Japanese Secret (Intelligence) Service works with the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) and the Japanese External Trade Organization (JETRO) to collect information on United States firms. Both organizations disseminate collected information to Japanese industry and business. It is estimated that 80 percent of Japan’s intelligence efforts, which are directed towards Western Europe as well as the United States, focus on industrial espionage, especially high-tech developments and trade secret.

Germany, Switzerland, the former Yugoslavia, South Korea, Israel, China, the Netherlands, and Belgium amongst others have also been identified as carrying out similar industrial espionage activities.

Those who are shocked by this have a Peter Pan view of the world.

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Sorry, I wasn’t asking about your beliefs. Were you or any of your relatives born in, or members of, the State of Israel – the one created by men after WW2?

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM

No. No Jewish heritage whatsoever. Irish and Scottish, mostly.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 1:34 PM

No. No Jewish heritage whatsoever. Irish and Scottish, mostly.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 1:34 PM

OK. So, what responsibility do you think we the American People have to the State of Israel, our ally? And, can we the American People change those responsibilities, or is it a once and forever deal?

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM

OK. So, what responsibility do you think we the American People have to the State of Israel, our ally? And, can we the American People change those responsibilities, or is it a once and forever deal?

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM

To help them avoid being slaughtered. Which, if you noticed, ain’t easy.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM

One point: write into the BBA that any attempt to evade it is an impeachable offense.

PersonFromPorlock on April 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM

So this Balanced Budget Amendment will be passed first before raising the debt ceiling, right? No?

Well then, are we just talking about a promise from the Democrats for a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment?

I wonder how the Democrats and RINO’s will vote? /

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I wonder how the Democrats and RINO’s will vote? /

sharrukin on April 18, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I’ll bet you every penny I have that Paul Ryan and John Boehner vote against it.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM

More Citations:
Israeli spying in the US

In 2004, the authoritative Jane’s Intelligence Group noted that Israel’s intelligence organizations “have been spying on the U.S. and running clandestine operations since Israel was established.”

Of course, in the Amen Corner, Jane’s is clearly the center of anti-Semitism.

JohnGalt23 on April 18, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Seriously? A link to counter-punch? The “citation” is allegedly from Jane’s intelligence group, but nothing is given but the year. GooglIng the phrase simply beings up citations from other stalwart conservative websites, such as alternet and democratic underground. Oh, and Pravda too. No reference given, so one can’t check the context, or even the veracity for that matter. Interestingly, the one source O found that didn’t highlight the phrase or put it in quotes was Pravda, suggesting that those scrupulous fact-checkers may be the source.

RINO in Name Only on April 18, 2011 at 2:10 PM

To help them avoid being slaughtered. Which, if you noticed, ain’t easy.

MadisonConservative on April 18, 2011 at 1:47 PM

OK. Why not have them come on over to the USA then? Or, do you think we should involuntarily offer up our military men and women to be killed so the Israelis can live where they want to live? And, if we’re talking about preventing people from being slaughtered, then we have much work to do in Africa as well. Or, is being slaughtered OK for people who aren’t allies of the USA?

j_galt on April 18, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2