Rand Paul slams Congress for not reading Bills. Mic drops the US Senate.

In general I agree with Senator Paul on the point of his speech about last minute garbage riders and not being able to understand bills before voting.

However, he took a gratuitous punch at 'the other side of the aisle' that was not only missed by a mile, but complete exposed him as completely ignorant of the Constitutional provisions about budgets.

He claimed that the Senate provided a budget bill that was 'the Presidents desire for a budget, but no one on the other side of the aisle (i.e. the Democrats) voted for it. I seem to remember that issue, and he is correct - BUT budget bills ARE NOT ORIGINATED IN THE SENATE. Democrat Senators didn't vote for that budget bill because it was total worthless bulldung.

Budget bills MUST originate in the House of Representatives and it is the House that have not been doing their jobs and passing budget bills for years. Senator Paul needs to take it up with the House Republicans and especially his "Fellow Travellers" in the T.E.A. Party faction that are holding the country hostage.

By the way, notice that the camera never pointed at the chamber - he would have been talking to an empty room.

a reply to: rnaa

The federal budget is proposed by the President and submitted to Congress who do their thing since law requires appropriations to be authorized by Congress. Both houses can make changes and both houses must argee on a final version of the bill before its sent back to POTUS to sign or veto.

The federal budget is not a tax bill so either the House or Senate can push their own versions. A budget is not required to originate in the House.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well we are both right, sort of. The President's budget proposals contain BOTH spending and revenue plans. The Budget Resolution itself is neither a spending bill nor a revenue bill nor a 'bill' of any kind, actually, and there is no obligation for either or both houses of Congress to pass a budget resolution. Anything approved in a budget resolution must actually be authorized in a 'real' bill.

To the extent that revenue must be generated to fund spending plans, that revenue plan must be authorized by a bill that originates in the House of Representatives.

The budget resolution processes FY 2011, '12, and '13 were sham political posturing by the GOP. During that time, Obama was making an honest attempt to negotiate with a GOP House infested (as it still is) with TEA party lunatics (especially Ryan), and a Senate Majority Leader that wasn't allowed to lead and was continuously undermined by lunatic junior Senators with ambitions of glory (especially Cruz). It didn't matter what Obama proposed, the GOP would vote it down.

Obama's proposal in 2012 could not and would not pass the House. Ryan's proposal could not and would not pass the Senate. Negotiations were not possible due to GOP/TEA intransigence. The vote was a foregone conclusion, and was fundamentally a demonstration of the impasse.

a reply to: CynConcepts

I think that we need to start from the bottom and move up with libertarian office. Start at the states (like Gary Johnson did--a guy I have already voted for once and will again), and then congress, and then the white house.

If we try to start at the "top," we stand to be known as the do-nothing party because everything that is passed in congress would get vetoed (hopefully) by a libertarian president.

Several observations. I knew congress was a joke and pool of things im gritting my teeth like wild thinking but can't write here. But this is something im ashamed to say I just learned is happening but its not a joke at all its downright anarchist, nation-spitting, shameful practices that anyone guilty in the slightest of not even attempting to give adequate time and energy should be stripped of their fancy free flying name your own salary cushy title and publicly made to account. My gosh its just a hundred people and there supposed to have something special especially to make SENATE...but my god this is the running of 400 million lives! It should be approached with care never before imagined!

Second, it is truly sickening that in 2016 a rider is still legal. Its appaling to see the things that have become sacred law only because it was attached last second to the "How about we DON'T kill these hundred puppies but play with them and smell their puppy breath instead," bill or whatever bill passes by that is completely unable to NOT see ratification and is seen as a sure thing.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Easily the best and most qualified person that was running for president. This type of action is commonplace for Rand. Good thing we are stuck with Hillary and Trump.

Our system is screwed yet we keep giving them more money, more power, and more control over social programs that directly affects each and every one of us.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: CynConcepts

I think that we need to start from the bottom and move up with libertarian office. Start at the states (like Gary Johnson did--a guy I have already voted for once and will again), and then congress, and then the white house.

If we try to start at the "top," we stand to be known as the do-nothing party because everything that is passed in congress would get vetoed (hopefully) by a libertarian president.

Johnson/weld are not considered the normal liberterians. They both are ex-republican governors who lead majority democrat states. They know how to get things done on both sides of the parties. Personally, I think they...not the actual liberal party, will create more change and less stalemate in office. If this is wrong thinking, tell me how?

a reply to: CynConcepts

(sorry for the late reply)

I don't think that your thought process is "wrong," just different.

My point is that presidents don't legislation, they just govern and have limited control over the agencies within the executive branch (EPA, NSA, etc.). If we want true change, the yahoos in Congress that are currently there, bowing down to the two main parties at every turn, will not draft, approve, and send meaningful legislation to the desk of a libertarian president. So, the president can advocate for this or that, and withhold signature on budgets for this or that reason, but that's not going to create a meaningful change.