Rand Paul and Conservatives in La La Land

Harry Truman said that Richard Nixon talked out of both sides of his mouth, lied from both of them.  Now that the election is over, note the “subtle” shift in approach by Rand Paul, newly elected Senator from the great state of Kentucky. The following is from Rand Paul’s website (http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rands-contagious-conservatism/) from before the election:

Rand Paul appreciates Republican Senator Jim DeMint introducing today a one-year ban on earmark spending and a balanced-budget amendment. Rand strongly supports both initiatives and has made them centerpieces of his campaign for limited government, including his signing of the Citizens Against Government Waste “No pork pledge.”

Mathew Kaminski, of the Wall Street Journal, noted the following from an interview with Paul last weekend:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he (Paul) tells me that they (earmarks) are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

So you're not a crazy libertarian? "Not that crazy," he cracks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596591626268782.html?mod=WSJ_article_related)

So, we’re OK with pork as long as the hogs are raised in the bluegrass state?

Almost as disconcerting (but frankly quite a bit funnier) is this from an article by Jackie Calmes in today’s New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/us/politics/p10spending.html ). She noted that a Republican “study group” pledged to save $ 25 billion over 10 years by cutting a part of President Obama’s stimulus package, the part that consisted of an emergency welfare fund. The problem with this is that the fund ceased to exist September 30. So we’re now going call cutting a non-existent program a spending cut? Aside from the math (and I can’t help but think of Jethro from the Beverly Hillbilly’s saying “naught times 10 is naught) there is a bit of what color is the sky in your world? Representative Jim McDermat noted “what’s next?  Claiming savings for cutting New Deal work programs that ended 70 years ago?”. 

Here’s a news bulletin: EVERYBODY is against “wasteful government spending”. Who could be for such a thing? But as you get to particulars (something the Tea Party and cohorts are loath to do) the question becomes “who’s ox is getting gored here?,” and if it is a program that hurts a specific group, they’re going to deny it’s wasteful. If you want to cut the budget in any real way it needs to come from four:  Health and Human Services, Social Security, Defense, or the Fed. No one (from either party) will touch Social Security, the Fed is payment of interest of bonds, etc., cutting defense while we have boots on the ground in Afghanistan is unpalatable to conservatives, and in this down economy the amount of human suffering that cutting Health and Human Services would be unspeakable. But now is put up or shut up time – the Republicans and Tea Party  am who came to power looking for less government needs to come up with real numbers, cut real pork all around (if they are going to do it), and come up with cuts to programs that actually exist.