TRANSCRIPT:
I’m not sure I heard it. Is there anybody here from the Tea Party? Are we going to let Washington co-op the Tea Party?

Will you help me fight for and defend the Constitution?

At the turn of the last century, the chaplain of the U.S. Senate was Edward Hale and they asked him, ‘do you pray for the Senate?’ And he said, ‘well, I look at Senators and I pray for the people.’

When I was elected to the Senate a fellow Senator called me to congratulate me and he said, ‘the first six months, you’ll pinch yourself and say, how did I get here? The next six months, you’ll pinch yourself and say, how the hell did the rest of these guys get here?’

I brought with me today two examples -- gross examples -- of government ineptitude. There’s probably thousands of others, but I brought these two I learned about recently from Senator Collins. It’s not that government is inherently stupid, although that’s a debatable question, but I have two examples that may make you wonder whether it is an inherent trait of government. The Energy Department has an EnergyStar program. You’ve seen the stickers for energy efficiency? Well, Senator Collins got wind of this and she said, you know what? I think maybe they’ll approve anything. She had the investigator general send things over. This is an air freshener. I’m not kidding. I’m not making this up. This is the actual air freshener that was sent over to the Energy Department, and it got a sticker. Okay? Approved. We also have -- this is a near facsimile. This is actually the smaller version. It’s much larger than this. A gasoline powered alarm clock. It’s going to save electricity.

Early on in my campaign I stopped by a book publisher in Shepherdsville, Ky. It’s near Louisville. This book publisher had published Barry Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative,” the first edition. I’ve always liked the passage from the first chapter where he says,

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.
My aim is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution . . . I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Barry Goldwater mentions one Supreme Court case in that book: Wicker v. Filburn, many know it. A farmer in California wants to grow 20 acres of wheat. The government says you can only grow 10 acres of wheat. He said, by what authority do you tell me this? And they say, the Commerce Clause, and he said, well, I’m not even going to sell the wheat. I’m going feed it to my cattle, and they say to him, well, by your inactivity, by not doing anything, can you indirectly affect the price of wheat, and they enforce this. That ruling was in the ’40s. For 60 and 70 years now we’ve been working with this notion that the Commerce Clause says that our government can do anything. Until Obamacare came along.

They scoffed at us when we said it wasn’t constitutional. Nancy Pelosi looked like a deer in the headlights; she couldn’t believe that anyone would question the constitutionality. Judge Napolitano asked Representative Clyburn about the constitutionality and Representative Clyburn readily admitted, most of the things we do in Washington have no constitutional authority. It is amazing and appalling.
This Supreme Court case that will be more, about much more than health care. It’s going to be about whether or not we believe that our government should be restrained by the Constitution. I think for 60 or 70 years we’ve been gradually going down this road of becoming more of a majoritarian rule, a democracy. Jefferson said democracy would be nothing more than a mob rule. Our Founding Fathers knew the difference between a republic and a democracy.

Our understanding of the Commerce Clause has become so broad that I often will say, if my shoes were made in Tennessee, they’ll regulate my walking in Kentucky. Recently Senator Coburn in one of the committee hearings asked Elena Kagan, he said, well, do you think the government through the Commerce Clause could regulate you eat three vegetables a day? Her response was, yes.

It is important who the next president will be. It is important who is on the Supreme Court. And we may better make darn certain that we get the right person in 2012. We face a looming debt crisis. It’s worse than you can imagine. It really is coming upon us quickly. I went to a presentation this week and they said that japan reached a point of no return. They say when its debt equals its economy, when your total debt is about equal to your gross domestic product you approach a point of no return. We’re quickly approaching that point, and what kind of leadership are we getting, though? The president of the United States wants to sound like he’s now a conservative. Says he’s going to freeze spending. Well, he’s going to freeze this much of the budget, at inflated levels of spending, and over five years he’s going to add $3.8 trillion to the debt.

It’s unacceptable. But you are the conservatives, and you drive the debate. So what I’m going to tell you next you may not want to hear, but it’s true. The House Republican proposal will freeze this much of the budget at 2008 levels and will add $3 trillion to the debt over five years. It’s too little. It’s not enough. It’s too timid, and we must be more bold.

They’re talking about cutting $35 billion. We spend $35 billion in five days. We add $35 billion to the debt in nine days. It’s not enough, and we will not ruin in our country unless we think more boldly. We must cut more spending. We must cut out the unconstitutional programs we never intended to have here. We used to say as Republicans that we thought education was for the states and the localities and now we have a Department of Education that is consuming $100 billion and it’s time we go back to the Republican roots that says, we believe in abolishing the Department of Education.
There is, though, one compromise we will have to make as conservatives. Those of you who know me know I don’t like to compromise, but there is one compromise you have to make. And this is the compromise, and you have to think this through.

We have always been, as conservatives against the domestic welfare, the abuses of domestic spending, for making domestic spending smaller, but you have to understand that that’s this much of the budget. If you cut out all discretionary non-military spending you don’t balance the budget. You can’t get there unless you look at the whole budget. That means we will have to have entitlement reform. But here’s the compromise that also conservatives will have to make. We will have to look long and hard at the military budget -- I knew there was going to be -- I knew there had to be some dissension somewhere.

The thing is, is that the most important thing that our government does, the one primary and most important constitutional thing our government does is our national defense. Absolutely. But you cannot -- you cannot say that the doubling of the military budget in the last 10 years has been done wisely and there’s not any waste in it. If you do -- if you refuse to acknowledge that there’s any waste can be culled from the military budget, you are a big-government conservative and can you not lay claim to balancing the budget.

With regard to entitlement reform, it has to happen. There isn’t any question that it will happen. It’s whether we do it gradually in a rational manner, or whether we wait until there’s a collapse of the country and we have to do it dramatically. Everybody knows the answer. I said it in my campaign. The Republicans attacked me for it and so did the Democrats. The age of Social Security will have to gradually rise. I got a note from a young man who worked in the campaign, and he maybe here today. He said, thanks for proposing the $500 billion in budget cuts, thanks for tackling the Social Security problem and then, I wouldn’t mind opting out of Social Security.

Is there anybody here who would like to opt out of Social Security?

Our country stands at a precipice. America’s greatness and exceptionalism are because we chose economic and political freedom. We are not inherently exceptional. We are exceptional because we chose freedom and we chose to protect that freedom from tyranny with the Constitution. That’s why we’re exceptional. We can main that that exceptionalism, that freedom, that Constitution, but it won’t happen lying down. We must choose bold leadership as we go into 2012. We need bold leadership. We can’t have this incrementalism. It’s not going to be enough. You need bold leaders who will stand up and say, this should be done in Washington, but this should be left to states and localities respectively. One person can make a difference.

I think we are shaking it up. I think the Tea Party has had an enormous influence. This town is now talking about the debt and deficit constantly. The Tea Party brought that to Washington. You can continue to pressure them but don’t let up. It’s not enough to have Republicans in charge. We are not inherently exceptional as Republicans. You keep us so by keeping the pressure on. Let’s choose bold leadership in 2012.

Thank you for having me.

Related posts:

1. Senate Votes on Senator Rand Paul’s Balanced Budget Resolution
2. Senator Rand Paul Votes In Favor Of Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011
3. Senator Paul Floor Speech on Washington’s Spending Problem

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) today introduced the REINS Act, or Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, on the Senate floor.

Designed to “increase accountability for and transparency in the Federal regulatory process,” the REINS Act will result in better drafted and detailed legislation, an improved regulatory process, and will ultimately create a Legislative Branch accountable to the American people.

“I am proud to offer this legislation today alongside my fellow Kentuckian, Congressman Geoff Davis, in the House,” Sen. Paul said Monday. “If Congress is to impose regulations and laws on U.S. citizens, it is important that those citizens are made aware of how they come to be. Cutting red tape and opening the regulatory process to scrutiny is an important step in holding government accountable to all Americans.”

Joining Sen. Paul as co-sponsors are Republican Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.), John Ensign (Nev.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Thune (S.D.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), John Cornyn (Texas), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), John Barrasso (Wyo.), Roger Wicker (Miss.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mike Johanns (Neb.), John Boozman (Ark.), David Vitter (La.), Mike Lee (Utah), James Inhofe (Okla.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), and Marco Rubio (Fla.).

“When liberals can’t pass legislation, they enact regulations. As we have seen at the EPA and FCC, unelected bureaucrats can advance a radical, liberal agenda when it loses legislatively or in the courts. The accountability provided by the REINS Act is necessary to ensure federal agencies cannot unilaterally destroy jobs and harm our economy with unnecessary regulations,” Sen. DeMint said. “Businesses should be focused on how best to invest and grow to create jobs, not on fending off burdensome micromanagement through regulation from Washington.”

“The Code of Federal Regulation totals an expansive 163,333 pages, and we’ve already witnessed an expansion of administrative rulemaking over the last two years,” Sen. Wicker said. “This legislation would go a long way toward restoring accountability in the rulemaking process. Congress should not be sidestepped and should play an important oversight role.”

“Much of the recent growth in government comes from ‘blank checks’ issued by Congress. Instead of voting on costly proposals, Congress passes bills telling the agencies to adopt new regulations – without regard to the cost. The REINS Act will require them to go on the record on costly new regulatory regimes. Instead of passing the buck, the House and Senate will have to take responsibility for the burdensome mandates they seek to impose on taxpayers and businesses. This bill will help accountability, and limit the explosive growth of government,” Sen. Johnson said.

“Year after year, Congress passes legislation which delegates more power to the executive branch. This means that major decisions affecting the lives and pocketbooks of Americans are increasingly decided by unelected officials in the executive branch instead of members of Congress who can be held accountable for their actions by their constituents. By reasserting the legislative authority given to Congress in the constitution, this bill would restore some of the checks and balances in our system of government that have been eroded,” Sen. Grassley said.

“Utahns and other Americans across the nation are tired of this Administration putting too much power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats who are intent on sinking our economy though promulgating job-killing, anti-competitive and anti-business regulations,” Sen. Hatch said. “This bill will protect families and the small-business owners who create 70 percent our nation’s jobs from this Administration’s onerous and counterproductive regulations.”

“Over the past two years, President Obama and his Administration have continually used administrative rulemaking to side-step Congress to pass controversial policies,” Sen. Thune said. “From overreaching climate policies, to costly health care regulations, this Administration continues to push policies that hamstring job creation and damage economic growth. The REINS Act would ensure that major regulatory action be approved by elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats, in an open and transparent manner.”

“We all know that burdensome federal regulations can pose enormous challenges for businesses, as well as state and local governments. By giving Congress oversight authority over major new executive branch rules, we can take an important step toward stopping the proliferation of heavy-handed Washington mandates,” Sen. Ayotte said.

“As I travel Ohio talking to workers and small business leaders, time and again I hear about how new regulations handed down by the Obama Administration are making it harder for companies to grow, and to create the jobs we need to get our country back on track,” Sen. Portman said. “This legislation will restore order to our system of government and challenge the status quo that has encouraged the growth of government by regulatory fiat.”

“There is sign on the side of a building in Wyoming that says, ‘As regulations grow, freedoms die.’ This bill allows Congress to hold federal agencies’ feet to the fire to keep regulations in check,” Sen. Enzi said.

“In the past few years, faceless bureaucrats in executive branch agencies have increasingly burdened taxpayers and small businesses with costly regulations,” said Sen. Vitter. “This unprecedented bureaucratic power grab has twisted the constitutional process and cost millions of taxpayer dollars. The REINS Act will reclaim the Congress’ proper policymaking role.”

“The current administration’s onerous mandates and regulations hamper private sector job creation and further the climate of uncertainty that has stalled our nation’s economy. Americans deserve a transparent and accountable regulatory process so job creators can expand their businesses and hire more workers nationwide,” Sen. Blunt said.

“The Administration shouldn’t be allowed to use regulation to stifle job creation by saddling American businesses and consumers with new and more costly rules. This bill will help restore accountability by reestablishing Congress’ role in the lawmaking process and help put an end to harmful policymaking by unelected agencies and bureaucrats,” Sen. Cornyn said. “As a longtime supporter of increased transparency, I’m proud to support any legislation that makes the current lawmaking process more open and honest, and to be a cosponsor of this bill, which holds the Administration more accountable for things we do.”

“Too often federal agencies overstep their boundaries and enact expensive mandates without congressional approval. This is commonsense legislation that provides a check-and-balance between Congress and the executive branch,” Sen. Boozman said.

“In recent years we have witnessed unelected and unaccountable federal officials imposing broad, detrimental rules on our nation’s economy without congressional approval,” Sen. Chambliss said. “This legislation will create an additional ‘check’ against the executive branch and provide for greater oversight and transparency.”

“Members of Congress like to talk a good game about protecting their constitutional rights. Yet, in reality, we delegate an enormous amount of authority to federal agencies. The REINS Act will help Congress retake the rule-making authority it has ceded to the executive branch and bring the regulatory process under control,” Sen. Coburn said.

“The Executive Branch continues to circumvent American democratic principles by appointing czars and agency heads who oversee the creation of thousands of new regulations every single year. For every law that Congress passes, the Administration creates scores of new regulations. These regulations drive up the cost of our products and make America less competitive worldwide. They reduce American energy production and jobs, and force up the price of gasoline. Many of these regulations have huge costs and bypass the system of checks and balances put into place by our Founding Fathers. The REINS Act would implement important changes in the rulemaking process to limit such rulemaking authority, and would ensure that Congress passes judgment on major rules that could affect our economy,” Sen. Sessions said.

“American entrepreneurs and businesses know all too well how bad legislation can lead to job-destroying uncertainty. Just as bad as anti-jobs legislation is the proverbial devil in the details of laws that empower unelected bureaucrats to write rules and regulations that can increase costs, stifle investment and ultimately hold back job creation. The REINS Act is an important measure that will bring greater transparency and accountability to a regulatory system that has been undermining private sector job creation,” Sen. Rubio said.

“Over-regulation from the federal government is hurting the nation’s job creation capabilities,” Sen. Inhofe said. “Greater transparency is vital to help the American people keep their government accountable for what is being imposed upon them. I am pleased to join my Senate colleagues in introducing the REINS Act that does just that.”

Related posts:

1. Senator Paul Statement on House Passage of REINS Act
2. Senate Republican Jobs Plan Supports REINS Act Passage
3. Paul and Davis: REINS Act Would Rein In Overzealous Regulators

Why Paul Was Right to Oppose Laser-Pointer Law

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2046475,00.html#ixzz1D8GVTaKh

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul listens during the first meeting of the U.S. Senate Tea Party Caucus on Capitol Hill in Washington on Jan. 27, 2011

The Tea Party darling’s opposition to criminalizing the act of aiming a laser pointer at an airplane is drawing lots of ridicule. But the real idiots are the other Senators passing a law that makes no sense

Related posts:

1. Rand Paul on Cover of TIME Magazine: “The Party Crashers”
2. (Senator) Paul following through on his promises
3. Senator Paul says tea party holds power on Hill

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) today announced his co-sponsorship of a constitutional amendment placing term limits on Members of the U.S. Congress. The legislation, S.J. Res. 1, which was introduced by Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, would place a limit on the amount of time a Member of the U.S. House or Senate may serve in office to a maximum of 12 years per chamber.

“In fulfilling yet another promise I made to the people of Kentucky, I am co-sponsoring this term-limit legislation to reduce the politics as usual in Washington,” Sen. Paul said today.

Related posts:

1. Senators Issue Letter to House GOP Colleagues in Opposition to Debt Limit Extension Bill
2. Rand Paul endorses Term Limits Amendment
3. Rand’s case for term limits

Related posts:

1. (Senator) Paul following through on his promises
2. Rand Paul on Fox News
3. Rand Paul on Fox News Hannity at 9:00 EDT

First proposed in his $500 billion spending-cut package, amendment offers free-market approach to federal projects

WASHINGTON, D.C. –Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) today offered an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, which would exempt FAA from Davis-Bacon restrictions concerning federal construction projects. This amendment was introduced in conjunction with Sen. Paul’s proposed $500 billion in spending cuts, which he introduced last week. The amendment was voted down 42-55. Sen. Paul made the following statements on the Senate floor this afternoon prior to the vote:

“This amendment would prevent Davis-Bacon restrictions from inflating the cost of federal building projects in our country, to provide for the things that we want. We can build 20 percent to 30 percent more airports if we don’t force union wages that are above the market wages on government projects,” Sen. Paul said today. “I think it’s inexcusable at a time when we run a deficit of between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in a year that we want to inflate the cost of government projects. The marketplace should determine the market for wages.”

“Many people in this city say they are for a balanced budget. But how can you be for a balanced budget amendment if you’re not willing to cut spending? Well, this is a very small step, that’s long overdue. It’s a chance for members who say they are for a balanced budget to put their vote where their mouth is. Let’s vote to cut spending starting with this bill,” he concluded.

Related posts:

1. Senator Paul Calls for Support of Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Cornyn Calls For Balanced Budget Amendment To The Constitution
3. Senator Paul Opposes Debt Deal to Add at Least $7 Trillion to Debt

Press release below:

Senator Rand Paul Votes to Repeal Obamacare

Vows to continue fight to end government takeover of health care

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Rand Paul joined his Republican Senate colleagues in a vote to repeal the massive job-killing health care bill championed by Democrats in the 111^th Congress. While the vote to repeal was defeated 47-51, Sen. Paul will continue to fight to end this massive government overreach and provide Americans with better solutions to health care.

“As a physician, I am opposed to Obamacare. As an American, I demand a better solution to this big-government takeover of health care. And as a U.S. Senator, I will do everything in my power to see this burdensome and destructive legislation repealed,” Sen. Paul said today. “The government has no constitutional right to impose a health insurance mandate on Americans. By applying free-market principles and removing the government’s wrest of power, Americans will be better served to make decisions that best serve their families and businesses.”

Related posts:

1. Senator Paul’s Statement on Health Care Repeal
2. Senator-Elect Rand Paul Statement on Obamacare Ruling
3. Stopping ObamaCare again

TRANSCRIPT:

I am honored by the privilege of serving in the United States Senate. I am honored and humbled by the responsibility of defending our Constitution and our individual freedoms.

I will sit at Henry Clay’s desk. There is likely no legislator from Kentucky more famous than Henry Clay. He served as both the Speaker of the House and Leader of the Senate. He ran for President four times and nearly bested James Polk.

Henry Clay was called the Great Compromiser. During orientation, one of my new colleagues asked me with a touch of irony and a twinkle in his eye, “Will you be a great compromiser?”

I’ve thought long and hard about that question. Is compromise the noble position? Will compromise allow us to avoid the looming debt crisis?

Henry Clay’s life story is, at best, a mixed message. Henry Clay’s great compromise was over slavery. One could argue that he rose above sectional strife to carve out compromise after compromise trying to ward off civil war.

Or one could argue that his compromises were morally wrong and may have even encouraged war, that his compromises meant the acceptance during his 50 years of public life of not only slavery, but the slave trade itself.

In the name of compromise, Clay was by most accounts not a cruel master, but a master nonetheless of 48 slaves. He supported the fugitive slave law until his death. He compromised on the extension of slavery into new states. He was the deciding vote in the House to extend slavery into Arkansas.

Before we eulogize Henry Clay we should acknowledge and appreciate the contrast with contemporaries who refused to compromise.

William Lloyd Garrison toiled at a small abolitionist press for thirty years refusing to compromise with Clay’s desire to ship the slaves back to Africa. Garrison was beaten and imprisoned for his principled stand.

Frederick Douglass traveled the country as a free black man at great personal risk – he was beaten, he was thrown from trains – but was ultimately the living, breathing example of the intellect and leadership that a former slave could provide.

Cassius Clay was a cousin of Henry Clay and an abolitionist.

In the Heidler’s biography of Henry Clay they describe Cassius as follows: “a venomous pen was his first weapon of choice, a bowie knife his second, and because he was so effective with the one, he found it wise to have the other handy.”

Cassius parted ways with Henry Clay when Cassius released a private letter that Henry had written to him that seemed supportive of abolition. Henry disavowed the antislavery letter he had written to Cassius and they never spoke again.

Cassius Clay was an unapologetic abolitionists who called out the slave traders. One night in Foxtown, he was ambushed by the pro-slavery family of Squire Turner. They came at him with cudgels and knives, stabbing him from behind. Tom Turner put a pistol to Cassius Clay’s head and pulled the trigger three times and it misfired three times. Cassius pulled his Bowie knife and rammed it into the belly of the Turner boy, killing him.

Cassius Clay refused to compromise.

Cassius Clay was a hero but he was permanently estranged from Henry Clay. Henry Clay made no room for the true believers, for the abolitionists.

Who are our heroes? Are we fascinated and enthralled by the Great Compromiser or his cousin Cassius Clay?

Henry Clay came within 38,000 votes out of over 2 million votes of being President. He lost the New York delegation barely because an abolitionist third party, the Liberty Party, refused to support him because of his muddled support of slavery. One could argue that Clay’s compromises on slavery cost him the presidency.

Those activist who didn’t compromise – Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Frederick Douglass, and Cassius Clay – are heroes because they said slavery was wrong and they would not compromise.

Today we have no issues that approach moral equivalency with the issue of slavery. Yet we do face a fiscal nightmare and potentially a debt crisis.

Is the answer to compromise?

Should we compromise by raising taxes and cutting spending as the Debt Commission proposes?

Is that the compromise that will save us from financial ruin?

Several facts argue against such a compromise. Government now spends more money than ever before. Raising taxes seems to only encourage more spending.

Government now spends one in four GDP dollars. Twenty-five percent of our nation’s economy is government spending. Any compromise must shrink the government sector and grow the private sector.

Any compromise should be about where we cut federal spending, not where we raise taxes.

The problem we face is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. It is spending that is now swollen to nearly a fourth of our economy.

The deficit is nearly $2 trillion annually.

Entitlements and interest will consume the entire budget within a decade, leaving no room for any other spending: nothing for Defense, nothing for infrastructure. No other spending will be possible without adding massively to the debt.

Will the Tea Party compromise? Can the Tea Party work with others to find a solution?

The answer is of course there must be dialogue and compromise but compromise must occur on where we cut spending and by how much.

Even across the aisle, we now have much agreement. Both sides seem to agree that raising taxes in a recession is a disaster.

The compromise must be conservatives acknowledging that we can cut military spending and liberals acknowledging that we can cut domestic spending. Freezing domestic spending at 2010 levels does not significantly delay the coming debt crisis and is at best a diversion from the real budgetary cuts that are necessary.

There is a certain inevitability to this debate as the debt bomb looms and grows perilously large.

As long as I sit at Henry Clay’s desk, I will remember his lifelong desire to forge agreement, but I will also keep close to my heart the principled stand of his cousin, Cassius Clay, who refused to forsake the life of any human simply to find agreement.

Related posts:

1. Senator Paul’s Offer of Compromise Rejected by Senate Democrats
2. Senator Paul Floor Speech on Washington’s Spending Problem
3. Senator Paul Floor Speech on Debt Crisis

On Thursday, Sen. Paul was joined by Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), Mike Lee (Utah), Pat Toomey
(Pa.), and Jerry Moran (Kan.) during the first ever meeting of the Senate Tea Party Caucus.
While in response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address, Sen. Paul broadcasted his
own message.

Throughout the week, Sen. Paul continued to appear on a number of television shows where he
articulated the necessity that we downsize big government.

Sen. Paul and Larry Kudlow from CNBC sat down to discuss the budget.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL ON THE KUDLOW REPORT

Sen. Paul also appeared on CNN’s American Morning to discuss his proposed $500 Billion in
spending cuts.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL ON CNN AMERICAN MORNING

Sen. Paul also joined Fox News’ Neil Cavuto to explain his budget plan.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL WITH FOX’S NEIL CAVUTO

Sen. Paul went into further specifics on his most recent legislation with CNN’s John King and
Wolf Blitzer.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH SEN. PAUL ON CNN

Stay tuned for future updates on Sen. Paul. You can follow the Senator’s official Twitter account
here and his YouTube channel here.

Related posts:

1. Rand on Fox News Cavuto Today
2. Rand on Fox News “Your World With Neil Cavuto”
3. Senator Paul votes NO on Continuing Budget Resolution

I plan to follow through each and every day in the U.S. Senate, because I believe the people of Kentucky deserve to have promises kept.

A lot of politicians tell people what they want to hear, get elected, head to our nation’s capital and don’t follow through on those promises, but newly elected U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., doesn’t fit that mold.

During the campaign, he often talked about balancing the federal budget, which is in dire need of being done, and Paul is following through with that pledge.

Next month, Paul will appear before the Kentucky Senate to urge endorsement a resolution calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require a balanced federal budget.

Click Here for full-article

Related posts:

1. 571-Day Delay: Conway and His Broken Promises
2. This Week In News For Senator Rand Paul
3. Senator Paul votes NO on Continuing Budget Resolution