I was prepared to be disappointed by Senator Rand Paul after he took office, but it hasn’t happened yet.
From his maiden speech in the Senate, in which he declared his preference for principle over compromise, to his hearing rant at Dept. of Energy busybodies, I’ve liked how he’s conducted himself.
And, now, he’s submitted a serious proposal to balance the budget within five years.
I’m sure that most people will react with horror at this radical proposal, but this is a responsible, moderate, plan. Continuing on the current insane arithmetic-denying course is what’s extreme and irresponsible.
People who reject this proposal out of hand are not serious about addressing the fiscal crisis that we face. This should be the starting point for future discussions. Those who don’t like all of the changes should propose others that accomplish similar results. Otherwise, they should get out of the way of progress.
This will be interesting.
I always thought that the linkage of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon to the “violent” rhetoric and imagery of the right was a combination of bad pop-psychology, a condescendingly biased misunderstanding of the Tea Party activists by the left (assuming that they are primarily gun-toting idiots who quickly endorse violence, and not noticing similar rhetoric from the left or the past), and mostly an obvious attempt by the losers to shut up the winners.
But, now that Time Magazine has published this article (“Wisconsin’s Governor Wins But Is He Still Dead Man Walker?”), and after the all the violent rhetoric and imagery we’ve seen from union supporters, can we admit that this is not just a phenomenon of the right, and agree to forget about it?