"Many ask will the Tea Party compromise? Will the Tea Party work with others to find a solution?" the senator asked in a speech that was part history lesson and part Socratic inquiry.
Paul explained his Senate desk was once occupied by Henry Clay, a former Kentucky senator and secretary of state known as the "Great Compromiser." But in his speech, Paul questioned whether the compromises Clay made on slavery proved it was more important to firmly support what is right than to try to find common ground.
Instead, Paul pointed to Clay's cousin Cassius, a fierce abolitionist and fiery character who refused to budge on the issue of slavery.
"Now, today we have no issues, no moral issues that have equivalency with the issue of slavery. Yet we do face a fiscal nightmare, potentially a debt crisis in our country," he said. "Should we compromise by raising taxes and cutting spending as the debt commission proposes?"
The answer?
"Of course there must be dialogue and ultimately compromise, but the compromise must occur on where we cut spending," Paul said.
In other words, there will be no debate on deficit reduction as being the only legislative goal worth worrying about, and no debate on cutting spending versus raising taxes and cutting loopholes to increase revenues in order to reduce the deficit.
The only debate is who gets hurt by spending cuts.
To Rand Paul, this is "compromise". It's only a matter of by how much Rand Paul and the Tea Party "wins" the deficit argument that will even be allowed to be discussed. He's not framing the argument, he's hijacking it.
No comments:
Post a Comment