Kentucky 2010 Senate seat - Republican primary Rand Paul vs Trey Grayson
With Jim Bunning's decision not to run again, Kentucky's senate seat could be an interesting race. While this seat should go to Republicans, the outcome of the primary could play a role here.
Rand Paul (yes, son of Ron Paul)
- Opposes the bailouts
- Wants to cut the military budget
- Wants to ban lobbying for companies with contracts exceeding 1 million dollars.
- Sees inflation as a major threat
- Critical of Bush's Medicare and no-child-left-behind programs as examples of Federal expansion.
- Supports term limits
- Supports auditing the Fed.
- Wants to end subsidies for illegal immigrants, build electric fence.
Trey Grayson
- Wants to end/reverse the TARP
- Opposes the bailouts, cash for clunkers
- Supports auditing the Fed.
- Supports GOP health reform proposal.
- Wishes to co-sponsor a bill to amend the Constitution to match spending to revenue.
- Support permanent repeal of the estate tax or “death tax” and the AMT
- Fight anchor babies, better fencing, ending subsidies to illegals.
From a fiscal standpoint, the only aspect we should be interested in the two candidates appear to be extremely similar. Both are fiscally responsibly and understand the mounting threats to our financial solvency and both are willing to fight against wasteful government programs. Rand being Ron Paul's son probably understands better than anyone of the danger the Federal Reserve poses to our nation and the implicit tax of inflation. I would assume he is probably sympathetic if not fully embracing of Austrian economics, a school we need as Americans need to embrace because it's the only school that explains our financial woes we are currently experiencing.
Still, Grayson to fully explain how plans to cut the existing budget surplus and how he plans to shrink government. Cutting taxes is certainly great and something that can be supported and even drafting legislation to cap spending, but how can something like this be achieved? There appear to be no plans to reduce entitlement programs or departments that violate our constitution. Paul's approach to this problem is also unclear, but he is pledging to cut military spending which represents 40% of our budget. This is an excellent start, but is not enough as it will prove to be very difficult. Our Constitution allows for national defense, therefore gaining traction on cutting constitutional programs appears to be the wrong start.
Rand Paul (yes, son of Ron Paul)
- Opposes the bailouts
- Wants to cut the military budget
- Wants to ban lobbying for companies with contracts exceeding 1 million dollars.
- Sees inflation as a major threat
- Critical of Bush's Medicare and no-child-left-behind programs as examples of Federal expansion.
- Supports term limits
- Supports auditing the Fed.
- Wants to end subsidies for illegal immigrants, build electric fence.
Trey Grayson
- Wants to end/reverse the TARP
- Opposes the bailouts, cash for clunkers
- Supports auditing the Fed.
- Supports GOP health reform proposal.
- Wishes to co-sponsor a bill to amend the Constitution to match spending to revenue.
- Support permanent repeal of the estate tax or “death tax” and the AMT
- Fight anchor babies, better fencing, ending subsidies to illegals.
From a fiscal standpoint, the only aspect we should be interested in the two candidates appear to be extremely similar. Both are fiscally responsibly and understand the mounting threats to our financial solvency and both are willing to fight against wasteful government programs. Rand being Ron Paul's son probably understands better than anyone of the danger the Federal Reserve poses to our nation and the implicit tax of inflation. I would assume he is probably sympathetic if not fully embracing of Austrian economics, a school we need as Americans need to embrace because it's the only school that explains our financial woes we are currently experiencing.
Still, Grayson to fully explain how plans to cut the existing budget surplus and how he plans to shrink government. Cutting taxes is certainly great and something that can be supported and even drafting legislation to cap spending, but how can something like this be achieved? There appear to be no plans to reduce entitlement programs or departments that violate our constitution. Paul's approach to this problem is also unclear, but he is pledging to cut military spending which represents 40% of our budget. This is an excellent start, but is not enough as it will prove to be very difficult. Our Constitution allows for national defense, therefore gaining traction on cutting constitutional programs appears to be the wrong start.
Comments
Post a Comment