Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump does not seem to be a fan of beards, according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) during a Sunday appearance on the War Room Weekly show, hosted by campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh.

Sen. Paul noted that he had talked to the President two days ago, and Trump had commented on Pauls new beard, which Paul had grown while in quarantine after contracting coronavirus.

You look very distinguished with your beard you know my sons have those and I dont really approve of those Im not really sure what I think of that beard, Trump told Paul, in the latters account of the conversation.

Paul went on to dismiss Trumps skepticism during the interaction between the two men.

Alright, alright, Mr. President, Paul said that he replied.

Two of Trumps sons, Eric and Donald Jr., grew beards in 2019. The bearded look was also adopted by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in 2018, whom Rand later joked about on Twitter.

Congress has now decided to shut down the government because they arent spending enough money. I got suspicious when Ted Cruz came back from Thanksgiving break with that beard. pic.twitter.com/y0r3dpFbbG

Go here to read the rest:
Trump on Rand's New Beard: "My Sons Have Those And I'm Not Sure I Approve" - The Liberty Conservative

Best listening experience is on Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Subscribe to Federal Drives daily audio interviews onApple PodcastsorPodcastOne.

Congress has finished making April showers showers of money to the tune of trillions. Now theyre on recess for a week. For what made and didnt make the latest stimulus bill and a look ahead, Bloomberg Government editorial director Loren Duggan joinedFederal Drive with Tom Temin.

Tom Temin:And Loren, I guess you can maybe rundown whats not in the bill, which might give a clue to whether and if there will be a stimulus bill five, six and seven?

Loren Duggan:Well, theres certainly talks about the next round of stimulus bills and the numbering could be interesting, too, because while we had three phases going into the bill considered last week, that bill wasnt necessarily phase four. Some people called it the interim bill. So the numbering of these, perhaps historically is gonna be a little harder to figure out. But the House and the Senate passed that bill last week, are gone for at least another week, but are already talking about what may be needed in the future to continue to stimulate the economy and help people affected by the coronavirus. The big thing that wasnt in this package that could be at the heart of the next one is aid to state and local governments. Now there have been some programs that have gone out to state and local governments and theyre obviously getting money through a lot of the other different programs that are going through government agencies. But this is about direct aid, which many of the governors say they need because their states are hurting. They have a revenue issue. They have additional expenses, obviously, from dealing with the coronavirus and have had to pay a lot of bills here and are going to have a hard time meeting their budgets, especially if theyre in states, for example, that have balanced budget amendments that may make it harder to operate here. So thats going to be, I think, the centerpiece of the next bill. But hardly the only thing that members are going to seek because there were other things left on the cutting room floor here. In particular, additional SNAP benefits or food stamp benefits. While there has been additional money that went to the program in the previous bills, Democrats would like to see a percentage increase in the benefit that actually reaches families on that program. And then theres also calls for things like election aid either fixing money that already went out so it can be spent in the way that some members of Congress would like to see it or a lot of additional funds to handle voting by mail or other adjustments, that they maybe needed this fall, when Americans elect the president and the Congress and their state and local officials as well.

Tom Temin:And have you heard hints that some of the oversight mechanisms are going to kick in anytime soon and besides the legally created oversight bodies from the CARES Act, are members going to start looking into the stuff? I know that was one letter to the Small Business Administration over a data breach, and that letter noted theyd gotten almost $3 billion for the operation of the agency. Whats your sense on that point?

Loren Duggan:Oversight is definitely going to kick in. And there were some official mechanisms put into place by the CARES Act. Theres a commission that has nominees from the four leaders in Congress and a chairman jointly selected by Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that has I believe the four congressional members. And that should be up and running soon. Theres the panel of inspectors general that was created by that law. And then theres also a Special Inspector General created by that law. Separately, last week, we saw the house create a new select subcommittee, which will be led by Jim Clyburn, whos the number three Democrat in the house. And that should be getting up and running soon as well. Now, Republicans were not on board with the creation of that new select subcommittee saying that there were the mechanisms created and cares. And of course, all the other committees in Congress have oversight roles to have the agencies that got funding. We know the chairman, the ranking members on the house in the senate side have raised questions when theyve seen things that theyre not comfortable with. hearings have not really been a factor because the House and Senate havent been in session, or at least not doing that when they are in town. But we probably see well see more letters, well see more phone calls. And we will see hearings restart eventually, where people will look into how agencies operate. form, what steps they didnt take. And theres going to be competing calls for different aspects to be looked into. Im sure well see more calls to investigate the World Health Organization and its operations, given what the administration has said and many Republicans have said there. So I think we will have a number of investigations going forward or oversight hearings. Thats gonna be a factor here for sure.

Tom Temin:Were speaking with Loren Duggan, editorial director of Bloomberg Government. Give us a sense of what its like from an observational standpoint with all of those members with well too bad they werent muzzles in some cases, but masks on, talking to one another. Its kind of surreal, isnt it?

Loren Duggan:It has been. Ive not been up on the Hill during any of this. Ill say that for the record, but I have watched proceedings virtually as many have and on the House floor. You had a dias full of members and staff with masks on which is just unusual to see and people spread out in the chamber. The Rules Committee, which has a very tight meeting room up in the Capitol usually, when they met last Wednesday they met in a bigger committee room so they could spread out. So instead of being, you know, inches or feet from each other, they had space and they were in masks and it was very spread out. So its a very unusual way to see Congress. The House when it voted, took a very long time because they went in groups of members to the floor to vote and then to get out to try and limit exposure. And so a vote that normally could take 15 minutes or even five minutes, if its a sequence of votes, took well over an hour, an hour and a half to handle just because of the steps that were being taken. So Congress can meet in this very kind of unusual, stretched out socially distant fashion, but its a lot less efficient then because, you know, sometimes theyll stack 10, 20 votes in a row. You cant do that if its gonna take at 90 minutes to get through everyone voting, so a very unusual Congress to be sure.

Tom Temin:And I wonder if partisan lines might be drawn a little bit more sharply when it comes to aid to the states because that would be a big ticket item and Mitch McConnell hinted at it. And a few people have raised a small voice on this matter. But the fact is all of this money is being printed. Its trillions in excess of what the revenues are coming into the government this year. Therefore, the debt is going to be three, four, perhaps five times what it would have been otherwise. Is that at all factor from what you can tell in anybodys thinking?

Loren Duggan:It is. And you heard members voice that in the Senate session when they met for not a very long time and ended up passing the bill by voice vote. You did have a dissent from Rand Paul, who sometimes is the only vote on the other side of all his colleagues on things, but hes very worried about the amount of money thats been spent here so far, the debt that we will incur to pay for this. There are partisan differences in what goes in this bill and doesnt. If you listen to the debate, Republicans said we were ready to go a long time ago with the aid to replenish this paycheck Protection Program, the SBA program, but Democrats wanted more and that slowed it down. And Democrats would say that, well, we only got what we wanted because we slowed you down. And we still dont have everything we still need more. So partisanship was very much part of the discussion and the debate that was had on this bill, even though in the House the eventual vote was 388-to-5 on passing this interim package. But when it comes to things like state aid, there will be partisan differences. And I think partisan differences will be part of the oversight mechanisms that they kick in and what people choose to look at, not look at, the questions that they ask of witnesses when they come up. So that will be part of the factor here going forward. Once members get back into town and even before then on Twitter, social media and the mechanisms people are using to stay in touch with their constituents.

Tom Temin:What fun. Loren Duggan is editorial director of Bloomberg Government, as always, thanks so much for joining me.

Loren Duggan:Thank you.

Tom Temin:Well post this interview at http://www.FederalNewsNetwork.com/FederalDrive. Subscribe to the Federal Drive at Apple Podcasts or Podcastone.

Original post:
More Congressional money on the way - Federal News Network

Everyone in Kentucky knows what five oclock means. It means its time for Andy.

Andy, of course, is Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a mild mannered Democrat who defeated incumbent Matt Bevin in November by only 5,000 votes in a heavily red state. At the time, I wrote in The Spectator why that happened, but it certainly didnt hurt that his father was the two-term governor before Bevin.

Likely no governor in the nation has thrived the way Andy Beshear has during this time of pandemic lockdowns. Every day, seven days a week, Beshear speaks to Kentuckians from the state Capitol at 5 oclock. His presentations have been compared to fireside chats and he to Mister Rogers. Salon even did an article about Andy as sex symbol in a riff on a Reddit post in which an enamored Kentuckian wrote of Beshear, Govern me, daddy.

You can buy a Govern me, daddy t-shirt, of course. And also a 5 OClock Beers With Beshear t-shirt (with matching koozie). There are mugs and a wide array of other merch.

Like any successful TV series, the Daily Andy Show has a popular supporting cast. Theres Virginia, who translates Andys briefing into sign language. She has her own ice cream flavor called Virginia SMoore. Theres also Kenneth the Slide Guy, a mystery figure, off-camera but omnipresent. He also has a t-shirt and an ice cream flavor. And dont miss the Andy-themed donuts.

Andy has his own catch phrases, too. You cant be doing that, is his most famous, an avuncular scold used for flea markets and bingo halls that operated in defiance of his executive order to shut down. Yes, theres a t-shirt for that, too.

The Beshear Moment has been helped by the contrast to his predecessor Matt Bevin, a brusque businessman whose diplomatic skills make Trump seem like Metternich. Bevin tweeted of the early pandemic response on March 11, Chicken Little has just confirmed that the sky IS indeed falling. It was like a scripted setup for the Mayberry-like concern of Beshear, who repeats a mantra at the beginning of each briefing (and insists we repeat it with him), We will get through this. We will get through this together.

But despite the rave reviews and sky-high ratings, not all is perfect in Governor Andys Neighborhood. Not everyone was thrilled when Beshear told Kentuckians not to visit Tennessee, a state with a nearly 400-mile shared border with Kentucky. Beshear took some veiled shots at Tennessees shutdown not being up to Kentuckys standards. And if you visit another state the governor has ordered a 14-day quarantine upon your return. (The Tennessee take has not aged well as Kentuckys COVID-19 deaths have now surpassed Tennessee.)

Beshear has worked hard to craft a non-political, non-partisan image. But the reality is he is managing a red state with a decidedly blue state approach, and it is starting to catch up with him.

Beshear won election by a razor thin margin where every other state-wide elected official from Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul to Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles is a Republican. The now-out of session legislature is heavily Republican. Trump is wildly popular and will easily win Kentucky by double digits.

Beshears non-partisan bona fides are also pretty thin and newly embraced. Former Gov. Matt Bevin and the Beshears ran a red hot four-year political feud. Bevin clearly hated his predecessor, and Andy Beshears father, Gov. Steve Beshear. Bevin consistently held up Steve Beshear as an emblem of Kentuckys version of swamp-style politics. Then-Attorney General Andy Beshear sued Governor Bevin seemingly twice a day before breakfast during their co-extensive terms, challenging the Bevin agenda every step of the way. Beshear the Younger essentially maintained a government in waiting in the Attorney Generals office, and his campaign to challenge Bevin was a foregone conclusion.

Beshear also is actively pro-choice in a heavily pro-life state, and has kept open Kentuckys abortion clinic while closing all other non-essential medical procedures. On the way out the door of the legislative session, the GOP legislature sent a Born Alive bill to Beshear, which he predictably vetoed, but that the legislature could not overturn. (Beshear had openly, and conveniently, complained that the legislature shouldnt even be meeting during the lockdown and just let him handle it.)

Like other governors, Beshear closed down churches along with any other mass gatherings. Closing churches is a big deal in Kentucky where church attendance is high, and church loyalty higher. But it was a particular focus of Beshear because multiple coronavirus cases were traced to church meetings in March. You cant be doing that, Daddy Andy intoned.

As Easter approached, some Kentucky churches made rumblings of having in-person services. Beshear responded by threatening to send in the police to record license plates of attendees then have them served with 14-day quarantine orders. It was a story that exploded nationally, and one that was a blow to his non-partisan image. Having the police prowl a church parking lot to record license plates on Easter morning certainly raised the hackles of many Kentuckians who otherwise were complying with Beshears healthy at home order.

Beshear clearly wasnt prepared for the protests that hit the Capitol three days later. During his five oclock briefing approximately 100 protesters showed up, shouting outside the windows to the Capitol, audible during Beshears television stream. The next day soundproofing was installed in the windows. Protesters were told they could only protest in their cars at a parking deck that happened to be outside of earshot. It was for their own coronavirus safety, of course. But many recalled a megaphone toting then-Attorney General Andy Beshear leading protesting teachers against Bevin inside the Capitol rotunda only months before.

***Get three months free access toThe Spectator USAwebsite then just $3.99/month. Subscribe here***

Sensing the political winds finally were shifting, the Republican state constitutional officers issued a joint statement that defended the legislatures right to meet and exercise their constitutional duty, a response to Beshears grumblings about their interference during an emergency. It was a mild statement, and clearly meant to test the waters. It also served a warning to Beshear that there were limits.

Beshear has now begun a slow-walk process of opening up the Commonwealth, a process he indicates will last at least into June. Other states can rush this. Were going to do it smart, Beshear jabbed in Mondays briefing. Things are going to look different until we get a vaccine, Beshear added as he issued a new requirement for the public wearing of masks starting May 11.

Kentuckians are starting to wonder how long that different will last, and what Beshear will do if that vaccine never comes. When will Andy time end?

Alan Cornett is a writer in Lexington, Kentucky

View post:
Coronavirus Kentucky-style with Andy Beshear - The Spectator USA

New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2019373 pp. $28.99 (hardcover)

Socialism should need no further cases made against it. No books or essays penned in our time can stand as a starker warning of its perils than the blood and tragedy etched into the history of the 20th century. Yet time and again it enchants a new generation in another corner of the globe, and when it comes back in fashion, those charmed by it are largely impervious to its well-chronicled, catastrophic carnage.

Throughout its three hundred some pages, Rand Pauls The Case against Socialism revisits some of those familiar catastrophes, from the USSRs gulags to the killing fields of Cambodia. But recounting the grim and lethal paranoia of the Soviet police state or the murder of teachers and parents by students and children in Maoist China seems unlikely to sway those yearning for a Shangri-La of free health care, abolished student debt, and mandated economic equality. On social media, in opinion pieces, and on presidential debate stages, the disastrous results of socialist experiments are discounted and brushed aside with a few vague qualifiers, along the lines of: Todays socialism is nothing like that socialism. Todays socialism is about equality. Todays socialism is about fairness. Todays socialism is about health care. And look at Finland!

Pauls book is most effective when it focuses less on socialisms monumental and historic injusticeswhich have been well documented by historians, poets, and survivors with pens mightier than Paulsand more on the hot-button issues that are rallying points for socialists today: income inequality, climate change, cronyism, and so forth. Pauls analyses of socialisms selling points, from the supposed successes of European welfare states, to the perks of free universal health care, to the rich being made to pay their fair share, are valuable and insightful.

In chapters dedicated to the alleged successes of modern European socialism, Paul surveys supposedly socialist countries and shows that capitalist elements are the engines generating the wealth that props up a socialist veneer. Whether were considering the booming economy spurred by Polands low taxes and minimal regulations up through the 1970s or revenues generated via Norways immense North Sea oil reserves, industrialists and entrepreneurs create the wealth that funds exorbitant welfare benefits.

Paul also points out the relative economic freedom of Scandinavian countries; he cites rankings from The Economist that place Denmark, Norway, and Sweden among the top ten easiest countries to do business in. These countries have high middle-class tax rates, and Paul argues that their governments have perfected a strategy of largely staying out of the way of wealth generators and then swooping in to confiscate and redistribute a tremendous portion of their revenues. And he highlights their recent drift away from socialism, pointing to Swedens lowering of its taxes and its deregulation in the 1990s and 2000s in an effort to stem the exodus of its higher-earning citizens.

In a similarly keen analysis of present-day climate alarmism, Paul takes the position that something is happening with regard to global temperature, and human action probably is a contributing factor. However, he maintains, the notion that this trend inevitably will result in a catastrophe, and that this catastrophe can be averted only through socialization of world economies and by governments spending trillions of dollars, is absurd. He argues that climate change is a condition that some dishonestly diagnose as terminal, then use the opportunity to prescribe a particular medicine: socialism.

Paul exposes the nonsense and half-truths that the left (and some on the so-called right) tell about the necessity of instituting socialism. Todays socialists and their sympathizers in the West have grown up in a time of unprecedented prosperity, far away from the graves that mark the consequences of their ideology. To the extent that they acknowledge socialisms blood-drenched record, they express a conviction that the socialist concoction has been refined, the recipe improved, and that present-day America is ready for its much-needed cure. This book provides helpful analyses to address and counter such arguments.

What it sorely lacks is a strong, moral case against socialism and for its antithesis: capitalism. For instance, in the chapter titled Capitalism Is the More Moral System, not only does Paul make no moral arguments for capitalismhe does not use the words morality, moral, ethics, or their synonyms at all in the chapterhe makes no arguments, period. Instead, he stages a play battle between Thomas Piketty with his Capital in the Twenty-First Century on the one side and a slew of disparate quotations from journalists on the other.

But readers arent even presented with Pikettys views or accurate summaries of them. Instead, we get snippets of Piketty through his critics, such as David Harsanyi at the Federalist and Daniel Schuchman at the Wall Street Journal. The level of Pauls response here does not rise above this:

[AdamSmith.orgs Sam] Bowman cites a paper by Kristin Forbes that found the opposite of what liberals argue. She found that an increase in a countrys level of income inequality has a significant positive relationship with subsequent economic growth. So much for Pikettys argument that too much income inequality impedes economic growth. (31)

And to bolster his case that were all better off under capitalism, Paul offers:

As I have noted on national television, much to my wifes chagrin, I buy shirts at Target for $7. [Dalibor] Rohac writes that [I]n terms of the actual material conditions of living, developed countries appear to be more equal than ever before. You can see this firsthand. Just go to Target or TJMaxx and you, too, can experience the equalizing effects of worldwide free trade and the division of labor. (32)

While addressing the credit and debit variance in the revenues and expenses of the proposed Green New Deal, Paul writes:

It isnt enough to point out that Ocasio-Cortezs tax brings in $50 billion and her spending proposals cost $50 trillion. Basic math is not enough to win the hearts and votes of todays voters. . . . we must get todays voters, particularly the youth, to love the liberty of voluntary transactions between consenting adultscapitalism. (111)

Unfortunately, $7 T-shirts wont do. Although Paul acknowledges that purely economic arguments wont trigger a sea change, he fumbles for some other means. What he and many other would-be freedom fighters appear not to realizeand what AOC and other leftists definitely dois that winning hearts and minds requires understanding and taking the moral high ground. Here, Paul is entirely ineffective.

The Case against Socialism exposes some of the fallacies of todays socialists, providing those who wish to meet them on debate stages, on social media, and across dinner tables with helpful facts and figures. In that respect, insofar as it goes, its a timely and welcome resource. Alone, however, its insufficient for defending capitalism. Those who want to defend freedom may enjoy The Case against Socialism. But it will prove of little use to them without knowledge of the moral case for free society.

Follow this link:
The Case against Socialism by Rand Paul - The Objective Standard

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Earlier this year, Senator Rand Paul caused a stir when he stood up against the Republican establishment on the question of using military force abroad. He joined Utah Senator Mike Lee in breaking from the ranks of the GOP by criticizing the airstrike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

Paul put particular focus on his Republican colleagues who questioned the patriotism of people who were skeptical of the attack.

For all intents and purposes, Soleimani was probably a vile man. However, such a brash operation could have turned out badly had the U.S. escalated to a bolder course of action like using direct military strikes on Iran. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and President Donald Trump has not escalated military action in the region. However, neoconservative cheerleaders in the party were jumping for joy and were preparing to take even harsher action against the country. This has been their M.O. for decades. For them, the entire world is a laboratory that must be subject to constant experimentation through regime change and nation-building projects.

Neoconservatism centers on democratic global crusades and some lip service to free markets. On the latter point, neocons will occasionally be solid on issues like tax cuts. But on the economic issues that have massive macroeconomic implications or deal with federal overreach, such as central banking and the regulatory state, neocons have been complicit with the rest of D.C. in perpetuating government.

Many neocons will rail against big government on the campaign trail but vote to preserve it once in office. They also fail to see the connection between global democratic crusading abroad and social engineering at home. Similarly, the neocon fetish for never-ending wars betrays all their talk about fiscal conservatism. Certain reports show that the U.S. spent nearly $6.4 trillion on the War on Terror.

In addition to the obvious costs that foreign policy misadventures in the Middle East incur, the manner in which these conflicts are conducted is clear affronts to the U.S. constitution. Paul noted that Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution stipulates that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. However, the U.S. is a government characterized by separation of powers. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, authorizes Congress to declare war.

A declaration of war is no casual matter, given how it affects all Americans. At the very least, getting congressional input before launching a misguided military venture should be the standard operating procedure for D.C. This is not a foreign concept in our history.

For more than a century, America used to conduct foreign policy in such a manner. However, America has largely deviated from such constitutional prudence since World War II. Military actions from the Korean War all the way to President Barack Obamas actions in Libya and Syria all involved the disuse of formal declarations of war.

It would probably behoove our elected officials to go back to constitutionalism in foreign policy matters. By refusing to defend their constitutional authority to declare war, Congress is only ceding more power to the executive branch and allowing special interest groups to run free in D.C., dictating sensitive policy matters with impunity.

Americas foreign policy quagmires must end, and a reinvigorated Congress is the only entity that can stop this madness.

See the rest here:
Neoconservatives in the Republican Party Cannot be Trusted - The Liberator Online