Archive for the ‘Rand Paul’ Category

Frustration and Fury as Rand Paul Holds Up Anti-Lynching …

As Congress prepares to wade into a contentious debate over legislation to address police brutality and systemic racial bias, a long-simmering dispute in the Senate over a far less controversial bill that would for the first time explicitly make lynching a federal crime has burst into public view.

The bill, called the Emmett Till Antilynching Act after the 14-year-old black boy who was tortured and killed in 1955 in Mississippi, predates the recent high-profile deaths of three black men and women at the hands of white police and civilians that have inspired protests across the country. It passed the House this year by a vote of 410 to 4, and has the backing of 99 senators, who have urged support for belated federal recognition of a crime that once terrorized black Americans.

But the private objections of one Republican, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, have succeeded for months in preventing it from becoming law. At a time when lawmakers are looking at an array of other, potentially more divisive proposals to respond to a spate of recent killings of black Americans, the impasse illustrates the volatile mix of raw emotion and political division that has often frustrated attempts by Congress to enact meaningful changes in the law when it comes to matters of racial violence.

The issue erupted on the Senate floor on Thursday afternoon, when Mr. Paul sought to narrow the bills definition of lynching and push the revised measure through without a formal vote, drawing angry rebukes from two of the bills authors, Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California, both African-American Democrats.

Mr. Paul argued that the lynching bill was sloppily written and could lead to yet another injustice excessive sentencing for minor infractions unless it was revised.

This bill would cheapen the meaning of lynching by defining it so broadly as to include a minor bruise or abrasion, he said. Our national history of racial terrorism demands more seriousness of us than that.

Mr. Paul said that he took lynching seriously, but this legislation does not.

Ms. Harris rose to object, delivering a seething broadside against Mr. Paul as she noted that even as they debated, mourners were gathering to honor George Floyd, the African-American man who died last week after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes.

The idea that we would not be taking the issue of lynching seriously is an insult an insult to Senator Booker and Senator Tim Scott and myself, she said from across the chamber floor, referring to the South Carolina Republican who helped write the bill and is the partys lone black senator.

To suggest that lynching would only be a lynching if someones heart was pulled out and displayed to someone else is ridiculous, she added. It should not require a maiming or torture for us to recognize a lynching when we see it and recognize it by federal law and call it what it is, which is that it is a crime that should be punishable with accountability and consequence.

At issue is what, exactly, counts as lynching under federal law. The bill would add a new section called lynching to the civil rights statute to deal with group violence meant to intimidate people of color or other protected groups. The offense would be classified as a conspiracy by two or more people to cause bodily harm in connection with a hate crime, with penalties up to life in prison if convicted. Mr. Paul proposed to raise the bar beyond the standard in federal hate crimes statutes, to serious bodily injury, so that only crimes involving conspiracy to cause substantial risk of death and extreme physical pain could be charged as lynching, according to aides.

Such crimes can already be considered hate crimes under state and federal law. But the term lynching has deep historical significance, and the fact that it has never been formally outlawed has been an enduring symbol of Congresss inability to fully reckon with the nations history of racial violence. The issue has taken on even greater significance in recent days.

Ms. Harris called the recent killing of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old black man jogging in Georgia who was chased down and shot by white men, a modern lynching. In court on Thursday, one of the men charged with murder in the case said he heard another use a racial slur as Mr. Arbery lay dying.

Members of Congress have been fighting in one way or another to pass federal anti-lynching laws for more than a century, introducing nearly 200 such bills in the first half of the 20th century. When such a law would have had the most explicit effect, during the Jim Crow era when thousands of black people where lynched across the country, Southern senators succeeded repeatedly in blocking its passage.

The Senate formally apologized in 2005 for failing to outlaw the practice, and long ago adopted other measures to make racially motivated killings federal crimes.

Speaking after Ms. Harris on Thursday, Mr. Booker, describing himself as raw over the state of the country, pleaded with Mr. Paul to drop his objections, if only to offer a glimmer of hope to a nation in pain.

Does America need a win today on racial justice? Does the anguished cries of people in the streets? he asked. It may not cure the ills so many are protesting about, but God, it could be a sign of hope.

Mr. Paul has such influence because senators are trying to pass the bill by unanimous consent, rather than through a traditional recorded vote, meaning any one senator can grind consideration to a halt. The bill would easily have passed were it put up for a regular vote, but Republican leaders have so far been unwilling to go that route because it would eat up several days of the full Senates time and they believe Mr. Paul may yet be persuaded to drop his objections.

Mr. Booker and Mr. Paul have worked together on criminal justice legislation in the past, and are recognized as two of the Senates leading advocates for reducing prison sentences and lowering incarceration rates. But Mr. Booker chastised Mr. Paul for being the lone obstacle in Congress to the anti-lynching bill.

Tell me another time when 500-plus Congress people Democrats, Republicans, House members and senators come together in a chorus of conviction and say, Now is the time in America that we condemn the dark history of our past and actually pass anti-lynching legislation, Mr. Booker said.

Mr. Paul conceded that his position was unpopular, but insisted that changes were necessary so that the measure would be worthy of its name.

You think I take joy in being here? he said. I will be excoriated by simple minded people on the internet who think somehow I dont like Emmett Till or appreciate the history or memory of Emmett Till.

Mr. Paul said he was concerned that the bill would allow excessive penalties against people who commit more minor, racially motivated acts of violence, like slapping or pushing. He did not account for why his position had changed from last year, when he supported the bill as written.

Words have meaning, he said. It would be a disgrace for the Congress of the United States to declare that a bruise is lynching, that an abrasion is lynching, that any injury to the body, no matter how temporary, is on par with the atrocities done to people like Emmett Till.

Mr. Booker said the notion that anyone would be charged with lynching for slapping someone was absurd.

Mr. Paul did not back down, and senators left Washington for the week without reaching a resolution, leaving Democrats calling the episode a missed opportunity.

The frustrating thing for me is that at a time this country hungers for common-sense racial reconciliation, an acknowledgment of our past and a looking forward to a better future, this will be one of the sad days where that possibility was halted, Mr. Booker said.

See the article here:
Frustration and Fury as Rand Paul Holds Up Anti-Lynching ...

Rand Paul: US needs to wake up to profound repercussions of Biden spending – Fox Business

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul discusses the Biden administrations spending and tax plans.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul argued recent government spending will have "profound repercussions" on FOX Business "Cavuto: Coast to Coast."

SEN. RAND PAUL & AFP'S TIM PHILLIPS: THE PRO ACT UNDERMINES WORKERS' RIGHTS AT THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME

RAND PAUL: I think when the Fed says this is transitory -- and mostly supporters of the Fed back the Fed up and say it's transitory -- I think that's an excuse for government spending and borrowing. It's sort of from the same kind of lexicon of deficits don't matter. So we added four or five trillion dollars worth of debt last year. We're going to do probably the same again this year.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

There are those of us who believe there are repercussions, that this isn't a transitory blip -- that what you've caused is a massive misallocation of resources, a massive infusion of cash into the stock market, and that there is a time in which people wake up and say the emperor has no clothes. And at that moment in time, you will discover that there's a lot of capital that's gone in the wrong direction, that demand is exceeding supply and all these supply chain things is because we've disrupted the normal marketplace. But I don't think it's as benign as people say it's going to be. I think it's going to have profound repercussions and that we're just getting started.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Were going to have massive debt added -- we're already doing it. But now we're talking about punitive corporate taxes. And even worse than punitive corporate taxes is punitive capital gains taxes, which I think is probably, more than anything, got the market skittish.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW

Read more here:
Rand Paul: US needs to wake up to profound repercussions of Biden spending - Fox Business

A Top Rand Paul Donor Is Dropping Big Bucks to Elect Andrew Yang Mother Jones – Mother Jones

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

A new ad supporting former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang in the New York City mayoral race comes with an interesting disclosure at the end: The top three spenders responsible for the ad are all Republican megadonors.

GOP support for Yang, who is running in the citys Democratic primary, is showing up in donations to super PACs, which can accept unlimited amounts of cash. Jeff Yass, a libertarian billionaire and longtime supporter of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), is the first name listed on the pro-Yang ad from a super PAC called Comeback PAC. Andrew has a lot of libertarian leanings, Yasswho has bankrolled numerous Republicanstold Politico recently. He is not quite a libertarian, to say the least, but he has those leanings.

As I wrote earlier this week, Yang is viewed suspiciously by many New York progressives, who see him as a corporate-style Democrat with libertarian tendencies. Yangs centrist leanings are most apparent in his views on business and economics, and his campaign is being guided by a consulting and lobbying firm that has run campaigns to stop tax hikes on the wealthy.

Two other major GOP donors round out the list on the super PACs ad disclosure. Kenneth Griffin has spent millions in recent years to elect national Republicans. Daniel Loeb has supported Republicans, as well as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a moderate Democrat.

Griffin and Loeb, both hedge fund managers, have hedged their bets in the mayorsraceby also donating a combined $2 million to a super PAC supporting Eric Adams, another moderate candidate who recently overtook Yang in some polls.

These three arent the only big-money donors jumping into the Democratic primary. Republican donor and oil magnate John Hess has donated $1 million to support Ray McGuire, a Wall Street executive who is seen as another centrist in the field. George Soros dropped $500,000 to support progressive Maya Wiley. And unions have likewise opened their pocketbooks to support progressives who are currently trailing Yang and Adams. Shaun Donovan, former HUD secretary under President Barack Obama, has benefited from nearly $7 million in outside spending from his father, Michael Donovan.

Link:
A Top Rand Paul Donor Is Dropping Big Bucks to Elect Andrew Yang Mother Jones - Mother Jones

Rand Paul Warns America: Time to ‘Wake Up’ to ‘Profound Repercussions’ of Biden’s Spending Binge | Brad Polumbo – Foundation for Economic Education

The federal government has broken the bank with an astounding $6+ trillion in (ostensibly) pandemic-related spending to date, and President Biden wants to spend trillions more. Unfortunately, many Republicans in Congress have been too inconsistent on this issue to protest this spending binge in any meaningful way.

But one of the few principled fiscal conservatives left in Washington, Senator Rand Paul, is warning Americans to wake up to the profound repercussions this big government blowout will have. In a Wednesday interview with Fox Business, Paul argued that mounting inflation levels are a serious cause for concernnot temporary, as proponents of big government insist. His warning comes after new data show inflation is at a 12-year high, with price levels increasing, at minimum, 4.2% over the last year.

When the [Federal Reserve] says this [inflation] is transitory, I think that's an excuse for government spending and borrowing, the senator said. It's sort of from the same kind of lexicon of deficits don't matter.

But our spending levels arent sustainable. We added four or five trillion dollars worth of debt last year, Paul added. We're probably going to do the same again this year.

Its more than just bad budgeting, the senator warned. What you've caused is a massive misallocation of resources, a massive infusion of cash into the stock market.

There is [going to be] a time in which people wake up and say the emperor has no clothes, Paul said. And at that moment in time, you will discover that there's a lot of capital that's gone in the wrong direction, that demand is exceeding supply... because we've disrupted the normal marketplace.

Rands point about misdirected capital is a reference to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which explains how the creation of new money (generally by central banks like the Fed) causes distortions in the economy that must eventually be ironed out by a corrective crash. (For more on this, check out this FEE article by economist Jonathan Newman.)

I don't think it's as benign as people say it's going to be, Senator Paul said. I think [the spending blowout] is going to have profound repercussionsand that we're just getting started.

Like this story? Clickhereto sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday.

WATCH: Econ Professor Explains INFLATION (And Why YOU Should Care)

See more here:
Rand Paul Warns America: Time to 'Wake Up' to 'Profound Repercussions' of Biden's Spending Binge | Brad Polumbo - Foundation for Economic Education

Rand Paul Reintroduces Bill Aimed at Blocking FDA Regulation of LDTs – 360Dx

NEW YORK US Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky,on Tuesday reintroduced a bill that would prevent the US Food and Drug Administration from regulating laboratory-developed tests.

The bill, called the Verified Innovative Testing in American Laboratories, or VITAL,Act of 2021, would place regulation of lab-developed tests under the authority of the US Health and Human Services secretary under the Public Health Services Act, and "no aspects of lab-developed testing procedures shall be regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including during a public health emergency."

The FD&C Act gives the FDA authority to regulate devices, which the agency has historically argued includes LDTs, and gives it broad authority to stipulate requirements for test providers (or exempt them from requirements) during emergencies. However, the FDA has largely practiced "enforcement discretion" over most LDTsand left the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to oversee labs under CLIA.

Paul originally introduced the bill in March of 2020. It represents an alternative to the Verifying Accurate, Leading-edge IVCT Development, orVALID,Act that was introduced that same month in the Senate and House of Representatives, but which did not receive a vote during that session of Congress. The VALID Act would have created a new risk-based oversight framework for so-called in vitro clinical tests, a category comprising lab-developed tests and test kits. The FDA would have authority over these tests.

Both the VITAL and VALID acts would settle the long-running debate within the industry as to FDA's authority over LDTs.

Paul and other supporters of the bill have taken the position that VITAL is needed to update CLIA and keep LDTs away from burdensome FDA oversight in light of the slow federal response to expand access to SARS-CoV-2 virus tests during the present pandemic. This argument has gained momentum in the year since Paul originally introduced the bill. HHS in August 2020 issueda determination that the FDA cannot require premarket review of LDTs without notice and comment rulemaking.

This decision by HHS recapitulated a claim made for years by many in the laboratory industry that the FDA cannot expand its authority over LDTs through guidancesbut must do so through notice-and-comment rulemaking, a much more involved process. Guidances, historically, have been the FDA's preferred method of articulating its regulatory requirements over segments of the lab industry.

While the HHS statement did not preclude the FDA from regulating LDTs through notice-and-comment rulemaking, some observers suggested the agency wouldn't take such a route, given the investment in time and effort required.

The Association for Molecular Pathology, or AMP,and the Association of Pathology Chairs, or APC,issued statements Tuesday supporting the passage of VITAL.

"This important support by members of Congress for the VITAL Act addresses the serious consequences experienced by our nation when laboratory tests are regulated like medical devices," said Lydia Howell, the president ofAPC. She is also a professor and chair of pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of California Davis School of Medicine.

"In the earliest and most frightening days of the pandemic, CLIA-accredited academic clinical laboratories could have used their valuable expertise and resources to expand SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing in their communities, but were unable to do so due to inappropriate FDA restrictions.Priceless weeks were lost, making the urgency to address these issues now even more clear," she added.

Read more:
Rand Paul Reintroduces Bill Aimed at Blocking FDA Regulation of LDTs - 360Dx