Mediaboss Marketing

TIME Politics Congress U.S. Senator Rand Paul speaks during the Wall Street Journal's CEO Council meeting in Washington D.C. on Dec. 2, 2014. Kevin LamarqueReuters

The three Republicans senators potentially running for the White House in 2016 agree on at least one thing: The Federal Reserve should be audited.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul re-introduced a bill with Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida on Wednesday to order the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office to review the Feds monetary policy decision making and increase congressional oversight.

The bill has a much greater chance of making it to the Senate floor under new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is one of 30 co-sponsors according to Pauls office. Former Rep. Ron Paul, Rands father, pressed lawmakers for years to audit the Federal Reserve and similar bills have passed the Republican-controlled House in the past.

A complete and thorough audit of the Fed will finally allow the American people to know exactly how their money is being spent by Washington, said Paul in a statement. The Feds currently operates under a cloak of secrecy and it has gone on for too long. The American people have a right to know what the Federal Reserve is doing with our nations money supply. The time to act is now.

The bill is unlikely to be signed into law by President Obama. In December, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen said that she would forcefully oppose such legislation as it would jeopardize the central banks independence with short-run political interference, according to the Hill.

More here:
Paul Gets Assist from 2016 Rivals on Audit the Fed Bill

(TNS)For many decades, the Supreme Courts 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York has ranked among the most universally despised rulings in the history of American law. In that long-repudiated case, the court struck down a maximum-hours law for bakers.

A week ago, Sen. Rand Paul a likely candidate for president, and among the most influential members of the Republican Party explicitly embraced Lochner, and proudly endorsed the whole idea of judicial activism. That tells us a lot about contemporary law and politics, and probably about the future of conservative thinking as well.

In its ruling inLochner, the court relied on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which bars states from deprivingpeople of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In the courts view, liberty includes freedom of contract. The court said that if states cannot offer a strong justification for intruding on that form of freedom, they have violated the Constitution.

Under this approach, a lot of modern legislation could run into constitutional trouble, including minimum-wage laws, rent-control laws, occupational-safety laws, even laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, sex and disability and Obamacare as well.

By the late 1930s, however, the Supreme Court repudiated its whole approach in the Lochner case. It embraced instead a version of Oliver Wendell Holmes dissent, which insisted that a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, and that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law.

Ever since the 1930s, there has been widespread agreement that, at least in the economic sphere, Holmes was right and Lochner was wrong. But people have disagreed about exactly why.

In rejecting Lochner, many conservatives have called broadly for judicial restraint. In their view, federal judges should be reluctant to second-guess the judgments of the elected branches, whether the issue involves maximum-hour laws, the criminal justice system, voting rights, school prayer or abortion.

Other conservatives have emphasized that the Lochner Court was unfaithful to the text and original meaning of the Constitution. In their view, the due process clause doesnt give general protection to freedom of contract; it says, much more narrowly, that before states can take your property, your liberty or your life, they have to give you a hearing (due process).

But more recently, conservative constitutional thought has undergone a reversal, even a kind of revolution. The University of Chicagos Richard Epstein and Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation have argued for a much more aggressive judicial role in protecting private property and freedom of contract. Sandefur himself believes that Lochner was right.

On the Supreme Court, that position has no support, and in Congress, it remains a fringe view. But among a younger generation, conservative judicial activism has unmistakable, and growing, appeal. The fringe seems to be moving toward the center.

See the article here:
Rand Pauls novel conservative judicial activism

Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday reintroduced legislation to force a government watchdog audit of the Federal Reserve, and the bill has its best chance yet of finally clearing Congress.

Mr. Pauls father, former Rep. Ron Paul, pioneered the push for the legislation during his time in the House, and turned it into a potent political weapon during his presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012. The senator, who is eyeing a 2016 presidential bid, has picked up the banner.

A complete and thorough audit of the Fed will finally allow the American people to know exactly how their money is being spent by Washington, the younger Mr. Paul said in a statement. The Feds currently operates under a cloak of secrecy and it has gone on for too long.

SEE ALSO: Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war

His legislation has 30 sponsors, including Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, the sole Senate Democrat who has signed onto the bill as of now.

In a statement, Ms. Hirono praised the Fed for helping the economy recover from the 2008 slump.

That said, were now far enough away from the financial crisis for a full and transparent review of the actions taken on behalf of American taxpayers, she said. Greater transparency will help us prevent another Great Recession, and I believe will increase the American publics confidence in the Fed rather than diminishing it.

SEE ALSO: FedBid barred from any new government contracts

A similar bill has cleared the House twice in recent years with overwhelming support, including about half of House Democrats. But Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, who was majority leader of the Senate until his partys catastrophic election losses last year, blocked Senate action.

New Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican along with Mr. Paul, is a co-sponsor of the audit bill, and it is likely to receive a vote at some point.

Go here to read the rest:
Rand Paul reintroduces Audit the Fed bill

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, said he was fine with House Speaker John A. Boehners inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a joint meeting of Congress and blasted President Obama for his decision not to meet with Mr. Netanyahu while hes in Washington.

Benjamin Netanyahus been here before I cant understand why it would be a controversy other than maybe the presidents acting a little bit petulant over this because he wasnt consulted, Mr. Paulsaid on Fox News On the Record with Greta Van Susteren Tuesday evening. But it almost looks a little bit childish to me that hes gonna make a big stink over, oh, now I wont even meet with an ally, whos the head of state of an ally when he comes to Washington because he wasnt consulted.

Its almost like where you sit on the plane, [whether] you get in the front side of the plane or the back side of the plane its a little bit inconsequential, I think, said Mr. Paul, who is laying the groundwork for a potential 2016 run at the White House.

Israels an important ally, so I dont understand why he would refuse to meet with him other than just sort of being, like I say, petulant or childish about not being consulted, Mr. Paul said.

Mr. Obama said in an interview with CNN that hes not meeting with Mr. Netanyahu because of the proximity of the scheduled visit to elections in Israel.

On an issue of major significance to Israel, Mr. Paul has actually broken with many in his party who want to impose additional sanctions on Iran as the U.S. engages in negotiations over Irans nuclear program.

Mr. Paul said hes a fan of trying the diplomatic option as long as possible and if it fails, he would vote to have new sanctions.

But if you do it in the middle of the negotiations youre ruining it, he said at a forum earlier this week sponsored by an affiliate of the conservative billionaire benefactors Charles and David Koch. So many people on our side say, Well, we dont want 535 generals, the president should be in charge of war. But now theyre saying, We want 535 negotiators, not the president. I dont trust the president. I dont believe or support him on almost anything he does. But at the same time, I do think diplomacy is better than war and we should give diplomacy a chance.

But the issue over Mr. Netanyahus visit doesnt represent the office well, he told Fox.

I think if President Obama wants to look like an adult in the room and wants to be part of the adult conversation, yeah, absolutely, they should have never brought this up at all, it looks childish not to meet with Netanyahu when he comes, and so hopefully the president will get over his pique over this. I dont think it looks well or represents the presidency well to behave that way, he said.

Visit link:
Rand Paul blasts 'petulant' Obama over Netanyahu snub: 'Childish'

Sen. Rand Paul falsely claimed that a tax-credit program for low-income workers has a fraud rate of 25 percent and costs taxpayers $20 billion to $30 billion. Paul cited a report by the Government Accountability Office, but thats not what the report said.

The earned income tax-credit program had an improper payment error rate of 24 percent in fiscal year 2013, according to the latest GAO report. The error rate includes fraud, but also represents mistakes made by taxpayers when filing tax forms and the IRS when processing payments. The GAO blamed the mistakes on the complexity of the tax law. The errors cost taxpayers $14.5 billion which is less than half of the high-end estimate provided by Paul.

Paul, a Kentucky Republican who is considering running for president, joined two other potential GOP presidential candidates at aJan. 25 forumsponsored by the conservative Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas also attended.

The moderator, Jon Karl of ABC News, asked the senators if they agreed with Rep. Paul Ryans proposal to expand the earned income tax credit and pay for the expansion by eliminating other tax breaks. TheEITC is a refundable tax credit, which means that low-income taxpayers who have no tax liability can receive a refund. Otherwise, the tax credit is used to reduce a taxpayers liability.

Paul said he opposes Ryans plan and criticized the EITC program for being rife with fraud.

Paul, Jan. 25: When you look at the earned income tax credit, it has about a 25 percent fraud rate. Were looking at $20 billion to $30 billion. And this is from estimates from the GAO[Government Accountability Office], from the government themselves.

Thats not what the GAO said.

The GAO issued areport Dec. 9, 2014, on improper payments made by various government agencies, including the IRS. The GAO said the EITC program had what it labeled an improper payment error rate of 24 percent at a cost of $14.5 billion in fiscal year 2013.

Go here to see the original:
FactCheck: Rand Paul exaggerates scope of tax-credit fraud