Rand Paul says GOP is united against Obamacare… for the most part

September 25, 2013

Writer

Senator Rand Paul made headlines last week when the Associated Press quoted him saying Obamacare probably couldn’t be defeated. He later clarified his remarks and reiterated that he would vote against a resolution funding the President’s healthcare legislation. Last night, Sen. Paul brought a good dose of experience to the Senate floor when he took part in fellow Sen. Ted Cruz’s marathon anti-Obamacare speech. This morning, Sen. Paul joined Glenn to talk about what the next steps are for the Republican Party.

Glenn, who introduced Sen. Paul as “the guy who began to give me some hope that there was a way out," asked him to elaborate on what this moment means for the future of Obamacare and, more generally, the future of the Republican Party.

“No. I mean, whether we win or lose on this, and I don't think we have the votes ultimately to win on this, but whether we win or lose on this, we will continue to stand on principle against ObamaCare,” Sen. Paul said. “Many state legislatures are going to have the same fight. The same fervor and the same excitement we've had in Washington this week will be in state capitals when they get the bill for the expansion of Medicaid. And all the states that are expanding Medicaid are going to have to either raise taxes or go further in debt, and this is going to be a problem. But it comes about over the next year or two.”

“The other thing that's going to happen is people who had good insurance, this could be wealthy executives or it could be union workers who had good insurance, are going to be paying taxes on it,” he continued. “People are going to find out that their prices for their insurance is higher, part‑time workers are going to lose hours, and full‑time workers may well lose their job. There's going to be a lot of bad things that come out of this. And so I think the fight goes on. But this is a milestone in that fight.”

There has a good deal of highly publicized in fighting within the Republican Party. But Sen. Paul explained that while Republicans in Washington might not agree on how to defeat Obamacare, they are united against the legislation.

“I think the caucus is unified against ObamaCare. I mean, I truly do. I think there are some differences on how we best should do it, and I think they are honest differences, to tell you the truth,” he explained. “I think it is a little bit unfair on some of the criticism. For example, you know, Senator Barrasso, the M.D., has fought ObamaCare like nobody else, puts out information every week on it, has always voted to defund it. It's a little unfair really to say that if he's unwilling to filibuster a bill that he actually agrees with that he's opposed to ObamaCare. And so I think that really some of the tactics aren't necessarily fair, and I think that our caucus is unified, our caucus is not unified on exactly how to do it.”

Read a full transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: Let's go to Senator Rand Paul, a guy who I will never forget as the guy who began to give me some hope that there was a way out. When he stood and he filibustered, must have been six months ago now, and now we're seeing Ted Cruz and the rest of the good guys come up and stand. Not technically the same kind of filibuster as Rand did, and I don't know how this is going to play with the American people, but I hope well.

Rand Paul is joining us from Washington, D.C. Senator, how are you, sir?

RAND PAUL: Very good, Glenn. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: So is ‑‑ what do you think is coming out of this? What do you think's going to happen here

RAND PAUL: Everywhere I go people want us to stand on principle, they want us to oppose ObamaCare because they think it's a disaster for the country. You know, I think it's going to help precisely the people that it was intended to help, I think it's going to actually hurt those people. And, you know, I've been saying if it's such a great thing, why didn't President Obama take it? If it's such a great thing, why didn't justice Roberts get it? You know, so I have one amendment, if they let us vote on amendments that will say all federal workers get it. If we've got to be stuck with this darn thing, they should all get it too.

GLENN: Is there any way to get that in afterwards? I mean, that has to be done.

RAND PAUL: In all likelihood there will be no amendments ‑‑ well, there will be one amendment. This is the way it works up here: It's Harry Reid's way or the highway. It's President Obama's way or the highway. They get 100% of ObamaCare or they are either going to shut down the government or ‑‑ they are not going to allow amendments. There's going to be one amendment and that's going to strip the language that defunds ObamaCare. So it is really, it's funny and it amazes me that some of the mainstream media say, "Oh, Republicans are just being obstructionist trying to get their way." Republicans are trying to get ‑‑ to be even part of the process is what we're trying to do. Democrats are getting 100% of what they want, a bill written by them with no votes by Republicans.

GLENN: Is this the last ‑‑ is this the last stop?

RAND PAUL: No. I mean, whether we win or lose on this, and I don't think we have the votes ultimately to win on this, but whether we win or lose on this, we will continue to stand on principle against ObamaCare. Many state legislatures are going to have the same fight. The same fervor and the same excitement we've had in Washington this week will be in state capitals when they get the bill for the expansion of Medicaid. And all the states that are expanding Medicaid are going to have to either raise taxes or go further in debt, and this is going to be a problem. But it comes about over the next year or two.

The other thing that's going to happen is people who had good insurance, this could be wealthy executives or it could be union workers who had good insurance are going to be paying taxes on it. People are going to find out that their prices for their insurance is higher, part‑time workers are going to lose hours, and full‑time workers may well lose their job. There's going to be a lot of bad things that come out of this and so I think the fight goes on. But this is a milestone in that fight.

GLENN: So there was a tweet yesterday from NBC News, and I want to read it to you and get your comment. NBC News has learned while Senator Rand Paul does not expect to speak publicly about his opposition to Cruz's tactic, Paul sided with Mitch McConnell.

Is that true?

RAND PAUL: What I've said is what I'll continue to say all along, that I won't spend a penny on and I won't vote for a penny for ObamaCare, and I'll do anything I can to stop it.

I have also said that I don't want to shut down the government, and I think shutting down the government is just a deadline that if we go through, even though it will be the president's fault, it will be him wanting everything he wants if it happens, it's probably not good for our cause overall to go through a shutdown and so I have some mixed feelings as to how this all turns out. I don't want to fund ObamaCare, but I also think that for us to win and take over the Senate or the White House, it doesn't ‑‑ it isn't in our best interest to be perceived or accused of shutting down government.

GLENN: But you're going to be accused ‑‑ I mean, look what you're accused of.

RAND PAUL: I've been accused of my fair share of things.

GLENN: That's right. If you're going to be accused, we can't live in a world where we're afraid of what the accusations are going to be because it doesn't matter. That's, you know, that's Mitch McConnell and John McCain kind of thinking that gets ‑‑ John McCain's worse, but ‑‑

RAND PAUL: I guess my point is that if we're willing to do it, what we have to do is be willing to go through the deadline. And the only way to leverage or our poker hand holds any value or power is if people will ‑‑ do believe we'll go through the deadline. With the debt ceiling I've always been willing to go through the deadline. I'm willing to go a month, two months, three months, as long as it takes. And I think we could use that leverage to bring the Democrats to the negotiating table. With the actual disruption of spending, there is a way we could have done this but it would have required assistance from leadership and that would have been in January we should have started passing appropriations bill. See, if the defense appropriations bill were passed, we couldn't have anybody up here saying, "Oh, you're going to not pay the soldiers." Right now soldiers wouldn't get paid.

GLENN: See, this is the problem, Rand, and you know this. I mean, you know, you just know this: The leadership that we have as the GOP with Boehner and McConnell and everybody else, they are way ‑‑ they are a waste of a seat. They are not ‑‑ I don't understand how they think they're going to win. The reason why the Republicans have a 34% approval rating is not because of you guys but because America now says ‑‑ 68% of Americans say we're on the wrong track. And what Mitch McConnell is giving them is the same track, different speed. They don't want to be on this track anymore.

RAND PAUL: Well, I think the vast majority of people are with us on, you know, defunding ObamaCare, getting rid of stopping ObamaCare, and the fight is worth having. This is the time to have the fight and so I'm going to keep doing what I can to stoke the flame, stoke the fire and to say, you know, this is bad, that coercion is bad, that mandates are bad, that the hundreds of mandates that run throughout ObamaCare are not consistent with our American ideals, not consistent with the American concept of freedom of choice, of volunteerism. And I think we should have that debate and put it in stark terms because the bottom line is there will be one or two choices on these exchanges, and right now you have hundreds of choices. If I want to choose a high deductible plan and a health savings account, I can do it. That will not be offered to me under these exchanges.

GLENN: Anything you're comfortable about sharing about the whip process going on behind closed doors? Yesterday there was a Breitbart report out that Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn were looking for votes against Cruz? I mean, in effect is the GOP trying to make sure that the funding goes through?

RAND PAUL: No, I think the caucus is unified against ObamaCare. I mean, I truly do. I think there are some differences on how we best should do it, and I think they are honest differences, to tell you the truth. But I think the caucus ‑‑ and while I think it is a little bit unfair on some of the criticism. For example, you know, Senator Barrasso, the MD, has fought ObamaCare like nobody else, puts out information every week on it, has always voted to defund it. It's a little unfair really to say that if he's unwilling to filibuster a bill that he actually agrees with that he's opposed to ObamaCare and so I think that really some of the tactics aren't necessarily fair, and I think that our caucus is unified, our caucus is not unified on exactly how to do it.

GLENN: Chris Wallace said on Fox News Sunday that the Republicans were taking Cruz out and then they went to Karl Rove, of all people, to explain why. You know, I saw Cruz talk about this, and I thought like a statesman last night, saying, you know, the older guys, they don't know the young freshmen. They just don't know, they don't really care ‑‑ and I'm making it worse than what he did. But they don't know us and, you know, the freshmen have not turned on each other. It is the older guys turning on the new guys. Who's turning on ‑‑ what is this? What's going on? Because Rove said yesterday, "Well, it's just ‑‑ on Sunday. He said, "Well, that's just because Cruz didn't go to the older guys, didn't go in to the caucus and tell them what he was going to do and so we had to find out on our own." Is that kind of pettiness true?

RAND PAUL: I would say that there are always growing pains and, you know, we're in the minority. So we have to figure out how to grow. And in growing pains, there's always a struggle on the best way forward, the best way to grow the movement. Some of it is standing on principle. It's standing and not giving up and saying "We are opposed to ObamaCare and we'll do anything we can to stop it." But some of it's also on some things that I think that trying ‑‑ that I'm trying to do which is beyond our party base. ObamaCare unites our party base but doesn't make our party necessarily bigger.

I'm also talking about some liberty issues, some issues of fairness and justice within criminal justice system, within, you know, how we approach our foreign policy that I think will broaden our base and get us to a bigger party. So I think it's a combination of all those things.

But there's always going to be internal disagreement on the tactics of exactly how you do it. But other than that, I would say that really there's more unity than disunity in the sense of what our position is on ObamaCare. And it's probably unfair really to characterize anybody in our caucus as not being absolutely 100% committed to defunding ObamaCare.

GLENN: The story out today about John Kerry signing the ‑‑ he says he's going to sign the UN arms treaty that's being negotiated now. Fox is telling us nothing to worry about. I couldn't disagree with that more strongly.

RAND PAUL: Yeah, I'm not a big fan of signing a UN treaty that gives up on the Second Amendment or allows them to infringe on the Second Amendment. There should be no international treaties that ever infringe on our constitutional rights or our sovereignty.

GLENN: But they are saying that this one is just going to be for international, it won't infringe on that at all.

RAND PAUL: Yeah, that's ‑‑ you know, they can talk a good line and say it's not going to do this, it's not going to do that. I can tell you that that's one of these other things that we will stand on principle and I will be right there at the forefront saying I will get 34 senators, and I can stop that because Senate treaties take 67 votes. So 34 votes to defeat them. So far we've defeated every one of these treaties that have come forward from the United Nations because Americans don't want us to give up our sovereignty to an international body full of two‑bit tin‑horn dictators who often, and for the most part, hate America.

GLENN: How could we possibly sign a UN arms treaty that stops people from giving arms to the, you know, to the bad guys when the president has to waive himself our own laws to stop us from giving weapons to Al‑Qaeda?

RAND PAUL: Yeah, it's kind of interesting that, yeah, we're going to sign a treaty banning weapons transfers while exempting ourselves to send weapons to Syrian Islamic radical elements that may well hate America as much as they hate Assad.

GLENN: I don't know if you saw the picture we released yesterday on TheBlaze, but in a USA Aid tent or U.S. Aid tent, we have a known Al‑Qaeda terrorist standing next to a guy with a rocket launcher, in our tent in Syria.

RAND PAUL: The only thing that could be better is if you had an American senator over there having their picture taken with them. Yeah.

STU: Wow.

RAND PAUL: You know, the thing is this is the ridiculous nature of people saying, "Oh, we're giving the weapons only to the vetted moderate resistance." It's like, if you don't speak Arabic, you can't even pretend to think you're even talking to the moderate vetted rebels. But the thing is even if you do speak Arabic, how are you going to know who's lying to you and who's not lying to ya? They're all going to have made‑up names. Do you think they're carrying around, you know, a birth certificate that you can prove who they are?

GLENN: I've got news for ya: I don't even know who the good guys are in the United States of America and they speak English. I mean, I don't even know ‑‑ I don't know if you saw the school board meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, where the dad was escorted out for standing up and asking a question, and he was charged with second degree assault on a police officer. It's all on tape. There was no assault. The officer was completely in the wrong. They charged him. They decided to drop the charges. Even though they say that they were totally justified but it wouldn't help justice if they pressed it.

RAND PAUL: You know what, Glenn? You know what this reminds me of? When I was detained by the TSA, they put out a report saying I was resisting arrest or whatever. So then somebody must have been my friend at the airport and they put out the surveillance footage of me when I was in the detention cubicle. I'm sitting there for, like, hours on end just kind of bored to death looking at my phone. I never had words with anybody. But they put out a press release saying that I was irate and that I was yelling and screaming. I never did any of that. I sat quietly and bored to death on my phone trying to tell people I was in captivity. But I wasn't talking to anybody. So, you know, it ‑‑

But with regard to, you know, the Islamic rebels, we really have to say to ourselves, are we not completely insane to be giving surface‑to‑air missiles to guys who are using machetes to cut people's heads off?

GLENN: Yeah, we are completely insane unfortunately. Thank you so much, Senator. I appreciate it, and thanks for your tough stand and keep standing, and we wish you all the best of luck today. The vote coming today? Do you know?

RAND PAUL: Yes. Well, there will be at least one vote today around noon, but it probably is going to be the motion to proceed. Then there may be another filibuster. This may be the beginning. There may be another 30 hours. I don't know if anybody's got the same stamina as Ted Cruz. So we'll see if anybody else can stand for 30 hours. But we've got another 30 hours after this maybe.

GLENN: You've got time to get a nap in.

RAND PAUL: That's right. I've got ‑‑ my voice is already a little raspy and I wasn't up all night.

GLENN: Thanks so much, Senator. I appreciate it.

RAND PAUL: Thanks, Glenn.

Dockworker strike: Everything you need to know

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

At midnight on September 30th, dockworkers across the East Coast went on strike, effectively cutting the country's import and export capabilities in half.

Don't go out and panic buy a pallet of toilet paper and instant ramen just yet. It's going to take some time for the full effects of the strike to be felt and hopefully, the strike will be good and over by then. But there are no guarantees, and this election cycle could get significantly more insane as we draw near to the election. And even if the strike is settled quickly, it shows growing cracks in our infrastructure and industrial capacity that needs to be addressed if America wants to maintain its global dominance.

Here is everything you need to know about the dockworker strike:

What do the dockworkers want?

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

As with most strikes, pay is the driving factor behind this situation the country now finds itself in. The longshoremen want more pay, and with rising inflation who can blame them? After all, working the docks is hard and dangerous business, and fair compensation only seems... fair. But when you compare the wage of a dockworker, which is around $100,000 to $200,00 a year to the average income in America of $56,000, suddenly they seem significantly less sympathetic.

How much money are they asking for? For most Americans, a three percent raise is considered high, but the unions are asking up to 15 percent, depending on location. On top of that, they are asking for a 77 percent raise over the next six years. The West Coast dock workers recently made off with a 36 percent raise and were considered lucky. These increases in costs are just going to be transferred to the end consumer, and we'll likely see a jump in prices if these terms are accepted.

The other major ticket item is protection against automation. Autonomous ports are quickly becoming a reality, with major ports in China that are capable of handling vast amounts of cargo being run by a single office, not an army of dock workers. Naturally, the longshoremen are concerned that their jobs are at risk of being replaced by machines that can work harder, longer, for cheaper, and without risk of injury.

How will it affect Americans?

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

Don't panic yet!

It is going to take some time for consumers to feel the effects of the strike and it is possible that a resolution could happen at any time.

Week one should be pretty much business as usual. It might be a good idea to stock up on fruit and other perishables, but there is no need to go COVID-lockdown-crazy yet.

Week two is when you'll first start feeling the pinch. Fresh fruits and veggies will become scarce, along with other imported goods like shoes, toys, and TVs. Prices will start to creep up as the shelves will start to look a little sparse. The supply of tools, lumber, and other hardware materials will also begin to dry up.

By week three, the cracks in the system will really start to show. Entire industries will begin to slow down, or even stop. Factory workers will get furloughed and sent home without pay. Stores will have to ration items, prices will be sky-high, and online orders will come to a standstill. At this point, the strike will have escalated into a full-blown crisis, and even if it was resolved immediately, it would still take weeks to restore everything to working order.

At the four-week mark, the situation will have developed into a national security crisis, and as Glenn describes, a poly-crisis. Small business will be closing their doors, entire brands will be out of stock, and everything that remains will be so expensive it is unaffordable. By this point, the holiday season will be drawing near and there will be a rush on any sort of gift or decor items left. At this point, irreparable damage to our economy will have occurred and it will be months if not years before it can be mended.

While that sounds bleak, with the election just around the corner, it seems unlikely that the Biden-Harris administration will let it get that bad. That being said, their administration has not been characterized by good decision-making and reasonable policy, so there are no guarantees.

What can be done?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The big question is "Why hasn't Biden already done something?"

President Biden, who ran on the image of a blue-collar, union-worker, has been uncharacteristically absent from the issue. Despite his earlier involvement in a train strike, Biden has declared that involvement in union fights is not a presidential issue unless it getsreally bad.

So where's the line? At what point will he step in? He has to understand that an economic crisis right before the election will reflect poorly on Kamala.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive VP debate coverage!

Anna Moneymaker / Staff, Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Join Glenntonight for Vice Presidential debate coverage you do not want to miss!

Tonight is the first (and only) Vice Presidential debate, and it will be hosted by CBS News. But don't be reliant on CBS News or any other mainstream media channel for their biased coverage. Join the BlazeTV live stream tonight to get the uncensored truth alongside top-quality commentary from Glenn and the rest of the world-class panel.

Glenn is joined by Megyn Kelly, Liz Wheeler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Steve Deace, Jill Savage, Dave Landau, and more to cover the CBS News Vice Presidential Debate. Blaze Media subscribers gain access to live chat with the fantastic panel of hosts! If you subscribe today by visiting BlazeTV.com/debate you will get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount ever offered, so take advantage NOW!

See you TONIGHT at 8 PM ET for an event you do NOT want to miss it!

POLL: Can the VP debate affect the election?

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor, Dia Dipasupil / Staff | Getty Images

The first (and likely only) Vice President debate will be held on CBS News on Tuesday, October 1st.

The debate takes place at 9 p.m. Eastern Time and will be the first time we see J.D. Vance and Tim Walz face off in person. Typically, the VP debate is little more than a formality, and rarely does it affect the election in any significant way. But this is no ordinary election. The stakes are higher than they have been in years, and Trump and Harris are still in a razor-thin race, according to the polls. Both Vance and Walz are relative newcomers to the national stage and still have room to make an impression on the American people, and with the race as tight as it is, that might make all the difference.

So what do you think? Can this VP debate make an impact on the election? Are you going to tune in? And what sort of questions and issues need to be brought up? Let us know in the poll below:

Will this VP debate be important in the overall election?

Are you going to watch the VP debate?

Should the debaters be asked about the Biden-Harris administration's failing economy?

Should the debaters be asked about climate change and energy policy?

Should the debaters be asked about the rise of globalism?

Five things that PROVE Kamala's plan for climate authoritarianism

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

If you wanted to cripple America for years, what would be the best way to go about it?

If your mind immediately went to the power grid, you think a lot like Glenn. For decades the secret to America's growth and prosperity has been its abundant and relatively cheap energy. Electricity has been so cheap for so long that many Americans take it for granted, though raising prices has put it back on many people's radars.

There are forces on the Left, including Kamala Harris, who is working to be "unburdened by what has been," and plunge America into a dystopian future where only the elite can afford "luxuries" like A/C and dishwashers. While Kamala has either remained silent or been dismissive of her radical climate policies, here are things that prove that Kamala has disastrous plans for our energy future:

Kamala endorsed the Green New Deal

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, then-Senator Harris was proud to co-sponsor the Green New Deal. This was, by all metrics, the most authoritarian legislation in U.S. history. It was so over the top, cartoonishly evil, that it hardly seemed real. It aimed to ban all coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power, and dismantle and rebuild every aspect of our lives, from what we eat to how we travel (for the worse). It also aimed to provide economic security to those "unwilling to work," aka, money for nothing.

Had several failed climate actions

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

After the Green New Deal was defeated, Kamala tried several times to pass something similar. First was the "Comprehensive Climate Plan" which she introduced during her 2019 presidential bid. This plan had a staggering 10 TRILLION DOLLAR price tag, which is double the entire U.S. federal budget and aimed at exceeding the Paris Agreement climate goals.

In 2020, she introduced the Climate Equity Act, which would have created another government office called the "Climate and Environmental Equity Office.” This office would review all congressional bills and judge their potential impact on "communities that have experienced environmental injustice or are vulnerable to climate injustice.” As if that wasn't overreaching enough, it would also require every government agency to publish a biannual "climate and environmental justice accountability agenda.”

Finally, she pushed the “Environmental Justice for All Act,” which is exactly what it says on the tin. It boils down to a bunch of new rules and advisory bodies that would give cash handouts to "environmental justice communities." Fortunately, just like the other two this one never saw the light of day.

Inflation reduction act

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

The crowning jewel of Kamala's "historic" vice presidency was when she cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Green New Deal Jr, otherwise known as the Inflation Reduction Act. While it was obvious from the beginning that the Inflation Reduction Act had nothing to do with inflation, and was just a climate change bill in disguise, Biden recently confirmed this to all the nay-sayers. Kamala confirmed that this was more than just another Biden gaffe when she admitted that it is "the single largest climate investment in American history.”

So what fruits does this wonderful piece of legislation have to offer? 60 out of the promised 2,000+ EV school buses. It is unclear if the delay is caused by schools backing out of the program due to the technological limitations of the busses or the outrageous cost- more than three times that of a traditional bus. Kamala's vision of the future sure is bright.

Skyrocketing home prices

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

If the Inflation Reduction Act is the greatest climate bill ever, then we have a pretty good idea of how it affects the average American: poorly. Over the past year, U.S. electricity prices have risen 3.6 percent, which outpaces inflation. Current estimates suggest the average American is paying 5,000 dollars a year more on utilities than they were before Biden and Kamala took office. Not to mention all the new green mandates enforced on new homes, which on average is adding 31,000 dollars to the price of homes.

Judging by the climate-leading state of California, this is pretty standard. Californians' electricity bill has gone up over three times faster than the rest of the nation since 2008 and Californians collectively owe more than 2 billion dollars in unpaid utility bills. Not to mention the havoc green energy is playing on the electric grid.

Ban fracking

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Over the last fifteen years, the U.S. has reduced our emissions more than any other nation, but this was accomplished despite the authoritarian legislation, not because of it. Natural free-market developments have encouraged a transition from coal to natural gas, largely due to fracking, which has dramatically increased the availability of the fuel. A whopping 43 percent of American electricity is generated by natural gas, meaning its price has a huge impact on the cost of energy. So naturally the Biden-Harris administration has cracked down on natural gas and oil exploration, and in 2019 Kamala stated that she favored banning fracking. She has since walked back that statement, but seeing how hostile the administration has been towards fracking it's almost certain that a Kamala presidency would spell doom for natural gas.

Glenn's Show Prep