TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-07-04 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00028455

US SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES SENATOR RAND PAUL Forbes Breaking News: Rand Paul Decries Congressional 'Cowardice' As He Explains Vote To End Trump's Tariffs PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOK2NW7Va6E Peter Burgess COMMENTARY I have 'followed' Senator Rand Paul for a long time, and mostly because I disagreed with his position on issue after issue. I have archived this speech from May 2025 because it simply makes good sense ... and a 'loyal opposition' is vital to a healthy nation. I often describe my own politics as being very 'Conservative, and somewhat to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I also try to be very clear about what I think is 'right' and what I think is 'wrong'. More than anything else, I credit my mother for this. As a child, I had a lot of 'freedom' but there were limits and my parents made sure I knew what the limits were and they were enforced with rather klittle flexibility. Modern American political turmoil should not come as a surprise. Most Americans have grown up being 'spoiled rotten' as children, and adult life is simply too traumatic for their success. Peter Burgess
BREAKING: Rand Paul Decries Congressional 'Cowardice' As He Explains Vote To End Trump's Tariffs Forbes Breaking News 680,918 views Apr 30, 2025 During remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke about his support for a bill that would end the emergency President Trump used to unilaterally impose tariffs. Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more: https://account.forbes.com/membership... Stay Connected Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes More From Forbes: http://forbes.com Transcript 0:00 a senator from Kentucky you know there was an old-fashioned conservative principle that believed that less taxes were better than more taxes that if you tax something you got less of it so that if you place a new tax on trade you'll get less trade there was also this idea that you didn't do taxation without representation that idea goes not only back to our American Revolution it goes back to the English Civil War as well it goes back to probably Magna Carta i mean for hundreds of years the English were arguing of the supremacy of paracy of of parliament that parliament would be able to have the power over the king so when we were leading up to the revolution the cry from James Otis was taxation without representation is tyranny this was Jay the words of James Otus but they still ring true today it should not come as a surprise that a country founded on a tax 1:02 revolt one person is not allowed to raise taxes our founding fathers saw this and said 'No we want to make sure that the authority of taxation begins not only in Congress that it actually originates in the House the the body closest to the people our Constitution forbids taxes from being enacted without the approval of Congress.' And yet here we are an emergency has been declared as uh the senator from Virginia remarked everywhere there's an emergency everywhere sounds like an emergency everywhere is really an emergency nowhere but despite the constitutional restraints or constraints on executive power Americans have now been ordered to pay higher taxes in the form of tariffs but without the consent of Congress the tariffs we discussed today are global tariffs just about every country in the world is subjected to at least a 10% tariff to say nothing of the dozens of countries whose imports will be taxed at 2:02 a much higher rate congress didn't debate these tariffs congress didn't vote to enact these tariffs the tariffs are simply imposed by presidential fiat by proclamation government by one person assumes all power by asserting a so-called emergency is the antithesis of constitutional government it was Monscu that our founding fathers looked to in setting up the separation of powers and Monuku said that when you unite the power the legislative power with the executive power in the body of one person that no liberty can exist they worried about this they fredded about it they worried about having too much power of the president and so they severely constricted the power of the presidency they said the president couldn't take us to war only Congress could they said the president couldn't spend money only Congress could they said the president couldn't tax people only Congress could 3:00 these were the very bedrock and still are the very bedrock of our constitutional principles and yet people particularly on my side are looking away and saying 'Oh whatever we'll just let the president do whatever.' Look I supported President Trump i still support President Trump on many things but I'm not for a country run by emergencies even if the person were doing what I wanted and it was you know making every day my birthday i would not be for that unless we deliberated upon that it there are constitutional processes that are incredibly important the Constitution doesn't allow the president of the United States to be the sole decider even the president must abide by the proper limits of executive power thankfully our Constitution does more than merely hope that our chief executive will remain within the confines of the Constitution our Constitution explicitly limits the power of the presidency our founders led a rebellion against a king precisely over 4:01 this they went to great lengths to circumscribe and limit the power of the presidency devoted as they were to the preservation of individual liberty the founders divided power among three branches of government but more importantly those three branches were to check and balance each other to prevent one branch from accumulating too much power madison wrote in the in the Federalist Papers the Constitution was to pit ambition against ambition the natural ambition of men and women to accumulate power was to be checked by other branches of people who would say you can't have that power it's our power that pitting of ambition back and forth was to constrain government it was to constrain government from running away and power from being run away with one person the founding fathers empowered Congress with tools to ensure that the liberties of the people would not be 5:00 threatened by one person rule the founders would not be surprised that the executive would attempt to grandandise power at the expense of the legislature they would have expected it indeed they did expect it but they would be surprised the founders would be shocked that Congress would voluntarily and recklessly and fecklessly give up their power to the presidency to submit to emergency rule the founders would not have expected the House of Representatives to become so craven as to refuse to even allow a vote on ending the emergency the law says that the vote we will have is mandatory it is privileged the Senate will adhere to the law the House will not have a vote the House in its haste to give away its power to tax actually passed a rule to prevent a mandatory vote on ending the emergencies they prevent it because the rule says 6:01 that days no longer exist they declared that legislative days will not exist despite the legislature continuing to meet each day the house has essentially ruled that days are not days and they are not to be counted as days until such time as the house again agrees to allow days to be counted as days does that sound absurd absolutely it's absurd it is craven it is cowardness at its best and it is dishonest because a rule of the house is preventing a law from being obeyed i didn't know we could pass a rule to prevent a law from being obeyed when the emergency powers were granted to the president in 1976 the emergencies act was spent was meant to constrain the Republican we're already worried about too many emergencies many on my side have actually co-sponsored bills that say emergencies should automatically end 7:00 unless affirmatively approved by Congress many of those people now are looking the other way they're looking the other way and say 'Well it's our president now i had a reform of the Emergencies Act under the previous president a Democrat i had the same bill under Republican.' This should not be a partisan issue the founders would not have expected the upper chamber the Senate to let the novel use of a statute traditionally used to sanction adversaries to become used for terrorists to tax American people and to let it go unchallenged this is not constitutionalism this is cowardice our system of government cannot work when Congress abdicates its legislative authority madison said we would pit ambition against ambition but what if we have presidential ambition and we have congressional acquiescence we have congressional timidity we have congressional non- entity choosing to 8:01 become a non- entity and not participate do whatever you want it's a recipe for disaster madison and those of the revolutionary generation would have expected members of Congress to jealously guard their authority from the imperial pretensions of the chief executive to endorse governance by emergency rule is to fail to live up to what the constitution demands of us and failure to do our constitutional duty is an invitation to further emergency rules i know some Republicans like the idea of taxing taxing trade but what if there's a next uh president as a Democrat who says 'By emergency rule I decree there will be no gasoline using cars we will have only electric cars.' That's what we're preparing ourselves every distortion of the checks and balances of powers gets worse every time a party changes hands they say 'Well you guys did this so 9:01 we're going to leapfrog and do this.' And it goes back and forth until the individual citizen knows nothing other than the loss of liberty even President Trump didn't try to argue that this law this law called IEPA that is normally used for sanctions he didn't act upon it in his first term he makes the claim today though likely because the appropriate trade laws in the books require months to be implemented and he can't wait and the Republicans go along they say emergency no problem constitution what constitution ah forget about it members of his political party will stand by his assertion some may cast their actions today as an exercise of party loyalty some may even be praised by Pennsylvania Avenue but for those who care to listen closely within that praise will be heard a touch of disdain it is no secret that Congress lacks the fortitude to stand up for its prerogatives and this is bipartisan presidents in both parties 10:01 routinely exceed their power because they know that Congress has weakened itself to such an extent that it cannot challenge and will not challenge executive overreach congress delegates its legislative authority to the president so that the laws we live under are in reality written by bureaucrats who the people do not know will never meet and cannot hold accountable through elections but I don't want to let off both parties on this the powers that have been given to the president over trade have been given to the president by Congress over many decades congress acquiesed congress said 'Here we don't want to deal with it you can have it.' Congress today can scarcely be bothered to even consider individual appropriation bills by consistently waiting until the last second to pass massive funding bills and threaten a government shutdown the leadership deprivives Congress of what Madison called its most complete and effectual 11:01 weapon the power of the purse we just put it all in one bill and they say 'If we don't vote for it you're for shutting the government down you can't shut the government down so you got to vote for the massive bill which includes more pork than you can probably ever imagine.' Congress has unique among the three branches unilaterally disarmed and demonstrated itself unable and unwilling to check the executive if Americans are to live under this emergency rule it will not be because the president sought too much power it will be because Congress let it happen if Americans are to live in a country where the president alone decides what is to be taxed at what rate and for how long it will be because Congress is too feeble to stand up for the interest and bank accounts of the people if Americans live in a country where their elected representatives and the legislature cannot or will not speak for them it will be because those representatives silenced themselves 12:02 they gave in they did not stand up and do their duty we can show the people that the constitutional principle of the separation of powers still means something and that we can successfully challenge the presidential attempt to raise taxes without the consent of Congress tariffs are taxes plain and simple tariffs don't punish foreign governments they punish American families when we tax imports we raise the price of everything from groceries to smartphones to washing machines to just about every conceivable product voters in the last election indicated they were fed up with eye prices every time Americans went to the grocery store they were reminded that inflation and putting food on their family's table was more difficult and left them with less money for other necessities many pundits say the 24 election hinded hinged on promises to 13:00 reduce inflation and lower taxes does it make any sense to impose a tax on imports that will make all Americans worse off shouldn't we learn from our success we should ask ourselves a fundamental question is trade good well trade is simply capitalism trade never occurs unless you want a product more than you want your money has any of you ever made a trade a voluntary trade that you that you thought you were being ripped off no you buy stuff only because you think you're making a good deal those who say that oh no we're being ripped off it's a fallacy it asserts that one of the parties must necessarily lose or be taken advantage of the argument belies a fundamental misunderstanding of trade by definition every voluntary trade is mutually beneficial trade is good and that isn't an opinion it's a fact for at least the last 50 years as trade rises so does 14:01 wealth and people say the middle class has gotten smaller slightly but only because they've moved to the upper class these tariffs will make Americans poorer and they will make defenders of those tariffs pay tariffs bring us closer to the day when the people are ruled by a zar of industrial policy when that day comes we will wish we had defended the Constitution when we still had the power to do so we cannot afford to stand idly by while the constitutional principle of the separation of powers is eviscerated legislators who stand aside and abdicate the power to tax will one day rue the accumulation of power in the office of one person i stand against this emergency i stand against these tariffs and I stand against shredding the constitution i have no animus towards the president i voted for him and support his administration i come to the floor today not because I want to but 15:00 because I am compelled to i love my country and the principles upon which it is founded the oath I took upon taking this office is the Constitution of the United States and not to any person or faction i want to preserve the divisions of power that protect us and our children from the rule of one person that is why I will today vote to end this emergency i will vote to reclaim the taxation power of Congress where the Constitution properly paces it and I urge the members of my party to do the same thank you and I yield back

SITE COUNT