Debate over "Cut, Cap, and Balance" Continues

Sen. Rand Paul often jokes about the effect his political differences with his father will have on which table he is permitted to sit at when the Paul family gathers. Rand is clearly very much Ron Paul’s son, as they tend to agree completely on most issues; but there is one disagreement that you won’t hear either Paul laughing about: how to handle America’s debt ceiling crisis.

Although the elder Paul has had much more time to prove his fidelity to the Constitution and his desire to seriously reduce the size of the federal government, young Rand is quickly proving his dedication to the same goals and principles. So it is no surprise that both Pauls agree that something must be done to cut spending and ease the threat of the looming financial catastrophe, and it must be done soon. Where they disagree is on what constitutes an acceptable means of achieving these goals.

After more than two decades in office, Ron Paul has never voted to raise the debt ceiling and vows that he never will. Despite his sympathies for the objectives of proponents of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, Rep. Paul simply couldn’t support the bill in its current language.

Paul vs. Reid: An Epic Battle Over the PATRIOT Act

This week, the Senate floor was witness to a back-and-forth skirmish of political maneuvering and parliamentary gamesmanship between Senator Rand Paul and Senator Harry Reid over the reauthorization of the misnamed, unconstitutional PATRIOT Act.

In the end, Sen. Paul was only successful at getting a debate and a vote on two of the amendments he had proposed to the tyrannical legislation, despite Sen. Reid's promises that there would be a week of debate and an open amendment process, but Sen. Paul's efforts to push the issue as far as he could were valiant and admirable nonetheless.

We've put together a timeline of the blow-by-blow of how it all went down below.  But first, some relevant videos:

Is 'The Tea Party Goes To Washington' Worth Your Time?

Do we want the Tea Party in Washington? Well, Jack Hunter, otherwise known as the Southern Avenger, thinks so. In this video, Hunter says Rand's book, The Tea Party Goes To Washington, explains the concept of blowback, what it is to be a true conservative and not a neo-conservative. He's got my interest!

Constitutional Conservatism vs. Libertarianism

Rand Paul has an op-ed in Tuesday's USA Today, in which he describes himself as a "constitutional conservative." The title of the piece is, "Rand Paul, libertarian? Not quite," but Dr. Paul fails to distinguish any dissimilarity between the being a constitutional conservative or libertarian. No matter what political philosophy Dr. Paul subscribes to (Note:  His father, Congressman Ron Paul, also identifies as being a constitutional conservative), it seems as if he's trying to shed the tag of libertarian because it's become a polarized word:

It's often repeated in stories about me or my race for U.S. Senate that I am a "libertarian." In my mind, the word "libertarian" has become an emotionally charged, and often misunderstood, word in our current political climate. But, I would argue very strongly that the vast coalition of Americans — including independents, moderates, Republicans, conservatives and "Tea Party" activists — share many libertarian points of view, as do I.

A recent unscientific poll taken via the Young Americans for Liberty Facebook page showed that out of 47 participants, 35 described themselves as subscribing to a libertarian political orientation. Conservatism and liberalism both netted 5 votes, and there were 2 votes for "other." What do you think, if any, are the main differences between libertarianism and constitutional conservatism?