The Very Large Stupidness of Rand Paul
Last week Rand Paul released his yearly “Festivus Report on Government Waste,” a report detailing what he believes are needless excesses and wastes of tax dollars. I had never read this report before, and hopefully never will again, but once I started, I was transfixed, hypnotized, by his bad-faith arguments and profound stupidity.
“payments of interest on the public debt remained extremely high at $387 billion. If you laid out that many $1 bills end to end, it’d be enough to wrap around the earth 1,506 times”
Thank you Doctor, this is a useful way to think about money.
The esteemed Dr. Paul starts with his grievances on healthcare spending. Let’s dive into it.
“Studied if you’ll eat ground-up bugs (NIH & NIFA) ….…….…...................……....... $1,327,781.72”
“The goal of the research was to test
the effects on gut microbiota composition
while assessing safety and tolerability."
He is very upset that this investigation into meat substitutes was not left to the private sector
“the NIH and NIFA should have trusted the private sector, which has filled the market need created by those who opt not to eat animal protein, and done so much better than government could hope”
What he fails to mention is that the company he references here (Beyond Meat), was founded on the technology of two scientists who had been developing meat substitutes with government money for over seven years! Maybe, just maybe, government spending on research helps fuel private sector growth, hmm?
“Researchers spent funds from eight National Institutes of Health grants, totaling $36,831,620.00 to study why stress makes hair turn grey”
Ridiculous! Preposterous! But then Dr. Paul admits in his own write-up that the research was not just about grey hair, but about melanocytes in general, the cells that cause skin cancer. Skin cancer alone costs the US $8 Billion a year! If this research into melanocytes allows us to extend our understanding of the disease even just a tiny amount, it will more than “pay for itself.”
“The NIH is spending $1,471,617.00 to get Eastern Mediterranean youth to stop smoking hookah”
Dr. Paul didn’t write too much about the details of the actual study here, and I didn’t bother looking into it, what I’m interested in is his statement where he complains about cigarette taxes: “Though many a state and local government impose sin taxes to try to stop getting people to smoke tobacco, it seems to be to limited success. Perhaps it is civil society, then, not the government, that can most appropriately influence a person’s behavior.”
Limited success? Even the WHO says that cigarette taxes are “the most cost effective measure to reduce tobacco use” -- they have been very successful! Perhaps properly adding the prices of externalities through taxation is the mark of a “civil society,” you fucking dummy.
“The National Institutes of Health is spending $3,452,234.00 to test if social media messages will get moms to stop their adolescent daughters from using indoor tanning salons”
Ultimately, what he’s mad about here is that the big government is HURTING TANNING SALONS!
“This is not the first time the federal government has tried to create disincentives for Americans to indoor tan. As part of Obamacare, Democrats instituted a 10 percent tax on the practice.83 CNN has reported that, according to the American Suntanning Association, “the tax halved the number of salons in the country and contributed to the loss of nearly 100,000 jobs,” with the Association also saying that it “crippled an industry and hurt small business owners across the country.”
Again, I can’t stress enough how stupid he is. It seems like the whole libertarian mindset is “Economics is so important but I don’t believe in externalities.” Skin cancers directly caused by tanning beds are estimated to cost about $350 million in direct medical costs every year in the US. And that’s not even factoring in the years of life lost to these cancers. Maybe it would be good, Dr Paul, to try to encourage less people to die of skin cancer, in fact, it would probably be good both from a basic, human, ethical perspective, and also your treasured economic perspective.
“National Institutes of Health is spending $2,004,704.00 to see if hot tubbing can lower stress”
I have no notes on this. It sounds like a nice study to be a part of.
“The National Institutes of Health is spending $968,932.00 to develop a master’s degree in research ethics in Myanmar”
I’m really not sure what Senator Paul’s point is here, he starts by accurately saying that “After World War II, psychologists endeavored to figure out what could account for all the violence and atrocities committed against defenseless civilians. In the subsequent years and decades, psychologists such as Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo conducted controversial human experiments that shocked the world. Some regard the Milgram Obedience Experiment (1961) and Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) as catalyzing events that led to the implementation of better safeguards for human experiments.125 These human subject research standards have become ubiquitous across the west.”
However, for some reason he thinks extending these standards to Myanmar is stupid? I think it’s pretty emblematic of the libertarian view that past progress was good, but no further progress is needed. I think it might also be important for Paul to note that there is literally a genocide happining in Myanmar right now -- and perhaps more institutionalized respect for human rights wouldn’t be a terrible thing for the world.
“The National Institutes of Health spent $3,696,770.00 to study ecigarette TV advertising to help justify the FDA’s Deeming Rule”
Ok -- it turns out that his actual gripe is with the “Deeming Rule,” a law which compels tobacco companies to run their products by the FDA before selling them, which, according to Paul is “the most burdensome regulation to ever come down 19 on any industry in American history.” :( those poor cigarette companies :( they are so oppressed. Thank God we have a strong constitutionalist like Doctor Paul to stand up for them.
“Congress appropriated $57,684,000.00 to the Office of Urban Indian Health Programs”
What are we supposed to object to here? Oh no!!! Those damn Native Americans will have health care!?
What a ghoul.
“The National Institutes of Health spent $1,454,217.00 to study the prevalence of club drug use by NYC nightclub and electronic dance music festival attendees”
Again, this study sounds fun. No notes.
My point:
I’m not denying that the government is often wasteful, and bureaucracies are often inefficient, these things are definitely true! My point is that Rand Paul is bad at making even these arguments, his specific complaints of excess waste are stupid, small, and often patently wrong.
The only spots in the report where he actually dives into policy discussion and seems genuinely passionate is when he’s defending tanning salons and tobacco companies. It’s just pathetic! I’m obviously not a libertarian, but I would have liked to believe that libertarians aren’t this cynical and stupid.
While we’re on the topic of waste, we may as well do a few calculations of our own:
Senators work about 180 days a year (generous estimate), let’s assume they work 8 hours a day (again, generous estimate), they make $174,000 a year, which comes out to $120 an hour. Let’s assume this report took about an hour per page (and yes, his staffers definitely wrote most of it, but I’m just going to lump them in with his salary), that means this incredibly stupid, misleading report, that makes its most forceful arguments in favor of cancer, cost us taxpayers around $17,000. Ugh. I’m disgusted by government waste. Let’s see you try to pull this shit in the private sector, Doctor Paul!
