Rand Paul on Jobs
Republican Kentucky Senator
PAUL: Well, you know, there are competing influences in the Republican Party. We've lost two presidential elections in a row. So some people say we need to dilute our message, we need to become Democrat-lite. And then there are some like myself who say, No, no, we need to be more bold with our message. We need to be the party that's not for revenue-neutral tax reform, we need to be the party that actually wants to lower taxes to stimulate the economy and be proud of that, and that it will help poor people, it'll help the unemployed if we lower taxes dramatically. And I think that's being more bold, and I think that actually will bring more people to our cause.
PAUL: Well, I think what's really cruel is to have an economy that doesn't have jobs in it. So we have to talk about what policy creates jobs. With regard to unemployment insurance, I'm not opposed to unemployment insurance, I am opposed to having it without paying for it. I think it's wrong to borrow money from China or simply to print up money for it. But I'm not against having unemployment insurance. I do think, though, that the longer you have it, that it provides some disincentive to work, and that there are many studies that indicate this.
Q: But if this extension is paid for, you can support it
PAUL: Well, what I have always said is that it needs to be paid for, but we also need to do something for long-term unemployed people, and that is, we need to create something new that creates jobs.
PAUL: I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers. There was a study that came out a few months ago, and it said, if you have a worker that's been unemployed for 4 weeks and on unemployment insurance and one that's on 99 weeks, which would you hire? Every employer, nearly 100%, said they will always hire the person who's been out of work 4 weeks. When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy. And while it seems good, it actually does a disservice to the people you're trying to help. You know, I don't doubt the president's motives. But black unemployment in America is double white unemployment. And it hasn't budged under this president.
Indiana has joined the growing list of right to work (RTW) states, followed by heavily-unionized Michigan. That means that forced unionism is still legal in 26 states, but that number is dwindling.
RTW laws are still government intervention into what used to be private matters between employers and employees, but they lift the most onerous parts of labor union agreements which demand either the complete exclusion of non-union workers from being employed by a union shop or requiring any non-union workers to support the union with their dues anyway.
In his announcement, Paul stated: "Every American worker deserves the right to freedom of association--and I am concerned that the 26 states that allow forced union membership and dues infringes on these workers' rights."
|Other candidates on Jobs:||Rand Paul on other issues:|
C. Wesley Morgan
Mary Ann Tobin
Senate races 2019-20:
AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I)
AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Mooney(R) vs.
AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.
AZ: McSally(R,incumbent) vs.Kelly(D)
CO: Gardner(R,incumbent) vs.Hickenlooper(D) vs.
DE: Coons(D,incumbent) vs.Scarane(D)
GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Carter(D)
GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Terry(D)
IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Greenfield(D)
ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Harris(D) vs.Jordan(D)
IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.
KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.
KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) vs.Booker(D)
LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Pierce(D)
MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.
ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Gideon(D) vs.
MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R)
MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.
MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D)
MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.
NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.Tucker(R) vs.
NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R)
NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(f)
NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R)
NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.
OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Workman(D)
OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Romero(R) vs.Perkins(R)
RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R)
SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Tinubu(D) vs.Harrison(D)
SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Borglum(R) vs.Ahlers(D)
TN: Alexander(R,incumbent) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Hagerty(R)
TX: Cornyn(R,incumbent) vs.Hegar(D) vs.Hernandez(D) vs.Bell(D) vs.Ramirez(D) vs.West(D)
VA: Warner(D,incumbent) vs.
WV: Capito(R,incumbent) vs.Swearengin(D) vs.Ojeda(D)
WY: Enzi(R,incumbent) vs.Ludwig(D) vs.Lummis(R)
Senate Votes (analysis)