Rand Paul touted “nobility of charity” in 2011 as an alternative to Social Security, Meals on Wheels

This is from a few years ago, but it bears mentioning given Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s recently announced campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Mary Jane Koren, a geriatrician and vice-president of the Commonwealth Fund, noted that seniors often suffer health problems and are put in nursing homes after falling down. Poor nutrition leads to decreased muscle strength, meaning a higher chance of falling—and weaker seniors are more likely to be gravely injured in such a fall. Koren noted that by 2020, the annual cost of medical care for seniors who fall is expected to reach $54.9 billion—many magnitudes more than the approximately $2 billion per year the federal government spends on nutrition assistance for senior citizens.

Senator Paul, however, explicitly rejected this logic. “It’s curious that only in Washington can you spend $2 billion and claim that you’re saving money,” he said. “The idea or notion that spending money in Washington somehow is saving money really flies past most of the taxpayers.” Instead, Paul touted the “nobility of private charity” as opposed to government-funded “transfer programs.” He suggested privatizing Meals on Wheels and other government assistance for hungry seniors.

Sanders had none of this. “Senator Paul has suggested that only in Washington can people believe that spending money actually saves money. And I think that’s the kind of philosophy that results in us spending about twice as much per person on health care as any other country on earth,” Sanders said. “We have millions of millions of Americans who can’t get to a doctor on time. Some of them die, some of them become very, very ill and end up in the emergency room or end up in the hospital at great cost.

“Maybe it’s the same reason why we have more people in jail than any other country on earth including China, tied to the fact that we have the highest poverty rate among children among many other major countries on earth,” Sanders continued. “I happen to believe that intelligently investing in the needs of our people does in fact save substantial sums of money.”

Nevertheless, Paul—who’s home state of Kentucky is ranked twentieth in the nation in senior citizen food insecurity, with over 5 percent of seniors there facing hunger—pressed on. Addressing Greenlee, he asked: “If we are saving money with the two billion we spend, perhaps we should give you 20 billion. Is there a limit? How much money should we give you in order to save money? If we spend federal money to save money, where is the limit? I think we could reach a point of absurdity.”

Share:

Related Articles

2 thoughts on “Rand Paul touted “nobility of charity” in 2011 as an alternative to Social Security, Meals on Wheels

  1. You know when Republicans have to resort to the “Why don’t we just spend (insert astronomical amount of money here)???” that they’ve lost the argument. Just like when they argue against raising the minimum wage and say, “Why not just pay everyone $150.00 an hour?” as if anyone is suggesting something close to that.

    Also, if private charities are such a viable option, why aren’t they taking care of all the gaps in health care and food insecurity currently out there? We have so many great Christians and charitable conservatives, why do we still have so many people hurting?

Comments are closed.