But he isn’t really blocking it. He is asking for financial accountability language in the bill. So he is a conditional “yes” when he should be an absolute “no.”
Good point. But Rand is a shrewd statesman. By him asking for a perfectly reasonable modification to a bill that he knows his swamp colleagues will oppose, Rand damages his swamp colleagues more than him simply voting against it would.
In this way, the public gets to observe the swamp rats trying to evade legitimate spending oversight measures; and that will naturally raise public suspicion, and invite [unwanted by the swamp] public attention, and scrutiny.
He's just making sure they add enough soap to launder the money cleanly. All those idiots are rushing to get their share of kickbacks while the channel is still open.
But he isn’t really blocking it. He is asking for financial accountability language in the bill. So he is a conditional “yes” when he should be an absolute “no.”
Good point. But Rand is a shrewd statesman. By him asking for a perfectly reasonable modification to a bill that he knows his swamp colleagues will oppose, Rand damages his swamp colleagues more than him simply voting against it would.
In this way, the public gets to observe the swamp rats trying to evade legitimate spending oversight measures; and that will naturally raise public suspicion, and invite [unwanted by the swamp] public attention, and scrutiny.
He's just making sure they add enough soap to launder the money cleanly. All those idiots are rushing to get their share of kickbacks while the channel is still open.
Waking up the sheep but putting strings on it?