I'm not sure about insuring a Democrat victory in 2016, but if it passes the House and either fails in the Senate or is vetoed, that would insure Republican victories in 2014 and 2016 if they can field decent candidates (a big if).

You may be correct about some of the Dems/liberals, but I think many of them are just ignorant about economics; at least they act as though they are. The have drunk the Keynesian kool-aid (an inaccurate version of Keynes, incidentally) and are convinced that government spending will solve all our economic problems if we can just get enough of it. They refuse to even consider the history of government spending's effects on the respective economies where it has been tried.

Although I share your general view, a fair tax would also require some bureaucracy to administer; it would not be as simple as it first sounds. Beyond that, it's probably too radical a departure from the status quo for most American voters to accept. I'd prefer something along the lines you propose, but I would accept a Reagan-style reform if that's the best we can get.

Right on target. The Congress has gotten into the habit of drafting bills in private and then pushing them through without adequate consideration and comment from others. As a result, we end up with monstrosities like Obamacare and Dodd/Frank. Even if you agree with the basic thrust of this bill, and I'm not sure I do, my 40 years in and around the Government tells me there are always unintended consequences. These can be minimized (but not eliminated) by lots of honest debate and opportunity for amendment before they are passed. Bills that are rushed through almost always end up hurting the Country.

Having been close to this process much of my working career, it's not quite like that. Legislation is not developed by the bureaucracy. Regulations are, but only by the lawyers and higher levels, mostly political appointees. Political appointees and high level bureaucrats (career employees) wield enormous power when it comes to implementing the programs. Politics is an enormous influence on this process, both from the hill and from within the executive branch. Legislation is often crafted so poorly that implementation is very difficult and leaves lots of room to do what the implementers want. Bottom line, government is a mess and can't be fixed. The only solution is to have it do as little as possible.

You are moving in the right direction, but you are too generous. I'd say 12 years combined, House and Senate. I'm not sure I'd ever allow them to come back; that might be a lifetime limit. If we were to allow them to come back, the waiting time would be long, 12 years minimum, and then the remaining limit would be shorter, say 6 years. DC has an unbelievably corrupting influence on politicians. After a while, it becomes all about power; nothing else matters.

I agree, but I would hasten to point out that their comments probably helps Paul with his base.

Do I detect another vote for term limits?

If he's running for President, he's certainly going about it in a strange way, unless he's going to run as a Democrat.

The point is use intelligent tactics to achieve political objective. The debt ceiling is the wrong battle in attempting to constrain spending and regain political power. There are other vehicles much more friendly to the Republican cause. First is sequestration, second is the continuing resolution. Many true conservatives don't recognize that some means are more likely to achieve the desired ends than others. You seem to be among those.