Back in November 2017, Senator Rand Paul wrote an op-ed titled “Here’s why I plan to vote for the Senate tax bill (and my colleagues should step up).” In it, the lawmaker from Kentucky argued that even though he’d literally staked his reputation on railing against deficit spending, he would be casting a “yea” vote for a bill that would add more than $1 trillion to the deficit over a decade. Obviously, Paul was able to overlook the fact that the legislation went against everything he supposedly stood for because it involved a massive tax cut for corporate America. But apparently, when it comes to making exceptions to his faux principles, 9/11 victims dying of cancer don’t make the cut.

Seeking to out-evil Mitch McConnell, on Wednesday, Paul made it clear that unless you’re a multinational being forced to pay a 35% tax rate, he doesn’t give a shit about your suffering, blocking an attempt by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to win the Senate’s consent to approve a House-passed bill that would fund the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund until fiscal 2090. Suddenly remembering that he claims to care about the debt and deficits, Paul objected to the bill, saying, “It has long been my feeling that we need to address our massive debt in this country.” (Reminder: Paul rallied his colleagues around a bill that is projected to help push the deficit to $896 billion in 2019. But we digress.) “We have a $22 trillion debt,” Paul said, without a fraction of an iota of self-awareness. “We’re adding debt at about $1 trillion a year. Therefore any new spending that we are approaching, any new program that is going to have the longevity of 70 or 80 years, should be offset by cutting spending that is less valuable. We should at least be having this debate.”

Paul’s decision to suddenly start caring about spending when 9/11 first responders’ lives are on the line means that the Senate will now have to go through additional procedural steps to pass the compensation bill, and while it’s nevertheless expected to pass, Paul’s ghoulish decision to give 9/11 victims the metaphorical finger did not go over well. After his objection, Gillibrand said she was “deeply disappointed” in his decision when the bill is “desperately needed and urgent.” (Later, a spokesperson for Paul insisted he “is not blocking anything,” but “simply seeking to pay for it.”)

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click here to subscribe.

Jeff Bezos: I’m spending my fortune on space because we’re turning earth into an uninhabitable hellhole