Liberal comedian Jon Stewart is no fan of Rand Paul. After the Kentucky senator's decision to object to a unanimous consent authorization of healthcare funding for 9/11 first responders on Wednesday, Stewart blasted him as “absolutely outrageous” and lamented his decision as “fiscal responsibility virtue signaling.” Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York accused Paul of “turning his back on our first responders.”

Meanwhile, coverage from news outlets across the political spectrum made it seem as if Paul single-handedly denied our heroes healthcare, and #RandPaulHatesAmerica started trending on Twitter.

The outrage is completely unwarranted, and in fact it amounts to a vicious smear against the senator. Paul does not oppose healthcare for first responders, and he has not permanently prevented funding from being authorized. All he has done is delay the bill, so they can have a vote on an amendment to offset the additional spending with cuts elsewhere. This is in complete accordance with Paul’s decadeslong record as a fiscal hawk and responsible steward of taxpayer money.

Outraged reactionaries need to take a deep breath: The funding for 9/11 responders will still be authorized. All that will happen now is that, rather than passing by a voice vote with unanimous consent as was attempted on Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have to bring the already-passed House bill up for a vote, including a vote on Paul’s amendment to offset spending, after which it will almost certainly become law.

There’s no looming deadline on this funding. The 9/11 healthcare fund has not yet run out of money, and people can still file claims. Plus, if the spending is offset, it’s highly likely Paul will support the bill.

Not blocking the 9/11 bill - simply asking for a vote on an amendment to offset the cost. — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 17, 2019

There's a lot being said about @RandPaul and @SenMikeLee, who are offering separate amendments to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Act. Most Republicans and Democrats want to go the lazy route and not allow amendments to be considered. — Jason Pye (@pye) July 18, 2019

This particular battle might not seem like the hill to die on, but our national debt is certainly an urgent problem, and at this point, it takes extreme measures to make anyone care. Even under the Trump administration, and with Republicans having controlled Congress until 2018, we’re now approaching $1 trillion deficits during a boom economy. Our national debt is skyrocketing toward dangerous levels.

Still, one criticism of Paul’s stance is that he voted for the GOP’s 2017 tax cut, which is projected by some to add roughly $1.5 trillion to the national debt over a decade. However, it’s a bit misleading to suggest that tax cuts "add” to the debt — they only do so if you continue to spend money you don’t have. Paul supported a “pay as you go” provision, which would have required spending cuts to offset the tax relief. All in all, he has voted to cut spending too many times to count.

A hypocrite Paul is not.

In fact, Paul does this kind of thing — preventing spending bills passing by unanimous consent — all the time, trying to force a vote on similar amendments to offset other spending. He is just being consistent with his latest demand for a vote. Naturally, that makes him persona non grata in a swamp like Washington, D.C.