Rand Paul Offers The First Reasonable Budget Cuts

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

In a modest first step, Senator Rand Paul has offered the first geniune proposal to start the process of digging us out of the fiscal disaster of decades of progressive Republican / Democrat spending spree...

www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9L094PO1.htm

The standard Democrat squealing aside, this is the first of exactly the kind of baby steps we need to take to get this fiscal crisis under control before it gets too overwhelming to manage.

As many informed people already know- the Federal Government borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends, government is too big, too bloated, and out of control. If we continue on the current path, the whole thing collapses and everyone gets nothing.

To avert the inevitable destruction of ALL government programs, this proposal still leaves 85% of the government in place, and Congress can decide where to make progress after this passes:

Paul said in a statement. "By rolling back to 2008 levels and eliminating the most wasteful programs, we can still keep 85 percent of our government funding in place."

Paul, a Bowling Green eye surgeon elected in November with support from tea party activists, centered his campaign largely around fiscal issues. He promised to press for a constitutional amendment that would require the federal budget to be balanced each year. He also said he would make a proposal early in his term to balance the budget in one to five years.

"By removing programs that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as education and housing, we are cutting nearly 40 percent of our projected deficit and removing the big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency in our federal government," he said...

..."I'm glad Senator Paul and many of our colleagues are taking the opportunity to put forward their ideas on how best we can help provide a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren," McConnell said. "There is widespread interest in the Republican conference for spending cuts that pay more than lip service to reducing the debt, and I look forward to working with Senator Paul and anyone else who is interested in tackling this crisis head on."

This is the first time I've heard of an elected representative make any kind of a reasonable move towards fiscal sanity and the elmination of ineffective and wasteful programs.

DO NOT make a fool of yourself on this thread. READ THE BILL: www.randpaul2010.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/500Bcutsbill.pdf BEFORE you comment on the bill.

[fairlycrazy23]

Don't tell me I can't make fool of myself

[rockon]

I will tell you right now he is my first hero of 2011 for stepping up and putting a proposal out there that cuts a half a trillion from our spending. Doesn't mean it will all make sense but it really doesn't matter. We have to start somewhere so THANK YOU Mr. Rand!!! Now let the squealing begin.

[fairlycrazy23]

Hopefully it will at least get a serious look, but I doubt it will go anywhere. He has the right idea about where the federal government needs to get to.
We need to start eliminating agencies and whole departments, I mean really why does the Federal government have agencies like "Commission on Fine Arts", many other agencies appear to be duplicated duties or totally unneeded (and likely unlawful) at the Federal Level
Has he introduced any new bills about the fed lately?

[ugonow]

"By removing programs that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as education and housing

An argument could be made most of the government programs we have are beyond whats provided for in the constitution.

[Deleted]

removing education and housing programs isn't exactly 'baby steps' though.... it could take some doing...

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 27, 2011 11:55:32 GMT -5 ugonow said:

"By removing programs that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as education and housing

An argument could be made most of the government programs we have are beyond whats provided for in the constitution.

One problem with the Federal governments growing power, is that the body that is supposed to judge on such issues is just as much a part of the Federal Government as the other two branches.

So it is the Federal Government that decides how much power the Federal Government has.

[ugonow]

To me,its just more of the same. Everyone has there own idea of what is constitutional,everyone has their own idea what is waste,everyone for their own good.

[reasonfreedom]

You don't think that any of our representatives actually want to cut spending do you(with an exception of a few, I am guessing Rand Paul is one of them)? I thought they just wanted to say it to make the people and themselves feel better.

[jkapp]

Jan 27, 2011 13:56:46 GMT -5 reasonfreedom said:

You don't think that any of our representatives actually want to cut spending do you(with an exception of a few, I am guessing Rand Paul is one of them)? I thought they just wanted to say it to make the people and themselves feel better.

The best thing about the last election was it introduced many new faces into the old and corrupted political houses. Hopefully with each election more new faces will replace the old

[rockon]

Well we just have to make it very simple for them by giving them an ultimatum. Either support a balanced budget or get voted out. It really comes back to the voter being the one who really decides if this nonsense gets stopped or not and we just have to be big enough and willing to give up what appears to be our own personal benefit to save our country. Arguing for more money in education today is a mute point if we go bankrupt or if the money that could be used for education tomorrow must be spent to pay interest on a huge debt load. We have to stop borrowing from our children's future and living within our means even if that means living with a reduced standard of living.

[Deleted]

Go, Rand. Lots of tough cuts in there. People will scream and yell-- in their own interest, of course. No cuts to some things, like SS and VA for this year, which sounds good.... I like it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 27, 2011 11:23:55 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Hopefully it will at least get a serious look, but I doubt it will go anywhere. He has the right idea about where the federal government needs to get to.
We need to start eliminating agencies and whole departments, I mean really why does the Federal government have agencies like "Commission on Fine Arts", many other agencies appear to be duplicated duties or totally unneeded (and likely unlawful) at the Federal Level
Has he introduced any new bills about the fed lately?

The reason I said it was a modest proposal, is because it is. I am insulted by politicians who say it's "too radical" or "too much, too soon" whenever it comes to spending CUTS.

Why is it I never hear a SPENDING INCREASE described as "too radical" or "too much, too soon"?

Federal Budget which has grown from $2.9 trillion in 2008 (Submitted by President Bush in 2007) to $3.8 trillion in 2010 (submitted by President Obama in 2009).

So, we can GROW the budget by $450 billion a year for two years, but we can't cut it by $500 billion in the third year? I think 2008 levels are far too high, to cut back to those levels is really an easy, almost light task.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 27, 2011 14:51:03 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

Go, Rand. Lots of tough cuts in there. People will scream and yell-- in their own interest, of course. No cuts to some things, like SS and VA for this year, which sounds good.... I like it.

I scoured the bill for a "tough cut" and couldn't find one. It's all pretty light fare, very sensible.

If you want to see a radical budget- you should take a look at mine. I would ELIMINATE DHS, DEA, EPA, OSHA, and consolidate NSA, CIA, FBI, and DoD into ONE agency. I'd eliminate 50% of the Federal workforce over a period of 10 years-- 5% gone on day one of my budget.

[Deleted]

Jan 28, 2011 15:28:36 GMT -5 @patstab said:

What are you going to do with all the additional unemployed people? Even less money going into the economy.

Now might be a good time to take in some basic economic study at your local college. After a couple of years come back and read your statement here.

[texasredneck]

I would tell the newly unemployed federal workers they have 26 weeks of benefits to find a job, any job while they look for something else, because after 26 weeks they can just starve.

[billisonboard]

Jan 28, 2011 15:41:39 GMT -5 texasredneck said:

I would tell the newly unemployed federal workers they have 26 weeks of benefits to find a job, any job while they look for something else, because after 26 weeks they can just starve.

People who are starving tend not to "just starve". They have a tendency to do something to gain food. And I am not sure that the local food banks will be adequate.

[burnsattornincan]

They have a tendency to do something to gain food. And I am not sure that the local food banks will be adequate.

That is precisely why you should have listened to fiscan and bought;

< Guns and plenty of ammo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >

[rockon]

Just think of how much food we could give away IF we weren't sending it to China for interest on our debt.

[ugonow]

IMO, "By rolling back to 2008 levels and eliminating the most wasteful programs, we can still keep 85 percent of our government funding in place." is more of a talking point than a reasonable plan. It is easy to say cut out unconstitutional programs.....I will wait and see before taking this as an actual plan. That is like Ron Pauls numerous proposals to "restore the first amentment" empty words with no substance behind them.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 28, 2011 15:41:39 GMT -5 texasredneck said:

I would tell the newly unemployed federal workers they have 26 weeks of benefits to find a job, any job while they look for something else, because after 26 weeks they can just starve.

Or, we could tell people with jobs that they have to work indefinitely and be taxed more and more to support those former federal workers who now have to find honest work.

I don't know why public employees are such a sacred cow. EVERYONE except them have suffered and made sacrifices- it's time for them to step up.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 29, 2011 9:27:54 GMT -5 ugonow said:

IMO, "By rolling back to 2008 levels and eliminating the most wasteful programs, we can still keep 85 percent of our government funding in place." is more of a talking point than a reasonable plan. It is easy to say cut out unconstitutional programs.....I will wait and see before taking this as an actual plan. That is like Ron Pauls numerous proposals to "restore the first amentment" empty words with no substance behind them.

Um, there's a bill. It's very specific-- agencies, programs, and dollar amounts. I don't know how much more "substance" there could be.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 28, 2011 15:28:36 GMT -5 @patstab said:

What are you going to do with all the additional unemployed people? Even less money going into the economy.

This is America, where "if it's to be, it's up to ME" (not "we"). What did "we" do with me the seven (7) times I was unemployed. They'll deal with it. Just like the millions who've lost jobs, and can't get hired due to the current policies of the federal government.