The American Spectator : Rand's Reductions

Text Size

Rand's Reductions

By W. James Antle, III on 1.31.11 @ 6:09AM

Senator Paul introduces a $500 billion spending cuts package.

Rand Paul is trying to comprehend Washington's bizarre customs, starting with the Senate breaking so soon after he was sworn in. "I told people back home in Kentucky that now that I'm a federal employee, I showed up for an hour and they told me to go home for two weeks," the new Republican senator quipped.

But instead of taking it easy, Paul has already engaged in a flurry of legislative activity. He introduced a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, an upper-chamber version of the legislation his father has championed in the House. Paul teamed with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) on a bill to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. He joined Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Mike Lee (R-UT) in launching the Senate Tea Party Caucus. He recorded his own widely circulated response to the State of the Union address.

Paul's most ambitious effort so far has been the bill he introduced last week to cut $500 billion from the federal budget in one year. You read that correctly -- billion with a "b" taking place in a single year. That's five times more than what the Republican leadership has promised and reduces the current deficit by more than even the Republican Study Committee's proposal.

Most impressive of all, the bill concentrates almost entirely on domestic discretionary spending plus a small amount of defense cuts. "The reason we chose this tactic was to show that we can cut $500 billion without touching Social Security or Medicare," Paul said in a conference call last Thursday. "Not that you don't have to do that too." Paul says he's already at work on a bill to "fix the entire" Social Security funding shortfall and will introduce a Medicare bill later.

The bill hasn't been independently scored, but based its figures on official government data. And those numbers are large. The Departments of Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development are abolished entirely, with federal energy and housing spending totally zeroed out of the federal budget. The Interior Department sees a 78 percent decrease in funding, State 71 percent, the Commerce Department 54 percent, and Homeland Security 43 percent.

Foreign aid, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Government Printing Office, Amtrak, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Commission on Fine Arts are just a few of the programs and agencies that are gone, completely wiped out by these spending cuts. The Smithsonian is privatized.

Food stamps and farm subsidies are taken back to 2008 funding levels, before the Obama-era spending increases that the president would like to lock in with his five-year spending "freeze." More than $42 billion are deleted from the Agriculture Department's budget. Spending on the legislative and judicial branches is also knocked back to 2008 levels, as are most of the Department of Health and Human Services' discretionary programs.

NOT EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY with these cuts. Everyone from the Republican Jewish Coalition to J Street denounced Paul for failing to exempt Israel when eliminating foreign aid. Liberals who dream of public schools that are lavishly funded while the military holds bake sales -- remember that bumper sticker? -- will howl when they see Paul has cut $30 billion more from education than defense. Despite their rhetoric, the Republican leadership has never backed spending cuts of this magnitude.

Even if you quibble with some of Paul's specific cuts -- his section on the Labor Department appears to terminate all funding for OLMS, the only federal entity that oversees labor unions -- there is considerable merit to his approach. Instead of wringing savings out of budget caps that need to be enforced across multiple Congresses over a number of years, all the cuts take place in one year. Instead of trimming and tinkering, Paul abolishes programs and shuts down agencies.

Paul is also testing the seriousness of those who claim to favor fiscal responsibility and limited government. His bill cuts more in a single year than the president hopes to save after freezing non-defense discretionary spending for 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," Paul said in a statement.

Skeptics may counter that Rand Paul's father has proposed a lot of legislation over the years too, much of it going nowhere. But as a fiscal crisis looms, desperate times may call for radical measures. Senator Paul isn't just trying to cut spending. He is raising the stakes.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (85) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.31.11 @ 6:17AM

I would love to see all of it just as described. Many of those agencies are filled with elitists who sit around trying to impress their superiors with ever more regulatory concepts. I'm surprised I didn't see the EPA on that list. They should have their regulatory authority taken away and should only be charged with cleaning the environment.

Redstateboy| 1.31.11 @ 1:01PM

We are either facing the total destruction of America or we are Not! I and millions of us think that we Are. Rand is right! Either we Do This or we lose this Great Country. I for one am going to write my two Senators and Congressmen and ask them to get behind Rand. One is Lamar Alexander, A quasi-RINO with an arrogant, Blue-blood Republican staff. They need to be brought down a peg.. and Alexander is running for reelection but he's Not going to get my vote.. I'll be campaigning against him - hopefully for a good Tea-Party Candidate.

Nobama Doctor| 2.2.11 @ 5:36AM

Unfortunately, the state in which I reside is California. Mike Thompson(D-) is my representative. He lost in our county(Del Norte), but, was re-elected by the kool-aid drinkers in Napa Valley. Boxer was re-elected(?), Pelosi was re-elected(?) and Feinstein has a firm hold on her seat so far for 2012.
I have repeatedly contacted them to no avail, except a telephone call from Mike Thompson himself called my place of business and was slicker in his mistruths than Blow-Job Bill Clinton.
Mr. Thompson even went to my sons government class and belittled my son after finding out he was my son. In my opinion, Mike Thompson is a candy ass.
California will NOT wake up. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over the same way and expecting different results. Hence, California's election results. Jerry f-ing Brown? LOL!!!!!!!
I am moving my business and my 18 employees to Arizona this summer and can't wait.

Brian Mc| 1.31.11 @ 6:33AM

Anyone who is unhappy with the cuts in the Federal spending should have their voting rights revoked. The Federal Altar is closed for construction...need a handout, go to a 'real' church.

Tom Osterman| 1.31.11 @ 6:41AM

Abolishing the Departments of Education and Energy? Paul's the man! Finally getting rid of the two most useless Departments in the Executive branch! And useless=colossal waste of the taxpayers' money!

carolinem| 1.31.11 @ 2:01PM

We're already being ordered to stop using light bulbs and switch to bulbs that cost up to five times as much money. Who gave bureaucrats the right to order this?

JimH| 1.31.11 @ 6:51AM

What do you call a 500 billion budget cut? A good start. If not already included, all farm subsidies, especially for ethanol and all commercial and industry subsidies must be axed as well.

kevinsoberg| 1.31.11 @ 6:51AM

Senator Paul's idea to cut entire departments is a stellar idea. However, he seems to have cut the military budget in an attempt to "even handed". In light of the recent developments in the Arab/Muslim world, is cutting Defense necessarily such a great thing? Perhaps he should cut the EPA by 80% and transfer that back to Defense.

Sandy| 1.31.11 @ 7:35AM

kevinsoberg I agree. Gates already proposed deep cuts to defense, and Obama asked him to cut more. The defense budget is already stripped, yet Paul cuts it by an additional 6.5%. Defense is the one area that the federal government does have a responsibility to protect this country, and defense spending is a necessity.

I'm not sure why Paul insisted on a Tea Party caucus when DeMint already had a conservative caucus. He has all of 4 members in that caucus including DeMint, which I don't understand. The Tea Parties are already threatening Rubio with a primary if he didn't join the Tea Party caucus, even before he cast his first vote. The national libertarian leaning Tea Parties are getting a little too big for their britches.

Paul's proposal of cuts has no more chance of passing than his father Ron's bills do. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Sean| 1.31.11 @ 8:12AM

Yep the apple didn't fall far from the tree and that is a good thing. We got plenty of your kind of Republicans in the past. What did we get for it?Prescription Drug coverage, SCHIP, No Child Left behind, ect. People want the government cut.

JimH| 1.31.11 @ 12:58PM

America's ability to defend itself has been weakened by our commitments in the middle east, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Our being there leaves us short of resources (men and material) to respond to other emergency's. Before you can decide on what the defense budget should be, you have to decide on what the mission is. You then determine what is needed to accomplish that mission. This will tell you what you need to spend. National defense is the primary legitimate function of the government. All other expenditures come after this one.

Red Phillips| 1.31.11 @ 1:44PM

Rand is not trying to be even handed for even handedness's sake. Rand is not a militant interventionist so he doesn't think we need to spend as much on defense as we are.

"In light of the recent developments in the Arab/Muslim world, is cutting Defense necessarily such a great thing?"

There will ALWAYS be some situation that causes the hyper-interventionists to warn us that now is not the time to cut defense. This is a recipe for perpetual uncritical spending. What we need to do is seriously evaluate the actual threat, not reflexively call for more spending.

kevinsoberg| 1.31.11 @ 6:13PM

I don't know how interventionist it is to worry about access to oil, freedom of the seas, and totalitarian nations with nuclear weapons. If these worries make me an interventionist, then guilty as charged.
What about my prioritization of national security over economically weakening enviro-activism at the EPA? No response directly to that.

Red Phillips| 1.31.11 @ 6:46PM

Kevin, a lot of countries rely on the US for grain and other agricultural exports. Do they get to station troops here to ensure access? No self-respecting red-blooded American would hear of such. Do they spend as much on "defense" as all other countries combined so they can police the world in the name of access to x, freedom of the seas, and totalitarian nations with nukes? You simply presume a role for the US that no other nation has or wants. Why does this burden fall on us? Why would any sane person want it?

I have no problem prioritizing real national security, which would include protecting the US from invasion and protecting our vital proximate national interests, but I have no desire to have the role of policing the world and neither should any authentic conservative.

Pete| 1.31.11 @ 7:02AM

$500 billion --- it's a start.

Ralph| 1.31.11 @ 11:05AM

A darn good start too!
Our military defense is important, but it also has plenty of room to cut back. Farm subsidies should go as well......and then we MUST address entitlements. If we do not, all this deep cutting in discretionary spending will only postpone the financial crisis - not prevent it.

If this congress decides these cuts are just too severe, then 2012 will bring on another opportunity to elect a congress that will follow through on what MUST be done.

donserge| 1.31.11 @ 7:25AM

Spending money equals power to a congressman. I am not optimistic that something like this will pass, however, if nothing else, at least it will be discussed openly in congress and among the electorate. I say, push hard for the bill!

justasimplepatriot| 1.31.11 @ 7:31AM

Time to find out who is serious and who is not. It is a good start but we need to eviscerate EPA and eliminate all climate change spending as well.

Jim Mulcahy| 1.31.11 @ 7:40AM

He is right to abolish whole programs. Those that have only been cut back in the past, like weeds, grow again.

Judester| 1.31.11 @ 7:44AM

At last something in print and the hopes that it will be implemented. My faith restored.

Pelligrino| 1.31.11 @ 8:11AM

Frankly, bloated bureaucracy budget bashing ought to be worlds of fun inside the D.C. Beltway.

Sen. R. Paul should continue his YouTube presentations with exposure WEEKLY of 2-3 spending areas that Ma & Pa US FLYover Country have no clue about.

(Like -- is it really? -- $120 million in taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. WHAATTT???)

Keep going after those kinds of $35 - $110 million thieveriers from the American Public AND you'll achieve A LOT in no time.

Please, Senator Paul, do WEEKLY pop media presentations like the YouTube State of the Union response to highlight ALL the MASSIVE fraudulent spending.

$500 billion? Good! Don't stop, man!

Louis Jenkins| 1.31.11 @ 8:11AM

Rand Paul, gotta love him. At least he's not letting grass grow under his feet.

Mimi| 1.31.11 @ 8:39AM

Heh Louis ....You sure do gotta love him!!! He's doing more than some of them in Congress have done in a lifetime.....Thank God! Moody's out there with threats to cut our rating....That would mean a rise in interest on ALL THAT DEBT!!!
The November election put a cold-STOP to OBAMA'S waste-ful spending right in the nick of time!!

David| 1.31.11 @ 7:15PM

Right. That's why the Repubs gave the okay to another trillion dollars in spending to extend the Bush tax cuts. The spending did not stop in November.

JamesD| 1.31.11 @ 8:55AM

Go! Go! GO!

Eddie| 1.31.11 @ 9:51AM

What's this? Someone using logic in Washington? What a concept! Also a pipe dream I'm afraid. Getting the special interest backed legislators to go along with it is the difficult part. If only they had this man's boldness...(sigh)

richard ryan| 1.31.11 @ 9:53AM

good start? perhaps. Let me know when SS and medicare come under the scrutiny of our wise leaders. 75-100 Trillion (thats a capital T) in the red for the next generation. Sobering thought.

Ken in Tyler| 1.31.11 @ 9:55AM

A good start, yes but remember even if ALL these were implemented (and they won't be), the feds would still be spending $1,000,000,000,000 a year in excess of their current income. Every special interest group that has grown fat sucking at the government's teat will scream bloody murder at these proposals. And if these changes somehow can be made, the next in line to face fiscal reality will have to be the individual citizens who have been on unemployment for years or on welfare for generations. Do you suppose these millions of addicts will suffer their withdrawl pains peacefully? Time to face the magnitude of the mess we have made. Oh! Wait! I forgot Berdumbke is going to fix it all with QE2 or 3 or 4.....

Consertive View| 1.31.11 @ 11:31AM

"or on welfare for generations."

I have a pipe dream to add to the mix. Let us suppose that no federal welfare funds could go to anyone who has does not have a high school deploma. Lets give two or three years for those on welfare who don't have a deploma to get their GED, and then, BAM, we cut the funding for all the others. Think a moment of what this would do.

A) demand that those who collect welfare do something to advance their lives first.
B) give us a more educated work force.
C) keep kids in school longer, knowing that if they don't get through, they get nothing.
D) Cut down on the amount of welfare paid out over time.
E) No illlegal aliens need apply as soon as they cross the border.

Such a plan would generate howls of anger. Some would dare call it racist. But in fact, it would be the most anti racist act imaginable. It would demand that everyone start on a equal footing.

I know, it falls into the same bucket as Ran Pauls budget plan, but still, it is a delightful pipe dream.

richard ryan| 1.31.11 @ 12:11PM

How about mandatory drug testing. Fail the test, no $$. Our military members must do this for the privelege to serve this country, how about those who are on the government dole as well?

Texas Jayde| 1.31.11 @ 12:32PM

on top of drug tests, recipients must report for work every morning. give the nastiest, smelliest jobs that can be found, like cleaning dead animals off the road, picking up trash along the roads and even cleaning up the gutters in the cities. no more free money. they should have to work for it.

Steve A| 1.31.11 @ 1:21PM

How bout making it illegal for foodstamps to purchase anything Michelle O says is bad for you?? Perfect opportunity for her to solve childhood obesity.

Red Phillips| 1.31.11 @ 1:56PM

CV, I don't support federal welfare programs because I think they are unconstitutional, breed vice, and contribute to the breakdown of the family and community, but if anyone actually needs welfare it is probably people who can't graduate HS or get a GED. If someone with an IQ of 75 for example can graduate HS (with a regular diploma) or get a GED then those things don't mean much.

Americans' naive egalitarianism is part of the problem. "If everyone just goes to school and studies hard then they can become anything they want to be." Well no, not really.

Consertive View| 1.31.11 @ 6:43PM

Red, you raise two excellent points, that there are some not mentally equipt to pass highschool, and that it is indeed naive to believe that a highschool education will lead to anyone becoming what ever they want. I grant that some are not equipt to pass highschool, and to those allowances should be made. I also grant that a highschool deploma and tolet paper have about equal social worth.

That being agreed upon let's think about the ACT of getting a highschool deploma. It requires that a young adult remain in school, like it or not. It requires that he actually work to achieve something. It is an act that compells a young adult to advance himself first, to take responsibility for his own actions.

As an ex high school math teacher I can not agree with your two points more strongly. You are quite right. But I suggest with respect that more is involved than simply getting a piece of paper. What is involved is encourageing young adults to work towards the end of improving their lives, as opposed to the welfare state that believes "You exist therefor you eat."

jolizoom| 1.31.11 @ 8:05PM

Thankfully you were a math teacher and not an English teacher. :-P

David| 1.31.11 @ 7:19PM

I don't care if my car mechanic, gardner, pest control tech, plumber, electrician, etc. have a high school diploma. I just want them to do a good job for a good price.

Lillith| 2.2.11 @ 8:53PM

States and local counties have the right to craft how they administer welfare. Where I live, the only people who are CERTIFIABLY unable to work for mental or physical reasons receive open ended welfare. Again - the 1986 welfare reform act pushed the decision making down to the state and county level. Focus on that level if you want to make changes.

David| 1.31.11 @ 7:17PM

That's diploma with an "i". Ouch.

LMajito| 1.31.11 @ 10:01AM

500 billion? really? that means the budget still has a deficit of only a trillion???

these folks arent's serious...roll back budget to 2007 levels first and the cut 500 billion...that should leave a surplus...

any other approach is a fuzzy feeling of not correcting the problem...

it'll take about 3 election cycles to remove all (and i mean all) of the politicos from dc from the white house to the congress house to the out house (read recently politicos playing lobbists) before we'll get our country back...

a generation ago, the us society decided to leave these guys alone and look what we got...capitalism is the greatest system but it needs ethical politicians to keep their greed in check...love of money is the root of many evils...

Ralph| 1.31.11 @ 11:09AM

As folks admit - this is a good start. This doesn't solve the problem in one step, but you have to start somewhere. I would further say cut deep into the EPA, remove farm subsidies, cut defense (we can no longer afford to be the world's policeman), and start reforming entitlement programs so they can survive - albeit at affordable cost.

Larry| 1.31.11 @ 10:07AM

I love Rand Paul. My only criticism is that 2008 levels were way to hight. Take them back to 1908 levels and we'll really see the country prosper.

Al Adab| 1.31.11 @ 10:13AM

It must start somewhere. The more proposals the better. Once there is a consensus on some cuts, the necessity of others will drive it home.

Turnditch| 1.31.11 @ 10:20AM

Carry on Senator Paul, carry on; I already like what I see. Albeit much to your spend happy drunken political opponent's angst I'm sure...

dvb| 1.31.11 @ 10:48AM

If he were serious he would have zeroed out farm subsidies, but that would mean not getting re-elected.

335blues| 1.31.11 @ 10:54AM

Not having seen the details of Mr. Paul's appraoch, my initial response is based entirely on the summary shown above. Yes, yes, this is exactly what is needed to get America back on the track of greatness. Which is what obama and the marxist democrat party will be against it. Remember when America's school children were among the best and brightest in the world? It was before the behemoth dept of education was created (by the marxist democrat party to keep our children from excelling in school). The education of children in this country used to be under local control. Then it was very easy to see and fix problems, and America's students thrived. Under the current system, the American people have NO control over a failing education system. And, of course, this is exactly how the marxist democrat party wants it to stay. Another example is the IRS. Everybody knows the IRS exists only for two reasons- to punish political enemies and to reward political friends with unequal taxation. America can easily save hundreds of billions of dollars by abolishing the IRS and replacing it with a fair flat tax. It is so logical that even a child would understand this position. Which is why the marxist democrat party is against it. Now comes the hard work. Mr. Paul and the rest of the conservatives need to EDUCATE the American people about the wisdom of this approach as quickly as possible. Conservatives offer up many great ideas, but without educating the American people about their benefits many ideas fall short.

Phil| 1.31.11 @ 8:15PM

You are an ignorant fool. You believe people will just hand over their money if a fair, flat tax replaces the current code? Who do you think has to carry out the laws of a fair, flat tax, collect the money, etc.? The IRS, stupid! Oh, and by the way, the IRS doesn't write the tax code; it's written by Congress.

Cato| 1.31.11 @ 10:55AM

Constitutionally speaking, there are only four departments authorized for the executive branch: Defense, State, Treasury, and Justice.

All the rest constitute a black hole.

Dave| 1.31.11 @ 11:19AM

If this is the same jackhole that suggested we drop people off disability because 'they really don't need it' and get seniors off their checks 'so they can get jobs and feel like productive Americans again' - he needs to be taken out with the rest of the trash.

loulou| 1.31.11 @ 11:27AM

Dave: Yes, those who don't "really need" their gubmint checks should prepare for life without them.

The trash that needs to be taken out is the parasitic class that feeds off the productive citizens.

Ken in Tyler| 1.31.11 @ 2:07PM

That's the rub isn't it. Who decides who "needs" what? A Constitutional answer is that if you didn't earn it, you have no claim to it. The government public servants were never hired to compete with or replace charities and the Church. But you won't hear that from the Marxist in Chief.

Harry Vederci| 1.31.11 @ 12:33PM

We can either pay the price now with spending cuts and listen to the whining of those at the goverment trough, or we can continiue to sweep waste, fraud, and corruption under the rug and pay for it with reduced freedoms and standards of living in the future.

Redstateboy| 1.31.11 @ 1:07PM

well the postings appear to be in agreement with Rand Paul.. Either we're serious about saving the Nation or we're Not!!

Richard Baker| 1.31.11 @ 1:35PM

Good beginning. Senator Paul and others are the leading edge of the effort to reduce the dead hand of government and free the country from it's shackles. Next, we need to explain to the country why this is needed. Finally, we need to put that 40+ percent NOT paying taxes to begin carrying their part of the load. No more freeloaders whether poor or rich, corporate or private.

Peppermint Tea| 1.31.11 @ 1:56PM

Half a trillion in domestic spending. Now make half a trillion in transfer payments, and half a trillion in defense in order to make the 2011 budget balance.
Too radical? It's all borrowed and printed money. If we don't cut now, monetary forces will cut it out of us tomorrow in inflation.

carolinem| 1.31.11 @ 1:59PM

Eliminate every federal bureaucracy with web sites that provide no useful information or prevent users of the site from finding the information they need. The Department of Labor and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services are good places to start. If they run their departments the way they run their web sites, it's no wonder the country is in financial shambles.

Jennifer Rubin Clone | 1.31.11 @ 2:00PM

OMG!! RAND PAUL WANTS TO CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET!! HE MUST BE SOME KIND OF AMERICA HATING PINKO COMMIE!! AND HE WANTS TO CUT FOREIGN AID TO ISRAEL!! SO HE IS A VILE ANTI-SEMITE AS WELL!!!!!

wolflen| 1.31.11 @ 2:20PM

while paul has his cheerleaders...little of his bill will be born as is...and not soon either...cut it in half and divide by 3 and maybe...that will see some light of day..in several years...

to be real about "killing" the beast ... it would take 60% (at least) of congress to back such measures and a president that really means to do the same..

in the meantime we will see increased spending in all areas...business as usual...in the name of education health & welfare...after the unions take the lions share and give the leftovers to "non-profits" and others that have found a home deep inside a bureaucratic maze..

Sean| 1.31.11 @ 5:15PM

Actually all it takes is half the Congress to get stuff done. All Republicans have to do is not vote for funding and not vote for raising the debt limit. 218 Congressmen can halt spending in its tracks.

Blackwatch| 2.1.11 @ 1:42PM

A bolder only holds the stream back for so long, and then the stream moves the bolder or simply goes around it.

A minority in Congress can only halt spending for a small period of time. Unless the electorate backs their play and re-elects them they are toast and the spenders are put back in charge.

We are in an Economic War with the liberal spenders and the RINO spenders. This battle won't be won in DC it will be won at the kitchen table. The propagandists in the media and the Ruling Class big spenders will lie their asses off to get back in power. We need to gear up for the battle and that battle will be fought in the popular media. We had better start running funny cleaver ads on TV about the dangers of over spending on "Dancing with the Stars" and "American Idol" and on the college campuses if you want to educate the voting public. The readers here are a tiny minority and we are in danger of preaching only to the choir.

Blackwatch| 2.1.11 @ 1:43PM

sorry that should be "boulder" not bolder in the first sentence.

RJ| 1.31.11 @ 2:49PM

Thank-you Senator Paul. I have been waiting for years to see a senator introduce the elimination of governmental departments, agencies and programs and propose meaningful reductions in spending. You have my full support and I hope we can go further.

Flee| 1.31.11 @ 2:51PM

I read his entire 12 pages and it all sounds good to me. I don't think the Feds need to have their hands in 90% of what they do. Defend our borders and back our allies when needed. Other than that, we can begin winding down Soc Sec and Medicare later. All of it can be privatized and no one will suffer...except maybe some out of work govt workers and they can find jobs in a newly productive society like the rest of us.

Jack in the Midwest| 1.31.11 @ 3:25PM

Close up these stupid wars and bring the troops home. Close up 700 foreign bases as well. We can save at least 500 billion right there. Warren Harding salshed the budget 60% in one year, when he became President. Yes we can.

USAttorney| 1.31.11 @ 3:42PM

I wish that everyone commenting had read the budget proposals for 2009 and 2010, and the final budget figures for 2008 (somehow we still seem to be spending on budgets from 2 years ago. I’m no economist but it seems to typify wonky government math). I live in Paul’s district and his collection of German inflation currency serves to remind him of fiscal restraint.
A point of contention for those of you who don’t seem to comprehend the Department of Energy: His cutting this was hopefully just a ploy because he too should know better. Much classified and important nuclear work is done in DoE, and cutting it would be foolish. State, where I’ve worked before, does have a lot of waste, but 71% seems steep. Cut the foreign aid and the diplomats become more essential. Bremer cutting the Iraqi Army comes to mind when people forget what happens when men with guns are sent home without jobs. No bribe money for the PLO means we need closer watch on their organization. DHS, where I’ve also worked, could use quite a few more cuts than 43%. Amtrak, like USPS, is a national security issue that Republicans seem to forget often, despite Hawkish reputations. Conservatives, like me, know that the only efficient way to move tanks and heavy equipment cross country is rail. We should be investing in more rail, not less. It would help industry too, since I would buy a big Chevy truck if I had a train to use to commute.
@ Richard ryan has a great point. I have long advocated that if we pay for “your” child’s medical care you must be prohibited from smoking (increases likelihood of ear infections, etc.) and engaging in any other habit that costs more taxpayer money. Further, if you stay at home on welfare, there should even be grade requirements… if all you do is collect a check, you’ve got plenty of time to help your kid with homework.
@loulou I think this is overbroad. My wife has a serious medical condition but likes to work. She missed a goodly number of days at her last job and when we moved she worried that the company would suffer due to her absences. She considered disability and they basically preemptively refused her despite the legal classification of her condition as disabled. We didn’t push it, but it ticked me off that I pay nearly $1000 a month in taxes and I can’t even get money back in my household for someone who is disabled by any legal and medical definition. This wouldn’t be a problem if they let me keep more of that money at home, so really I don’t have a bone to pick with your point.

Overall, I think we could afford to even keep the workers. It may sound crazy, but government does wild things like set interest rates for the money they owe (and they still can’t pay it off?) and pay foreign companies to manage phone networks at our embassies, and so on. If we sold half the premium office space in Crystal City that might pay salaries for government workers and we’d all win. They keep jobs they may not need to do and we save money.

Flee| 1.31.11 @ 7:36PM

USAttorney: While I understand you think DOE is important much of the work should be private sector or DOD. DOE was a boondoggle of Carter days and serves little useful purpose for most Americans. Sen Paul is aiming very high and that is to be commended. Those that go against it also helps to delineate them from those that support such sharp cuts. Sorry about the disability but there are individual policies for that and it is a risk we all take to try to cover it or not. I don't feel obligated to shoulder that burden. I also think the govt should not be in that business either.

USAttorney| 2.1.11 @ 2:37PM

Good points. I recognize that private sector companies could do some of this work, but I've worked in a number of industries, including private sector r&d and healthcare, and public sector State and DHS. For the off the record things DoE does, and I don't mean nuclear waste disposal though this too needs a close eye since the pie in the sky vacuum of self-policing profiteering is unrealistically positive, I think they should stay. Cut the staff at the top across the board, but many armed forces members are integrated into DoE's mission productively meaning the DoD overlap is still not frivolous.

No worries on the disability. Point is that the blanket comments about disability are often under-informed. I could not carry the cost of the condition without health insurance, and anyone with prinicples would consider any means to protect one's family. From gun ownership with the possibility of taking a human life (home invasion) to robbing a bank (putting food on the table for children), our moral high ground becomes more relative when it's our own house. In that, I have paid more than 98% of the population in annual taxes, and unless I get a refund, the ssi and disability should be an option. My opinion only.

PattyMor| 1.31.11 @ 4:10PM

I am sure Mr. Paul has the Republican establishment squirmming in their seats. They need spending reductions to satisfy the Tea Party folks, but probably don't want to upset the apple cart too much.

Be bold! Its a good start. Remember even with that much of spending reduction, it still doesn't balance the budget.

CJohnson| 1.31.11 @ 6:21PM

"How to cut waste let me count the ways...."
Yes Mr Paul, I will be you Valentine.

Michael Tomlinson| 1.31.11 @ 7:30PM

I hope he's gone after his daddy's pork and earmarks too.

Nite| 1.31.11 @ 9:01PM

I agree with a large amount of Senator Paul's cuts. Eliminate all Presidential Czars. Cut back federal workforce. Eliminate Congressional members office budgets 6 months after they lose an election. Place Congress on the same retirement system as other federal workers. Place them on the same federal healthcare system as other federal workers and they must pay their share. Cut the EPA, NPR, and other bloated governmental agencies. Cut the governmental agencies for Obamacare. Cut Presidential and Congressional travel budgets. Remember Michelle's overseas vacations and of course Obama. The Democrats howled when Bush left the White House and went to his ranch in Texas. Said he should stay in the WH. I did not hear any Dems say anything about the millions and millions spent on the Obamas vacations. Cut the millions of dollars given to the UN. Let the rest of the world do their part. Cut foreign aide, which is pouring money down a rat hole. Israel would be exempt.

Andy Texan| 1.31.11 @ 9:04PM

See your 500 billion and raise you 500 billion. As a side note, eliminate 50% of the federal bureaucracy and 75% of congressional staffers.

jstwndring| 1.31.11 @ 11:09PM

Slash and burn, baby! This is EXACTLY what i'm talking about.

woneta| 1.31.11 @ 11:46PM

Finally someone in Washington with a little common sense. These agencies should have been gone a long tome ago. The dept of ed is pretty much worthless at the federal level. There are probably a lot more that can be cut the EPA, FCC, DHS for example. He has the right idea cut what is not needed. Lets start with audit the fed, bigtime.

GENE HAUBER| 2.1.11 @ 12:34AM

GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE

GENE HAUBER| 2.1.11 @ 12:34AM

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT!

GENE HAUBER| 2.1.11 @ 12:35AM

FINALLY, A GUY WITH GUTS, RAND PAUL.

Thelma| 2.1.11 @ 3:02AM

Thank God SOMEONE will do a meaningful something that will have an effect. Now if all will just stand beside him and create a voice that can be heard inside and outside those hallowed halls, maybe this country can get back on track. I'm hoping this will happen in my lifetime...and I'm 77.

wodiej| 2.1.11 @ 3:39PM

Rand Paul is leading the way. This is where we see who is a man and who is a mouse.

shipley130| 2.1.11 @ 10:41PM

I will take that ante. He is doing what I have been talking about for many months. I am starting to get my faith in my congress back.

FREE tea| 2.1.11 @ 10:42PM

BTW ---anyone else catching the how the catch phrase 'Red State' is being craftily used to not only blur
identities and neutralize awareness here ---BUT
to draw any decisive moral consciousness
away from the only RED state worth worrying
about ----the awesomely genocidal, wholly
illegitimate RED Chinese state --? ---Uh, that is if we're
even allowed to refer to it as being, in all its
hellbound power ----RED!

John Carnal| 2.2.11 @ 8:55PM

You go Rand! If the world ends we can always bring these unnecessary departments back. Rand, please take a look at the sugar and ethanol subsidy programs.

Timely Renewed| 2.7.11 @ 11:04AM

Even if this Congress implemented many of Senator Paul's cuts, nothing would stop future Congresses from reverting to their old ways of pork barrel and special interest borrowing, spending and regulation. We need to restore the Constitution's original meanings and allocation of power to the states. There have been conservative resurgences before, but they have always failed because they never addressed the last 70 years of abuse of the Constitution by progressive control of the Supreme Court and other branches of the federal government. Legislative action alone is not enough. We need to promote amendments to the Constitution to restore its original meaning and structure regardless of the future vagaries of political parties.

The first step is to amend the amendment process itself to eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. This will break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and permit grassroots patriots on the state level to restore the Constitution by amendment. Only this will permanently constrain future federal overreach of the sort rejected by the people last November. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

Bob From District 9| 2.10.11 @ 10:32PM

"...cut $500 billion from the federal budget in one year."

Hm... 3.5% growth in GDP is considered a normal rate of growth. Rand Paul wants to cut 3.6% out of the GDP in one stroke. Yes, that's right, out of the GDP. Rand Paul may well be able to claim credit for single handedly leading this country into another recession.

Zero out the dept of Energy? The DOE does our nuclear weapons research and maintenance? Does Paul intend to shift that to another agency? If so, don't call that zeroing it out.

Homeland security drastically cut? If he's talking about the headquarters staff, that's one thing. Start cutting the field staff and just who is going to do what? Are you just going to open the borders to all comers? Why remove birthright citizenship if you are going to do away with border enforcement?

The Secret Service does much more than protect the president, you know. OTOH, without the Secret Service we can all just print our own money and won't have to worry about the FED doing it.

Abolish the Govt Printing Office? Who is going to print government documents? If you privatize it don't call it zeroing it out.

The TSA maybe hasn't done a perfect job preventing terrorists from getting aboard planes, but at least they haven't rammed any into skyscrapers recently.

Privatize the Smithsonian? Why don't you just erase our national memory?

And that $30B more from education and defense *IS* a cut from defense. Or don't you think those retired Flag rank officers know what they are talking about.

Same applies to school lunch programs. Read some history.

Oh, and if you believe you can legislate a constitutional provision out, don't call yourself a constitutionalist. Wait a minute, maybe that's not a bad idea. Then we can just writ a law defining interstate trade anything we want it to be.

Thanks Rand Paul.

Reebok| 8.11.11 @ 4:22AM

is good

العاب بنات| 4.11.12 @ 4:15PM

Right. That's why the Repubs gave the okay to another trillion dollars in spending to extend the Bush tax cuts. The spending did not stop in November.