The American Spectator : What's Another $2.4 Trillion?

Text Size

What's Another $2.4 Trillion?

By Rand Paul on 6.22.11 @ 6:10AM

Our national debt currently hovers at $14,352,045,270,245.76.

Yet instead of working to decrease this exorbitant sum, many of my congressional colleagues are suggesting we raise our debt limit, inevitably encouraging the accumulation of more debt and borrowing that money on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Clearly, our government's approach to spending is completely out of control, and as citizens it is our responsibility to hold it accountable. The government does not need more money -- in fact, we need to give it less, and ensure that the borrowing does not continue.

In a recent letter to Congress, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made bold statements and declared that our country would see "catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades" if we did not vote to raise the debt ceiling. This behavior is unacceptable; if we continuously raise the debt ceiling we will suffer even worse consequences, and we may never recover. Future generations of Americans don't deserve the consequences of the poor decisions being made in Washington these days.

It is time for Congress to work together, and yes, to fiscally compromise for the sake of our nation. But raising taxes is not the compromise I have in mind -- the compromise should be about where and what we cut. Conservatives will have to compromise by decreasing military spending, and liberals will have to compromise by cutting social programs. We have too much on our plate, and this current over-reaching government spending policy is what has put America in debt to begin with.

While our nation is reeling toward a major fiscal crisis, Senate Democrat leadership is doing nothing to fix the problem. Fed up with their inaction, last week I jumpstarted the debate on this issue by bringing an amendment to the Senate floor proposing an increase to the debt limit by $2.4 trillion. This increase is free of any spending conditions or regulations. I plan to vote no on my proposed amendment. This bill would most certainly fail to pass, however by proposing this bill I am attempting to begin the debate. It appears as if Senate legislators are planning to wait until the last minute before debating the debt ceiling, in an attempt to be in "crisis" mode and force the Senate to act irresponsibly yet again. This is not a topic that should be placed on the backburner.

My proposed amendment to raise the debt ceiling will fail, thus illustrating to the Administration and Senate Democrats that the debt ceiling cannot be raised absent an iron-clad rule for budgetary restraint and spending regulations.

In a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, 71 percent of Americans said they were opposed to raising the debt ceiling. The American people are tired of the on-going fiscal mayhem, and it is time that legislators propose serious and realistic solutions.

Our government has invested in a pay-as-you-go system, which was broken 700 times in the late '90s and the early part of this century. We need a new plan, with real restraints, plus immediate cuts. That is why I have joined fellow Members of Congress and thousands of Americans in signing the Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge. This pledge calls upon Congress to make substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter, enforce spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget and pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In order to truly rein in the debt, we must pass a balanced budget amendment. This amendment would implement a much-needed iron-clad rule that would require a balanced federal budget. I believe a balanced budget is the most practical method for maintaining fiscal responsibility.

With the proposed balanced budget amendment, the federal government would be required by law to balance the budget, prohibiting any expenditure that exceeds the set budget restraints. As I have stated before, I believe that bold actions must be taken in order to defeat our mounting national debt and balance the budget. If you believe that America is headed for demise due to fiscal irresponsibility, I urge you to visit the Cut, Cap and Balance website and sign the pledge. We must make cuts and rein in spending, and I will do all I can to lead our country down a road of fiscal responsibility.

About the Author

Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator from Kentucky.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (136) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.22.11 @ 6:20AM

Keep up the good work. So far, you've elucidated more vision to save this country than the current crop of whiffle balls running for President.

Alan Brooks| 6.22.11 @ 7:43AM

We'll just have to sell America to the Chinese, that's all.

Waverly Whalbanger| 6.22.11 @ 9:25AM

You should be sold at a discount.

whereareyourballs| 6.22.11 @ 5:50PM

great idea alan! your a spineless lowlife that will submit to anyone who comes along and tells you to kneel, you should be sterilized

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 3:23AM

You aren't bright enough to see his humor?

lydia| 6.23.11 @ 10:33AM

Keep up the good work. So far, you've elucidated more vision to save this country than the current crop of whiffle balls running for President.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

Louis Tully| 6.22.11 @ 9:53AM

agree with Bill. Sen. Rand is a voice in the wilderness.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 3:24AM

Nah, he's just way out in never never land.

buckeyeman| 6.22.11 @ 2:07PM

But if you just don't raise the debt ceiling, now or ever, you don't need a balanced budget amendment, now or ever.

This is pretty simple. Just say no.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 3:25AM

Yeah, third world America will be foreclosed on by China and other creditors.

America will become another Greece, where the people riot against tax increases.

David| 6.22.11 @ 2:14PM

Wow, BHO, I totally agree with you. and I like the image of "whiffle ball." Can I use it?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.22.11 @ 3:55PM

Help yourself.

Handy| 6.22.11 @ 5:03PM

What if his amendment actually passes? Too grim to contemplate but with Demons in the majority, one never knows.

whereareyourballs| 6.22.11 @ 5:36PM

we need to fight the evil central banking institution, just like jefferson and andrew jackson and, well Iceland, that tiny country ha more backbone and balls than all of the european/north american nations combined we continue to subject ourselves to these liars and cheaters and are willing to stop medical care for babies instead of the fucking useless wars. that are meant to cleanse most of the arab populous from their homelands all you bitches have to man up already see the truth for what it is and refuse to continue being made into fools your fear of these bankers and banks are leading your children to starvation yet you sleep soundly at night putting their fate in the hands of the same criminal cartels wake up !if you call yourself a man but are scared to death of facing the truth, you may want to re-assess the title youve given yourself, the man is supposed to relentlessly protect his family to the death, that is our natural duty to our children not to be a submissive bitch that trembles in the presence of an overwhelming truth.

Purpleguy| 6.23.11 @ 7:03AM

He's as foolish as I thought he was when I heard about Aqua Buddha ...
"In a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, 71 percent of Americans said they were opposed to raising the debt ceiling. The American people are tired of the on-going fiscal mayhem, and it is time that legislators propose serious and realistic solutions." - 75% of Americans favor raising taxes on the wealthy to help lower the deficit and debt. If you don't include tax increases in any plan, you're ideological, and really don't care about the deficit or the debt.
Moreover, a balanced budget amendment is just plain stupid - based on the erroneous assumption that the Congress would abide by it. There would have to be a loophole for war, emergencies, etc. and it would simply be abused. Ain't gonna happen - right or left. Rand Paul just shows himself to be a wackadoo flying out on the fringes. He's not a serious Senator, he's just fluff.

old white guy| 6.24.11 @ 2:40PM

the country is broke, as in no more wealth, and there is no way the level of debt can ever be repaid. print money and the dollar drops in value. then you have inflation. jeez no one seems to have studied history in the u.s.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 3:28AM

You haven't. We paid it down last time this happened, why not now?

All we need is jobs. Make jobs the priority, and the debt will come under control.

Yves Bauer| 6.22.11 @ 6:48AM

I am sorry, but it seems Rand Paul is suffering from amnesia... Yes he wants to cut spending, who does not- but at the same time America needs to ask itself whether it is able (and can afford) to play the lonely sheriff. I am sorry but if you want to cut spending, cutting social services is not the way to go. Moreover, cutting spending and not raising taxes is a false premise as to getting the economy started. See Zakaria (of course he is a liberal harvard buffoon right?)

http://www.time.com/time/natio.....newsletter

Nancy in NC| 6.22.11 @ 8:16AM

And, pray tell, why can't social services be cut? Many Americans are getting tired of supporting the other 40%...many of whom have never worked and have no intention of ever working. The war on poverty is lost and only cost us $14 trillion.

David| 6.22.11 @ 2:20PM

Because other items in the budget shoud be cut first.

And aren't you confusing the U.S. with Finland on your 40%?

So let's get concrete:
1. Cut the spending on NATO from the U.S.' current share of 75% to something more equitable with our partners.
2. Stop combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan NOW (and save $1.2 million per solder per year). We can honor the dead and heal the wounded while doing that.
3. Raise the Social Security tax from its current $90,000 ceiling to $145,000 and apply an index in the future. BTW, I'd end up paying that so yeah it's my ox being gored.
4. Stop the accounting tricks. If the federal government spends it, it's in the budget.

That said, of course social services should feel the budget cuts as well. Just not to the draconian and selfish levels advocated by the Right.

Grzmlyk| 6.22.11 @ 3:13PM

Awww, and you're so selfless.

Gosh, I'm touched by your Goodness. I really am.

How often do you polish your halo to get it so burnished looking?

Grzmlyk| 6.22.11 @ 3:48PM

Do you see any irony in touting your own superiority even as you spout platitudes about the wonders of egalitarianism?

That was a rhetorical question. The liberal mind is firmly ensconced in the coccoon of self-satisfied vanity; human beings are abstractions, and whatever makes a liberal feel good about herself, well, it must be so. And it would be so if only selfish, evil capitalists and individualists weren't urinating all over your Utopia.

Come back to me and tell me how good you are when you give away all your money and live on $25 k a year. Because it's obvious you're not paying your fair share.

How can you congratulate yourself when you obviously live above the subsistance level while so many deserving poor live below it?

At least you'd be putting your own money where your mouth is; but then again, that's not the liberal's stock in trade. He puts OTHER people's money where his mouth is and then, well, spends his days burnishing his halo for the pittance he may or may not kick in.

We borrow $188 million ever hour of every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to sustain this welfare state.

What percentage of that are you carrying, pray tell?

Funny how liberals love to talk about "sustainability" when it comes to ersatz energy boondoggles and fictitious perpetual motion machines, but when it comes to a metastasizing government, suddenly the monkeys are all, "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."

I know, I know: More taxes. That's always the answer.

By the way, have you finished writing to the hundreds of authors I gave you who wrote literally dozens of studies about the inefficacy of minimum wage to tell them that they are all benighted, ignorant fools and that you, Dave the Sublime, are the one with all the answers?

Mutch Moore| 6.22.11 @ 9:24PM

Grzmlyk, that's way too funny!

LD in Dallas| 6.22.11 @ 4:06PM

You start off with poor numbers. Social Security for tax year 2010 went to $108,000. Since I am self-employed, I paid 15% into that Ponzi scheme.

I agree we shouldn't fund NATO or many of the other military issues we have going--just sign a letter stating you won't bitch when another terror plot is successful (from the viewpoint of the terrorist).

SpiralArchitect| 6.22.11 @ 6:35PM

Gov finacing should be done akin to a furry dog.

One takes the useless, the needless & redundant fur off the critter. Where new fur is needed it will naturally grow, this is the private sector filling in the gaps.

Thin out Gov and it's programs. With less overlap & simply stupid branches of Gov will come sustainability - if only that was the desired end result. :/

Purpleguy| 6.23.11 @ 7:07AM

You people always say the same thing - "I'm tired of supporting all those people that don't work" - because you think it will never happen to you. Well hon, it can, and will in your lifetime. You will be glad then you weren't a selfish creep and helped your neighbor so he's there when you need help. Why does the right wing think they are so invincible? Half the Tea Party people are retirees, and yet, they talk of freeloaders? We all know they didn't pay in enough to Social Security to afford the checks they get monthly - yet they b* about others getting theirs. How dumb and short sighted is that viewpoint?

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 3:30AM

Like Old White Guy, you haven't studied history at all.

The War On Poverty, which was a jobs based program, worked pretty well indeed, until republicans got control of it.

Tom Osterman| 6.22.11 @ 8:29AM

I'll tell you who doesn't want to cut spending: the Democratic Party. Heck, the Dems won't even keep spending at the current level; they always want to spend more.

And yes, we need to cut spending on "social services." It's that category of spending which is the most responsible for the mess we're in, because Democrats always argue that "social services" are a moral imperative that overrides fiscal responsibility. And Democrats have deliberately spent more than the government takes in as standard operating procedure.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 3:39AM

Tom Osterman

"Please Mr. Osterman, explain two things to me.

Why has the national debt multiplied(doubled or more in two terms) under the last three republican presidents, (Under Reagan/Bush it quadrupled, under Reagan alone, it nearly tripled.) but not under preceding post WWII democrats, LBJ/JFK, Carter and Clintion?

When Reagan took office the national debt equaled about 33% of GDP, Obama inherited a national debt pushing 90% of GDP. 100% of that increase came under those same three republican presidents, Reagan/Bush I/Bush II. Not under any other democrat from the end of WWII till Bush II. Why?

Sam Vaughn| 6.22.11 @ 8:38AM

Calling Zakharia a liberal buffoon is not correct. He is smart, articulate, good debater and wrong. It's that simple Yves. You can not convince, "we" of this generation are doing the right thing chaining our children and grandchildren to the yoke of perpetual servitude. It is so incredibly selfish, self-centered and cruel. Is that what baby boomers want to be remembered for? I seem to recall Time magazine predicting the coming Ice Age in the 70's now they're onto "global warming". But hey keep reading this site and especially some smart commentary,,,, Booger where are you?

Cheers Yves, may God speed your enlightenment

Yves Bauer| 6.22.11 @ 10:54AM

Sam

I strongly support the views of Zakaria. I was just saying that as that is the answer I expected from readers of this magazine...

Purpleguy| 6.23.11 @ 7:09AM

You can only be sure of one thing in life - Death and Taxes ... so you are yolked permanently and you can't do a thing about it. So grin and bear it and stop complaining - how much tax do you pay? Bet it's not much ...

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 3:43AM

Sam Vaughn
"You can not convince, "we" of this generation are doing the right thing chaining our children and grandchildren to the yoke of perpetual servitude."

Since we managed to pay down a bigger debt burden last time we went through this, why can't we pay down this one? What we need is jobs, focus on that and the rest becomes easy.

Dustoff| 6.22.11 @ 9:39AM

Frankly yes.

It didn't wrok for FDR, what in the heck makes you think it will work now.

David| 6.22.11 @ 2:23PM

*sigh* Gee, something didn't "wrok" once, it must be abandoned forever. People would still be walking in the dark if the Wright Brothers and Edison had that attitude.

Sad to see a Web site that should be foursquare behind the AmeriCAN attitude is anything but.

Redstateboy| 6.22.11 @ 4:42PM

David's comment seems to fall under the category of... "Communism is a great thing if only the right people could be found to impliment it!"

Todd S| 6.22.11 @ 5:36PM

He highly advises reading Karl Marx to have a "balanced view". Not sure he he thinks that we should also read Elders of the Protocol of Zion to have a balanced view of Jews and Israel, what do you think David? No more full of lies and bullshit than Das Kapital.

Todd S| 6.22.11 @ 5:49PM

Should say The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Paul from SA| 6.22.11 @ 10:28AM

Yves,

OK. We don't have the money. You pay.

Grzmlyk| 6.22.11 @ 12:10PM

Gee, who would have thought that Zakaria - a classic, cookie-cutter, pseudo elite liberal toady for the Socialist lickspittle Time Mag, would be a magical-thinking Keynesian? I'm shocked! Shocked!

By all means, lets keep the $100 trillion in entitlement promises we've made over the next 50 years. It's only money! And not Yves Bauer's money at that! Or Fareed Zakaria's! Is this a great country or what?

No need to worry! As Ben "I can't be overdrawn if I still have checks" Bernanke likes to say, why do you think we have printing presses?

I can't tell you how impressed I am, Yves, at your moral superiority. The certitude with which you insist that one group of people you don't know give its money - and its children's, and grandchildren's - to another group of people you don't know is the apotheosis of courage. I wistfully brush aside a tear and wonder how a mere mortal can summon that much strength.

I'm sure your "self esteem" gauge is perpetually on "full," no?

And Fareed Zakaria - a paragon of moral beneficence. I admire him greatly. Why, he, Krugman, Brad DeLong, Timmy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, the entire Obama clown car kleptocracy and the legions of liberals overcrowding think tanks, universities, NGOs and bureaucracies everywhere work very hard at spending other people's money all the livelong day.

Between you and me, Yves, which government agency pays you to sit on your ass and think such deep thoughts?

Pecos Pete| 6.22.11 @ 12:27PM

GRZ: Bravo!

Grzmlyk| 6.22.11 @ 1:22PM

I know Mimi disapproves, but I can't help myself: If it looks like a preening jackass, brays like a preening jackass and pontificates like a preening jackass, as far as I'm concerned, it's a preening jackass.

:-)

Ned| 6.22.11 @ 2:12PM

There you go again, demeaning the noble jackass...!

;-)

Grzmlyk| 6.22.11 @ 2:20PM

My apologies to Jackasses everywhere. Starting with our Brayer In Chief!

Todd S| 6.22.11 @ 5:29PM

The one true thing you said is that Zakaria is a liberal Harvard buffon. He is also an Obama ass kisser and will say anything to promote him for re-election. Are we suppose to be impressed by this guy for some reason?

old white guy| 6.24.11 @ 2:44PM

cut everything. cut bases in every country in the world. cut all support for anything that does not directly benfit the u.s. nuke subs spread all around the world with a government that is prepared to use force will keep things in line. never mind the nuke carriers as well. the u.s. does not need bases on the ground to be the worlds policeman just an honest threat to those would would attck or try to destroy the u.s. or their allies.

Lawrence Boccardi| 6.22.11 @ 6:49AM

Ditto! In fact, it sounds as if the senior Sen. from Kentucky, i s ready to grant a "short-term" clean extension. Nonsense! If nothing else, rollback spending to pre 2006 levels, the arrival of the Pelosi juggernaut, and begin by firing the 162,000 bureaucrats hired by Obama.

Yves Bauer| 6.22.11 @ 7:09AM

@ Lawrence how about bringing back spending to the Bill Clinton Era coupled with the same for tax rates.

2Anglico| 6.22.11 @ 9:00AM

How about cutting spending to Reagan era amounts COUPLED with Tax Rates from that bygone era?
P.S., revenue to the precious treasury DOUBLED during that low tax era. And don't try the "yeah, but, but ... the deficit went way up", that happened because SPENDING, which the liberal donkey party controlled (Congress spends the money, you knew that, right?), went through the roof. Defense, which IS actually authorized by the Constitution, was only a small part of the spending increase.

David T| 6.22.11 @ 5:35PM

Every time taxes have been cut, going all the way back to Coolidge, revenues have increased. And the highest income earners have always paid the highest share of the taxes.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 3:50AM

2Anglico

"How about cutting spending to Reagan era amounts COUPLED with Tax Rates from that bygone era?
P.S., revenue to the precious treasury DOUBLED during that low tax era. And don't try the "yeah, but, but ... the deficit went way up", that happened because SPENDING, which the liberal donkey party controlled (Congress spends the money, you knew that, right?), went through the roof. "

Reagan inherited a debt burden, debt as percentage of GDP, of about 33%. By the time Bush I left office they had increased that to over 60%. Clinton brought it down to 57%, but Bush I ran it up to nearly 90%.

IOW, 100% of the post WWII debt burden increase happened under three republican presidents.

Under Reagan the republicans controlled 1 house of congress for 6 of 8 years, so not one penny could be spent without republican cooperation. Under Bush the republicans controlled the entire federal government for 6 of 8 years.

Dustoff| 6.22.11 @ 9:41AM

You mean the spending that the REP's force Clinton to follow.

Please get your history correct.

Ghastlyone| 6.22.11 @ 10:53AM

Leftists always conveniently leave out little tid bits of information while referencing their golden boy Clinton, or when they blame Bush.

Pretty coincidental the "great recession" started after leftists took control of congress in 2007 huh? And then only compounded after Obama gaining the white house?

These dopes can't even run an economy at the state and local level without it being a disaster. But we're always told, that leftists are better able to handle economic situations??

Can you please explain where this myth comes from?

David| 6.22.11 @ 2:27PM

I'm not going to respond to your taunt of myth, I'm going to point out you have an odd measure for time.

2007? Wasn't that scion of fiscal responsibility, Dubya, in the White House at that time? I would think that Cheney would have propped him up in the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency and helped him to spell his name on vetoes.

Ghastlyone| 6.22.11 @ 3:18PM

Is this the same congress that couldn't even muster the time to pass any type budgets? Was there even anything for Bush to veto?

"scion of fiscal responsibility"....That's actually pretty funny. You leftists have no leg to stand on anymore with that tired ass argument now days. Obama and the leftist controlled congress have put that shit to rest.

Like the famous words of Bernie Goldberg.....as much as they try, a Republican can never outspend a Liberal.

Redstateboy| 6.22.11 @ 4:39PM

Ghastlyone? Teaching a Liber-ul - such as David there - that Liber-ulism is a Demonstrably failed political philosophy, is like teaching Pigs to Sing: it'll frustrate you and iritate the Pig.

old white guy| 6.24.11 @ 2:46PM

w is piker compared to the big o.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 3:54AM

W doubled the national debt in 8 years, starting with a surplus, and ending with a disaster. W increased the debt to GDP ratio to pushing 90%, after Clinton reduced it from the Reagan/Bush I 66% to 57%.

Obama inherited W's disaster, and a republican party with the ability to block any effective action, and the willingness to sink this country to regain power.

Intelligent Design| 6.22.11 @ 7:13AM

If the U.S. did not make interest payments on the debt, it would be due to only one cause: Obama's intent to destroy the United States economy. There is enough waste and duplication in the federal budget to make up for the interest payments for an entire year. Or, to give the household analogy, turn in the keys to the BMW, cut the gym membership, and pay the blanking mortgage, idiot.

Clint| 6.22.11 @ 7:36AM

" If the debt ceiling is not increased, the Treasury can prioritize interest and debt payment to avoid a default and essentially put the government on a stringent pay-as-you-go basis. Would that involve extreme cuts in government spending? Certainly. But it could be done, if it had to.

The Treasury still rakes in quite a bit of money in revenues — it took in $604 billion (seasonally adjusted) in the third quarter of 2010. In FY 2010 the annual debt service was some $414 billion, working out to an average of about $104 billion per quarter. Although the numbers won't be quite the same going forward, the debt service will soak up only about one-sixth of the incoming revenues."

tsd| 6.22.11 @ 8:04AM

I agree with Mr. Paul. Our government can if it wants to, solve this problem with cuts. No tax increase is needed. Our government has more than enough in pork barrel BS spending to cut in half the federal budget by tomorrow. The problem is they are all just a bunch of egotistical wind bags with no real balls to do whats right and get the job done. Where is all this so called intelligence they claim to have as they spout off on issues and keep making matters worse. Oh hell let's just have another Washington party. The only shovel ready projects they have in mind are to shovel more BS our way. Toss them all out.

David| 6.22.11 @ 2:29PM

Yet one person's BS is another person's irreplaceable need.

It's in the specific propsals and I don't see the GOP being any braver than the Democrats in spelling out exactly what will be cut. Sen. Paul's thoughts here are a start.

tsd| 6.23.11 @ 7:15AM

irreplaceable need.... give me a break. I am talking pork and yes that includes many of the so called liberal BS pork programs and yes both party's play these games with pork. We can help the real needs, but many so called needy programs are just a cover for PORK!

Indy| 6.22.11 @ 8:16AM

There must be current cuts and not just promises to cut in the future which is my concern about the Ryan Plan. We cannot wait until Fed. workers retire before shutting down their jobs, cuts must happen now. Will it be painful, yes, the private sector fully understands but when the unemployment rate in the DC area is well under 4% and the rest of the country is suffering over 9%...Federal worker cuts must happen now. I hear not much is happening in the Senate other than roll calls, click on C-Span and see for yourself, nothing of substance is happening.

Pelligrino| 6.22.11 @ 8:16AM

Senator Paul,
I really don't care if we were operating with a $8 billion budget surplus, we waste taxpayers' monies and their faith daily by the unending malfeasance incorrectly labeled our (behemoth) Federal Government.

Most of what we taxpayers fund (unwillingly and unknowingly in 10's of thousands of programs of all shapes & sizes) is both nonsense and NOT in our U.S. Constitution.

What I am about to write, I know: Government work is inherently immoral. It is. It is not observed, it is not checked. It is unrestrained. It is a place to play with others' money unobserved and even raise one's own salary unopposed. One is often hired based upon bias (quotas); genuine qualifications are less important criteria. One has "tenure" in no time and firings are extremely rare. One can just "slide and glide" quite easily for 25-30 years.

Haven't you already been in Washington, D.C. long enough to see and smell the empty suits and souls that have made careers faithfully adhering to the be-nothing, do-nothing bureaucrats' creed?

Waste is everywhere. The government you are now part of strangles our very existence. Yes, you are now a big part of the problem.

Unless you decide to do what is morally right.

CUT. Cut everything in sight. Remove it forever. And do not stop for the next 66 months.

Pecos Pete| 6.22.11 @ 8:27AM

Well said. The only answer is to cut, cut and cut.

Now the trolls can begin their arguments for spending. You know, how spending fixes the economy, etc. Keynes and FDR had it right, don't you know?

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 4:03AM

"Pecos Pete| 6.22.11 @ 8:27AM

" You know, how spending fixes the economy, etc. Keynes and FDR had it right, don't you know?"

Yes, it does. That's why Reagan abandoned Reaganomics and adopted Keynsian economics when his policies failed at first. Only he did it too late.

Nunya| 6.22.11 @ 1:51PM

Pelligrino, well said. You are absolutely correct, we need to take out the "hatchet" to the federal government, not a pair of scissors. Cut every program back, then start eliminating them altogether. Painful? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely. This leviathan that we call the federal government has extended it's tenticles into every aspect of American life, and it's strangling the country to death. Cut, cut, cut and cut some more. MAYBE then we will start to recover. Our only other option is going to be bankruptcy for the nation, and the pain then will be FAR worse for everyone--no food, no money, riots in the streets, etc. It's coming, unless we change course NOW.

David| 6.22.11 @ 2:35PM

So - by your definition- every soldier/sailor/aviator, male and female - is immoral because they are ultimately government employees?

Really? That's what you meant?

Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln [fill in your favorite Presidents] were immoral as they are the ultimate government employee?

I urgently suggest you reconsider those brutal words lest your meaning be misunderstood.

Drunken Sailor| 6.22.11 @ 3:45PM

David,
Having been there and worked along side of them it is pretty obvious to me he was using a generalzation about Civilian Goverment employees. Trust me, they have a cushy set up compared to the servicemember. And it is close to impossible to fire them. It took over a year for them to do anything about a civilian employee under me, that was a chronic alcoholic. Even then all they did was put her on medical leave where she promptly drank herself to death in a few short months.

Butch| 6.22.11 @ 4:23PM

"Dismantle" should be the word instead of cut. If the federal government was examined agency by agency and function by function against a strict constitutional test, the federal budget could be reduced by upwards of 40 percent. See the article by Gary Johnson in the current (or previous) paper edition of TAS. There would be lots of unemployment, though. The upside of that is that they would all be federal bureaucrats.

Redstateboy| 6.22.11 @ 5:22PM

Butch.... you captured the essence of dilemma perfectly - the obsticle are brain dead Liber-uls who cannot for the life of them fathom the meaning of the word: "unsustainable"

Pelligrino| 6.23.11 @ 2:11AM

Butch, thank you. I concur. Your verb choice is much better.

Yes, as to the unemployment of federal govt. workers....a truly noble goal. Particularly when one targets the dismantling in D.C. and its surrounding 10 counties in Maryland and Virginia.

The postives would include a dismantling of 6 of those counties as part of the top ten richest counties in the USA.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 4:05AM

"The postives would include a dismantling of 6 of those counties as part of the top ten richest counties in the USA."

Do you realize it's not government workers, but republican lobbyists, who make those counties among the top 10 richest?

Louis Jenkins| 6.22.11 @ 8:19AM

"catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades" if we did not vote to raise the debt ceiling.

Well, it's going to happen regardless of what we want. While it won't happen in my day it will happen in my children's time. We can cut the budget and save the nation, or we can allow it to default and sell off all of the national assets. The District of Criminals is bent on destruction of this nation, and that's what they'll have. They'll have their millions but the American public will be destitude from paying for it. Of course we could get a little revolution going, but the majority of Americans want to go along to get along. Maybe we should assume the position because that's what's expected.

David Shoup| 6.22.11 @ 8:24AM

It is incredible that some are saying that cutting social services is NOT the way to cut spending. The federal government should NOT be in the business of giving away money for constitutional reasons and for practical ones. (For instance, it costs the Fed $2 to give away $1). The debt has ballooned in the 50 years since President Lyndon Baines Johnson birthed his Great Society, and look at the $14 TRILLION debt that it spawned.
Unless this annual deficit is stopped and the accumulated Federal Debt is paid off, with Federal Assets (land, gold, et cetera), not with fresh job-killing taxes, then we are all in very serious trouble. Would someone somewhere please tell me what amount of the GDP the Fed should be spending??????? Here is a unique idea: 10%. And then let's live within that limit.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 6.22.11 @ 10:08AM

Entitlements alone account for 63% of all annual federal spending according to the IBD (56% according to Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe). The Federal Government spends $888 bn per year on welfare programs (including the Medicaid program). Not only can social services be cut - they must be reduced drastically.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 4:18AM

You are including medicare and social security aren't you.

When the elderly are moving in with their children, and the nursing homes are booting the elderly out on the street, they tell us how bad those welfare programs are.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 4:16AM

" The debt has ballooned in the 50 years since President Lyndon Baines Johnson birthed his Great Society,"

JFK inherited a debt of $293 billion. Nixon inherited a debt of $366 Billion. It took 15 years, until 1976, to double the debt from JFK's inherited $293B. Reagan inherited a debt of $995 Billion. That's 20 years from when JFK took over until it was trippled. Reagan managed to triple it again in 8 years, and by the time Clinton took office it had more than quadrupled.

Clinton did not double the debt, but Bush II did.

Most of the $11.9Trillion Obama inherited was accumulated under three anti-tax republican presidents.

We need fewer republicans and more democrats if you want to bring the debt down.

Have you considered| 6.22.11 @ 8:30AM

Senator Paul, I have great respect for you, and I support your intent, but I am dubious as to its efficacy.

When you state "With the proposed balanced budget amendment, the federal government would be required by law to balance the budget," it sounds great, but we all know that By Law, the federal government is supposed to be restricted to the Enumerated Powers found in Article 1, Section 8. Your fellows in congress simply do not, and will not, abide by the Supreme Law Of The Land as intended by our founders.

After years of watching congress in action, I have no faith that this will change short of revolution.

Peppermint Tea| 6.22.11 @ 12:32PM

This winter we were in the state legislature when Senator Orrin Hatch showed up to make the rounds. He spoke about the Balanced Budget Amendment, until I was about to say, "With all due respect Senator, we don't care about a BBA... WE JUST WANT CONGRESS TO BALANCE THE $@#**-ING BUDGET.

Nunya| 6.22.11 @ 1:56PM

I agree, I can't see a BBA making any difference in what Congress does. It's only the Constitution, and they ignore that already. I'd be willing to bet that MOST of our Congresscritters couldn't even tell you what's in the Constitution, except maybe for a few of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Unless there are legal ramifications to not balancing the budget--like jail time for the President and Speaker of the House-- no amount of ink on paper will restrain the spenders from bankrupting all of us.

Ken in Tyler| 6.22.11 @ 8:31AM

Mr Paul:
Perhaps you can explain how a balanced budget amendment can solve the fiscal problem when we have recently seen the Congress ignore even proposing a budget? How can it deal with the myriad "off-budget" items or the "supplementals" which are routinely passed? Of course there would have to be exceptions written into such an amendment as well so as to allow the President to deal with declared emergenciesor undeclared wars we seem to be enamored of these days. These exceptions would of course be overused.
I submit Sir that the only approach which will be effective is to return to a sane application of the limits imposed by We The People when the government was established. The Constitution was never intended to be a "living document" and those responsibilities delegated to Congress are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Work to get rid of everything else. You already have the authority to limit those areas in which the Supreme Court may have jurisdiction- use that power to put them back in their Constitutional box as well.
All this tinkering around the edges and compromising with those who intend to extinguish the flame of Liberty will never restore our Republic. And educating the American public of this fact is a job true Constitutional conservatives in positions of leadership should be doing right now.

Pecos Pete| 6.22.11 @ 9:18AM

Ken, well said. Thanks.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.22.11 @ 9:27AM

Good statement from Ken.

Petronius| 6.22.11 @ 9:19AM

I got into this issue with economically illiterate Demoncrat who told me, "raise taxes so that people have enough." When I said to him, he is no better than a thief, he responded, "no; ALL THE MONEY IS OURS!"
This is the infantile attitude which has brought ruin to every nation in the west. And it will not cease until these worthless, gormless vegetables who believe the government is a substitute for Mommy are gone.

Dustoff| 6.22.11 @ 9:44AM

WE all know, if taxes are raised, the dem's will spend.

Ghastlyone| 6.22.11 @ 11:18AM

Taxes have already been raised.

It's called inflation.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.22.11 @ 10:22AM

Before my father passed away I would take him to McDonalds every morning but Sunday. There he would have a coffee with his fellow aged warhorses. Many of them, those that could still drive, would fill the parking lot with SUV's, Cadillac’s, Lincoln Town cars, American made for sure, but very costly. Often they would brag of their pensions, to me they seemed excessive. One particularly annoying retired Master Sergeant bragged constantly of the money he was paid per month. Since he retired he has never worked a day. My father and I were both draftees, dad had a pittance pension (he was disabled) I get a reduction in medication but my co pay is no more or less than some of the current genetic cost from civilian pharmacies. Now before you other vets here clobber me, realize this, the guy I am speaking of had his only "combat" in Thailand where he sat in an air conditioned office, had servants, a live in “hoochi-girl” and his own persona vehicle. (war is hell)
I am the service rep for our local VFW. This entails hauling to the VA hospital, or local VA medical Centers any vet who needs transportation. I am a volunteer, I am remembursed nothing. I sheppard these battered, shot up, nearly all disabled though the various red tape to keep them alive. I have looked at most of these vets 214’s, hearts’s, clusters, lengthy “duty” assailments to medical facilities are the rule not the exception.
There is some room for adjustment in the military expenditures.

Drunken Sailor| 6.22.11 @ 11:30AM

Michael,

You do great work and I know that may have been the way of some of the old military retirement programs but a lot has changed. I joined in the 80's when the plan was 50% of your base pay. Recruits now, that decide to make a career out of the military are looking at a retirement pay of 35% of their base pay. Dental used to be covered. not anymore. Medical is covered by the VA if you qualify or Tricare and the co-pay on it has changed. It is still pretty good but there is always talk about raising the co-pay. When we talk of cutting Defense spending these two areas would not be the first places I looked.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.22.11 @ 12:37PM

Thank you, that is why I asked.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 4:24AM

"When we talk of cutting Defense spending these two areas would not be the first places I looked."

Look at the budget. VA benefits are not counted as defense spending, but social welfare entitlements.

Jack fromWi. | 6.22.11 @ 11:30AM

Rand Paul is headed in the right direction but is to timid. We have to eliminate whole departments of government. I would start with Transportation. Just close down the Dept and eliminate the Federal excise on gas. The states can raise their own taxes and spend the money how they see fit. End also the depts. of Education, Energy, Labor, and Commerce. They are a total waste. Bring all the troops home and slash defense spending 50%. End all foreign aid. Then we can move on from there. The last things cut should be Medicare and Social Security.

Drunken Sailor| 6.22.11 @ 11:57AM

I have a question for all those Rand Paul supporters that want "to bring all the troops home". With all the bases closed over the last 20 years due to BRAC commision recommendations where do you plan on putting all the troops from just our NATO ally countries? Are you going to increase base sizes to house them, build new bases, barracks, etc. or are you simply going to tell them thanks but we no longer need your service?

David| 6.22.11 @ 2:41PM

Bringing "all of the troops home" is a groovy policy position to debate among wonks. But it's ill-considered and dangerous. On the other hand, all of the problems in your post are an issue only if you exempt Defense from the kind of budget meat ax that's being advocated here. And I haven't checked recently on specific figures but just eyeballing several military installations, it seems like there's a lot of unused space.

Seems to me that Defense is the Right's Sacred Cow much as the Left defends "social programs" as its Sacred Cow. I've seen posts recently supporting the F-22 which even the Pentagon doesn't want. Seems like this Sacred Cow needs to be slaughtered on that budget altar.

Drunken Sailor| 6.22.11 @ 3:50PM

Not saying there doesn't need to be cuts in Defense spending, and you brought up a perfect example. However you missed that "The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 lacked funding for further F-22 production."

Yep, they cut it already.

Jack fromWi. | 6.22.11 @ 6:18PM

I would salsh the size of the armed forces to fit the bases. We don't need huge armies to defend these borders and shores. I would let the rest of the world defend itself. I would keep a strong Navy and Air Force and a small professionsal Army and Marine corps. Without a worldwide empire we don't have to spend such huge amounts. I figure about half of what we spend now. Of course such forces would be without all the political corectness. There would be no room for open gays or women in combat units or on ships.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 4:31AM

"There would be no room for open gays or women in combat units or on ships."

I support universal military service. Back when I enlisted, in 1967, I came to the realization that, if we heterosexuals were required to serve, homosexuals should not be excused.

The Undead Patriot| 7.2.11 @ 4:05PM

Yeah, the Israeli's tried woman in combat, it backfired. Turns out the enemy fought twice as hard so they would not be beaten by woman.
Our morality has been our strength. Men do not die for that which is base and ugly but an idea which is greater than themselves. Homosexuality at it's core is selfish, as it grants no way to sustain life outside of adoption. In other words it is a parasitic lifestyle dependent upon heterosexuals to propagate life in order that they may appear to be functional.
No gays need to serve in the U.S. military, because it is a weakness of the mind, and a rebellion of God's order.

The Undead Patriot| 6.30.11 @ 9:30AM

We have always had a peace time strength and a war time strength. During times of peace we have always let go those soldiers not vital to National Defense.

I don't know about you, but I am tired of not winning anything. We never win because we don't know when to leave.

We beat Germany only to end up subsidizing their defense and in essence becoming their servants. Japan, same. I am sick and tired of paying for the world's defense. A world I might add, that is despite everything we have done, largely anti-American.

And I am sick of people telling me it's for our own defense. Well hell, I guess my neighbors won't mind me taking over a corner of their yard so I can set up anti-burglar machine gun nests, right? After all, by paying for their defense I am paying for my own right?

How about I just mind my own house, and stay out of my neighbor's yards? We Americans do not have the right to occupy another country in order to safeguard ourselves from a perceived threat half way around the world. Even if we are giving them a ton of our citizens money in a vain attempt to assuage our guilt.

Win the war, or stay home. Bring home those troops not actively engaged in a conflict that benefits the defense of these United States.

And lastly, when Senator Paul talks about military spending he does not mean defense.Defense spending is procuring weapons and materials for the training and continued welfare of our men and woman involved in the direct defense of this nation. Military spending is something altogether different.

The military industrial complex is full of duplicitous backroom deals that waste American taxpayer's money on unfruitful ventures, under the guise of national security.

steve in Ohio| 6.22.11 @ 12:33PM

I would support your plan if I were in Congress, but most Republicans (my party) don't want ANY defense cuts. Although a huge part of the budget, Medicare and Social Security are probably politically impossible to cut (voters don't see their own entitlements as socialism) I remember when Reagan wouldn't let Stockman cut any veterans' benefits, because Ronnie realized you need a governing coalition to get anything done. Putting up with middle class entitlements are the price we must pay to make progress in other areas.

The Undead Patriot| 7.2.11 @ 4:25PM

Middle class entitlements?! What entitlements are these exactly? I am entitled to work my ass off to pay taxes for those who won't work, is that what you mean?
I watch some woman with fingers and arms covered in gold jewelry pay for her groceries with an EBT card and walk outside and get into a brand new Lincoln Navigator, while I struggle to put food on the table for my wife and kids and support welfare programs with taxes that destroy my business, is that the entitlement you are talking about?
Middle class entitlement, you ass, if you said that to me in person I'd knock your damn teeth out.
How about minority entitlement?! How about taking taxpayers money to build houses for minorities that destroy them before they are even finished. My money , pissed away., on someone that hates me because I am to them a part of a legacy of a group of folks that once dared suppose we are all responsible for our own personal well being.

Pissed away on young white punks taught to hate their own skin color, whose fathers would not ask for a dime if their lives depended on it. Yet these same kids are taught their own fathers where evil, and oppressors, taking from the helpless.
You watch your mouth on the Middle class entitlements, nobody ever gave me a dime. Nobody offered to send me to college, or built me a house, or gave me anything but an earful of crap about how their own lives sucked because they did not get a skateboard for Christmas.
This country was founded by men, real men, who hacked their own world out of the wilderness with a camp axe and a bowie knife. Men who asked nothing from anyone. I got no damned entitlements, and anything I do have has been a result of my lifetime willingness to work hard for what I wanted.
That attitude is the only one that can save us now. We need to stop being girly men and take responsibility for our own lives, or else shut up and stop bitching that we have no autonomy.

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 4:28AM

"Just close down the Dept and eliminate the Federal excise on gas. The states can raise their own taxes and spend the money how they see fit. End also the depts. of Education, Energy, Labor, and Commerce."

Federal gas taxes pay for federal roads. Federal roads are in the constitution. They are called Post roads.

The dept of energy is the dept that does the nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power. Do you really think there would be a civilian nuclear power industry without a federal agency to baby it along?

Commerce is in the constitution. Labor is an offshoot of that.

Education is now a national defense emergency.

Joe D.| 6.22.11 @ 11:30AM

Rand, I do not agree with your father on foreign affairs and his or your liberterian approach to social issues, but I am in total agreement with this budget and debt ceil.

Ghastlyone| 6.22.11 @ 2:07PM

It's too bad about Ron Paul's foreign policy, which oddly enough, is too have no foreign policy at all, because I would vote for the guy.

Oldefarte| 6.22.11 @ 1:26PM

The historical problem concerning the defecit/debt is DEMOCRATS. Granted some Republicans are guilty of governmental spending theft, but ALL Democrats are DRUNKEN SAILORS WITH STOLEN CREDIT [TAXPAYER FUNDED] CARDS. Democrats will never agree to necessary spending cuts, for that would defeat their purpose and delete the political purpose for which they were elected by their indigent constituents. If Democrats cannot legislate welfare that is paid for by income producing taxpayers, what good are they. Spending is Democrats whole purpose in their political lives. If they can't spend, their useless [unless of course they are texting pictures of themselves naked to teenage children]. The problem for this country can only be solved by defeating DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Margie| 6.22.11 @ 5:24PM

"The problem for this country can only be solved by defeating DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You got that straight Oldefarte. Thank ye, thank ye thank ye for sayin' it again!

Oldefarte| 6.23.11 @ 9:52AM

Margie, that makes two of us who are aware of this, now how do we go about educating the rest of this country the truth of this???????

victor| 6.24.11 @ 1:37AM

Oldefarte,

I educate who I can when I can, whoever I happen to meet and strike up a conversation with here and there.
Rush says it all the time. We need to hound the Democrats out of office, it's just plain common sense. Instead we expect purity and we will never have it because it doesn't exist. We're in a fallen World and none of us are perfect and neither are our candidates. There's good, better and best, and we do our best with what we have~ try to nominate the best, and vote for the Republican who wins it.

I don't get the whole punishing thing~ I'd rather vote for Donald Duck the Republican than allow another 4 years of Daffy Duck the Communist.
Just sayin'!
Although the Donald already Ducked out. Just kidding. Although I would have voted for him as well if he won the nomiation.
Guess that just makes me part of the Rush Limbaugh conservative mind numbed robot brigade, huh?

victor| 6.24.11 @ 1:39AM

Oops. Forgot to change over from hubby's name since he posted last.. oh no, here comes Timmie to accuse me of a split personality... wait for it....

Margie| 6.24.11 @ 1:40AM

OK, it's late. Done.

wolflen| 6.22.11 @ 1:54PM

i often wondered..when troubled companies would report being in the red by 10 billion or so..what was said in the meeting between the CEO & the CFO..didn't anyone become concerned when they were only one billion under...

were was everyone when we were only one trillion in debt...if 14 trillion is the magic number that got our attention to the problem...16 trillion wilamplifyfi it ..

good news/bad news..
good: at a dollar a second it would take approx. 400,000 years to pay off the debt

bad news: we haven't even paid one dollar toward it..in fact when its raised to 16 trillion..it would take 507,000 years...

Bob From District 9| 7.1.11 @ 4:37AM

"were was everyone when we were only one trillion in debt...if 14 trillion is the magic number that got our attention to the problem...16 trillion wilamplifyfi it .."

The debt was just under $1 trillion when Reagan took office. By the time Bush left office it had quadrupled. The great majority of our current, $14.3T debt, was accumulated under 3 anti-tax republican presidents.

David| 6.22.11 @ 2:13PM

Guys, I know I've been painted as a liberal troll here and that characterization is half correct.

But I really want to know - articles of substance like this one and the Supreme Court article posted yesterday garnered, at last count, some 40 responses.

Yet the "fluff" articles on Jon Stewart and Bachmann-Palin attracted over 200 comments.

That just seems wrong to me.

Truth to Power| 6.22.11 @ 2:50PM

Dave, you made over 10% of the responses to Stewart article. Why do liberals project so much.

Truth to Power| 6.22.11 @ 3:13PM

There were approximately 70 distinct responders. If they all would have input like you there would have been over 2000 comments.

David| 6.22.11 @ 3:41PM

Because I realized what I had done - which is called self-awareness, douchenozzle. And it's called making a new decision, whitey. Neither of those qualities are in evidence here. But fine - I'm done with the intellectual drivel and stuff on this site.

Have fun with your self-congratulatory mean-minded cabal.
Let the ballot box and the battlefield decide this.

Truth to Power| 6.22.11 @ 4:43PM

Nothing meant by it. I was just pointing it out. I wasn't even agreeing with your original premise. I would say that what you wrote looked more like an accusation than a confession. The passive voice doesn't really speak to self-awareness or making new decisions.

Douchenozzle and whitey? Gosh you are an authentic Quaker.

Here are some rules to live by in America:

1. Never trust liberals.
2. Always verify what liberals say and write.
3. Liberals are mad dog projectors so be aware. When they make accusations they are frequently guilty of what they accuse. It is usually good fun to point it out.

I thought you were being pretty sensitive about what I wrote and then I saw what Grz did to you upstream. Wow. Now that must of hurt.

Margie| 6.22.11 @ 5:26PM

Man, you are damn good. Oops, I mean darn.

Todd S| 6.22.11 @ 5:45PM

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out chump.

Handy| 6.23.11 @ 12:33AM

Do you really promise to leave? Hooray for small favors.

AgentRose| 6.22.11 @ 2:55PM

The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.

-Lenin (Vladimir Ulyanov)

AgentRose| 6.22.11 @ 3:00PM

They want fiscal crisis. They want a catastrophe in order to take more power. Power over the individual and all his property. This is the last act, folks. It's now or never. Otherwise the powers that be---both Democrats and Republicans who have sold this country down the river will create chaos---then martial law.

wolflen| 6.22.11 @ 4:20PM

chaos in the streets..like europe...naa...thats too much work..if watching major industries move away or destroy themselves by various methods..watching another country litterly walk here and take our jobs and make demands to accomadate them..and we stumble over each other to do so..watch our school system become a dropout factory and hear the cure is more money..watch unions destroy some of our biggest companies and watch government takeover of private companies without a word of protest..

watch our military get involved in three wars and not one sign being carried by a protestor..watch food & energy prices reach high levels and interest rates reach low..housing prices devalued to offset the loans on them..

if that didnt get us out in the streets...chaos is safe for another day...

weddingdresses| 6.23.11 @ 5:20AM

Ghastlyone| 6.23.11 @ 9:07AM

Cloward and Piven approve this post.

weddingdresses| 6.23.11 @ 5:37AM

Keep up the good work. So far, you've elucidated more vision to save this country than the current crop of whiffle balls running for President.

Bloefeld| 6.23.11 @ 2:00PM

I don't understand the purpose of the debt ceiling. Why bother if it just gets raised every time it gets hit.

Either the thing should be indexed to inflation (watch the CPI go back to its old method of measurement), or get rid of it.

Until all the debt of the various levels of government are included, and until someone starts killing some sacred cows the debt ceiling cannot be maintained at any level.

It is a boneheaded piece of legislation and merely highlights the inability of the American left to do rudimentary math or learn from its many past mistakes concerning the economy.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Random Blowhard| 6.23.11 @ 8:03PM

Meh, a trillion here, a trillion there pretty soon your talking Zimbabwe.

The United States of Argentina - Yes we Will.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 6.24.11 @ 7:07AM

"Conservatives will have to compromise by decreasing military spending, and liberals will have to compromise by cutting social programs."

But it will never happen. Even if all Republicans sell defense conservaties out by agreeing to significant cuts of "military spending", which they did earlier this year and will likely do again, liberals will NEVER agree to even TINY reductions of spending on social programs. Not even microscopic reductions. This is because tens of millions of Americans now depend on the federal government, and liberals, in turn, depend on the votes of these people. These parasites will vote any politician who dares to even suggest small cuts of social spending out of office.

Besides, I don't want any "compromise" with liberals. I want liberals to get out of the way and obey us conservatives. And when you talk about "military spending", define what you mean by that. Ending the Afghan, Iraqi, and Libyan wars is okay, and even necessary. But cutting the core defense budget is absolutely unacceptable.

The Undead Patriot| 7.3.11 @ 1:04AM

You just defined what he and his father ( Rand and Ron) have identified as military spending. That is to say the pork barrel excess above and beyond the cost of maintaining our defense.

Neither man wants to cut defense spending, they want to cut out the blatant excess of the military industrial complex.

Bugler| 6.26.11 @ 4:51PM

I'm disappointed that Rand Paul has signed on to this blatant lie. He and everyone else in DC knows that future spending discipline will always be just that--in the future.

lisseursGHD| 6.27.11 @ 12:00AM

Bienvenue chez notre ghd france,ghd lisseurs professionnels fourlisseur en ligne où vous offre des stylers ghd variés, fers à lisser de bonne qualité et à prix fous-économisez jusqu'à 54%! Commandez maintenant.

Adult toys| 7.4.11 @ 1:23AM

boyfriend wants to have sex with his girlfriend,but ashamed of his small organ...decided to bring girlfriend in dark place,open his ziper and put penis in GF's hand...GF:no thanks ,i don't smoke!