Rand Paul's 5 Year Budget Proposal

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I have 0 faith at this point that it will be ground down.  Its going to take sweeping chops with the axe.  And a balanced budget amendment.  Its going to take chopping people off of their dependancy on the federal government.  A plan to end SS.  A plan to end Chip. A plan to stop Obamacare.

If Rand Paul is successful, its also symbollic.  Seeing that Leviathian can be reeled in and reduced is an act that will cause others to act.  If it goes forward, how long before others are chopping off subagencies and departments?  

And how do you propose to swing that axe?  How do you think you'll get Obama and the Senate Dems to go along with your proposal to kneecap the Federal bureaucracy?

If you have a viable plan to get this done, I'd love to hear it.

It's not enough to debate this stuff in the faculty lounge.  Not for me, anyway.  I want more than idle talk, I want to get it done.  So far, nobody has put forward and alternative plan that would work.

[Jamisjockey]

The last election cycle was the hail mary.  If people like Rand Paul don't succeed in cutting chunks off of levithan, then it likely won't happen ever.

[AZRedhawk44]

The last election cycle was the hail mary.  If people like Rand Paul don't succeed in cutting chunks off of levithan, then it likely won't happen ever.

About the only other thing likely to do what Jamis is proposing is another "Bonus Army" gathering in and around DC, but there under no uncertain terms to tell Congress to defund the leviathan.  Something seething with malice and anger, but not quite doing anything yet and giving Congress a true Final Notice.

Chances are they'd send out the Cavalry like they did in the 30's though.  Microwave guns and tear gas instead of sabre-flats and Hum-Vees instead of horses.

(I always wondered how Eisenhower and Patton slept at night after that...)

[longeyes]

The GOP ought to buy an hour of national tv time and present a "Scared Straight" show that levels with the American people about what we're facing and what, in simple dramatic terms, lies ahead if we do not take the problem seriously and gird our loins for real reform.

That assumes that Republican politicians can man up and think about their nation, not re-election.  I suggest a "suicide pact" that promises they won't run again as the bond of their truth-telling.  This problem IS soluble if we take responsible and dramatic action.

Do I expect this to happen?  Unfortunately, no.

We will play more games until the storm hits us, hard.  That is the most likely current scenario.

[Boomhauer]

And how do you propose to swing that axe?  How do you think you'll get Obama and the Senate Dems to go along with your proposal to kneecap the Federal bureaucracy?

If you have a viable plan to get this done, I'd love to hear it.

It's not enough to debate this stuff in the faculty lounge.  Not for me, anyway.  I want more than idle talk, I want to get it done.  So far, nobody has put forward and alternative plan that would work.

Which is why we're f***ed. Little cuts like you're talking about aren't doing anything and the big cuts aren't going to happen because way too much from both sides is invested in staying in power and spending more, more, more!

Which brings us to this point:

About the only other thing likely to do what Jamis is proposing is another "Bonus Army" gathering in and around DC, but there under no uncertain terms to tell Congress to defund the leviathan.  Something seething with malice and anger, but not quite doing anything yet and giving Congress a true Final Notice.

Chances are they'd send out the Cavalry like they did in the 30's though.  Microwave guns and tear gas instead of sabre-flats and Hum-Vees instead of horses.

We're going to have to march on Washington and protest heavily and make a scene. Which will, you can take this to the bank, be immediately classified as domestic terrorism. People are going to die for the cause, others will be imprisoned and never get a trial (or they'll get a kangaroo court). The media will happily cooperate, and the rest of America won't notice it.

[KD5NRH]

And how do you propose to swing that axe?  How do you think you'll get Obama and the Senate Dems to go along with your proposal to kneecap the Federal bureaucracy?

No, but a losing vote along party lines is a powerful way to motivate people to make sure that next year's Congressional elections go even better than last year's.  Show the people there's a plan and that the Democrats are the only thing standing in the way, and a lot more of them will be going away.

[Boomhauer]

Might also could help if the Stupid Party could focus on the real *expletive deleted*it that's happening and stop fussing about abortion, gay marriage, etc.

[41magsnub]

Might also could help if the Stupid Party could focus on the real *expletive deleted* that's happening and stop fussing about abortion, gay marriage, etc.

This.

[AZRedhawk44]

Might also could help if the Stupid Party could focus on the real *expletive deleted* that's happening and stop fussing about abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Can you cite any bills in the House they are focused on, that pertain to these issues rather than the financial crisis we're in?

Or are you just launching generic stoopid party complaints?

I agree with the complaints... but I'm not aware of any wasted effort on the hill trying to outlaw "Brokeback Mountain 2: Cowboy Up!" from going straight to DVD.   I think they're at least focused on Boehner-level cuts, though I'd prefer Paulian cuts instead.

[41magsnub]

There is a Republican house plan to cut funding for Planned Parenthood with the reasoning given that they provide abortions rather than any fiscal reasoning. 

I'm not sure about the gay marriage part..  I'm not even sure where anything about that would have a substantive effect on or anything to do with the Federal budget.

[roo_ster]

There is a Republican house plan to cut funding for Planned Parenthood with the reasoning given that they provide abortions rather than any fiscal reasoning. 

I'm not sure about the gay marriage part..  I'm not even sure where anything about that would have a substantive effect on or anything to do with the Federal budget.

It may be small taters, but cutting an unconstitutional program is A Good Thing.  Just be sure to add 1000 other such small programs as well as entitlements.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Which is why we're f***ed. Little cuts like you're talking about aren't doing anything and the big cuts aren't going to happen because way too much from both sides is invested in staying in power and spending more, more, more!

So you're against "little" cuts?

This what I don't understand.  How can people support the impossible goal of cutting by $500b, but oppose a realistic goal of cutting $100b?

As for $100b not doing anything, that's just silly.  $100b is still a lot of money.  If we can cut $100b a year for a few years, and recover from the recession, we'll be back on a sustainable financial footing in 4 or 5 years. 

A $100b a year isn't a small thing.

Obviously this does nothing for the long term entitlement problem, and at some point we're going to have to tackle that, but at least we'd have a solid footing to start from.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Might also could help if the Stupid Party could focus on the real *expletive deleted* that's happening and stop fussing about abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Do that and you'll be called a weak sellout who won't fight for principles.

 

[makattak]

Might also could help if the Stupid Party could focus on the real *expletive deleted* that's happening and stop fussing about abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Do that and you'll be called a weak sellout who won't fight for principles.

 

And you would be. Your "CALL A TRUCE ON SOCIAL ISSUES!!!!" is a distraction. It's really just "Shut up, social conservatives. You make us feel icky in front of the cool kids."

Here's an idea. Instead of YOU obsessing over social issues, why not just get to work on the fiscal issues. If that were really your concern, you wouldn't be focusing on the social issues.

I care about the fiscal future of this country. I do not care about it to the exclusion of all other things, though. I will not leave the future of this society to the progressives just because it makes you uncomfortable to be "grouped" with social conservatives. 

[makattak]

Or maybe we ought to just call a "truce" on gun rights while we work on the important things.

Who cares what the progressives do to the Second Amendment? We've got REALLY IMPORTANT MONEY STUFF to worry about and we can't pay attention to that social stuff!

[AZRedhawk44]

Or maybe we ought to just call a "truce" on gun rights while we work on the important things.

Who cares what the progressives do to the Second Amendment? We've got REALLY IMPORTANT MONEY STUFF to worry about and we can't pay attention to that social stuff!

They (democrats) don't have the control of bills to make it to the floor for a vote.

We (conservatives) do have control over the legislative agenda.

We have more pressing problems than zOMG gayzors!!!1!1! right now.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Do that and you'll be called a weak sellout who won't fight for principles.

 


And you would be. Your "CALL A TRUCE ON SOCIAL ISSUES!!!!" is a distraction. It's really just "Shut up, social conservatives. You make us feel icky in front of the cool kids."

Here's an idea. Instead of YOU obsessing over social issues, why not just get to work on the fiscal issues. If that were really your concern, you wouldn't be focusing on the social issues.

I care about the fiscal future of this country. I do not care about it to the exclusion of all other things, though. I will not leave the future of this society to the progressives just because it makes you uncomfortable to be "grouped" with social conservatives.  

So you believe there's no place for triage?  That political resources are infinite and can be allocated towards all causes indiscriminately?

Mind you, I'm not opposed to social issue either.  Quite the opposite.  But it seems that whenever we have a polticritter who's strong and focused on the fiscal issues, the social issues crowd breaks pull out the long knives because he doesn't share their same focus.  

That's not a wise strategy.

[makattak]

So you believe there's no place for triage?  That political resources are infinite and can be allocated towards all causes indiscriminately?

Mind you, I'm not opposed to social issue either.  Quite the opposite.  But it seems that whenever we have a polticritter who's good on the fiscal issues, the social issues crowd breaks pull out the long knives because he doesn't share their same focus.  

That's not a wise strategy.

So, would you vote for someone who is good on social issues but poor on fiscal? I wouldn't, but sure seems like if you expect half your coalition to suck it up and give up their concerns, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Further, to respond to:

They (democrats) don't have the control of bills to make it to the floor for a vote.

We (conservatives) do have control over the legislative agenda.

We have more pressing problems than zOMG gayzors!!!1!1! right now.

What bills going after teh gayz are being debated?

This is a pre-emptive attack on your purported allies. If you want to break down your coalition and give the democrats the control of the legislature again (and, thereby, destroy this country) keep sniping at your allies.

I'm sure it's a GREAT strategy to attack half your coalition in order to gain that extra 5% of "independents."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, would you vote for someone who is good on social issues but poor on fiscal? I wouldn't, but sure seems like if you expect half your coalition to suck it up and give up their concerns, what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

If that's the best way to advance parts of my agenda, then yes, absolutely.

There's a real limit to what you can get done in any given legislative session.  You have to pick ans choose, you can't have it all at once.

Many politicians recognize this.  It frequently gets them into trouble with supporters who don't.

[AZRedhawk44]

This is a pre-emptive attack on your purported allies. If you want to break down your coalition and give the democrats the control of the legislature again (and, thereby, destroy this country) keep sniping at your allies.

I'm sure it's a GREAT strategy to attack half your coalition in order to gain that extra 5% of "independents."

The abortion/gayzors social issue people tend to come from the Bible Belt, which also has a long and studied history of backing unions and supporting all sorts of fun social welfare programs.  They were Democrats up until the 70's and 80's and I'm not sure why the South/BibleBelt chose to become (R) after all this time...

There's a Venn diagram of the things we agree on.

A = my issues. (GTFO of my life)
B = your issues. (gayzors, abortion)

C = intersection of your and my issues.  (money)

Let's get C done (the money) before we screw with A or B.

Right now, you're saying to deal with B in order to get C.  Or else.

[makattak]

If that's the best way to advance parts of my agenda, then yes, absolutely.

There's a real limit to what you can get done in any given legislative session.  You have to pick ans choose, you can't have it all at once.

Many politicians recognize this.  It frequently gets them into trouble with supporters who don't.

Here's what's funny. There hasn't been a push for conservative legislators to "do something" about abortion, teh gayz, or any other social problem unless it is dealing with government funding of said social problem.

The social conservatives ARE approaching this fiscally. Yet, what they hear from their purported allies is to "SHUT UP AND TAKE IT SOCONS".

Why the pre-emptive strike? This necessarily makes social conservatives wary of the intentions of their "allies."

[makattak]

Right now, you're saying to deal with B in order to get C.  Or else.

Really? Who is saying that?

We're wondering why, while we're all working on C, your side suddenly shouts "AND KEEP THE HECK AWAY FROM B, YOU BIBLE THUMPERS!!!"

That makes us take a step back and wonder what your real intentions are.

[Balog]

I keep hoping for substance, but they just don't seem to get it done.

Weird, that's my feelings every time a R majority takes place in Congress, and fails to deliver.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Here's what's funny. There hasn't been a push for conservative legislators to "do something" about abortion, teh gayz, or any other social problem unless it is dealing with government funding of said social problem.

There has been quite a lot of that, actually.  Gay marriage comes to mind.  Anti-abortion legislation also.  Much of the anti-illegal-immigration policy.  Church and state issues...

Really? Who is saying that?

We're wondering why, while we're all working on C, your side suddenly shouts "AND KEEP THE HECK AWAY FROM B, YOU BIBLE THUMPERS!!!"

That makes us take a step back and wonder what your real intentions are.

It goes both ways, mak, and far more of this trash comes from the social conservatives than form the others.  Most social conservatives will happily stab a fiscal conservative in the back for not caring enough about the social issues.

[AZRedhawk44]

Really? Who is saying that?

We're wondering why, while we're all working on C, your side suddenly shouts "AND KEEP THE HECK AWAY FROM B, YOU BIBLE THUMPERS!!!"

That makes us take a step back and wonder what your real intentions are.

Because the Venn Diagram also has a 3rd circle... the blue dogs that are getting hounded to also trim the budget, but live in D-areas.

Their intersection with our C doesn't include gayzors and abortion.

We don't have supermajorities.  We don't really even have parity in the Senate.

You want stuff to pass, we have to go for the lowest hanging fruit first.  The stuff that Harry Reid and his leftist ilk that somehow get elected in flyover America, and the RINOs like Scott Brown in metroweenie areas, won't disagree on.  THEN we can expend political capital to fight against fed funding for gayzors and abortion and poop-art.

I want the $500 billion cuts.  I think $100 billion is cowardly to target since the House and Senate could increase $300 billion a year with no problem.  And the mere $60 billion target today is a disgraceful shame, worthy of public humiliation.

But if we can get the easiest parts FIRST, before starting the political fights... we should.

And we shouldn't amend bills with controversial amendments, when the spending cuts on them are otherwise not controversial.

Cut. agree. pass.  New bill.  CR/LF.

Cut. agree. pass.  New bill. CR/LF.

Cut. whoah! fight.  agree on half.  pass.  New bill.  CR/LF.