Rand Paul: A big old bucket of awesome

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.fox41.com/story/13911626/rand-paul-proposes-500-billion-in-federal-budget-cuts

Proposes a $500 billion cut in the Fed Budget... in one year.

PBS, food stamps, national endowment for the arts.  The hits just keep on coming.

+1 to representatives named "Paul."

-1 to the notion that $500 billion dollars worth of annual cuts only takes us to 2008 spending levels.

[HankB]

I think he's being too timid in his proposed cuts . . .

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

I think he's being too timid in his proposed cuts . . .

Yep. He needs to triple his numbers.

[roo_ster]

Some details:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/detailed-look-rand-paul-spending-bill

A good start.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

How does Rand's senate bill compare to the house bill that passed on Tuesday?

The house bill cuts spending back to 2008 levels, as does this senate bill, so they seem to be similar in that regard.  Yet, IIRC, the house bill only claims this will reduce spending by $2.5T over 10 years, or $250B a year, half what the senate bill claims.  So what gives?

[tyme]

http://www.fox41.com/story/13911626/rand-paul-proposes-500-billion-in-federal-budget-cuts

Proposes a $500 billion cut in the Fed Budget... in one year.

PBS, food stamps, national endowment for the arts.  The hits just keep on coming.

+1 to representatives named "Paul."

-1 to the notion that $500 billion dollars worth of annual cuts only takes us to 2008 spending levels.

Best numbers I can find:

NEA: budget approx $167M
PBS: I don't know what he's talking about "defunding": PBS isn't a non-profit organization?  They have financials on their website.  I can't tell what the government contribution is, but their grants and contributions from their 2010 financials totaled 101M, so the government can't be contributing more than that.
CPSC: budget $118M

Why are those even worth worrying about in contrast to a 30% cut on food stamps, which amounts to $42 billion according to the AP, or some of the other cuts he proposes which run in the billions to tens of billions?  Answer: Republicans don't like them and want them gone, so Rand Paul scores political points by doing this.

If you want to talk about eliminating government funding of things that are unconstitutional (which I'd probably agree the NEA and PBS are, and maybe the CPSC), why don't we talk about defunding the firearms portion of the BATFE, and moving the rest of it back into the Treasury?  Last time I looked at the ATF's budget in the early 2000's, they were raking in a lot of money from taxes on alcohol and tobacco, but most of their expenditures (hundreds of millions) were on anti-firearms outreach and stuff like that.  The BATF's firearms taxes and enforcement and programs, isolated from their A&T tax revenue, were a net loss activity.  (The A&T tax revenue was IIRC in the 10-20B range... from recollection, I think firearms tax revenue was in the low hundreds of millions, and their firearms programs expenditures were something like 500-800M.)

When the ATF's firearms-related spending gets cut, and when the DEA gets defunded, then I'll be happy to see the NEA and PBS grants go poof.  Until then, he's playing political games and he can shove it.

Other cuts he's proposing: NSF by 4.7B, NIH 5.8B, DOJ 9B, National Park Service 850M, and Homeland Security 23.8B.

[MicroBalrog]

THe problem is, the NPR existing makes it harder to defund the BATF.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

When the ATF's firearms-related spending gets cut, and when the DEA gets defunded, then I'll be happy to see the NEA and PBS grants go poof.  Until then, he's playing political games and he can shove it.

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Say what you will about ATF and DEA, that still doesn't change the fact that the government wastes far too much money elsewhere in the budget.  Reducing that other spending is still the right thing to do, even if you personally feel like it doesn't address other important areas.

And ultimately, these sorts of sweeping budget cuts are the most important things to accomplish right now.  The nation can survive a bit longer with overzealous ATF outreach programs, it can't survive long under this level of spending and borrowing.  Unless we get our spending under control, we're toast the moment interest rates go back up.

[makattak]

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Say what you will about ATF and DEA, that still doesn't change the fact that the government wastes far too much money elsewhere in the budget.  Reducing that other spending is still the right thing to do, even if you personally feel like it doesn't address other important areas.

And ultimately, these sorts of sweeping budget cuts are the most important things to accomplish right now.  The nation can survive a bit longer with overzealous ATF outreach programs, it can't survive long under this level of spending and borrowing.  Unless we get our spending under control, we're toast the moment interest rates go back up.

You know, reading about massive government spending being financed by an out of control monetary policy was interesting. I wondered just how they could ever do something so stupid.

Watching it happen is just scary. I now realize how it happens. People who know what the consequences will be are ignored while everyone in power just tries to make the present look better than it really is.

This will not end well unless we make major changes. NOW.

[makattak]

Incidentally, this makes me respect Reagan even more. He put up with the consequences of dealing with out of control monetary supply and spending. 1982 was very hard for him, I am sure, but as a result of his accepting the bad medicine we got 20 years of growth. Amazing.

[longeyes]

Too timid, yes.  We take in, what, 3.5T and we spend 5T.  That isn't going to work.  This is the budget of an unregenerate addict, a spendoholic.  Step one: REHAB.  The Republicans may mean well--maybe--but they are not painting this situation as it really is.  That includes Paul Ryan, who is great with numbers but, for me, too low-energy to rouse the American people the way they need to be roused.  (I guess it's hard to combine Churchill with a bean-counter.)  The GOP needs to roll the budget back until it can be balanced, and that's just for starters.  The math is ugly.  It would take a 30 per cent across-the-board cut, after Obama's spending spree, to get the ship on an even keel.  But it has to be done.  And soon.  Not in twenty or forty years.

If it can't done politically, it means, to me at least, that this nation can't survive in its present form.

[tyme]

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Say what you will about ATF and DEA, that still doesn't change the fact that the government wastes far too much money elsewhere in the budget.  Reducing that other spending is still the right thing to do, even if you personally feel like it doesn't address other important areas.

And ultimately, these sorts of sweeping budget cuts are the most important things to accomplish right now.  The nation can survive a bit longer with overzealous ATF outreach programs, it can't survive long under this level of spending and borrowing.  Unless we get our spending under control, we're toast the moment interest rates go back up.

The NEA (161M), NEH (167M), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (422M) combined amount to less than $800M.  How does that contribute to a sweeping budget cut?  That's a rounding error in the DoD or HHS or Social Services budget.  Either of those can fluctuate by that much depending on the flavor of jam a committee member put on her toast the day she considers that portion of the budget.  Trim them, by all means: cutting budgets means the uninspired people in those programs who just want a paycheck will quit or get fired, and the inspired will find ways to do more with less.

Another of the programs Paul proposes defunding is the The State Justice Institute -- budget 6M.  I don't understand why it's not part of the Congressional Research Service, and it should probably be merged into that, but whatever.  As long as that 6M of effort into justice department research is not already duplicated by the CRS, I have no problem with it.

A few hundred million here and there do add up to real money, if you cut a lot of them.  Paul's bill defunds 7 such independent programs / government-created corporations, and I can't immediately find financial data for the Affordable Housing Program, Commission on Fine Arts.  (I'm not in the mood to dig through the last Congressional budget; I've been finding the other budgets piecemeal on the entities' websites or wikipedia.)

BTW, in the case of the CPSC -- which I admit I don't know much about, other than I duckduckgo'd them and saw some ladder recall -- look at the context before agreeing that it should be completely defunded: the U.S. House UNANIMOUSLY (407-0-25, by roll call) increased its funding in 2008 from $80M to $136M in 2014, 79-13 in the Senate, and it was signed by Bush Jr.  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Consumer_Product_Safety_Improvement_Act

I think Rand Paul should stick to defunding things that aren't small-budget and politically contentious.  It's not like the bill will pass.  Adding stuff like that just sidetracks the dialogue from "We need to cut a ton of stuff in the budget" to "OMG THEY'RE GOING TO KILL NPR AND KILL THE ARTS!  THOSE BASTARDS!"

[French G.]

I think Rand Paul should stick to defunding things that aren't small-budget and politically contentious.  It's not like the bill will pass.  Adding stuff like that just sidetracks the dialogue from "We need to cut a ton of stuff in the budget" to "OMG THEY'RE GOING TO KILL NPR AND KILL THE ARTS!  THOSE BASTARDS!"

Agreed, you want to cut something and have someone go off, cut the entitlements and at least have an argument worth having. Federal Pension needs to be addressed too, I feel like that I will have earned my mil reserve pension when and if I begin to draw it, but there needs to be a phase in of privatizing federal retirement. Maybe offer a buyout deal to workers in a certain age range, below that private 401K or TSP only.

[kgbsquirrel]

I can see the myriad reasons why, and am rather grateful, but it still surprised me that he didn't propose taking a penny from the VA (unless you count folding in the VA related housing from HUD without increasing the VA budget).

[Waitone]

For there to be any chance of meaningful reductions in spending it will be necessary to create a political environment where those who favor insane spending are forced to fight themselves for increase spending.  Getting them to turn on themselves and fight it out.  So instead of having environmentalists fight as a bloc against Tyrone Taxpayer, create the environment where said environmentalists fight amongst themselves at the trough.  Same goes for welfare-ists.  Fight each other over pet programs instead of linking arms and victimizing Tyrone. 

At this point in time the only way of creating that environment is to use across the board cuts of a specific percentage.  Discretionary, entitlement, military, makes no difference.  No sacred cow is permitted to walk off without damage.

ETA:  One other way just occurred to me.  Reduce current base line rate of increase to a negative figure.  That in and of itself will create a little helpful inter-species competition at the trough.

[longeyes]

+1 obviously.

You don't negotiate nuanced self-denial with an addict.  You put him/her on a path to a drug-free existence.  And, yes, the 12-step model is apt here.  We're going to need the right political climate and will--fiscal sobriety if you will--and to motivate that with some kind of connection with a "Higher Power," be it a spiritual re-awakening, newfound patriotism grounded in economic reality, or something else.

[seeker_two]

A few hundred million here and there do add up to real money, if you cut a lot of them. 

That's the point....cut a lot of the small stuff that's sucking away tax dollars first before you have to touch the "third-rail" stuff like SS & welfare...you have a better chance of getting these cuts passed....

+1 obviously.

You don't negotiate nuanced self-denial with an addict.  You put him/her on a path to a drug-free existence.  And, yes, the 12-step model is apt here.  We're going to need the right political climate and will--fiscal sobriety if you will--and to motivate that some kind of connection with a "Higher Power," be it a spiritual re-awakening, newfound patriotism grounded in economic reality, or something else.

+1 on your +1.....

[longeyes]

The American people need to realize that they are at war, a war for national survival.  Unfortunately, this theater of war is at home, with ourselves.  A vital nation looks to its own cultural health first, last, and always.  We stopped doing that some time ago when we were encouraged to spend beyond our means in a new "consumer" society; when our greatest companies became untethered from the national interest in their pursuit of global profits regardless of the impact at home; when elements in our own government promoted foolish foreign policies and failed to defend real American interests, when they looked the other way while the nation was re-populated against the national will.  This is a war with many fronts and with many collaborators.