Rand Paul's 5 Year Budget Proposal

[AZRedhawk44]

If the EPA would get out of the business of carrying water for radical environmentalists and stick to monitoring and enforcing reasonable environmental law, then I could go with keeping it.  AS it is now the EPA is a tool of the aforementioned radicals greens and globalists.  I stand amazed at the frequency with which sensitive flora or fauna show up on resource rich land.  Inevitably the land is placed off limits to exploitation and the potential wealth it would generate disappears into someone's or some group's pocket.  This country is awash in natural resources yet we seem unable exploit them.

Hell, the kooks are trying to infiltrate the AZ Game and Fish Department.

I sat in on one of my rifle club's member meetings to hear from a AZGFD officer that a lot of the "Sierra Club" types are getting jobs at AZGFD, trying to deliberately shift policy from hunt management to critterhugging.  He was practically begging for more of "our type" to apply to work at Game and Fish.

[longeyes]

If the EPA would get out of the business of carrying water for radical environmentalists and stick to monitoring and enforcing reasonable environmental law, then I could go with keeping it.  AS it is now the EPA is a tool of the aforementioned radicals greens and globalists.  I stand amazed at the frequency with which sensitive flora or fauna show up on resource rich land.  Inevitably the land is placed off limits to exploitation and the potential wealth it would generate disappears into someone's or some group's pocket.  This country is awash in natural resources yet we seem unable exploit them.

Don't worry, they'll be exploited--by the Chinese, after our government begins to sell off assets to satisfy its need to run deficits in perpetuity.

[MicroBalrog]

Why? Some of the greatest treasurers of history is the art the remains. Sometimes you need to see past tomorrow, next week or your own life span. $150 million in annual appropriations is chump change in the whole federal budget.

Are you saying this for the lulz?

The National Endowment for the Arts funds things nobody actually wants to see. That's why they need the endowment.

[SteveT]

At best, RP will get to introduce it and give a speech about it on the floor.

Kinda like Bernie Sanders gets to do with his ideas.   Sometimes.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

This is politics. Words are an action, too.

Not all words.

It's a standard political play for politcritters to propose a bill they know won't ever be passed, just to please the base.  We always seem to notice it when the other side does it to/for their supports, such as when Schumer introduces new assault weapon ban bills, knowing full well that they won't ever see the light of day.  But when our guys to it to us, do we fall for it?

[roo_ster]

Not all words.

It's a standard political play for politcritters to propose a bill they know won't ever be passed, just to please the base.  We always seem to notice it when the other side does it to/for their supports, such as when Schumer introduces new assault weapon ban bills, knowing full well that they won't ever see the light of day.  But when our guys to it to us, do we fall for it?

Hmm, maybe it is more a threat.  "Deal with us reasonable folks or you get to deal with Rand."

Anyways, it looks like Rand Paul & DeMint & Lee are the only GOP senators to be truly serious about debt & deficits.  McConnell sure isn't.  Maybe they can get together with Paul Ryan and stir something up, as the GOP leadership is pretty much a bunch of saps.

[mtnbkr]

 

Nobody sugggested having some seat warmer maintain the nukes.  A reasonable person would expect the DOD to hire their own experts, maybe even the ones at DOE who currently manage the nukes.  The point is bringing military budget items back under the DOD so it can be properly accounted for and not hidden under an seemingly unrelated line item.

Chris

Just 'cause little Lieutenant Ricky turns The Key(tm) when the correct codes get transmitted to his silo doesn't mean he necessarily knows a damned thing about purification process of plutonium, neutron reflectors, super-accurate detonation systems or the myriad of other things that are necessary. Could any of you guys tell me when a neutron initiator for a compression type plutonium physics package needs to be changed, or even how to test it, or make the replacement? Those Q clearance civis have spent decades getting their doctorates and masters in their fields for a reason and sadly that level of expertise isn't readily replaceable by the military. After axing the DOE those guys would still likely need to be rehired by big.mil in order to keep our stockpiles fresh, safe and functional.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Hmm, maybe it is more a threat.  "Deal with us reasonable folks or you get to deal with Rand."

Anyways, it looks like Rand Paul & DeMint & Lee are the only GOP senators to be truly serious about debt & deficits.  McConnell sure isn't.  Maybe they can get together with Paul Ryan and stir something up, as the GOP leadership is pretty much a bunch of saps.

Given the choice between moderate reductions that actually become law, and huge reductions that are nothing more than hot air, I'll take the former.  A bird in the hand beats two in the bush.

Rand and the boys talk a good game, but so far all I've seen is talk.  I keep hoping for substance, but they just don't seem to get it done.  Maybe that's Rand's role in all of this, to spin pretty fantasies to keep the troops motivated.  But I wonder how long he can keep this game up without being able to deliver.

If he keeps overpromising and underdelivering, he's going to wind as the Obama of the right, an empty suit who's all talk and no substance.

[Boomhauer]

Nobody sugggested having some seat warmer maintain the nukes.  A reasonable person would expect the DOD to hire their own experts, maybe even the ones at DOE who currently manage the nukes.  The point is bringing military budget items back under the DOD so it can be properly accounted for and not hidden under an seemingly unrelated line item.

Chris

And let's not ignore that the military somehow manages to run plenty of MOBILE nuclear reactors.

Given the choice between moderate reductions that actually become law, and huge reductions that are nothing more than hot air, I'll take the former.  A bird in the hand beats two in the bush.

Rand and the boys talk a good game, but so far all I've seen is talk.  I keep hoping for substance, but they just don't seem to get it done.  Maybe that's Rand's role in all of this, to spin pretty fantasies to keep the troops motivated.  But I wonder how long he can keep this game up without being able to deliver.

If he keeps overpromising and underdelivering, he's going to wind as the Obama of the right, an empty suit who's all talk and no substance.

Uh, the "moderate reductions" aren't happening anyway, and the only reason that Rand and the ones like him aren't having any success is that the rest of Washington is corrupt and sure as hell ain't going to do any cutting. There simply aren't enough people in power who are actually interested in saving the USA.

[roo_ster]

Uh, the "moderate reductions" aren't happening anyway, and the only reason that Rand and the ones like him aren't having any success is that the rest of Washington is corrupt and sure as hell ain't going to do any cutting. There simply aren't enough people in power who are actually interested in saving the USA.

I'm wondering where the "moderate reductions" are, too. 

[mtnbkr]

I'm wondering where the "moderate reductions" are, too. 

You're not playing the long game.  They'll be here in a decade.  All this clamoring for deep cuts now is distracting the adults from doing the work of dragging their feet working on real plans for reform.

Chris

[MicroBalrog]

Given the choice between moderate reductions that actually become law, and huge reductions that are nothing more than hot air, I'll take the former.  A bird in the hand beats two in the bush.

Except that what needs to be done is both.

A legislator explained to me once that the role of the politician is not merely to pass laws, but also to educate the public about the options it has - even if the cannot be passed NOW NOW NOW. Randall Paul is doing that, and it is a good thing it is being done.

If he keeps overpromising and underdelivering, he's going to wind as the Obama of the right, an empty suit who's all talk and no substance.

If a Republican President can accomplish as much in tax cuts and deregulation as Obama has accomplished in raising spending, it would be a great day for America when such a President gets elected.

[charby]

Are you saying this for the lulz?

The National Endowment for the Arts funds things nobody actually wants to see. That's why they need the endowment.

Well Pablo Picaso or Jackson Pollock were probably considered the level of a Madonna covered in elephant turds when they started out. Lulz? I can think of Andy Warhol or Chuck Close.

[charby]

Hell, the kooks are trying to infiltrate the AZ Game and Fish Department.

I sat in on one of my rifle club's member meetings to hear from a AZGFD officer that a lot of the "Sierra Club" types are getting jobs at AZGFD, trying to deliberately shift policy from hunt management to critterhugging.  He was practically begging for more of "our type" to apply to work at Game and Fish.

Well the numbers of hunters are declining, many hunters are people of means who have far better day jobs than what a wildlife biologist will pay. Many wildlife biologists don't hunt, mostly because their parents didn't hunt so no one showed them how.

Also is it really bad if someone wants to preserve a species that is disappearing due to man's treatment of the environment? Is it bad that we have clean air to breath? Look at third world countries where there isn't a environmental plan, do you really want to live in something like that. Do you think God would be angry that we are poisoning his creation?

With out the government agencies that you want to end I believe we would turn into a what Russia became after the fall of the Soviet Union. Lots of corruption, very few people getting rich and lot of people going without basic needs. All one has to do is look back at 100-125 years into our past, except for a very small middle class and even smaller upper class most people lived at the subsistence level.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm wondering where the "moderate reductions" are, too.  

And I'm wondering if you've been paying attention.  Boehner and the House leadership have been getting temporary weekly budgets passed (not just proposing them or discussing them) that cut the budget at a pace of $100b a year. The permanent budget legislation is still pending, but every indication is that the final product will continue to reduce the budget at the same moderate pace.

Yeah, it's not as much as I'd like, probably not as much as you'd like, and not as much as we probably need.  But it seems to be all we can get under current circumstances.  

Recall that we only control half of a third of the federal government, if even that, and those who control the rest are hell-bent on resisting cuts in every way possible.  Getting anything cut at all is quite an accomplishment in this environment.  It may not be a particularly satisfying accomplishment, but reality is often like that.

[MicroBalrog]

Well Pablo Picaso or Jackson Pollock were probably considered the level of a Madonna covered in elephant turds when they started out. Lulz? I can think of Andy Warhol or Chuck Close.

Picasso made a living selling his paintings.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If a Republican President can accomplish as much in tax cuts and deregulation as Obama has accomplished in raising spending, it would be a great day for America when such a President gets elected.

Yeah, but consider that they needed supermajorities before they could make any real moves, and it cost them dearly to do it.  This kind of setup only occurs about once every two generations, it has immense value, and they squandered every bit of it to accomplish what little they did.

If our side ever has that much political power to invest into a cause, then I too believe that it would be an impressive day for America.  Thing is, we've never had anywhere close to that kind of power.  And we're not likely to acquire it any time soon, not unless we really shape up. (1)

Now, you mention cutting as much as "Obama" has increased.  Let's consider some numbers.  

Obama's 2009-2010 budget was $3.6 trillion. Next years budget as proposed by Obama would have increased spending by about $200 billion.  They never passed it last year, and now Boehner and the incoming Republicans are pushing through an alternative budget that would cut spending by $100b.  So we're looking at cutting the budget by an amount that's half of what Obama would have increased. (2)

I say this to try to keep things in perspective.  This year alone we're canceling out half of one of Obama's would-be budget increases for the year.  Look at how much we can do with what little power we have right now.  

Yet our side keeps looking for the quantum leap solution, the all-at-once proposal that will instantly set everything aright.  But that's a fantasy.  We don't have that kind of power right.  Even if we did, real life isn't a sitcom that gets resolved in an ADHD attention span.

The real solution is right here in front of us.  It's not nearly as sexy or appealing.  It doesn't take supermajorities for us to accomplish what you want.  We don't need Grand Slam all-at-once proposals.  We just need to keep at the mundane work we're doing right now.  We are succeeding, slowly.

God bless Rand Paul and his $500b budget cuts that axe a quarter of the Federal bureaucracy.  Truly, I hope he can get it passed, I just don't see how that's realistic.  I think it's going to be the Boehners of the world, grinding it out one little bit at a time, $100b at a time that carry the day.  (3)

I really wish people weren't fighting that so hard.



(1)  We're making serious progress on this front.  If we can keep it up, and keep it togethre, than the political future is going to be very interesting.  Still, conservative/libertarian supermajorities are a long, long way off.

(2) Granted, the Republicans' $100b cut hasn't actually passed yet, but right now it looks a lot more probable than not.

(3) Rand himself has a competing $200b cut proposal that stands a much greater chance of becoming law.  I wish he was pimping that one more.

[MicroBalrog]

The two, as I said, are not mutually opposed.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

And yet, looking over the responses in this thread, many people are unwilling to support both strategies.  Lots of folks want to latch on to the aggressive, unrealistic strategy and shoot down the slower, realistic alternatives.

[Perd Hapley]

Looks good.

But actions speak louder than words.  Can he get it passed?

This is politics. Words are an action, too.

Thank you. Well said.

[KD5NRH]

The two, as I said, are not mutually opposed.

Nor is the third option; pass the big cut, then hire out all the Federal elected officials to some random country as farm labor, and put their earnings toward paying down the debt.

[erictank]

Are you saying this for the lulz?

The National Endowment for the Arts funds things nobody actually wants to see. That's why they need the endowment.

An acquaintance of mine who's on Facebook is all up in arms over someone's comment that NEA should be done away with, and got pretty snippy with another acquaintance who tried to debate the issue with her.

She's an artist herself - so it's her ox being gored.  To be fair, she's not a "crucifix-in-a-jar-of-urine" type artist - she actually DRAWS things, and she's not terrible.  Then again, with all due respect to someone making some kind of living as an artist (I draw as a hobby myself), she's not spectacular either.

[roo_ster]

And I'm wondering if you've been paying attention.  

The $4B & $6B might be enough to get Boehner to weep into his hankie, but it barely slows the rate of growth, let alone cuts anything back.

Also, the GOP leadership isn't going to try to cut $100B, but less than $60B.  Even the original $100B wasn't even a good start, just a throw-away line before the election.  And still only slows the rate of growth, cutting back not one red cent.

It is pretty easy to see who the serious folks in DC are, and they are not the senior senator from Kentucky or the human waterworks with the gavel.

You're not playing the long game.  They'll be here in a decade.  All this clamoring for deep cuts now is distracting the adults from doing the work of dragging their feet working on real plans for reform.

Chris

I suspect that is right.

Granted, they only have the House, but they aren't even trying that hard.

Frankly, we don;t have a decade:


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262673/autopilot-programs-will-squeeze-out-everything-else-veronique-de-rugy

The GOP needs to grow up, so at least one of the parties in DC can have some claim to being adults.

Rand Paul's $500B proposal is just that, a good start(1).  The real work comes when "entitlements" are cut.

(1) GOP's incredibly shrinking $100B $61B reduction is not even that.

[HankB]

An acquaintance of mine who's on Facebook is all up in arms over someone's comment that NEA should be done away with, and got pretty snippy with another acquaintance who tried to debate the issue with her.

She's an artist herself - so it's her ox being gored.  To be fair, she's not a "crucifix-in-a-jar-of-urine" type artist - she actually DRAWS things, and she's not terrible.  Then again, with all due respect to someone making some kind of living as an artist (I draw as a hobby myself), she's not spectacular either.

So she has a hobby . . . and wants taxpayers to subsidize her.

Well Pablo Picaso or Jackson Pollock were probably considered the level of a Madonna covered in elephant turds when they started out.

Looking at much of their work product I still find that an apt comparison. But Picasso in particular DID find a market for his stuff.

As far as I'm concerned, paint anything you want, sculpt anything you want - whatever. Just don't ask demand that people pay for it whether they like it or not.

****************************************

And as for the overall budget . . . Boehner has been real quiet lately about his pre-election promise to cut the budget to 2008 levels, without TARP or stimulus spending.

[Jamisjockey]

God bless Rand Paul and his $500b budget cuts that axe a quarter of the Federal bureaucracy.  Truly, I hope he can get it passed, I just don't see how that's realistic.  I think it's going to be the Boehners of the world, grinding it out one little bit at a time, $100b at a time that carry the day.  (3)

I really wish people weren't fighting that so hard.

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?