Rookie Rand Paul Tackles Budget Head-On - $500 Billion Cut In One Year

• tk421

  

  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47720.html
  
  I have no doubt that this will not get one second of discussion in Congress, seeing as how it's a huge cut and from the lowest person on the totem pole. This is what this country desperately needs, though. Cutting 100-200 billion from the budget isn't going to do anything for us. We need this shift in spending to be massive.
  

  The tea party hero is at the bottom of the Senate in seniority and was sworn in as Kentucky’s junior Republican senator only two weeks ago, but he’s about to unveil his own sweeping budget plan that would result in a $500 billion cut in just one year — about five times more than what the House GOP has promised to do.

  Paul’s version of the federal budget — which he’ll unveil as early as next week — would target programs at virtually every federal agency, including the Defense Department, and would eliminate the Education Department. He plans to follow up with a five-year budget with even deeper spending cuts, a move likely to prompt backlash from groups that would be affected by his proposal.

• CenterBHSFan

  

  Oh the unions will twist themselves into knots over this.
  
  Unfortunately, I'll bet that it doesn't make any headway. It'll be as dead as the paper it's printed on upon review.
• sleeper

  

  CenterBHSFan;643224 wrote:Oh the unions will twist themselves into knots over this.
  
  Unfortunately, I'll bet that it doesn't make any headway. It'll be as dead as the paper it's printed on upon review.

  
  This. I really wish it would happen though.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Yeah, nice symbolic statement, but I doubt it will fly in committees.
• tk421

  

  That's the problem, Congress is unable to make any cuts to the budget. No matter what anyone wants to cut, some interest group is going to be up in arms about it. I expect the budget to continue to grow in size.
• jhay78

  

  Yeah, the minute someone uses the words "eliminate" and "Department of Education" in the same sentence, he or she can expect to be laughed out of the room. Although its existence can and should be debated by reasonable people.
• tk421

  

  jhay78;643270 wrote:Yeah, the minute someone uses the words "eliminate" and "Department of Education" in the same sentence, he or she can expect to be laughed out of the room. Although its existence can and should be debated by reasonable people.

  
  Education is a state issue. No need or purpose for the Department of Education.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  tk421;643324 wrote:Education is a state issue. No need or purpose for the Department of Education.

  
  Unless it is a national security issue, which I think it is.
  I've said a few times that we do need to restructure the department, but have math and science levels that each state must meet. If not then fed can step in an allocate funds with the state and metrics that can bump up scores and levels.
  
  Oh, we all can agree teachers unions are awful.
  
  However, there is no way that any cutting of a federal agency will get cut. Path dependency is too far entrenched.
• cbus4life

  Education dept. should be restructured, not eliminated.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  ptown_trojans_1;643348 wrote:Unless it is a national security issue, which I think it is.
  I've said a few times that we do need to restructure the department, but have math and science levels that each state must meet. If not then fed can step in an allocate funds with the state and metrics that can bump up scores and levels.
  
  Oh, we all can agree teachers unions are awful.
  
  However, there is no way that any cutting of a federal agency will get cut. Path dependency is too far entrenched.

  
  Schools have been notorious for then ignoring the subjects that aren't mandated. If you impose math and science marks, one can assume many schools will simply ignore social studies, art, physical education. God forbid we put ccrunner out of a job.
  
  However I do agree with you, the mathematics and science teachers are the most important because the subjects are. If it were up to me, I'd make a program that makes sure science teachers actually know their shit (so it would require passing a fairly rigorous examination), and then I'd pay them 30% more than their coworkers. Bottom line is, if you know math and science, it doesn't make financial sense to turn around and be a teacher--you're a valued commodity. The money needs to be shown to people who can teach such crucial subjects.
  
  Personally, I had a Harvard-educated science teacher in eighth grade, and it was wonderful. Then I transferred schools to play football and I had two of the dumbest people I've ever met attempt to teach mathematics, physics, and chemistry. As a result, I don't have a fucking clue about any of those.
• cbus4life

  My favorite teacher in HS was my physics teacher...Cal Poly educated, worked at national labs out west, and then, as he put it, "got tired of making weapons," so he went back to teach. Cool dude.
• QuakerOats

  cbus4life;643369 wrote:Education dept. should be restructured, not eliminated.

  
  We are near the critical state where the words "should be" will soon be replaced with "has to be", because we "have to" eliminate departments and slash massive amounts of spending or we will no longer be able to sell our debt and fund government. It is just about that simple, and we are just about there (and I don't mean like in another generation either, I mean within 5 years.)
• jmog

  Rand Paul is GREAT, I love it.
  
  Get the budget balanced, and THEN come to me for more taxes to pay off the debt.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I'm sorry, but education has no place in the federal government. It's a state responsibility (actually, local). That agency should be one of the first to go, and farm subsidies and any $$ that goes to the so-called war on drugs should be right behind.
  
  I wonder how many all that would save?
  
  In any event, it would be a good start.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;643870 wrote:I'm sorry, but education has no place in the federal government. It's a state responsibility (actually, local). That agency should be one of the first to go, and farm subsidies and any $$ that goes to the so-called war on drugs should be right behind.
  
  I wonder how many all that would save?
  
  In any event, it would be a good start.

  Naw, WB. Once again you speak the truth and we all know there are some folks out there who refuse to admit it.
• stlouiedipalma

  While I'm all for cuts and getting the deficit under control, I have to wonder what the mood of the voters will be like in a couple years when nothing is done about either. Is it going to be the GOP saying that the Dems and Obama are being obstructionists or will the Dems accuse the GOP of trying to take away all of the social services? I mean, something has got to give here. We cannot go on and on with such massive debt without the bubble bursting again, but the simple fact is that, with the Congress split, not much of substance is going to get done in the next two years. Is this all prologue to the big spin game of 2012?
  
  And let's not forget about jobs. The economy and the unemployment rate are going to be the two biggest factors in 2012, as they were in 2010. The way I see it, it will be hard for anyone in either party to campaign on re-election if things don't improve. If nothing else, this past election has taught us that the voters are impatient.
• jmog

  stlouiedipalma;643968 wrote:While I'm all for cuts and getting the deficit under control, I have to wonder what the mood of the voters will be like in a couple years when nothing is done about either. Is it going to be the GOP saying that the Dems and Obama are being obstructionists or will the Dems accuse the GOP of trying to take away all of the social services? I mean, something has got to give here. We cannot go on and on with such massive debt without the bubble bursting again, but the simple fact is that, with the Congress split, not much of substance is going to get done in the next two years. Is this all prologue to the big spin game of 2012?
  
  And let's not forget about jobs. The economy and the unemployment rate are going to be the two biggest factors in 2012, as they were in 2010. The way I see it, it will be hard for anyone in either party to campaign on re-election if things don't improve. If nothing else, this past election has taught us that the voters are impatient.

  
  
  I hope not, but unfortunately I agree with you, it will be minimal cuts for the next 2 years and then mudslinging in 2012.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  stlouiedipalma;643968 wrote:While I'm all for cuts and getting the deficit under control, I have to wonder what the mood of the voters will be like in a couple years when nothing is done about either. Is it going to be the GOP saying that the Dems and Obama are being obstructionists or will the Dems accuse the GOP of trying to take away all of the social services? I mean, something has got to give here. We cannot go on and on with such massive debt without the bubble bursting again, but the simple fact is that, with the Congress split, not much of substance is going to get done in the next two years. Is this all prologue to the big spin game of 2012?
  
  And let's not forget about jobs. The economy and the unemployment rate are going to be the two biggest factors in 2012, as they were in 2010. The way I see it, it will be hard for anyone in either party to campaign on re-election if things don't improve. If nothing else, this past election has taught us that the voters are impatient.

  
  Well, if we're going to be honest; in a couple of years wouldn't it in fact be the dems fault if nothing gets done? Just looking at the numbers in the senate not to mention a democrat President... I mean... that's a gimme, isn't it?
  
  IMO, the republicans are going about things slightly in the wrong way. Particularly Obamacare. They're wasting time and money trying to repeal it outright, instead of block by block (which would be more successful, I think). But then again, maybe it's a strategy of theirs to showcase the outright rejection anything that their trying to do - which is probably right on the money.
  
  I pretty much agree with everything else you state, though.
• stlouiedipalma

  I am getting so tired of the BS coming out of politicians. We need action and results, not rhetoric.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  What we need is 60 more Rand Pauls in the Senate.
• jmog

  The sad thing is that he'll be called "looney" but this won't even get us halfway to a balanced budget since we are running over 1 trillion in deficits.
• justincredible

  

  Cleveland Buck;644015 wrote:What we need is 60 more Rand Pauls in the Senate.

  
  Make that 99 more and I agree.
• stlouiedipalma

  CenterBHSFan;644001 wrote:Well, if we're going to be honest; in a couple of years wouldn't it in fact be the dems fault if nothing gets done? Just looking at the numbers in the senate not to mention a democrat President... I mean... that's a gimme, isn't it?
  
  IMO, the republicans are going about things slightly in the wrong way. Particularly Obamacare. They're wasting time and money trying to repeal it outright, instead of block by block (which would be more successful, I think). But then again, maybe it's a strategy of theirs to showcase the outright rejection anything that their trying to do - which is probably right on the money.
  
  I pretty much agree with everything else you state, though.

  
  I don't know if the Republicans will get such a free pass with the voters if nothing gets done. They tried to block just about everything the Dems proposed for 2 years, yet were rewarded with gains in both houses of Congress. Now it's their turn to show voters they can get things done. If the Dems block them, will they get the same reward?
  
  I know the Repubs face a near-impossible task, but maybe that just shows what dupes the voting public has become, to believe that changing the face of the House will be the cure-all for everything. Like I said earlier, it looks like this is turning into one gigantic spin game to blame each other for inactivity, with us as the suckers who get screwed. Maybe firm, short term limits are the answer here. Not getting to suck at the government's tit for more than 2 or 4 years will force some of these loons into doing their job. Hell, a lot of the freshmen in Congress have already had fundraisers for their next campaigns. I'd rather see them working on solving our problems.
• QuakerOats

  jmog;643867 wrote:Get the budget balanced, and THEN come to me for more taxes to pay off the debt.

  
  Bingo. But, I would rather cut spending still more so we run a surplus of 5-10% and use that to pay down the debt.
• jhay78

  

  stlouiedipalma;644188 wrote:I don't know if the Republicans will get such a free pass with the voters if nothing gets done. They tried to block just about everything the Dems proposed for 2 years, yet were rewarded with gains in both houses of Congress. Now it's their turn to show voters they can get things done. If the Dems block them, will they get the same reward?

  And the Dems tried to cram every socialist piece of legislation they could down the Repub's throats while they had a supermajority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and the presidency, and they were rewarded with a well-deserved thrashing in November.
  
  The November 2010 elections were pure and simply about putting the brakes on the socialist train that's about to run us all off a cliff. It was NOT about "Well the Dems didn't get enough done, so let's throw them out" or "Gee the Republicans did a great job of stonewalling legislative accomplishments, so let's vote more of them in".