Why Rand's 5 Year Plan Is Ingenious

[BarryDonegan]

A 5 year plan is just long enough to where everyone in Congress and the President will definitely cycle through another election first, meaning they won't have to suffer the political pain caused by the cuts, whereas Rand would still be in there to oversee it and make sure it happened.

Then, he can put the 1 year plan in to demonstrate that it's really time to talk about this, and it will make it the conversation for the 2012 election as very few people will probably support the one year plan. If there is an economic event, the people might push to support a 1 year plan, but we won't be able to know about that debate until it is released and it starts. However, the 5 year plan has a VERY good chance of passing even now.

So while he puts in the 1 year plan and tells everyone its time to talk about the budget, he can right up front at least secure the consolation prize of getting a balanced budget signed into law later in his term. At the same time, once they consent to the 5 year plan, they've shown that they are afraid of the pushback that comes from not supporting cuts. That will push the debate his way, and it will swing as hard as the market will against us if we don't start cutting.

[anaconda]

I believe a five year plan will involve devastatingly painful cuts to all members of congress that who live and die by expectations of federal handouts and, more importantly, pressure from special interests groups. There is NO political will to balance the budget. Yet. Although Rand is doing a great job of calling out the bullshit on both sides of the aisle. I don't recall this ever happening previously. Credit to Mike Lee also.

[amy31416]

I think it'd be pretty nifty if he (or anyone else in Congress), introduced a bill to cut pay and benefits for congressmen and senators. I don't suppose there's anything like that in there, eh? It'd definitely be, at least, a goodwill gesture.

[BamaFanNKy]

Amy, I get your point but some give their salary to charity.

http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Congressman-Yarmuth-donates-congressional-salary-to-local-charities-organizations-114955404.html

[malkusm]

Amy, I get your point but some give their salary to charity.

http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Congressman-Yarmuth-donates-congressional-salary-to-local-charities-organizations-114955404.html

And the taxpayers can just as easily give their own money to charity; or, alternatively, use it to provide a better quality of life for their own families.

[Krugerrand]

And the taxpayers can just as easily give their own money to charity; or, alternatively, use it to provide a better quality of life for their own families.

Plus, I'd like to see their tax forms. I'm sure they're using that charitable donation (of tax payer money) to off-set other income, get a higher tax deduction, and reduce the taxes they pay.

[bwlibertyman]

I agree. Spreading the "pain" over 5 years would be better than having it happen all at once. Hopefully, assuming we get to a balanced budget time that they could enact something besides a balanced budget amendment to keep it that way. Maybe they could lower the debt ceiling. I think that might work. Very exciting stuff though!

[sailingaway]

I think it'd be pretty nifty if he (or anyone else in Congress), introduced a bill to cut pay and benefits for congressmen and senators. I don't suppose there's anything like that in there, eh? It'd definitely be, at least, a goodwill gesture.

Ron introduces those all the time. He introduced one to cut Congress pay so long as the budget wasn't balanced, last year.

[amy31416]

Amy, I get your point but some give their salary to charity.

http://www.whas11.com/news/local/Congressman-Yarmuth-donates-congressional-salary-to-local-charities-organizations-114955404.html

They still have to steal it first...then they get accolades for being a philanthropist, the tax breaks, etc. I don't even think they should get medical coverage, so they can experience first hand what they're pushing on the American people with the Obamacare thing.


Ron introduces those all the time. He introduced one to cut Congress pay so long as the budget wasn't balanced, last year.

Of course he does. :) I think the time is right for a re-introduction.

[anaconda]

I think it'd be pretty nifty if he (or anyone else in Congress), introduced a bill to cut pay and benefits for congressmen and senators. I don't suppose there's anything like that in there, eh? It'd definitely be, at least, a goodwill gesture.

I'm surprised Rand hasn't done this. Would have been a great media stunt and possibly enhanced his popularity.

[libertygrl]

I've just provided the breakdown of Rand's proposal to a Tea Party forum. They appear genuinely interested in his proposal however, I am already anticipating negative comments to his proposed cutbacks in the military, foreign aide and homeland security. Other than telling them we can't afford it, what what you say to these people in order to get their support? The issue of security has always been the biggest wedge between us and them.

[sailingaway]

I've just provided the breakdown of Rand's proposal to a Tea Party forum. They appear genuinely interested in his proposal however, I am already anticipating negative comments to his proposed cutbacks in the military, foreign aide and homeland security. Other than telling them we can't afford it, what what you say to these people in order to get their support? The issue of security has always been the biggest wedge between us and them.

Take one at a time.

On military, even the military is saying there was waste, and point out that the pentagon had to admit that $2.4 TRILLION was missing from their expenditures after an audit, and the only thing that was done is that the pentagon was made not subject to audit. This wouldn't cut real defense, it would go for waste. Rand specifically left war funding in.

On aide, say that may end up coming out because if that less than 1% of cuts are the real deal breaker, that is pretty logical. You can explain that Israel isn't poor anymore, though, and when you're cutting their enemies too, it maintains the balance. Don't make too big a deal of this because I am pretty sure that to get this passed or to really push cuts, that is going to come out. It is stupid, but do you think otherwise?


On Homeland Security say that was just a 'now we've fixed it' bureaucracy created after 9/11 that just added another layer at huge cost. Point out that it didn't stop the Christmas bomber and is many many times the size it was ever intended to be. It is also focussed on innocent Americans, not on terrorists (e.g. airport screenings.) Say what we need is less stupidity, not a huge administrative agency on top of the FBI and CIA which has no 'producables' at all.