[ABC] Sen. Paul Unveils 5-Year Budget Plan: Eliminates Four Federal Agencies

[PermanentSleep]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...-agencies.html

Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., unveiled today his five-year path to a balanced budget, leaving several federal agencies behind. Among the items on the cutting room floor are the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development.

“There’s a lot of things in here that everybody could agree to, Republicans and Democrats, but nobody’s leading on the president’s side and on our side we felt we needed to put this forward to get the debate started, at the very least,” the freshman Senator explained at a Capitol Hill press conference this afternoon.

The proposal also calls for the repeal of “Obamacare,” but leaves entitlements untouched.

“There’s an argument for every federal program up here… Nobody’s coming up here asking me for money that’s not for a good reason. But the alternative is that we get into a point of financial disaster where nobody gets any money,” he said.

Paul’s proposal gained support from freshman Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, who today challenged anyone who opposes the plan to come up with a better option.

“There may be some in this town who will disagree with the manner in which we’re proposing moving toward a balanced budget over a five year period. That’s fine, that’s understandable, that’s what this town is about... but to those who may disagree with it, to those who might want to attack it. I would ask that they come up with their own five year plan,” he said at the press conference.

[squarepusher]

+rep

Rachel Maddow will surely try to tear this to pieces

[amisspelledword]

+rep

Rachel Maddow will surely try to tear this to pieces

do any non-libs tolerate her show?

[Brett85]

Does this new budget eliminate foreign aid as well?

[MRoCkEd]

Some highlights http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41195
http://news.morningstar.com/all/busi...dget-plan.aspx

[anaconda]

Doubtful, if DeMint signed on...


Unfortunately, this bill barely touches the DOD.




From : http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41195

But I thought foreign aid elimination was a hallmark of Rand's proposals?

[PermanentSleep]

Does this new budget eliminate foreign aid as well?

Some highlights of Senator Rand Paul’s plan are:

* Saves nearly $4 trillion over 5 years
* Reduces military funding by 6 percent
* Eliminates foreign aid
* Repeals ObamaCare tax hikes
* Restructures government to eliminate four unconstitutional or unneeded departments
* Preserves current Medicare and Social Security benefits while requiring implementation of comprehensive entitlement reform by 2016.

http://news.morningstar.com/all/busi...dget-plan.aspx

^^Jesse Benton press release

[low preference guy]

..

[ifthenwouldi]

Reduces military funding by 6 percent

Not good enough, but no one else would vote for anything more than that.

[Brett85]

Cool. Mike Lee and Jim Demint went along with ending all foreign aid.

[Guitarzan]

Demint signed on, but said he didn't agree with everything in it.

[PermanentSleep]

^^What Guitarzan said

Cool. Mike Lee and Jim Demint went along with ending all foreign aid.

I'm not entirely sure about this. In the video Demint says, paraphrasing, while I may not agree to everything in this budget, etc.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Weak, the 6% cut is for FY2012 only.

[Brett85]

Weak, the 6% cut is for FY2012 only.

Rand couldn't get other Republicans to go along with his spending cuts if he included huge cuts to military spending.

[Brett85]

Demint signed on, but said he didn't agree with everything in it.

True, but he would still vote for a budget that eliminates all foreign aid.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand couldn't get other Republicans to go along with his spending cuts if he included huge cuts to military spending.

He's made various proposals to try to see where people would meet him on other budget plans; nothing is stopping him from proposing such a deal independent of this plan.

[sailingaway]

He's made various proposals to try to see where people would meet him on other budget plans; nothing is stopping him from proposing such a deal independent of this plan.

I'm sure he will. But he is trying to get support for a proposal in time to force it in the debt ceiling discussions next month. He said that ALREADY about the biggest problem people have with it (besides cutting aid to Israel along with other aid) is cutting the military, so he scaled back but kept some 'easy cuts' in as a precedent so people will find out their fingers won't fall off if they cut funds to the military.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm sure he will. But he is trying to get support for a proposal in time to force it in the debt ceiling discussions next month. He said that ALREADY about the biggest problem people have with it (besides cutting aid to Israel along with other aid) is cutting the military, so he scaled back but kept some 'easy cuts' in as a precedent so people will find out their fingers won't fall off if they cut funds to the military.

I'm hoping that's the case, but his rhetoric still hasn't changed much from the campaign. He isn't talking like the Rand we got to know in 2007/08 while campaigning for Ron.

[sailingaway]

I'm hoping that's the case, but his rhetoric still hasn't changed much from the campaign. He isn't talking like the Rand we got to know in 2007/08 while campaigning for Ron.

That is because if he spoke that way people wouldn't work with him and he is trying to get stuff done. He says things in a very mild way, and puts out programs that shame everyone else.....noting all the while how 'moderate' they are.

[low preference guy]

I'm hoping that's the case, but his rhetoric still hasn't changed much from the campaign. He isn't talking like the Rand we got to know in 2007/08 while campaigning for Ron.

*snif*

[Feeding the Abscess]

That is because if he spoke that way people wouldn't work with him and he is trying to get stuff done. He says things in a very mild way, and puts out programs that shame everyone else.....noting all the while how 'moderate' they are.

I know, I get the strategy. I just don't like it. I keep my criticisms of the strategy here, I'm the resident Randbot everywhere else.

For me, it's like choosing hamburgers over steak, or pop metal over the real deal.

[sailingaway]

I have an ick factor too, I consider it a shade of pandering. It is slight enough it wouldn't have been noticable to me before I found out Ron existed, though. But now it is noticable. But a lot of people like it..

On military cuts, going forward, consider this comment on Reason's write up of his plan:

And to all those who say, "(X) is an insignificant fraction of the budget; cutting it is meaningless symbolism and/or petty vindictiveness!"

I say again:

Cut it; chop chop.
And when the sky does not fall, when anarchy, chaos and cannibalism do not seize the land, we can come out of our bunkers and cut some more.

[anaconda]

"Saving $4 trillion over 5 years doesn't balance the budget, unless I'm doing the math wrong...

Update: Okay I think I get it..so that would be a $500 billion surplus by the end of year 5? i.e. current deficit of $1.5 trillion...

[sailingaway]

"Saving $4 trillion over 5 years doesn't balance the budget, unless I'm doing the math wrong...

Update: Okay I think I get it..so that would be a $500 billion surplus by the end of year 5? i.e. current deficit of $1.5 trillion...

They said $19 billion in year five as surplus. It must not be a direct line cut across the years, somehow.

I have the full text on another thread as a pdf.

[Brett85]

I have an ick factor too, I consider it a shade of pandering. It is slight enough it wouldn't have been noticable to me before I found out Ron existed, though. But now it is noticable. But a lot of people like it..

On military cuts, going forward, consider this comment on Reason's write up of his plan:

People do need to realize that defense spending is something that's actually authorized by the Constitution. What we need to cut and eventually eliminate is the third of the Pentagon's budget that contains all of our foreign policy spending. There's no reason to cut legitimate defense spending. There's every reason to begin rolling back the empire.

[Bern]

It's a start and kudos to Rand for taking control of the debate.

[erowe1]

Rand couldn't get other Republicans to go along with his spending cuts if he included huge cuts to military spending.

I'm glad he's going this route. The truth is, most Republicans won't agree with it even with very small military cuts. And most wouldn't agree with it even if it included increases in military spending, because they don't agree with the goal itself.

But this way he gets to call their bluff. He puts in front of them a budget plan with very modest military cuts, challenges them to do better, and now when the bulk of them back away from it they won't be able to use defense as their excuse.

[mello]

Has there been any talk about this on any MSM shows?
It seems kinda quiet.

[sailingaway]

Has there been any talk about this on any MSM shows?
It seems kinda quiet.

It is DEAD quiet. Mind you they have Libya and Japan to talk about. However, this is very little coverage, indeed.

Rand will be on Fox News Sunday, on Sunday.

[LibertyEagle]

That is because if he spoke that way people wouldn't work with him and he is trying to get stuff done. He says things in a very mild way, and puts out programs that shame everyone else.....noting all the while how 'moderate' they are.

+1