RandPaul2010.com: Senator Paul Introduces $500B in Spending Cuts

[luckydevil]

I have never understood the love affair with the Dept of Education considering the sub par results of the past generation.

It is a fedreal boondogle.

It's one those emotional issues. How can you be against funding for education? Why do you hate children? There isn't any correlation between spending on education and performance, yet people continue to push more for it ( and a bigger role for the federal gov). It's not working

[SkinsHokieFan]

How do you feel about eliminating HUD, Energy etc?

There are functions of HUD which can be consolidated with other departments

DOE has several areas which are critical, but other areas, such as energy star which have just been a complete waste. One thing people don't realize is DOE helps secure our nuclear materials, so obviously that needs to stay

I am no longer a person that wants outright elimination, but there are quite a few functions in these departments that are simply not needed and have turned into welfare for beltway contractors

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

There are functions of HUD which can be consolidated with other departments

DOE has several areas which are critical, but other areas, such as energy star which have just been a complete waste. One thing people don't realize is DOE helps secure our nuclear materials, so obviously that needs to stay

I am no longer a person that wants outright elimination, but there are quite a few functions in these departments that are simply not needed and have turned into welfare for beltway contractors

Your post is rational which is something I think the Pauls lack at times. :2cents:

[Larry]

Actually, there was an observation that came to me last night, about a trend I saw in the portion of his detailed proposal that I read.

I saw an awful lot of "let the states do it".

Now, in some cases, I can certainly see advantages to that. I like the idea of getting the Feds more out of Education, because, frankly, the states are already running education, and all that the Feds are doing is adding another layer of "management". (And taking money from blue states and sending it to red ones. Which I don't necessarily have a problem with.)

However, when we get to other things, like, to make something up, the EPA. (I don't remember whether he proposed getting rid of that or not.) In fact, let's make it hypothetical, and call it the Department of X, or DOX.

I think that a logical case can be made that simply cutting the DOX and waiting for the states to take over would actually have many bad consequences for our society and the economy.

I first assert that if the Feds eliminate $100B from DOX, and "let the states do it", then the states are going to have to spend $100B creating their own versions of the DOX.

Admittedly, that's a real ballpark estimate. For example, when the feds slash DOX, the states won't necessarily run right out and pick up the slack instantly. Some will immediately

start

working on taking up the slack. Some will wait a while, and see how many people complain. The cuts might be immediate. The state-level increases may take a few years to show up.

OTOH, anybody want to seriously try to argue that all of those states running around to attempt to create their own, seperate, DOXs, won't have huge transition and startup costs? It's certainly possible that in the short run, the states will have to spend

more

than what got cut.

(And it's possible that it will cost more in the long run, too. I'm well aware of the religious faith invested in the slogan that everything is better when done by somebody besides the Feds. But I'll point out that it's certainly possible that 50, seperate, DOxs might well wind up costing

more

than one big one.)

And then we have to factor in two other things:

The reason for this cut is (supposedly) to reduce the deficit. (At least that's the lie that everybody's repeating.) The only way to reduce the deficit by cutting federal spending and leaving the taxes where they are.

The states, however, don't have the option of saying "Well, the feds were paying for DOX by using deficit spending, therefore we will, too." The states have to actually come up with the money.

So, according to Larry, here's what happens then Senator Lardbutt proposes cutting $100B from DOX:

Feds stop spending $100B on DOX.

States start spending $100B on DOX.

Feds leave taxes where they are.

States raise taxes $100B.

Now, anybody want to seriously propose that when those four things happen, then we've made things better?

----------

Now, note: My scenario assumes that DOX is doing something that the people want done. If DOX is useless, then we can cut it, and the states won't bother to try to replace it.

I'm distinguishing things where his justification is "let the states do this" from "this is useless, get rid of it."

I assert that, if nothing else, education ought to be in the former category. (Although, the way one Political Party is turning being educated into a swear word, I wish I could be certain.)

[Burgold]

I really have no difficulty with a Senator introducing his wishlist. Put it out on the table and start the ball rolling. Sure, this isn't a serious proposal detailing how and why. This is his laundry list. If he were to take a hatchet who he thinks can be cut and where lies the waste.

In fact, it's better that this stuff is out in the open. Then honest people can start tearing it apart and adding their thoughts and by the end of the day come up with something. The only problem is finding honest people in Washington. Ever since Gibbs left there's a scarcity.

Come to think of it, at least Obama brought a Gibbs back to Washington. Amazing how many Republicans hate him even for that.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 01:57 PM ----------

The problem with let the states do it is most of them are broke too and it's really only passing the buck. It's not solving anything.

[Larry]

I really have no difficulty with a Senator introducing his wishlist

Agreed.

I'm wondering where all of the folks are getting this attitude that when a Congressman who runs on a platform of "I support X", introduces a bill that says "Let's do X", and people attack his integrity.

[Burgold]

Yeah, I actually respect Rand for it. Mind you, his wishlist and mine probably would look very different, but heck putting one out subjects one to a good amount of ridicule and probably very little praise. People generally love the idea of cuts... they just hate the reality of it.

For me, I love the idea of getting in better shape, but I don't enjoy going to the gym (I do it anyway, but I don't enjoy it dagnabbit)

[Larry]

For me, I love the idea of getting in better shape, but I don't enjoy going to the gym (I do it anyway, but I don't enjoy it dagnabbit)

Somebody on Facebook said he wanted to open a business called "Resolutions".

First two weeks of the year, it's a health club.

Rest of the year, it's a bar.

[Burgold]

Somebody on Facebook said he wanted to open a business called "Resolutions".

First two weeks of the year, it's a health club.

Rest of the year, it's a bar.

That's brilliant!

[Riggo-toni]

Small cuts to defense spending and nothing with social security? Yeah but the National Science Foundation is the key to balancing the budget. And who cares about the Department of Education? It's not like our children need to be intelligent, they just need to open mom and pop stores.

So, our children were all idiots prior to Jimmy Carter creating a new bureaucracy as payback to the teacher's union for supporting him? I agree there should be more long-term cuts to defense programs, and serious entitlement reform, but Carter's creations of Dept. of Ed and the Dept. of Energy are probably the two most bloated, ineffective bureacracies in gov't and should both be axed. And W. should be vilified for pouring record amounts into the Dept. of Ed at a time when the previous CBO audit showed it had over a billion dollars in funds it couldn't even account for.

I don't know that I agree with cutting the Natl Science Foundation...honestly, I'm not too familiar with it. And I do think the US gov't should invest heavily in research for alternative fuels.

Rand Paul is talking about bringing spending levels back to what they were just 2 years ago...and people are calling this extreme? Really?????

[Prosperity]

How is going back to the spending levels of just 2 years ago "too fast"?

cause we increased our spending by a **** ton in 2 years?

[Larry]

Observing how many people can look at the proposed elimination of the Dept of Ed and repeat the sound bite of "to the levels they were two years ago".

[SnyderShrugged]

Observing how many people can look at the proposed elimination of the Dept of Ed and repeat the sound bite of "to the levels they were two years ago".

observing that the proposal equals the spending levels of two years ago.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 04:12 PM ----------

cause we increased our spending by a **** ton in 2 years?

so it can only go up rapidly yet its a disaster to come down as rapid?

[AsburySkinsFan]

observing that the proposal equals the spending levels of two years ago.

Total spending to the point it was at 2 years ago, but he's slashing entire departments not just reducing the spending in those departments, that's a hack and slash approach, that's what is ad hoc. He knows it's going no where and he doesn't care which means that all he's doing is grandstanding, it's not an actual piece of valid legislation it's a sermon.

[SnyderShrugged]

Total spending to the point it was at 2 years ago, but he's slashing entire departments not just reducing the spending in those departments, that's a hack and slash approach, that's what is ad hoc. He knows it's going no where and he doesn't care which means that all he's doing is grandstanding, it's not an actual piece of valid legislation it's a sermon.

again, please put forth your evidence that he is just grandstanding and not serious about his proposal

[Prosperity]

observing that the proposal equals the spending levels of two years ago.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 04:12 PM ----------

so it can only go up rapidly yet its a disaster to come down as rapid?

so 2 disasters > 1 disaster?

why not go for the hat trick

[SnyderShrugged]

so 2 disasters > 1 disaster?

why not go for the hat trick

Where is the second disaster? You arent seriously inferring that correcting the an initial disaster creates a second one are you?

I am 100% certain that we survived just fine at the 2008 spending levels. It's ridiculous to believe otherwise.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 05:28 PM ----------

Rand Paul interview w/ Cavuto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBcVEAdFmjY&feature=player_embedded

At the 2:20 mark he explains some more details about his approach to the Departments of Education and Energy.

Watch the whole thing though please, it will at least outline his position in his own words. That way, should you disagree with the plan, you can at least be honest about it.

[Prosperity]

all right he's a few bullet points

-the programs that increased spending from 2008 to present are not the same programs that are being reduced from 2011 levels (this is a pretty important point)

-there was a rapid increase in spending from 2008 to boost the economy

-a rapid decrease would only destabilize the economy, and it would lead to unemployment increasing for the next few years

-a rapid decrease is not the only way to go back to responsible spending, just as going anorexic is not the best way to fight obesity

[SnyderShrugged]

all right he's a few bullet points

-the programs that increased spending from 2008 to present are not the same programs that are being reduced from 2011 levels (this is a pretty important point)

Why is this such an important point in the larger scheme of the economy? The proposal is to reduce the debt. It does that, with a minimum of negative impact on key entitlements for the people who need them now.

-there was a rapid increase in spending from 2008 to boost the economy

And it failed in that and only served to make the problem larger, just as similar actions and a failure to correct the 2008 actions would continue to compound the problem.

-a rapid decrease would only destabilize the economy, and it would lead to unemployment increasing for the next few years

You have zero basis in fact that this would occur. The unemployment for some Federal employees would increase and the private sector would fill the void if those roles are effective and efficient anyway. If they are not effective and efficient, I am sure you would not propose maintaining them.

-a rapid decrease is not the only way to go back to responsible spending, just as going anorexic is not the best way to fight obesity

If cutting down 1/3 of the EXTRA pie that you ate over the past 2 years leads to anorexia, then I am way off in my medical and personal health knowledge.

[Prosperity]

it's an important point because it does nothing to address entitlements, it keeps the most wasteful money in place. Cutting entire departments will lead to huge unemployment problems because they employ many people and without funds they won't... seems intuitive. The private sector will fill the void in the long run...whenever that turns out to be, it certainly won't be overnight since we're already at 10%

The National Science Foundation? Really. We allow the increases in entitlements to remain but we cut down the NSF and entire other departments overnight. Not sold on this.

[SnyderShrugged]

it's an important point because it does nothing to address entitlements, it keeps the most wasteful money in place. Cutting entire departments will lead to huge unemployment problems because they employ many people and without funds they won't... seems intuitive. The private sector will fill the void in the long run...whenever that turns out to be, it certainly won't be overnight since we're already at 10%

The National Science Foundation? Really. We allow the increases in entitlements to remain but we cut down the NSF and entire other departments overnight. Not sold on this.

You believe this is the entirety of his spending cut proposals for the long term ?

This is the beginning, a beginning of moving toward fiscal sanity. Yes, I already addressed the unemployment issue in the post you quoted. Noone said that correcting this mess was going to be easy, but the simple fact remains that if left unaddressed we will see a much larger collapse of federal government and much greater federal job loss than this would even come close to.

The only reasonable way you could be against starting to make significant cuts now is if you are under the faulty assumption that a debt problem doesnt exist currently. (I know you and my friends here at the tailgate are not going to claim that silly stance though)

[Larry]

observing that the proposal equals the spending levels of two years ago.

Really? Two years ago the Dept of Ed didn't exist?

I could have sworn somebody said Carter created it.

so it can only go up rapidly yet its a disaster to come down as rapid?

Show me that the Dept of Ed went from zero to present levels in two years, and then ask that question.

It didn't go up that fast, and you know it.

[SnyderShrugged]

Really? Two years ago the Dept of Ed didn't exist?

I could have sworn somebody said Carter created it.

Show me that the Dept of Ed went from zero to present levels in two years, and then ask that question.

It didn't go up that fast, and you know it.

Read again please, hint: key word is spending

Tell me also, what is lost under his plan for the department of ed specifically that would lead to this so-called disaster.

[Larry]

Tell you what.

I hereby propose that we completely eliminate the Department of Defense, thus bringing government spending down to 2007 levels.

Please, tell me you object to this idea, so that I can pretend that you're opposed to reducing spending to 2007 levels.

[luckydevil]

Tell you what.

I hereby propose that we completely eliminate the Department of Defense, thus bringing government spending down to 2007 levels.

Please, tell me you object to this idea, so that I can pretend that you're opposed to reducing spending to 2007 levels.

I am down.

Just to add, the daily caller is reporting that Rand is going to propose a bill for social security reform in the next couple of weeks.