Rand Paul cuts the feds a giant check, literally

posted at 3:21 pm on February 21, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

He did this last year too, actually, and so what if it’s a politically expedient and less-than-a-drop-in-the-bucket gesture? It’s about leaving no stone unturned in the quest for a more fiscally prudent bureaucracy, and I am one hundred percent for it. Via CNN:

Sen. Rand Paul cut another six-figure check to the United States Treasury Wednesday, taking the money he said he didn’t need from his office’s budget to make a tiny dent in the nation’s massive federal debt.

“We watch every purchase,” Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, said at an event next to an oversized check for $600,000. “We watch what computers we buy, what paper we buy, the ink cartridges. We treat the money like it’s our money, or your money, and we look at every expenditure.”

The $600,000 reflects more than 20% of Paul’s annual office budget, according to a press release.

Paul’s office returned half a million dollars about this time last year, adding up to a grand total of over a million dollars in savings in just his two years in the Senate. Again, taking the time to bother with even just the itty bitty chunk of the federal budget allotted to you may be a small thing, but it’s a good one. What if all Congresspeople, administrators, officials, agencies, bureaus, and departments were this frugal, instead of operating under the current use-it-or-lose-it mentality? It can be done, and that could very quickly amount to billions of dollars in government savings. It isn’t entitlement reform, but it ain’t nothin,’ either.

Federal entities have pretty much zero incentive to save money, since the faceless, ‘endless’ supply of taxpayer dollars provides for their budget — but what if we could shift the federal government toward a more business-model, free-market based structure? Sen. Paul already has one such idea on the books — giving bonuses to federal employees who find potential for savings in their departments — and it could be a great way to get that slow-moving, big-spending bureaucracy off of its entitled collective backside and actually encourage innovation and efficiency. More, please.

Mixing up the chemical makeup of the federal bureaucracy may very well be a long shot, but it’s a longer shot still if nobody bothers to even suggest it.

Fiscal conservatism, for the win.

WDRB 41 Louisville – News, Weather, Sports Community


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

DIBS!
 
- President Barack H. Obama

rogerb on February 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Can’t wait for the leftist fools to deride this.

They consider the taxpayers to be fat sows from which they can suckle.

Schadenfreude on February 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM

What should be S.O.P. for the entire Senate is looked at as political theater by roughly 97% of Senators.

Sad. Props to Rand Paul though.

SAMinVA on February 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM

WOW, with Rand Paul doing all that and how good “immigration reform” and more along with faster green cards and paths to citizenship, no telling how much good the House and Senate will end up doing for U.S..

More citizens, more doing good by the two party evil money cult.

Good begets good.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

$600K is 20% of his office expense budget? That means his office budget is: $3,000,000?!? x 100 Senators equals $300 MILLION DOLLARS?

House of Representatives is FOUR TIMES that much?? A BILLION dollars or more?? FOR EXPENSES??

originalpechanga on February 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Rand Paul Party NOW !!!

Mr. Arrogant on February 21, 2013 at 3:29 PM

The $600,000 reflects more than 20% of Paul’s annual office budget, according to a press release.

So he has an overall budget of nearly $3 million. Take that times 535 of these Congresscritters comes to $1.6 billion dollars for these morons’ staffs/supplies. Yikes!!

Bitter Clinger on February 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Just four mics on that podium. (I suppose they could be using a mult-box, though.)

Guess he should have invited Kim Kardashian. Then the media would notice.

CurtZHP on February 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM

originalpechanga on February 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Beat me to it!!

Bitter Clinger on February 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Blue Buddha!!!

Bmore on February 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM

$600K is 20% of his office expense budget? That means his office budget is: $3,000,000?!? x 100 Senators equals $300 MILLION DOLLARS?
 
House of Representatives is FOUR TIMES that much?? A BILLION dollars or more?? FOR EXPENSES??
 
originalpechanga on February 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM

 
The last I checked (around ’08) the federal government cost the equivalent of crashing an Acura TL every second.

rogerb on February 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

rogerb on February 21, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Lol! ; )

Bmore on February 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

The $600,000 reflects more than 20% of Paul’s annual office budget, according to a press release.

More than $2,000,000 still seems like a ridiculous amount to spend on an office.

Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Maybe minute now that I think about it. I’ll have to try and find those numbers.
 
The mind reels at the enormity. Thank goodness none of it is waste.

rogerb on February 21, 2013 at 3:34 PM

This man is dangerous!
How dare he not spend all of the money that Sir Harry has allocated to him.
This perfidy will not be allowed.

Another Drew on February 21, 2013 at 3:36 PM

The only way a Democrat would do this is if their son/daughter ran a giant check printing business and the giant check itself cost $250,000 to print.

weaselyone on February 21, 2013 at 3:37 PM

More than $2,000,000 still seems like a ridiculous amount to spend on an office.

Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Well it’s OFFICE(S)…the DC Office, and probably at least 2 Kentucky Offices, each one staffed….plus lights, ‘phone, not to mention pay and benefits.

So, $2 Million isn’t a “riduculous” amount.

JFKY on February 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Rand’s my man.

MelonCollie on February 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM

He must shop at Staples.

can_con on February 21, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I believe that Senatorial Office-Budgets are scaled on the population of the State being represented.
More constituents, the need for more aides, and stamps, etc.
A Senator from CA will have a much larger budget than does a Senator from AK – though why anyone would want to hear from any of those four is beyond me.

Another Drew on February 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM

So, $2 Million isn’t a “riduculous” amount.

JFKY on February 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Yeah. It really is.

Shump on February 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Hee that reminds me of the Publishers’ Clearinghouse Sweepstakes.

Illinidiva on February 21, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Unfortunately, Michelle will find a way to spend that money on her next vacation.

It’s GOOD to be the QUEEN!

GarandFan on February 21, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Wonder how many d’s will do the same? Me thinks, NONE?
L

letget on February 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM

We need at least a dozen more of him. Clone Rand Paul now!

ElectricPhase on February 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

I believe that Senatorial Office-Budgets are scaled on the population of the State being represented.
More constituents, the need for more aides, and stamps, etc.
A Senator from CA will have a much larger budget than does a Senator from AK – though why anyone would want to hear from any of those four is beyond me.

Another Drew on February 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM

So if Rand was serving from California he would have an even bigger refund check to the government.

weaselyone on February 21, 2013 at 3:46 PM

I remember when I was in the Air Force. Near the end of every fiscal year we were ordered to spend like crazy because if we didn’t next year’s supply budget would be cut. The base even bought a printing press that was never even uncrated to use up funds. The opposite of Rand Paul.

bw222 on February 21, 2013 at 3:47 PM

JFKY on February 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM

$2 million is ridiculous.

It is mindboggling that each senator has an estimated 34 staff members (circa 2000 numbers).

No wonder legislation runs thousands of pages.

can_con on February 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM

He should just put the money into a special account to paid back to the taxpayers of KY. Sending it back to the US Treasury only assures it will be wasted on something else.

CurtZHP on February 21, 2013 at 3:50 PM

I’ve seen squadron commanders get below average fitreps for NOT flying their alloted hours or dropping their alloted ordnance eventhough they had already met every training and readiness requirement. They were told to basically waste money so they would receive the same funding next year. If they did so they were praised for “mission accomplishment.”

Government actually has an inherent interest to spend more to make it seam that every dollar is vital. Sad.

Meat Fighter on February 21, 2013 at 3:53 PM

So, $2 Million isn’t a “riduculous” amount.
JFKY on February 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Not questioning your statement as I can see how it adds up but just questioning why it’s needed. To see some of these jackwagons on the TV, you would think half of them have nobody helping them with research.

I say we clone 100 canopfors and send them each one to insure they at least know what the hell they are talking about. Most of the time they are just bulchitting through any number of subjects with the same talking points as everyone else.

can_con on February 21, 2013 at 3:55 PM

It is mindboggling that each senator has an estimated 34 staff members (circa 2000 numbers).

No wonder legislation runs thousands of pages.

I doubt that number means EACH Senator has 34 staff….that probably encompasses the Seante Doorman and the Committee staff and the clerical staff as well.

JFKY on February 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Too bad other federal agencies don’t follow suit. There’s this pervasive attitude of “if you don’t use it you lose it”. The result is a frenzy of civil servant travel spending and various types of unnecessary procurements in order to use up yearly fund allotments. Also if you don’t spend the funds you asked for, then you can’t justify asking for the same amount of funds the following year. So the way the system’s set up, there’s very little incentive to save money.

Red Creek on February 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Amid all the sequester histrionics, I can’t wait to this as the lede story on all the major news outle….

Oh. Wait.

locomotivebreath1901 on February 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Too bad other federal agencies don’t follow suit. There’s this pervasive attitude of “if you don’t use it you lose it”. The result is a frenzy of civil servant travel spending and various types of unnecessary procurements in order to use up yearly fund allotments. Also if you don’t spend the funds you asked for, then you can’t justify asking for the same amount of funds the following year. So the way the system’s set up, there’s very little incentive to save money.

Red Creek on February 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM

It’s as good a reason as any for the IRS to have a television studio paid for by the taxpayers.

totherightofthem on February 21, 2013 at 4:03 PM

JFKY on February 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Well I searched it out and thats what i found. Average so yes, some may have fewer. And no, committee staff are not all paid for by senators budgets. (Senate ethics/intelligence committees) have their own FT staff.

can_con on February 21, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Too bad other federal agencies don’t follow suit. There’s this pervasive attitude of “if you don’t use it you lose it”. The result is a frenzy of civil servant travel spending and various types of unnecessary procurements in order to use up yearly fund allotments. Also if you don’t spend the funds you asked for, then you can’t justify asking for the same amount of funds the following year. So the way the system’s set up, there’s very little incentive to save money.

Red Creek on February 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM

This is why across the board cuts are the only feasible means to any real decrease in spending.

Departments don’t know what they can live without until they are required to do so. In other words: They don’t know, until they know, you know.

weaselyone on February 21, 2013 at 4:03 PM

This is the type of individual we need leading our country. He understands that the money belongs to the people.

Panther on February 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Too bad other federal agencies don’t follow suit. There’s this pervasive attitude of “if you don’t use it you lose it”. The result is a frenzy of civil servant travel spending and various types of unnecessary procurements in order to use up yearly fund allotments. Also if you don’t spend the funds you asked for, then you can’t justify asking for the same amount of funds the following year. So the way the system’s set up, there’s very little incentive to save money.

Red Creek on February 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM

THIS. As a former City ad Co. govt empl, I can verify…used to shrink in my chair each time I heard, usually about October in a Dec. fiscal year end….

hillsoftx on February 21, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Departments don’t know what they can live without until they are required to do so. In other words: They don’t know, until they know, you know.
weaselyone on February 21, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Is that you Rummy?

What government spends really falls into the last bucket being the unknown things that you don’t know.

can_con on February 21, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Has Rubio done this? Ryan? McCain? Any other Republican?

I’m not saying they don’t in the end not spend it all, but if they don’t spend it all they ought to make known like this. This is just another way to box Dems in as spendaholics.

If they have some problems with cost cutting, though, it ought to be a mark against them when they want ask to be considered for higher office, or even re-elected for that matter.

Dusty on February 21, 2013 at 4:08 PM

I want to know what the Senators who don’t return some of their budget spend it on. Do they just have newer office furniture? or are they giving this money to their cronies?

rndmusrnm on February 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM

So, $2 Million isn’t a “riduculous” amount.

JFKY on February 21, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Yes it is.

Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Has Rubio done this? Ryan? McCain? Any other Republican?

Dusty on February 21, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Others have done this. Some Republicans, some democrats.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell returned more than $1 million this past year, according to spokesman Robert Steurer, who added the Republican has returned taxpayer funds every year he’s been in office.

According to a recent article by Politico, which covers Washington politics, other senators have returned budgeted office operating funds to the Treasury. In 2011, the last year for which figures are available, Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala., were among those returning money, along with Paul.

Other senators who have returned funds in recent years, Politico said, were Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii; Jim Risch, R-Idaho; Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. Some of those senators returned more than 20 percent of their office budget.

Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Rand Paul’s office budget is $3.5 million. I don’t know how they figure $600,000 is more than 20% of that.

Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 4:15 PM

It’s a great move but if he really wanted to piss off the liberals it would be better if he cut the check to the DC Opportunity Scholarship fund.

monalisa on February 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Go Paul! Though I’m pretty sure it cost the government $60 to print that check.

schmitty on February 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Good on you, Rand.

And I doubt House office budgets are the same level and most likely individual offices get more or less, period.

But yeah, still a lot of money.

Genuine on February 21, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Has Rubio done this? Ryan? McCain? Any other Republican?

Dusty on February 21, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Others have done this. Some Republicans, some democrats.

Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM

But those aren’t running for president and staging photo ops.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Shouldn’t he be remitting that in gold coins? I’m just sayin’….

can_con on February 21, 2013 at 4:29 PM

[Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM]

Thanks. I really should read all the stories I comment on, but I sometimes let the constant linking here to major liberal media that I skip doing it.

Dusty on February 21, 2013 at 4:29 PM

This would be great if all government offices did this, the problem is we are always told to spend all your money or you won’t get as much next year. That is why we have in the government what is called end of year spending where you go out and spend every cent left in your budget.

Sven on February 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Dare I utter the words “Karl Rove was right”? Haha. We DO need more Rand Paul’s. My bet is Christine O’Donnell would have used the extra to continue paying off her personal debts once the left over campaign money ran out. ;)

Genuine on February 21, 2013 at 4:32 PM

But those aren’t running for president and staging photo ops.

[ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM]

LOL … thanks for that. I’d forgotten why I wrote my comment. Sometimes I think I’m getting Alzheimers.

And sometimes I forget I’m thinking I’m getting Alsheimers.

Dusty on February 21, 2013 at 4:34 PM

This would be great if all government offices did this, the problem is we are always told to spend all your money or you won’t get as much next year. That is why we have in the government what is called end of year spending where you go out and spend every cent left in your budget.
Sven on February 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM

And an interesting and pertinent question to ask, that honestly don’t know the answer to, is who’s idea was that rule in the first place? Seems pretty plausible it came from “cut spending!!!”-ers. But you know what they say about I intended consequences. Sometimes I good and needed principle can be applied in a haphazard hatchet of a way.

Would you endorse lifting that rule?

:)

Genuine on February 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM

*I honestly don’t know

And

*Unintended consequences.

In case the grammar police are out on the beat today. iPhone autocorrect and a lack of an I. Pre-emptive mea culpa.

Genuine on February 21, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Others have done this. Some Republicans, some democrats.

Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 4:13 PM

got any names? links maybe

DanMan on February 21, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Thank you Rand Paul. I don’t care what reasons you have, it doesn’t matter. The fact you’re returning the people’s money, no matter how small, back to the people makes you the #1 Senator on the Hill.

LORD, hereth my plea, make this man our President, just to watch Washington heads explode.

itsspideyman on February 21, 2013 at 4:45 PM

I like Rand Paul, more each day.

He thinks for himself. He doesn’t sound like campaign gurus wrote his latest comments.

PattyJ on February 21, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Troll alert

Here’s Ronnie’s source. Note he mentions Boxer? Boxer gets a couple of mentions and one is for consistenly returning the least amount (below 1%). But hey, she gets mention with Paul’s 17% as quoted in the article (note Ronnie even questions the math…Rand Paul’s office budget is $3.5 million. I don’t know how they figure $600,000 is more than 20% of that.

Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 4:15 PM

pssst, hey Ronnie, they don’t – $600,000/$3,500,000 x 100 = 17.14%.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72184.html

DanMan on February 21, 2013 at 5:05 PM

pssst, hey Ronnie, they don’t

DanMan on February 21, 2013 at 5:05 PM

pssst, read the top of this page

Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 5:42 PM

pssst, hey Ronnie, they don’t

DanMan on February 21, 2013 at 5:05 PM

pssst, read the top of this page

Ronnie on February 21, 2013 at 5:42 PM

LOL, at least you didn’t get banned for posting that. I just got booted off of Right Scoop for pointing out that Paul is unique only in trumpeting his give-back. Talk about an echo chamber over there.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Jesse Jackson JR. is thinking: “Sheeeet dog, what I could buyin’ wif dat money.”

LizardLips on February 21, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Sooooo, what happens to the other money that these jackholes get that doesn’t get spent?!?!??!

Is this how politicians rich? (not counting Heinz money).

NickelAndDime on February 21, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Baseline budgeting was one of the things I loathed during my time in the military. The end of the fiscal year was a giant pork fest if there was any money “leftover.” Hurry up, spend it or our budget will be cut next year! Which office needs a flat screen tv, and who wants to go TDY to Las Vegas?

nogooddeed on February 21, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Money not spent by government but extracted from taxpayers is NOT government savings.

Government savings is money never extracted from taxpayers.

can_con on February 21, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Amid all the sequester histrionics, I can’t wait to this as the lede story on all the major news outle….

Oh. Wait.

locomotivebreath1901 on February 21, 2013 at 4:02 PM

I applaud your interest in journalistic jargon. I hope it’s paired with an interest in actual journalism.

FYI, you’re misusing “lede.” It is typically a print-related term designating the opening or establishing facts in an article. It does not refer to an full article.

“Lede” may be used to refer in a broadcast story since many TV news packages are read straight from print. The laziest broadcasters will simply crib a print lede and swap out a few words to personalize them.

Capitalist Hog on February 21, 2013 at 6:38 PM

yo Ronnie, I chased your mention to get to your abreviated version of what was written at Politico. I don’t give Politico much cred but you are the one that equivicated Boxer’s consistent less that 1% (which they noted) to Paul’s 17%. I bet Rand Paul in two years has given back more than Babs in her career…but they’re all the same right Ronnie?

DanMan on February 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM

yo Ronnie, I chased your mention to get to your abreviated version of what was written at Politico. I don’t give Politico much cred but you are the one that equivicated Boxer’s consistent less that 1% (which they noted) to Paul’s 17%. I bet Rand Paul in two years has given back more than Babs in her career…but they’re all the same right Ronnie?

DanMan on February 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM

The point is that even Boxer did give some money back. This chart will show that Rand Paul is by no means the first Senator to give back money to the Treasury. He’s just probably the first to call a news conference to announce the fact, complete with huge-check prop.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 6:45 PM

I’m glad Rand Paul did this and went before the cameras also. I’m sure most taxpayers were not aware of it, nor aware he did this last year.

It brings to the attention of the voter that if he can save this much, other members of Congress should be doing the same.

Although I’m not in KY, I receive weekly updates from him and I can tell you he is a hard worker.

Do I get updates from my own House member or Senator? LOL

bluefox on February 21, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Although I’m not in KY, I receive weekly updates from him and I can tell you he is a hard worker.

Do I get updates from my own House member or Senator? LOL

bluefox on February 21, 2013 at 6:49 PM

You probably would if they were running for president.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 6:51 PM

It brings to the attention of the voter that if he can save this much, other members of Congress should be doing the same.

bluefox on February 21, 2013 at 6:49 PM

A lot of them ARE, by the way. Sheesh.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 6:55 PM

You probably would if they were running for president.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Beats having nothing in your resume besides being a first year junior Senator.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM

You probably would if they were running for president.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Beats having nothing in your resume besides being a first year junior Senator.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Well, politically I guess being a second-year going on third-year junior senator is a little better. The thing is Paul’s grandstanding again. If people dig it, that’s righteous, man! Or something.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 7:20 PM

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 7:20 PM

You don’t think the point needs to be made? And made in such a way that low-info voters can get it?

Street theater, perhaps, but why spit on him?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 7:22 PM

You don’t think the point needs to be made? And made in such a way that low-info voters can get it?

Street theater, perhaps, but why spit on him?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 7:22 PM

I’m not spitting on him. I’m not going to be high-fiving over it as if Rand Paul is the first to ever give back part of his allotment, either. It’s nothing either way, other than a Rand Paul campaign event.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM

I’m liking Rand more and more for 2016.

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 7:28 PM

. It’s nothing either way, other than a Rand Paul campaign event.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM

He seems to be connecting with the people he wants to connect with.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 7:37 PM

LOL, at least you didn’t get banned for posting that. I just got booted off of Right Scoop for pointing out that Paul is unique only in trumpeting his give-back. Talk about an echo chamber over there.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM

LOL!!!!

Here’s the link for anyone who wants to check it out:

http://www.therightscoop.com/sen-rand-paul-returning-600k-to-treasury-from-capitol-hill-office-budget/#disqus_thread

NOTE: ddrintn is “daeghrefn” on Rightscoop… actually I should say he WAS, not IS!!

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Hey ddrintn/daeghrefn:

I posted a reply to you on Rightscoop about 20 min ago. However since you were banned for constantly whining about Rand Paul with the same talking points you probably didn’t see it:

What other potential Potus candidate is proposing serious reforms like Paul? Reforms such as cutting the corporate income tax in half and establishing a 17% flat tax? Proposing plans to balance the budget in 5 years?

Who else is that aggressive? All I see from Rubio and many others is the same old generate GOP establishment talking points.

So why do you hate everyone, including some of the decent politicians who are actually trying to fix the mess?

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 7:44 PM

If all 100 Senators did this, saved $600k each year, that’s $60 Million each year that could be saved. That’s a lot of dough.

The Spear on February 21, 2013 at 7:50 PM

…I like Rand Paul!
…I am also a Mark Levin fan…I love Sarah Palin…and I liked Mitt Romney…so come get me!
(:->)

KOOLAID2 on February 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM

…I like Rand Paul!
…I am also a Mark Levin fan…I love Sarah Palin…and I liked Mitt Romney…so come get me!
(:->)

KOOLAID2 on February 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM

LOL

You wouldn’t be making fun of me now would you? Because that sounds alot like me…..

Except that Romney was growing on me towards the end of the campaign but he really turned me off when he refused to fight, didn’t even mention Benghazi or Fast and Furious.

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM

…I think I’m your sockpuppet!…exactly how I felt!

KOOLAID2 on February 21, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Hey ddrintn/daeghrefn:

I posted a reply to you on Rightscoop about 20 min ago. However since you were banned for constantly whining about Rand Paul with the same talking points you probably didn’t see it:

What other potential Potus candidate is proposing serious reforms like Paul? Reforms such as cutting the corporate income tax in half and establishing a 17% flat tax? Proposing plans to balance the budget in 5 years?

Who else is that aggressive? All I see from Rubio and many others is the same old generate GOP establishment talking points.

So why do you hate everyone, including some of the decent politicians who are actually trying to fix the mess?

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Yeah, that is/was me!!!! And I wasn’t whining at all. I merely wasn’t one of the little cadre of trained seals flapping and barking to the moderator’s satisfaction. I just pointed out that Rand Paul is hardly the first ever to give part of his allotment back, and that the guy is grandstanding. I invite anyone to take a look at that thread there and see where I was “whining”.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:13 PM

LOL!!!!

Here’s the link for anyone who wants to check it out:

http://www.therightscoop.com/sen-rand-paul-returning-600k-to-treasury-from-capitol-hill-office-budget/#disqus_thread

NOTE: ddrintn is “daeghrefn” on Rightscoop… actually I should say he WAS, not IS!!

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Yep.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:14 PM

What other potential Potus candidate is proposing serious reforms like Paul? Reforms such as cutting the corporate income tax in half and establishing a 17% flat tax? Proposing plans to balance the budget in 5 years?

Come on. They’ll ALL be proposing most of that come late 2015, except the flat tax which will go nowhere.

Who else is that aggressive? All I see from Rubio and many others is the same old generate GOP establishment talking points.

Rubio and Paul aren’t really all THAT different; it’s just that Rubio has the GOPe Seal of Approval right now and Paul doesn’t.

So why do you hate everyone, including some of the decent politicians who are actually trying to fix the mess?

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 7:44 PM

I don’t hate everyone. I’d love to see Scott Walker or Mike Pence run.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:17 PM

He seems to be connecting with the people he wants to connect with.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Well, we’ll see. I think ultimately he’ll flame out in a vanity run a la Bachmann.

Except that Romney was growing on me towards the end of the campaign but he really turned me off when he refused to fight, didn’t even mention Benghazi or Fast and Furious.

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Riiiiiight…and when we told you he’d refuse to fight, we were downright un-American trolls.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Yeah, that is/was me!!!! And I wasn’t whining at all. I merely wasn’t one of the little cadre of trained seals flapping and barking to the moderator’s satisfaction. I just pointed out that Rand Paul is hardly the first ever to give part of his allotment back, and that the guy is grandstanding. I invite anyone to take a look at that thread there and see where I was “whining”.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Unfortunately I wasted my time reading your tirades over there. Dude you did nothing but troll throughout the entire thread. I agree that Paul is grandstanding to an extend but he’s still doing something that very few others do. You made your point once no need to constantly say it every 5 minutes to every poster in the thread.

Rightscoop is now a better place without you polluting their threads.

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Many Republican members of Congress returned a larger percentage (than Rand Paul) of their available budget to the Treasury.

edgehead on February 21, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Unfortunately I wasted my time reading your tirades over there. Dude you did nothing but troll throughout the entire thread. I agree that Paul is grandstanding to an extend but he’s still doing something that very few others do. You made your point once no need to constantly say it every 5 minutes to every poster in the thread.

I made my point once and then replied to a bunch of questions and demands for links. Anyone can go see the thread.

Rightscoop is now a better place without you polluting their threads.

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Sounds like a bunch of DKos moonbats on the other side of the spectrum. If you can’t argue with ‘em, ban ‘em. Anyway, pfffft. Seems that the site consists of some moderators and about 20 trained seals anyway. I’ve been kicked out of much better places.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Many Republican members of Congress returned a larger percentage (than Rand Paul) of their available budget to the Treasury.

edgehead on February 21, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Absolutely. Thank you.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Riiiiiight…and when we told you he’d refuse to fight, we were downright un-American trolls.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:19 PM

The thing you never got was that I and many other conservatives didn’t want Romney as the nominee. We fought hard against him in the primary. However we understood that Romney was still much better than OBama. That we didn’t any other choice at that point but to support Romney to try to defeat obama.

Very simple but you and others like you never got it. And your kind are a major factor why we’re stuck with obama for another 4 years. It just wasn’t worth it to you to lift a finger to stop obama because you weren’t happy with Romney.

Hope you enjoy having your guns taken away and being stuck with obamacare for life.

Hope it was worth it.

Thanks for nothing.

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Hope you enjoy having your guns taken away and being stuck with obamacare for life.

Hope it was worth it.

Thanks for nothing.

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 9:38 PM

I voted for Romney, Mittwit.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Sounds like a bunch of DKos moonbats on the other side of the spectrum. If you can’t argue with ‘em, ban ‘em. Anyway, pfffft. Seems that the site consists of some moderators and about 20 trained seals anyway. I’ve been kicked out of much better places.

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Sounds like someone crying over spilled milk to me.

As my three year old would ask of someone of your mentality, would you like me to call you a Wahhhhhhmbulance??

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Sounds like someone crying over spilled milk to me.

As my three year old would ask of someone of your mentality, would you like me to call you a Wahhhhhhmbulance??

LevinFan on February 21, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Who’s crying?

ddrintn on February 21, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Go Paul! Though I’m pretty sure it cost the government $60 to print that check.

schmitty on February 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM

LOL

At least 60 bucks!

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 21, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2