ABC
Rand Paul introduces five-year balanced budget plan
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.
According to Paul, a Tea Party conservative, the proposal will bring spending to the “historic average since World War II” in just one year. He further claims the budget achieves a $19 billion surplus by FY2016 and will bring all non-military discretionary spending back to FY2008 levels.
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
But but but…his dad’s a kook or something!
/
fossten on March 18, 2011 at 11:54 AM
Awesome. This is what real fiscal discipline looks like. And also what real public servants should be doing.
hawksruleva on March 18, 2011 at 11:54 AM
Go Rand Paul!
WesternActor on March 18, 2011 at 11:54 AM
But…but…but…daddy says we have to gut our military!
Rand is quickly becoming the enhanced Paul Ryan, with less TARP baggage.
MadisonConservative on March 18, 2011 at 11:55 AM
Sorry, but any budget that doesn’t address entitlements can’t be a full solution. Kudos to Paul for this, but the Dems will never agree.
KingGold on March 18, 2011 at 11:56 AM
Maybe his coalition can get together with Paul Ryan’s and propose something doable. The Paul Paul Plan!
PattyJ on March 18, 2011 at 11:58 AM
Rand’s BRILLIANT proposal dodges the “third rail” that is entitlements, thus preserving votes and insulating the GOP against media attack in that area.
Sorry, but there is no way out of this situation without a little politics.
fossten on March 18, 2011 at 11:59 AM
How can he leave entitlements “untouched” when he knows perfectly well he won’t get everything he wants in discretionary cuts?
There will have to be changes across the board, and probably even some tax increases – not because tax increases are desirable, but because they are all but unavoidable politically as part of any deal.
Seth Halpern on March 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM
Then we must organize around someone with the same fidelity to fiscal discipline, and in 19 months (the start of early voting) proceed to crush those Dems into a fine paste.
JohnGalt23 on March 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM
Cutting spending is just one way to lower our debt and is absolutely necessary.
Along with spending cuts we need regulation cuts.
Lowering corporate taxes and unleashing America’s industry will put us on track in short order.
esnap on March 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM
and…
At least Rand Paul is working.
Vince on March 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Ron is a kook — but there MAY be some hope for Rand.
stefanite on March 18, 2011 at 12:06 PM
Cut spending, eliminate useless agencies and regulations, end corporate taxation and corporate welfare, reform SS and Meidicare… and drill, drill drill!
Economic explosion will ensue.
mankai on March 18, 2011 at 12:07 PM
Get back to me in 20 years.
/Dingy Harry
mankai on March 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM
He’s the only real fiscal conservative in the Senate, it appears.
therightwinger on March 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM
second look at Rand Paul…..
Little Boomer on March 18, 2011 at 12:21 PM
That would, um, cast a pall over the Democrats.
itsnotaboutme on March 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM
I don’t think a free America will be able to service our national debt after adding trillions to it over the next 5 years. We need to balance the budget next year, maybe we have one more after that.
elfman on March 18, 2011 at 12:28 PM
The vast majority of Congressmen – Democrat and Republican alike will consider this plan “radical.”
“…Reverting government spending to 2008 levels. The Republic is doomed, DOOMED I say!”
I don’t get the part about leaving entitlements off the table. Taking care of poor people is the one area that was always the MOST idiotic to handle at the federal level – and that’s saying quite an awful lot. Even states and cities can’t deal with individual cases; the highest level this can possibly work is on the neighborhood level.
logis on March 18, 2011 at 12:30 PM
Democrats can’t run the usual “Republicans want to kill grandma and cut off food stamps!!!11!!11!!1!!!” argument, for one thing. Dr. Paul is showing America that there really is a ton of useless fluff in our federal budget. If Democrats want to lock arms and insist on no entitlement cuts, fine. Paul’s budget shows them that doing so means eliminating three agencies and cutting a lot of others to the bone.
rockmom on March 18, 2011 at 12:35 PM
I nominate this link for:
“Most vacuous and uninformative link of the day”
There is very little information at all, we are asked to trust ABC as a source, and there are no details or links to the actual plan Rand allegedly presented.
I hope the headline is accurate, but this whole item could be another media scam.
landlines on March 18, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Ditch the Commerce Dept. Right.
Let’s get rid of:
The Weather Service (and weather satellites)
The Census Bureau
Nautical Charting
Fisheries regulation
Controls on sensitive exports
Anti-dumping protections
Patents and Trademarks
Industrial standards
To name a few.
It’s great to want to cut “government” until you find out that not all of it is completely useless. Cut intelligently. Understand the consequences. Then cut.
flydiveski on March 18, 2011 at 12:45 PM
No, of course not. Democrats can only claim that “Republicans want to retard our children and poison our water” by cutting the Department of Education and EPA.
The Socialist agitprop machine is always going at full blast. All liberals can ever do is FOCUS their idiotic and insane vitriol on one or two issues at a time. If Republicans tried to cut NPR funding and nothing else, they would still get precisely the same ferocity of liberal media attacks as they would if they try to cut ALL unConstitutional federal programs at the same time.
There is no way we can stop the liberal process Bill Clinton deemed “the politics of personal destruction.” All we can do is dilute its effect. And the only way to do that is to advance on all fronts simultaneously.
The gordian knot of liberal entitlements was built one stitch at a time. It can only be undone in one fell swoop.
logis on March 18, 2011 at 12:47 PM
This is just the first of many. Anyone who isn’t taking this with a grain of salt will never have anything of value to say anyway.
Personally, I don’t see why more politicians don’t do what Sarah Palin has been doing. In this day and age it’s easy to post your UNFILTERED position in a place where everyone in the free world has easy access to it.
That way, ABC News can say whatever they Hell they want to say about you. And anybody capable of independent thought will just look up the other side of the story two seconds later.
logis on March 18, 2011 at 12:57 PM
The great line is challenging dissenter to come up with their own plan.
Put up or shut up…put your money where your mouth is…whatever quaint saying, it comes down to…come up with a better plan and we will accept that, otherwise, go to the back of the class.
right2bright on March 18, 2011 at 1:11 PM
Strangely enough you might have MISSED this in the U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section II
The strikes were made by the 13th & 14th Amendments
Article I, Section VIII
I think it EXPLICITLY PROVIDES for Patents and Trademarks, the Census Bureau, and control of exports right there.
SgtSVJones on March 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM
I think it EXPLICITLY PROVIDES for Patents and Trademarks, the Census Bureau, and control of exports right there.
SgtSVJones on March 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM
That it does. The fact that the Constitution requires does not carry funding. If we’re going to do it (and as you point out, it’s a Federal, not State, function), we’re going to have to pay for it. So at least that part of Paul’s proposal is a non-starter. The rest of the ones I listed are critical to the operation of our economy, the safety of life and property, or both. What else is Paul planning on throwing out that would cripple our economy or is explicitly provided for in the Constitution?
flydiveski on March 18, 2011 at 1:24 PM
This man may be president someday.
He’s got the right idea. Don’t start trimming programs, whack the Nixon/Carter alphabet-explosion root and branch.
Get rid of a couple of them and people will see how little they matter, and won’t mind so much the next round.
And when entitlements do come to the table, there really won’t be anything else left to take.
JEM on March 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM
This is what we need to keep pounding on.
The radicalist agenda, as people like Ayers, Alinsky and Obama define it is to always attack; assume unquestionable moral perfection; and never EVER defend anything they ever do.
If we can’t change that, we will always continue to lose ground.
logis on March 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM
I love it! A good first step!
People need to realize that congress can pass any policy or law a government agency can. Congress can do everything the agencies do, except remain faceless and unaccountable!
There are all kinds of tyrannies out there, today in America we suffer from the tyranny of the government agency! They don’t call them kings or dictators, no… but they are just as powerful and just as despotic! They are set up to issues all the edicts and decrees the other tyrants in congress are afraid to.
JellyToast on March 18, 2011 at 2:49 PM
If we could tax farts, we’d have a budget surplus in just three years.
TexasJew on March 18, 2011 at 9:23 PM