Senator Rand Paul speaks some hard truths.
Posted February 5, 2011on:
We the people need to press our Congressman to CUT, CUT, CUT! There is no raising the debt ceiling with “promises of serious cuts”. NO! Make enough cuts so that there is money to make our debt payments with money that isn’t being squandered elsewhere.
The Debt Commission suggestions offer an excellent place to start with the killer entitlements of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. IMO these are addressed seriously and sensibly in the Commission Report. But it seems our Congress, even the House Republicans, are simply smiling nicely then putting the report on the shelf. Start making phone calls and emails people!
The following is an outline of Senator Rand Paul’s bill that dares to speak some truths and will also never see the light of day in the Democrat controlled Senate. Harry Reid won’t bring it to the committee let alone the floor for a vote. This is what Reid will do for two years to any bill passed by the House or proposed by Republican Senators. During the health care debates there were three excellent Republican proposals that answered the problems with health care in the United States that never got off the shelf. So even tho it is hopeless I still think you all should know the Republicans are trying to make serious cuts. BB
Sen. Rand Paul Proposes Serious Cuts
Freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has raised the bar in Washington by releasing a bill that would make substantial, specific, and immediate cuts in federal spending. While policymakers on both sides of the aisle have largely paid lip service to stopping Washington’s record run of fiscal profligacy, Paul’s proposal makes good on his campaign promise to seriously tackle the federal government’s bloated budget.Paul’s bill would target $500 billion in cuts for fiscal 2011 alone. While audacious by Washington standards, cutting federal spending by that amount would still leave us with a projected $1 trillion deficit this year. Nonetheless, the federal government’s scope would be dramatically curtailed, which would pay dividends in coming years as the economy is unshackled from numerous failed federal interventions.
A description of Paul’s proposed cuts can be viewed here, but some of the bolder ideas merit a comment or two.
First, Paul would eliminate most Department of Education spending, with the exception of higher education subsidies. He correctly notes that the federal government’s increased involvement in education has been “detrimental” and that “the mere existence of the Department of Education is an overreach of power by the federal government.” (My readers have read I am sure how I feel about the federal government getting into education. The governments involvement by offering to insure and pay the interest on student loans for the years a student is in school has caused the astronomical rises in the cost of higher education. It is obscene what colleges and universities now charge for their rather mediocre educational efforts! And students are at the mercy of the schools and the banks who offer the student loans all because the government got involved. IMO the only acceptable government program for higher education is the Pell Grant Program. Pell Grants are this generations GI Bill. BB)
Second, the Department of Energy, which is becoming a chief source of corporate welfare, would be zeroed out. Paul would eliminate subsidies for all energy industries — from fossil fuels to so-called “green” energies. He notes that the government’s interference in energy development should be ended and the free market allowed to “start taking the reins.” (If an energy source can be produced and pay a profit IT WILL BE developed without the government. BB)
Third, the Department of Housing and Urban Development — one of most visible examples of government failure — would be eliminated. Among the HUD programs that Paul singles out, it is his criticism of housing vouchers that deserves the most applause as they remain popular in some Republican and conservative quarters. (HUD has been the chief supporter of welfare mentality and fraud. I have seen filthy trailers not fit for rats and roaches renting out to people under the program of vouchers where the government chooses the rental properties they will pay. There are supposed to be people inspecting these properties but a little pay off is all the landlords have to offer. If the vouchers were given to the people to find their own rental there would be competition for these dollars and these slums would disappear. BB)
Paul deserves credit for proposing cuts at the Department of Defense, although the savings would be relatively small. However, his proposal would cut the Department of Homeland Security almost in half, and would zero out billions of dollars in foreign aid. The latter is well-timed given the situation in Egypt, a major recipient of U.S. foreign aid dollars. (I might also add the Department of Defense often is forced to spend billions on weapons, tank and planes that are not needed, obsolete or are simply junk because some Congressman wants to keep supporting a company in his/her districts. If the Congress stopped rewarding this type of corporate thief the companies will not go out of business but will instead start manufacturing products that can compete. BB)
Finally, Paul would chop a quarter of the Department of Health and Human Service’s budget, although he doesn’t take on Medicare or Medicaid. He is reportedly at work on separate legislation that would address Medicare and Social Security. Because Paul’s proposal is focused on immediate cuts, his decision to tackle the big mandatory spending programs separately shouldn’t be viewed as a cop out.
Thus far, the spending cut bar in Washington has been set pretty low. Policymakers from both parties and varying ideological backgrounds have been timid in spelling out precisely what they would cut. By getting specific, Paul has raised the bar, which will hopefully put pressure on others — in particular, the congressional Republican leadership — to move beyond a vague, myopic fixation on non defense discretionary spending.