Skip to comments.Sen. Paul Unveils 5-Year Budget Plan: Eliminates Four Federal Agencies
Posted on 03/17/2011 4:02:15 PM PDT by Qbert
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.
Theres a lot of things in here that everybody could agree to, Republicans and Democrats, but nobodys leading on the presidents 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.
Theres an argument for every federal program up here Nobodys coming up here asking me for money thats 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.
Pauls 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
Sounds good to me.
Excellent! Now there’s some damn ‘hope and change’!
It’s a start...
His daddy might be somewhat of a kook, but, maybe, Rand could be presidential material. I’ll withhold judgment until I watch him more closely.
From what I see so far, I LIKE it.
Eliminating 4 agencies is just a good start!!!
Next should be Foreign Aid to all Third world countries. It is just a waste of our dollers - buying off dictators and such. They will turn on us in a second!
NO to Ron Paul. He’s kooky.
I prefer Palin/Paul 2012. It has a nice alliterative sound to it.
It’s a good start. I’d also like to see a law saying that every budget passed must cut the size of the federal government.
The Kooks are the ones who think he is a Kook. It is more apparent every day.
It certainly needs to be re-evaluated and I think we should give a lot less foreign aid, but some of it is actually spent in our national interests. The problem is that we don't attach enough strings to it, or cut it off immediately when the foreign country stops being grateful.
I like Rush Limbaugh's standard, which he gave on Monday:
Any country receiving aid must have a five-year track record of supporting and speaking positively about the United States. Every time a country fails this litmus test, the term starts over. In other words, that country would have to have five years of support and positive comments about the United States before they would be considered again for aid.
Mr. Paul forgot about the departments of Interior and EPA.
I thought libertarians were concerned about private property but I guess not. At least I was when I was a libertarian, but I guess times change and libertarians now lean more towards fascism.
Ron Paul is not a leader for reform. He’s played the role of smash mouth against the Rino’s show for decades.
Rand could lead a new majority in Congress to actually reform the government. He could extend the GOP’s life.
The Rinos are not going to have any of it, though. They won’t even agree to get rid of Obamacare.
I like his thinking!!
It will be a cold day in hell when these dept are axed.
Nobody in DC has the political will to cut them. Words are just words, when the cutting time comes, nobody but a few in DC have the backbone or cajoles to actually do it. You need more than a few good men
Personally, I like to add about a dozen more but it will never happen, either.
We could cut 50 % of the government tomorrow and I seriously doubt anybody would actually notice and if informed would not care
Wonderful. Now add EPA and BATFE and we are golden!
Nice intro with the Gipper pic.
“Sen. Paul unveils 5-Year budget plan to eliminate four Federal Agencies”
X-Department of Education...
X-Department of Energy...
X-Department of Commerce...
X-Department of Housing and Urban Development...
4 Down; how many more to go?
He forgot the Department of Labor!
I’m getting a bit gisgusted with the sniping going on at FR just because he “ain’t my guy”. He may not be mine either but at least he made his position known. As for cutting other departments, I agree but let’s start with the most useless, dangerous and vulnerable where a solid case can be made and people will jump on board. He picked the four best cases. Get the ball rolling and Paul is doing that, from the Senate!
I can live with that.
I hope he’s successful.
But could we stop talking about drafting all these first year Senators? Wasn’t that part of the issue with Zero? He was a Senator for a matter of months before starting to run for President?
Don’t forget, the President doesn’t legislate. A lot of these solutions are going to have to come from Congress and we need solid Conservative leadership there too. If we can flip the Senate and gain a nice majority we can work with Zero’s Republican replacement and fix all these issues.
You may be right, perhaps not.
By drawing attention to these (useless) departments it will hopefully force the bureaucrats in D.C. to defend each.
And for the record, most of these departments are less than fifty years old:
Energy - formed 1977
Education - formed 1980
Commerce - formed 1903
Housing & Urban Development - formed 1965
Excellent point! Same with freshmen representatives, governors and others. Let them mature and do the job they were elected to do. Let them prove themselves as well that they can’t be corrupted.
I don’t know....he reminds me of that delusional kook who led those people in California who killed themselves waiting for the Mother Ship....
Have they not heard of Zimbabwe?
Compare Madoff's puny multi-million ponzi with a 14 Trillion PONZI scheme. Plus, the bulk of the civilized world is in even worse shape. Armageddon.
Now, toss in a few more major earthquakes, and continued war in the mideast...sigh.
“But could we stop talking about drafting all these first year Senators? Wasnt that part of the issue with Zero? He was a Senator for a matter of months before starting to run for President?”
—But there’s a difference: Zero is a Communist. Communism will always fail no matter how experienced the ruler is. OTOH, you could have a solid Conservative on any local school board run the country and he/she will do a better job than Zero. Obviously experiences helps- but it’s the principles that matter; principles that have succeeded for a long time.
“A lot of these solutions are going to have to come from Congress and we need solid Conservative leadership there too.”
—And that’s the problem. We’re only as strong as the leadership (that is, until enough members finally say enough). I’m not seeing any substantive leadership from Boehner and crew- until I do, I will assume it’s not going to happen.
I can’t say I agree with Rand Paul on everything, but at least he’s taking the initiative and getting the conversation started. If people fear him, for whatever reason, maybe they should bring something compelling to the table and stop taking their support for granted.
I’m not ready to anoint Rand Paul as the next Republican presidential candidate (and I probably won’t ever be) but at least he’s laying out a basis for getting the federal budget under control. Cutting these 4 federal agencies may not happen - yet - but we have to have someone besides posters on FR making these statements and a Republican U.S. senator is exactly who should be doing so. I assume Senators Paul’s proposals will receive a lot of media coverage, which is good, although the leftmedia will, naturally, be apoplectic and act as if he wants to kill puppies but they’ll do that right until the moment the U.S. goes into bankruptcy so why not at least, start the debate? Senator Paul has done that. Kudos to him.
He left out the EPA, Agraculture, and a host of others that should be eliminated along with all that work for them!
I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul has those in his sights as well, but you pick the fight you can win first. I have mixed feelings about EPA. It definitely needs to be curbed, but I’m not sure about completely eliminated. That could be a very hard case to make. It does suggest budget cuts to “restore” these agencies to their original purpose and remove their dictatorial regulating authority.
“It still leaves us with a $14,000,000,000,000+ debt plus interest! If they meet the plan (Has almost never happened).”
—So, what would you do to address it then?
(Keep in mind of course, that Obama, Reid and the MSM will scream that you’re killing senior citizens and forcing people to eat out of garbage cans if you touch entitlements).
In a business, that would be like promoting a hotshot salesman to CEO, instead of the Chief Operations Officer. No board of directors in their right minds would do that.
Rand Paul needs to get some EXECUTIVE experience under his belt before taking on the biggest executive position on the planet. Let's see him manage the government business of an entire state before we elevate him to president of the US.
Same goes for every other prospective presidential candidate. Legislators do not make good presidents. The current ex-Senator is making a complete mess of this country, and the fact that he's never run so much as a hamburger joint is proving to be disastrous.
He has executive experience successfully running his own business after he earned his medical degree - an ophthalmology practice. And he founded, and runs with his wife, a professional medical association in his region.
He’s actually doing things, instead of waiting to comment on them, even though freshman senators are meant to sit quietly and observe the masters in action. And he’s proposing real cuts, real things to do to address the real problems we’re facing as a nation, not just this clown-show with Boehner and Schumer and ‘real’ Republicans and tea partiers. And he has experienced people close at hand to draw from.
Sell me on someone else then, instead of just invalidating him and any legislator for the position. He hasn’t sought this, but I’ve been impressed by him when considering all those who have.
Name me one US Senator who has EVER turned out to be a good president. From what I can recall of my 57 years, they've all turned out to be complete failures or disasters of epic proportions.
Even former Governors aren't a sure but, but at least they've done an internship running a state government, prior to taking on the executive stewardship of the entire federal government.
What? Abolishing the EPA ought to be one of the easier cases to make.
Do you know what the EPA's original mandate was, and why that agency was formed in the first place? It was to move the US away from dependency on foreign oil.
In the 30+ years they've been in existence, they haven't moved the US one inch in that direction. In fact, everything that agency has done, has moved the US in the direction of greater dependence on foreign oil!
That said, I do agree with you, that it's best to pick a battle that you have some likelihood of winning.
Kudos to Rand Paul for his business success, but the next logical step on the executive rung for him would be mayor of a large city - not president.
Let's see him run a major city, then run a state government before we put him on an express elevator to the top.
The EPA is definitely out of control. We don’t have a dispute there, but even Reagan acknowledged that the EPA had a Constitutional basis, and I happen to agree with him on that. Yes, let’s get it under control and dump the ones that have no Constitutional basis and an easily attacked performance record.
Rand Paul is BY FAR & MILES the best political donation I ever made.
He and Rubio rock!
Right. I’ve got that you’re not looking to be on any list for him. Sell me on someone else.
Is that how you think it should work? I know it’s a natural progression of executive levels of responsibility - mayor, county executive, governor, president - and it makes sense, to me as well. How many of the presidents this country has had have progressed to it like that? How many governors?
I call them the 100% club. They suck and are as bad as the DU loons.
Unless someone is 100% lock step with thier own lithmus tests they write them off. Even people who are good on 90% of issues get written off by this childish group of fools.
Rand Paul is doing a great job so far and I applaud him for what he doing. The detractors can bite me if they don’t like it.
If choosing our leaders based on something as simple as their resume, qualifications, and experience makes sense to you, why do ask how many presidents have ascended the political ladder in sensible, gradient steps?
That's actually beside the point of whether or not the American people ought to elect presidents with little or no executive experience or accomplishment. I contend that we should not.
The fact is, these sorts of promotions don't happen anywhere else but in government, most often with disastrous consequences. You hardly ever see this happen in the private sector (the real world), and when you do, it's almost always accompanied by mismanagement and disaster.
As for selling you on someone else, it's incumbent on you to look over the field and study the resumes and backgrounds of the potential candidates. I've done enough due diligence on the field for myself, to have made my own choice.
In the two years since Obama's been leading us to Hell in a hand basket, I've spent countless hours arguing the merits of various potential candidates with Freepers and others. Frankly, I think that I and others have already exhausted every conceivable angle of every likely contender. There's only one left standing, as far as I'm concerned.
Let me guess...the General Welfare clause? Enlighten me please.