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.
“There’s a lot of things in here that everybody could agree to, Republicans and Democrats, but nobody’s leading on the president’s 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.
“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.
Paul’s 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 ...
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.
Thank you!
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.
Not at all. Actually, I heard it from a clip of one of his speeches Mark Levin played just recently. His point was that water and air pollution were interstate problems, so I would assume he relied on the commerce claus. I do agree that you can't have one state poisoning another states waterways, so I can see where he is coming from.
I like.
Hmmm..... I'd hate to second guess the wisdom of Ronaldus Magnus, but I need to give that determination some thought. I just wonder if there might be a better constitutional remedy for one state poisoning the air and water of another state.
You may be on to something. I think we agree 100% however, that the EPA has gone way beyond anything Reagan would defend.
If by cutting foreign aid, we include eliminating our foreign empire we are finally talking about some real money, about 1 trillion per year.
I think you’re being unnecessarily cryptic. If you support Palin above all others, great. I would vote for her in preference to the current office occupant, and would happier see her there than the vast majority of the field. Don’t make me ask a third time to just state plainly who you think should be president - I’m not a mind-reader, and part of what you’re pointing out as my responsibility to make myself aware of suitable candidates is in discussions like this.
This is more interrogation than discussion though if you’re asking me questions without answering the ones I’ve asked you.
I’m not trying to be unnecessarily cryptic. I just didn’t want to indicate my personal preference for president, because you’re so obviously promoting a Rand Paul draft.
We only just started talking. It’s not my style to start advocating for my preferences so early with someone.
I also didn’t intend for my post to sound like an interrogation. I’m pretty sure I only posed one question in there, and it was actually just rhetorical. I didn’t really expect for you to answer it.
Yes, Sarah Palin is my choice for Republican nominee in 2012. I see that you would support her over much of the rest of the current field. I believe that’s the only sensible choice, given the field of potential contenders, and without a doubt, a FAR better choice than the current occupant of the White House.
Palin simply stands head, shoulders, and torso above the rest of the competition. In my estimation, she measures up better in every important department than anyone out there. Not just better, but significantly so. I honestly can’t see anyone on the right giving her a serious challenge for the nomination, though I’m sure some will try.
COMMON SENSE! I’ll be damned.
“I’m not trying to be unnecessarily cryptic. I just didn’t want to indicate my personal preference for president, because you’re so obviously promoting a Rand Paul draft.
We only just started talking. It’s not my style to start advocating for my preferences so early with someone.”
I don’t really understand that, but alright. If I’ve just heard from you and you’re saying no to Rand Paul, I think it’s reasonable to ask who then. Not specific to you personally, but it can be too easy sometimes just to pick at perceived imperfections, especially when whatever those perceived imperfections are, the great flaw is that he’s just not your preferred, already decided candidate.
I probably like Palin for the same reasons you do, and high up there is her executive experience. If executive experience were the single deciding factor though, the final determinative, Giuliani did a good job here in New York City being the executive over far more people, of far greater representative diversity, than in Alaska and many other states. But I’m just mentioning him as an illustration - I do not support him over Palin, or just about anyone in the field you could name, even with that.
“I honestly can’t see anyone on the right giving her a serious challenge for the nomination, though I’m sure some will try.”
Maybe when this really gets going to state primaries I’ll see that and agree with you, but she hasn’t been as publicly visible, seemingly, for a while now.
I would want to be more sure about her foreign policy before I was as convinced as you - part of the reason we’re in the mess we are now was the ‘anyone but Bush’ sentiment - look how that turned out, and part of that was from how Bush entered without much knowledge of foreign policy, by his own admission - so the people he relied on for this were neo-conservatives, and, disturbingly, supported him early on as a candidate (if I remember right) not in spite of this, but because of this - they could direct things.
So, for me, that’s a concern with Palin, even if I already know she is smarter by far than the vast majority of her detractors. Kristol is a prominent neo-conservative who was recently talking her up, which raises some flags with me. Having another Republican administration whose foreign policy was directed by neo-conservatives is not at all desirable, I think, unless you want in a few years time an even worse situation than the one we’re in now following it.
I'm not "picking at perceived imperfections". I'm stating that the man simply is not ready to take on the job of president. A perceived imperfection would be something on the order of a candidate's failure to strongly support some pet policy of mine. Rand Paul's first disqualification for me, is that he's a freshman Senator, who's only just elected to the Senate. I certainly haven't disqualified him for having the fatal "flaw" of not being my preferred candidate.
I'm not dismissive of Rand Paul. I'm very impressed with him, so far. I think he's going to climb to the very top in the US Senate. He's got the right orientation for America, and will likely be responsible for pushing through some revolutionary legislation during his tenure.
My solitary point in this conversation, is that he isn't ready to be president, for the reasons I first stated. Who's to say that he won't someday work his way up to president by going the executive route? Perhaps he will, but until he's been well-seasoned on the national stage, and gains some experience in running a large city or a state government, I won't be considering supporting him for president.
I'm no less severe when it comes to any other career legislators.
...you’re saying no to Rand Paul, I think it’s reasonable to ask who then.
That's fine, but we weren't talking about my choice for Republican nominee. I initiated this exchange by challenging your support for Rand Paul as a presidential candidate. Now that we're at this point in the conversation, it's more or less a moot point, but you brought it up, so I'm replying.
I would want to be more sure about her foreign policy before I was as convinced as you...
There are only a handful of US presidents you could name who had any depth in foreign policy before they became president. In my view, this is a red herring that's been promoted by the left to cut Palin off at the knees. Note that no one is demanding that ANY other potential candidate meet the same bar.
Reagan was masterful with foreign policy (for the most part), but what experience did he really have dealing with foreign powers before he was president? Precisely none. It's actually hard to gain that sort of experience in any capacity, except as president or Secretary of State. There are also ambassadors, State Dept employees, diplomats, etc., who gain great insight and experience in foreign affairs by way of their jobs, but presidents are rarely drawn from those ranks.
A US president who is going to be successful in his/her foreign policy has to have intangible qualities such as courage, conviction, trustworthiness, savvy, strong core values, and of course, a good general knowledge of geopolitics. Those things, and an absolute first allegiance to the American people, are what makes for successful foreign policy. Not some mythical wonkishness.
I wouldn't worry about Palin in this regard. She knows the difference between an ally and an enemy, and she has all of the above attributes in spades. She'll do just fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.