[BarnacleCenturion]

The spending proposal the freshman senator outlined Friday would put the nation on a path to a balanced budge five years faster than the plan that House Republicans adopted last week. The unveiling came as the Senate was debating a Democratic budget that would leave a major deficit even after 10 years.

The House Republican budget, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, the 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee, would spend $3.5 trillion next year and $41.5 trillion over the next decade, compared with tax revenues of $3 trillion in 2014 and $40.2 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Paul’s budget would spend $3.2 trillion next year and $37.6 trillion over ten years, compared tax revenues of $2.5 trillion in 2014 and $37.9 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Paul’s budget allocated $526 billion for national defense in 2014 and $5.6 trillion for national defense over the next 10 years. The House GOP budget, meanwhile, sets aside $579 billion for national defense in 2014 and more than $6 trillion over the next 10 years.

Mr. Paul, as well as GOP Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, and Mike Lee of Utah, joined Democrats Thursday in voting against the Ryan House budget — arguing that the plan did not go far enough in getting the nation’s fiscal house in order.

[Izzy Dunne]

Step #1: Admit that you have a spending problem.

They haven’t gotten to that point yet.

[ecomcon]

Mr. Paul’s plan abolishes the Departments of Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development and Commerce, and privatizes the Transportation Security Authority.

I will vote for this man.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

10 years. Not quick.

[Hostage]

Some good views on what needs to be done but the tax reform will not last because the tax code will be amended and amended and amended ad infinitum as it has in the past. A ‘Flat Tax’ never stays flat. Get with the FairTax tax for lasting reform.

[The Wizard]

sounds good to me.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The first legislator to ever advocate shuttering a govt agency.

I stand with Rand.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Paul’s plan reshapes entitlement programs, abolishes four federal agencies...

It needs to abolish as many DEPARTMENTS of the Executive Branch, never mind "agencies".

There are thousands of those.

[ex-snook]

WWJD?

[justlurking]

It also indexes Social Security so the benefits for low-income workers would grow faster than those with higher incomes[...]

Social Security is already a raw deal for higher income workers. It already makes a massive transfer from high income to low income retirees:

How to read this chart: The ratio is the comparison of the cost of a career of contributions to Social Security, compared to the value of the benefits received if you live to 84 after retirement. This is average life expectancy at 67.

If the ratio is above 100%, you get more than you put in. If the ratio is below 100%, you get less. The value of money is taken into account with each line: They range from -1.0% to 2.0%. This is the rate of return after inflation.

Government T-bills have averaged about 0.5% above inflation for the past 30-40 years, so you can use the purple line to compare what Social Security should return. And you can see that the line crosses 100% at about $4,700/month -- very close to the median income. If your average income is above that, you are essentially giving up part of your Social Security contributions to the recipients below it.

[justlurking]

overhauls the federal tax code by establishing a 17-percent flat tax and eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and savings.

This alone makes this politically nonviable. The political class would never let investors escape taxes.

A better proposal would have been to index capital gains for inflation, so that only the real gain is taxed and not the paper gain due to the devaluation of money. Eliminate double taxation of dividends by making them a deductible expense for corporations, and dividends would only be taxed once at the individual tax rate.

Under these circumstances, the flat tax rate could be lowered even further.

[Revel]

Just more games. If anyone wanted to balance the budget then they would do it in one year.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are no longer even close to being able to balance the budget without major cutting in the Entitlement categories(we are in fact increasing that at a major clip). It is mathematically impossible to do otherwise. And when interest rates go back up then we are really screwed. If our debt cost us 10% interest then I believe that All of GDP would go to paying the interest on the debt. Leaving no money left to spend on anything.

Therefore any budget that intends to push this out 5 years, therefore putting us another 7 or 8 trillion in debt(or more)- is a just another scam. Because the problem is a whole lot worse at that point.

And then we are well aware that congress does not honor budgets anyways. They just keep voting on more spending regardless of any budget. Including another major banker bailout or so called “Stimulus” or what ever suits their fancy. Food stamps, Obama care...

This is just Rand Paul’s version of the same old trick being played on the masses. Anyone who falls for it is a gullible fool.