Butter, Guns AND Corporate Welfare

via WSJ

Skeptics in the statist democrat media (and even some RINOs) say tea partyers can't be serious about tackling the federal budget deficit unless they're prepared to commit political suicide by decimating Social Security and Medicare immediately. Senator Rand Paul begs to differ:
My proposal would first roll back almost all federal spending to 2008 levels, then initiate reductions at various levels nearly across the board. Cuts to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation would create over $42 billion in savings each, while cuts to the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development would save about $50 billion each. Removing education from the federal government's jurisdiction would create almost $80 billion in savings alone. Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and we arrive at over $500 billion.

My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity. But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt. It would keep 85% of our government funding in place and not touch Social Security or Medicare.
Rand is prepared to slash spending in the Defense Department:
My proposal would also cut wasteful spending in the Defense Department. Since 2001, our annual defense budget has increased nearly 120%. Even subtracting the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending is up 67%. These levels of spending are unjustifiable and unsustainable.
It's time to end corporate welfare:
Consistently labeled for elimination, specifically by House Republicans during the 1990s, one of Commerce's main functions is delivering corporate welfare to American firms that can compete without it. My proposal would scale back the Commerce Department's spending by 54% and eliminate corporate welfare.
We have two choices. Get serious about big cuts or make the kids work as indentured servants for the Chinese:
First, if you believe a particular program should be exempt from these cuts, I challenge you to find another place in the budget where the same amount can feasibly be cut and we can replace it.

Second, consider this: Is any particular program, whatever its merits, worth borrowing billions of dollars from foreign nations to finance programs that could be administered better at the state and local level, or even taken over by the private sector?
So will we do this or should we tell the kids to start learning Chinese?


  1. We can eliminate the entire discretionary budget of the federal government this year....and still have $1 trillion annual deficits staring us in the face for decades.

    Cutting or freezing discretionary spending is all well and good....but the key cost drivers and threats to our solvency are deeply embedded in Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid first and foremost. That is where the Gordian Knot has to be addressed and cut first.

    see the CBO book to learn more....http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12039

  2. There's absolutely no reason to say that Medicare and Social Security have to be "first" in any strategy to contain spending. Medicare and Social Security reform are urgently needed, but if there's no courage for cuts in discretionary spending, there will be no courage for entitlements.

  3. not saying they have to be first.

    BUT I am saying they have GOT TO BE the LARGEST part of the discussion.

    There is zero chance any or all of Rand Paul's proposed cuts are going to ever be passed. You know how many federal programs have ever been ELIMINATED since 1980, when the Reagan Revolution started?

    One. Precisely 1 that I can find. The Helium Reserve Program....Started in 1917...to provide helium for observation dirigibles that were used for military purposes in WW I! Finally privatized and phased-out in 1995..78 years later!

    When Rand Paul gets 50%+1 of the Senate to co-sponsor his bill, then he might have something. Otherwise, to be an Army of One in the Senate is the loneliest thing there is. Consensus-building, persuasion and coalition-building are the tools that have got to be used to get things done there


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.