Rand Paul To Unveil His Personal Federal Budget

WingnutsJanuary 2011 • Views: 19,308

Tea Party libertarian/far-right fundamentalist/corporate tool Rand Paul has decided he’s just going to get right down to the business of gutting the federal government, whether anyone else joins him or not. If you want something done (far) right, do it yourself.

The tea party hero is at the bottom of the Senate in seniority and was sworn in as Kentucky’s junior Republican senator only two weeks ago, but he’s about to unveil his own sweeping budget plan that would result in a $500 billion cut in just one year — about five times more than what the House GOP has promised to do.

Wow, $500 billion in one year — and you can bet that most of that money will be cut out of programs that benefit the poor, the sick, and minorities.

Jump to bottom

67 comments

BishopX Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:30:39am

Any bets on Rand Pauls military spending? I'm going to go with less than 10 billion in cuts.

Alexzander Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:31:01am

I'm actually really curious how this breaks down. Given that the Paulians are also isolationists, there are probably also significant military cuts in there too. Which is to say, there wont be many fans, left or right, of this plan.

Lidane Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:33:32am

I'm betting on massive military spending cuts, eliminating the Federal Reserve and the Departments of State and Education, gutting NASA, withdrawing from the UN, and many other massive cuts that would never, ever happen in this or any other lifetime.

jamesfirecat Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:34:55am

I wonder if it will have numbers in it....

Big Steve Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:35:09am

re: #3 Lidane

I'm betting on massive military spending cuts, eliminating the Federal Reserve and the Departments of State and Education, gutting NASA, withdrawing from the UN, and many other massive cuts that would never, ever happen in this or any other lifetime.

don't forget health care cuts as well

Interesting Times in Benghazi Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:36:27am

You know how you have certain pictures to accompany posts about certain people (e.g. Palin, Geller, RSM, etc)? I'd like to suggest this one for Rand Paul

Lidane Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:38:53am

re: #5 Big Steve

don't forget health care cuts as well

That falls under the umbrella of massive cuts that will never, ever happen. Heh.

Rand Paul is an idiot with a lot of bad ideas, just like daddy. Unfortunately, they've conned a lot of people into thinking they're serious intellectuals.

Charles Johnson Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:40:24am

re: #6 publicityStunted

You know how you have certain pictures to accompany posts about certain people (e.g. Palin, Geller, RSM, etc)? I'd like to suggest this one for Rand Paul

Heh.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:41:27am

I thought they were big fans of the US Constitution. Which constitution, if I remember accurately, makes it clear that congressmen have to work together. Hence the name "Congressman" which means a member of a congress, or group of people who work as a team.

If he wants to be president, he'll have to run.

latitude51 Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:47:13am

re: #2 Alexzander

Yep. All the boys would be back from Afstan in thirty days.

Kragar Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:48:08am

We can just cut 50% of everything!
///

Kragar Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:49:14am

re: #4 jamesfirecat

I wonder if it will have numbers in it...

Roman numerals, because arabic numbers are tools of the Islamic Supremacist conspiracy.

garhighway Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:51:36am

I'll bet the Department of Aqua Buddha comes out OK in the new budget, though.

Idle Drifter Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:52:00am

So does Rand Paul plan on just leaving our service people overseas to fend for themselves? Closing embassies? Withdrawing and gutting our Navy, Marines, Army, National Guard, Coast Guard and Air Force? Closing the Smithsonian? Letting go hundreds of thousands of Government Employees and Contractors? Selling off our nuclear arsenal wholesale? Killing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,etc. Eliminating the National Park System? What kind of plan could cut $500 Billion?

wrenchwench Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:53:49am

“So I think I will surprise some people,” said Paul, who also is trying to work out an arrangement with the Senate ethics committee so he can keep practicing as an eye surgeon in Bowling Green, Ky.

What's that about? Are big cuts to Senate salaries coming?

Killgore Trout Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:54:52am

Wow, $500 billion in one year — and you can bet that most of that money will be cut out of programs that benefit the poor, the sick, and minorities.

....and the military.

latitude51 Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:56:24am

re: #14 Idle Drifter

What would work out to if all the politicians forgo their salaries for an entire term?

garhighway Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:57:29am

re: #15 wrenchwench

What's that about? Are big cuts to Senate salaries coming?

The RP Senate will have 26 Senators, and the RP House of Representatives will have 245 Representatives. They will each have a staff of 3, earn no public salary and will be entirely sponsored by a Fortune 500 company, whose logo they will wear at all times.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:58:07am

re: #17 latitude51

Maybe .001% budget reduction. Politicians' salaries are an infinitesimally small slice of the budget, and thus, cuts to their pay is nothing more than empty symbolism.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:58:28am

re: #14 Idle Drifter

So does Rand Paul plan on just leaving our service people overseas to fend for themselves? Closing embassies? Withdrawing and gutting our Navy, Marines, Army, National Guard, Coast Guard and Air Force? Closing the Smithsonian? Letting go hundreds of thousands of Government Employees and Contractors? Selling off our nuclear arsenal wholesale? Killing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,etc. Eliminating the National Park System? What kind of plan could cut $500 Billion?

Look, let's be blunt. The wilderness was taking care of itself long before we came along. So there goes the National Park System. We'll have to be on the honor system not to squat there or trash the place.

The poor? They got by before we...what was that? Starved on a regular basis? Literally half a foot in height differences because of malnutrition? Sorry, my earpiece is malfunctioning.

The Smithsonian is cool, and should earn money. If all those characters come to life every night (I saw the film; you can't fool me) they can go get jobs.

We could let the armed forces loot wherever they are. That's what was done up to about a couple hundred years ago. Just hope they aren't where you are.

Roads? Where is your community spirit? The potholes need to be fixed, so show up on Saturday, with your shovel and a pair of work gloves. Kthxbai.

The school systems? One word: Homeschooling.

Just because my grandfather and his brothers went from working at their dad's gas station to getting masters and PhD's in science fields on the GI bill doesn't mean we should have public universities. The elite were meant to be the only people with higher educations. Can you say: Dr. Paris Hilton?

It's easy, really it is.

Charles Johnson Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:59:10am

re: #16 Killgore Trout

...and the military.

It will be interesting to see if Randy Rand stays true to his libertarian isolationist hooey with big military cuts.

After his election, I'm sure the GOP bigwigs had a come-to-Jesus moment with Rand Paul, and let him know what would be expected of him. I wouldn't be surprised to see him tone down his Paulian isolationism.

Big Steve Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:59:15am

re: #6 publicityStunted

You know how you have certain pictures to accompany posts about certain people (e.g. Palin, Geller, RSM, etc)? I'd like to suggest this one for Rand Paul

funny but that picture actually makes me like Rand.....as least just a wee bit.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Jan 18, 2011 10:59:30am

re: #19 Fozzie Bear

Maybe .001% budget reduction. Politicians' salaries are an infinitesimally small slice of the budget, and thus, cuts to their pay is nothing more than empty symbolism.

Actually, if they make cuts to their own pay during a recession, it might be symbolic in terms of the deficit, but it definitely shows a willingness to suffer with the rest of us. (After all, nothing is touching their pensions, which are really, really golden.)

What, me worry? Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:00:22am

re: #16 Killgore Trout

...and the military.

Public school, public roads, public hospitals, libraries, national parks....

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:00:47am

re: #23 EmmmieG

Actually, if they make cuts to their own pay during a recession, it might be symbolic in terms of the deficit, but it definitely shows a willingness to suffer with the rest of us. (After all, nothing is touching their pensions, which are really, really golden.)

I'd rather we keep their pay at a reasonable level. Paying legislators chump change just encourages corruption.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:01:02am

re: #25 Fozzie Bear

I'd rather we keep their pay at a reasonable level. Paying legislators chump change just encourages corruption.

John Adams agreed.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:01:08am

re: #25 Fozzie Bear

They don't make that much as it is, is my point.

What, me worry? Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:01:32am

re: #15 wrenchwench

What's that about? Are big cuts to Senate salaries coming?

That's one of the things Gabby Giffords wanted to do. Cut Senate salaries by 5%.

Kragar Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:02:02am

re: #22 Big Steve

funny but that picture actually makes me like Rand...as least just a wee bit.

What about this one?

Image: Rand-Paul.gif

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:02:40am

re: #28 marjoriemoon

That's one of the things Gabby Giffords wanted to do. Cut Senate salaries by 5%.

With all due respect to Rep. Giffords, I just don't see how that will help, at all. We don't need warm fuzzies about "being in this together", we need fucking jobs.

Idle Drifter Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:02:43am

re: #17 latitude51

What would work out to if all the politicians forgo their salaries for an entire term?

I don't know exactly. I would like to restrict Congress's ability to vote themselves raises though I'd appreciate a better understanding of that process. There's a way for our government to tighten budgets and stream line the appropriations process without going full isolationist with a unhealthy dose of ultra nationalist.

What, me worry? Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:02:47am

re: #25 Fozzie Bear

I'd rather we keep their pay at a reasonable level. Paying legislators chump change just encourages corruption.

The aren't paid chump change. According to this, the average pay is $174,000.

[Link: usgovinfo.about.com...]

5% reduction would be fine without running them into the ground.

Big Steve Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:03:39am

re: #29 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What about this one?

Image: Rand-Paul.gif

Better on the dislike quotient but not in the Harpy rolling her eyes nor Kerry hiking a football.

What, me worry? Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:05:20am

re: #30 Fozzie Bear

With all due respect to Rep. Giffords, I just don't see how that will help, at all. We don't need warm fuzzies about "being in this together", we need fucking jobs.

If rank and file members are paid $174,000, 5% reduction (according to my mad math skillz) comes to $8,700. How many people is that? Some 500 members in Congress? That's a lot of dineros.

Kragar Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:06:00am

re: #33 Big Steve

Better on the dislike quotient but not in the Harpy rolling her eyes nor Kerry hiking a football.

You need a dirtier mind.

What, me worry? Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:06:00am

Senate Leadership
Majority Party Leader - $193,400
Minority Party Leader - $193,400

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader - $193,400

jamesfirecat Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:07:23am

re: #25 Fozzie Bear

I'd rather we keep their pay at a reasonable level. Paying legislators chump change just encourages corruption.

The problem with this theory is that in effect it argues that we the people need to bribe our senators to be loyal to us before anyone else does...

wrenchwench Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:08:16am

re: #37 jamesfirecat

The problem with this theory is that in effect it argues that we the people need to bribe our senators to be loyal to us before anyone else does...

Welcome to Government 101.

Big Steve Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:09:33am

re: #35 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You need a dirtier mind.

usually I am accused of the opposite!

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:11:04am

Actually, now that I think about it, Adams wanted legislators paid enough that even the non-wealthy could serve.

Otherwise, our early government would have all been wealthy, slave-owning Southerners who could afford to use up most of their time in a way that did not make money.

lawhawk Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:13:04am

re: #32 marjoriemoon

As a percentage of the federal budget, they are indeed chump change (when taken as an aggregate). As a comparison to the average worker's salary in the nation, they are far greater than the norm.

It's all fun with statistics, but when you're attempting to cut the budget by $500 billion, the political salaries are a fraction of a percentage point (and the legislative budget falls into the 4% of expenditures listed as all other).

Obdicut Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:13:11am

re: #40 EmmmieG

And factory-owning Northerners, and import/exporters. After all, Hancock was the richest dude in America, and he was from Baaahston.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:14:36am

Gross federal expenditures for 2010 were 4.472 trillion. If the 535 members of congress each received an average of 174,000 in 2010, then total payroll for senators and congressmen was 93,090,000. That comes out to .00208% of the federal budget. 5% of that comes out to .000104% of the federal budget saved.

It's not even a remotely significant amount of money considering the size of the shortfall.

latitude51 Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:16:06am

Well, whatever possesses a person to enter politics, it can't be for the salary. For what it costs to get elected there's no breaking even.

Alexzander Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:16:32am

re: #38 wrenchwench

Welcome to Government 101.

But it doesn't *need* to be this way. We didn't always assume that people only behaved under the rational actor/ game theoretic model of agency.

What, me worry? Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:16:53am

re: #41 lawhawk

As a percentage of the federal budget, they are indeed chump change (when taken as an aggregate). As a comparison to the average worker's salary in the nation, they are far greater than the norm.

It's all fun with statistics, but when you're attempting to cut the budget by $500 billion, the political salaries are a fraction of a percentage point (and the legislative budget falls into the 4% of expenditures listed as all other).

Sorry Hawk, I don't buy it.

$8,700 x 500 (House and Senate approx.) = $4,350,000.

When the GOP goes on about cutting social programs, programs for the poor and elderly particularly, they can take $4.3M off of their own damn salaries.

What, me worry? Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:17:46am

But glad to know you all consider that chump change.

Are you guys single, per chance??

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:18:51am

Try maintaining dual residencies, one of which is in the nice part of DC, and traveling back and forth many times per year, and tell me 174k is a lot of money.

Talking Point Detective Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:22:07am

and you can bet that most of that money will be cut out of programs that benefit the poor, the sick, and minorities.

most?

Talking Point Detective Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:24:32am

re: #2 Alexzander

I'm actually really curious how this breaks down. Given that the Paulians are also isolationists, there are probably also significant military cuts in there too. Which is to say, there wont be many fans, left or right, of this plan.

I will be most impressed if he really does advocate military cuts. I'd have to give him credit if he does that. No doubt, the man is a dangerous extremist - but if he does advocate significant military cuts he shows that he isn't willing to throw all ideology overboard for the sake of political expediency.

Too bad his ideology is so twisted.

Sinistershade Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:27:45am

I'll give Paul one thing (and one thing only): At least he's willing to define what he wants to cut. Most of the wingnuts who scream about smaller government have nothing meaningful to offer when you ask them what they want to cut.

What, me worry? Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:28:18am

re: #48 Fozzie Bear

Try maintaining dual residencies, one of which is in the nice part of DC, and traveling back and forth many times per year, and tell me 174k is a lot of money.

They don't have to live in DC. They can get a one room apt in Baltimore and commute. Jerry Brown during his first time as Gov, rented a one room apt and drove a old car to save the taxpayers' money.

No justification.

AK-47% Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:29:02am

I would also defer comment until we see the figures he presents. And yes, he is actually venturing into the realm of presenting real figures and not just spouting rhetoric, it certainly warrants our attention.

Talking Point Detective Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:30:01am

re: #20 EmmmieG

You forgot:

Infrastructure, schminfrastructure.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:34:10am

re: #52 marjoriemoon

They don't have to live in DC. They can get a one room apt in Baltimore and commute. Jerry Brown during his first time as Gov, rented a one room apt and drove a old car to save the taxpayers' money.

No justification.

For what? A decent wage for people we REALLY REALLY need to make sure don't need to resort to corruption?

I'm sorry, but this is just so much populist boilerplate. If we need honest legislators, we need to pay them a wage somewhat commensurate with the importance of the job they do. That they are doing it poorly is not a good reason to start hacking away at their pay. We have already established that it would affect the budget in an insignificant way.

If congress wants to cut their own pay by 5%, fine, I don't care. But such a move would be nothing more than an exercise in empty symbolism. They will be taking up the nation's time diddling over meaningless symbols. I'm not ok with that. I want a fucking JOB that doesn't suck.

AK-47% Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:55:26am

re: #54 Talking Point Detective

You forgot:

Infrastructure, schminfrastructure.

Infrastructure is socilism. ALL roads, bridges, airports and seaports should be in private hands, it will make them more efficient.

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 18, 2011 11:59:46am

re: #56 ralphieboy

It would make them more efficient... at making a profit. That's the thing about a fully "privatized" world. EVERYTHING costs money, including things that really should just be free for public use.

What, me worry? Tue, Jan 18, 2011 12:04:20pm

re: #55 Fozzie Bear

For what? A decent wage for people we REALLY REALLY need to make sure don't need to resort to corruption?

I'm sorry, but this is just so much populist boilerplate. If we need honest legislators, we need to pay them a wage somewhat commensurate with the importance of the job they do. That they are doing it poorly is not a good reason to start hacking away at their pay. We have already established that it would affect the budget in an insignificant way.

If congress wants to cut their own pay by 5%, fine, I don't care. But such a move would be nothing more than an exercise in empty symbolism. They will be taking up the nation's time diddling over meaningless symbols. I'm not ok with that. I want a fucking JOB that doesn't suck.

Good grief almighty.

$174,000 - $8,700 = $165,300.00

What's the big deal? That's not enough to live on? Feed a family of 4 and have a lot extra? I know PLENTY of people who do it on less than half of that.

And it cuts $4,350,000 out of the budget.

You're a silly man.

tnguitarist Tue, Jan 18, 2011 12:05:06pm

He won't cut military spending. Nothing significant, anyway. His plan will gut Social Security, and Medicare. I'm sure the Department of Education will make a guest appearance as well.

AK-47% Tue, Jan 18, 2011 12:05:16pm

re: #57 Fozzie Bear

It would make them more efficient... at making a profit. That's the thing about a fully "privatized" world. EVERYTHING costs money, including things that really should just be free for public use.

I agree, except for the the way you phrased it: "free".

They are not free in any sense, but I believe that it in the public interest to allow the public in general (via their elected government) to determine how to pay for their construction, maintenance and use...

gamark Tue, Jan 18, 2011 12:08:35pm

re: #55 Fozzie Bear

Corruption takes many forms, but for the sake of discussion, how much do you think would be enough to keep a government official (we're not just talking elected folks who are corrupt) from taking bribes? Wouldn't the bribers just increase the bribe to compensate? William Jefferson had $90K in his freezer. How much would he have had to earn in salary to make $90K not worth the (small) risk of getting caught?

Fozzie Bear Tue, Jan 18, 2011 12:10:21pm

re: #58 marjoriemoon

Good grief almighty.

$174,000 - $8,700 = $165,300.00

What's the big deal? That's not enough to live on? Feed a family of 4 and have a lot extra? I know PLENTY of people who do it on less than half of that.

And it cuts $4,350,000 out of the budget.

You're a silly man.

4.350 million is less than the cost of running congress during the time they sat there debating a pay cut.

It's pure theater.

AK-47% Tue, Jan 18, 2011 12:12:36pm

re: #61 gamark

How much is "enough"? Some people cannot get enough, no mater how much you pay them.

Of course, as we see in many countires (Latin America and most of Eastern Europe spring to mind) that most government officials look on bribes as an unofficial perk to bolster their subsistence-level salaries.

SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Jan 18, 2011 12:16:27pm

re: #58 marjoriemoon

Good grief almighty.

$174,000 - $8,700 = $165,300.00

What's the big deal? That's not enough to live on? Feed a family of 4 and have a lot extra? I know PLENTY of people who do it on less than half of that.

And it cuts $4,350,000 out of the budget.

You're a silly man.

I agree that the lower salary is quite acceptable, but four million and change is basically nothing in terms of the budget.

AK-47% Tue, Jan 18, 2011 12:29:24pm

re: #64 SanFranciscoZionist

I agree that the lower salary is quite acceptable, but four million and change is basically nothing in terms of the budget.

less than 1% of what the Defense Department spends on military bands:

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

What, me worry? Tue, Jan 18, 2011 12:53:32pm

re: #64 SanFranciscoZionist

I agree that the lower salary is quite acceptable, but four million and change is basically nothing in terms of the budget.

I know you and Fozzie seem to think that's so, but $4M here, $4M there and pretty soon it adds up.

Anything that hacks at the budget, I don't care how much or how little, that doesn't touch social services is fine with me. And if this is one way to trim the budget without doing that, there's 100 other ways.

Romantic Heretic Tue, Jan 18, 2011 1:43:40pm

re: #32 marjoriemoon

The aren't paid chump change. According to this, the average pay is $174,000.

[Link: usgovinfo.about.com...]

5% reduction would be fine without running them into the ground.

Since my disability is little more than $9,000 Cdn I don't see how they'd suffer. Throw in my subsidized apartment, about the same amount as I live in an expensive place, and...

I still don't see how they'd suffer.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Rand Paul To Unveil His Personal Federal Budget

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud