Thursday, April 21, 2011

Rand Paul's Budget Proposal Is a Joke

Rand Paul, in an attempt to share the limelight with Paul Ryan (what's with all the 4-letter names, by the way?), has come up with his own budget that intends to deal with the budget. He says that the budget problem requires cutting spending in all areas, but then he makes two big exceptions: Social Security and Medicare.

I guess that his justification for this is that it would be politically unfavorable to touch these. Maybe he is trying to come up with a practical budget. But then again, he proposes to basically eliminate the Department of Education, and does that really seem like it would fly in today's political climate?

Rand Paul describes his budget this way:
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. But by reducing wasteful spending and shuttering departments that are beyond the constitutional role of the federal government, such as the Department of Education, we can cut nearly 40% of our projected deficit and at the same time remove thousands of big-government bureaucrats who stand in the way of efficiency.

He is right, and I believe that the budget is too moderate and not realistic. He, at least, attacks defense spending, which is a major part of the budget, but not the other two major entitlement programs. Together, these three spending areas make up more than 50% of the Federal Budget. Attacking one is not enough, because, although Paul believes that this will eliminate the deficit, it does not deal with the fact that taxes are still too high.

That tax problem is something that nobody is dealing with. Sure, we could balance the budget by increasing taxation and decreasing spending, but is this the best way? We are still in the midst of a recession, and standard of living is not increasing. Decreasing the burden of government to allow more investment is the first step in the path to prosperity, but that will require lowering taxes. Is there a budget proposal that is realistic and allows for lower taxes? I have yet to see it. For Rand Paul, a self-described libertarian, his very moderate budget is a joke for ignoring that problem.


  1. It expressly and specifically is only a partial bill - the one dealing with the discretionary spending part of the problem.

    Entitlement Reform is handled by Paul separately. His Social Security proposal came out last week (with Lee and Graham), Medicare will follow in the next weeks.

  2. I've seen the social security proposal. All it does is raise the social security eligibility age. That only further solidifies the program rather than working to destroy it. Would it help? Sure it would, but it does not go far enough.

  3. I could live with Rand Paul's budget if he would also propose an immediate reduction corporate taxes (closing all loopholes at the same time). I like eliminating bureaucracy that is in his plan. It would be a good start. Remember these budgets are ten year projections and there will another ten year projection next year.

  4. I doubt that any proposals are going to have any serious tax cuts, especially when it comes to capital gains and corporate taxes. Complacency is the nectar that sustains the corrupt nanny state.