The highlights of the plan are as follows:
Reduces spending by nearly $4 trillion relative to the President's budget
- Achieves a $19 billion surplus in FY2016
- Brings all non-military discretionary spending back to FY2008 levels
- Requires the process of entitlement reform, including Social Security and Medicare, with final implementation by FY2016
- Does not change Social Security or Medicare benefits
- Block-grants Medicaid, SCHIP, foods stamps, and child nutrition
· Provides the President's request for war funding
- Reduces military spending 6 percent in FY2012
· Eliminates four departments:
- Department of Commerce (transfers certain programs)
- Department of Education (preserves Pell grants)
- Department of Housing and Urban Development
- Department of Energy (transfers nuclear research and weapons to Department of Defense)
· Repeals Obamacare
DEFICITS/DEBT:
· Never exceeds $12 trillion in debt held by public
· Creates $2.6 trillion less in deficit spending relative to the President's Budget
REVENUE:
· Extends all the 2001 and 2003 tax relief
· Permanently patches the alternative minimum tax
· Repeals Obamacare taxes
This seems contradictory to me:
ReplyDelete"Requires the process of entitlement reform, including Social Security and Medicare, with final implementation by FY2016
- Does not change Social Security or Medicare benefits"
Senator Paul needs to state what he proposes as fixes to Social Security and Medicare. Unless he states what his proposal is WE THE PEOPLE cannot determine if it is acceptable and HE CANNOT say what the deficit will be if he doesn't even know where he is proposing to go on SS/Medicare.
6% cut in defense is laughable. 20% is the minimum to start - THIS YEAR. More next year. All we need for defense are nukes and perhaps some anti-missile defenses. No need for ground pounders. Wanna get something done militarily? Then drop a nuke on it and get it done!
This "plan" is the best I've seen offered by the goobermint maggots so far, but it is lacking details, and each line item should state how much it reduces the budget per year.
I doubt the Republicans, even should they win the presidency and both houses of congress in 2012, would have the WILL to pass this perfectly reasonable plan for averting catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteIt eliminates four departments but merely transfers their worst parts to other departments. Will a politician (besides Ron Paul) ever argue on moral and economic grounds for the abolition of destructive programs such as Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and Pell grants? The question answers itself, sadly. Merely arguing that these programs should be cut implies that they are desirable and should be maintained. They should not.
ReplyDeleteThe article relates: "Requires the process of entitlement reform, including Social Security and Medicare."
ReplyDeleteMr Paul needs to be publically corrected,(he probably knows better than to write as he did) .... Evidence abounds that Social Security is not an entitlement rather an insurance program.
"Mr Paul needs to be publically corrected,(he probably knows better than to write as he did) .... Evidence abounds that Social Security is not an entitlement rather an insurance program."
ReplyDeleteI can't tell if you're joking or not ... insurance against what? becoming old? its most favorable description would be coerced retirement savings ... its accurate description would be a coerced, gigantic ponzi scheme
@anonymous: Nukes are not defensive weapons. In fact, more like offensive ones and weapons of intimidation and murder. No argument that the defense budget needs a larger reduction than 6%, though. I suggest 100%.
ReplyDelete@ricpic: But the GOP believes "in the power and opportunity of America's free-market economy".
@Nathan: Maybe Rand is worried about a leftist seige of the DC in the manner of Wisconsin, Indiana, and now, it seems, Michigan.
@theyenguy: social security is a redistribution racket, pure and simple, and a nifty way to cultivate contempt for one's elders, too. In fact, it insults Ponzi to call it a Ponzi scheme. He relied not upon threats of violence to entice his investors.
@Rand Paul: Experience proves that the Federalists established an incorrigible organized crime racket. All copies of the Constitution should be burnt or sold at auction to the highest bidder and the City of Washington reabsorbed into Maryland.
Anonymous, he has repeatedly said what he wants for SS, but no one else will go out on a limb until the president gets on board, they want it to be bipartisan.
ReplyDeleteWow! Lots of posts that are nonsense here. Where to start......
ReplyDelete@Nathan: What do you propose to keep people currently dependent on SS, and those who are nearing retirement and will be dependent on it soon, from being destitute? IF you want to whine about SS, that's OK, but please state what you would do instead of the current plan. OR do you plan on just cutting it off and then be killed by hungry, starving old people? I would go for reducing medicare significantly by rationing health care that is paid for by the government - when you reach a certain age, hard choices need to be made - we have the technology to keep people alive FAR beyond what is reasonable - and I think that is a HUGE factor in the high cost of medicare - it needs guidelines for what can be spent at the end of life. And it should be available only for people who cannot afford their own insurance. I'd even say that it would be OK to eliminate medicare. The life expectancy will fall significantly, but that is OK - if it is eliminated, then all states should be required to provide doctor assisted suicide on demand at any age. People would get old, get a costly disease, and have to be wiped out financially to pay for it, or else they could opt for doctor assisted suicide so their families would not suffer from being destitue. That's nasty, but that's the reality of the world we live in. WE live in a world of infinite cruelty - a world created by pure evil - for what purpose we have not a clue - a mystery we will never understand. As Buddha said: "Life is suffering." Looks like he nailed that one!
@Danger Pioneer: Did you just fall off the turnip truck? SS is insurance in case your personal investments are worthless at the time of your old age, or in case you (most fall into this category) have not saved ANYTHING for retirement, or in case you are disabled and can't work. Do you have a problem with that? Are you aware that ALL investments are ponzi schemes - no exceptions - if everyone sells stocks or real estate or gold, etc the price will fall and if enough sell the price will approach zero - that is because rising prices of anything are dependent on a continuous stream of suckers to buy from those who are selling.
@Anonymous: I'd prefer to have a strong defense, but the cost can be reduced DRASTICALLY from what we are now spending.
@Anonymous: quote: "Anonymous, he has repeatedly said what he wants for SS, but no one else will go out on a limb until the president gets on board, they want it to be bipartisan."
ReplyDeleteOK, WHAT is it that he wants for SS? Tell us. We the people want to know.
@Anonymous 5:35 PM:
ReplyDeleteYou want details? Go read the 65-page document:
http://senatus.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/paul_budget.pdf
Nukes are a defensive weapon. Just the mere act of having them is a deterrent.
ReplyDeleteInsurance implies a contract, however congress can change the terms of payment, issuance, etc. making insurance an inaccurate term for SS.
ReplyDeleteNeither is SS an entitlement, since it is not enshrined in the Bill of Rights nor any other section of the Constitution and can be revoked or revised at whim by congress.
Ha ha.
ReplyDeleteRand Paul is so unintentionally funny.