Rand Paul: A Modest $500 Billion Proposal - WSJ.com

By RAND PAUL

After Republicans swept into office in 1994, Bill Clinton famously said in his State of the Union address that the era of big government was over. Nearly $10 trillion of federal debt later, the era of big government is at its zenith.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will be the third consecutive year in which the federal government is running a deficit near or greater than $1 trillion. The solution to the government's fiscal crisis must begin by cutting spending in all areas, particularly in those that can be better run at the state or local level. Last month I introduced legislation to do just that. And though it seems extreme to some—containing over $500 billion in spending cuts enacted over one year—it is a necessary first step toward ending our fiscal crisis.

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. 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.

Read more: Rand Paul: A Modest $500 Billion Proposal - WSJ.com

What's the Matter With America? (Soros, Huffington, Maher, & Olbermann C...

Ronald Reagan vs. Today's Democratic Leadership

"Rise Up"- by Jeremy Hoop

A Great Video Blog On Rand Paul's Statements Regarding the Civil Rights Act

SA@TAC - Rand Paul's Practical Philosophy

White House Holds a Luau While Americans Lose Their Jobs

The White House held its annual picnic this year for the press and Congress. It looks like everyone had a great time even though they weren't able to have a traditional pig roast because of environmental concerns. They even were able to raise some money for charity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_7b0GqKglE


Its no wonder that Americans disapprove of the job Congress has been doing. http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm While many hard working Americans are struggling to keep their homes, find new jobs or to simply put food on the table the elites in Washington are enjoying themselves at our expense. It must be nice to have a virtually limitless checking account (the American taxpayer) to fund these types of activities. Look even in the best of times these types of events are ridiculous. This is not an event to meet other heads of state, which are necessary although one could argue extravagant, but rather a party for our elected representatives. Most of these people are millionaires, including the President, it would have been nice if they opened their own wallets and paid for it since we are in the biggest recession since the Great Depression. But who am I kidding with budgets of between $2-4 million for each member in Congress plus a salary of $170k and the best medical care and pension plan money can buy these guys have it really tough. I mean when you compare the perks Congress has to what our soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan get, an average annual salary of between $12-30k including combat pay plus three meals, a cot and the daily fear that today could be your last day on earth, its equal right!?

Do Americans really want universal healthcare? NY Times says Yes. But their own poll shows that Americans only want it if its FREE!!

Much has been said lately in the media about Americans overwhelming supporting Universal Healthcare. Most likely they are citing to a recent CBS/NY Times Poll http://tiny.cc/tMhuc. Ignoring the fact that the poll skews towards liberals (more Obama supporters were polled than McCain supporters) when you read the actual results you may be pleasantly surprised to find that Americans are satisfied with their current level of healthcare. However, the Times headline that "Americans Overwhelming Support" universal healthcare is a little disingenuous. Yes, 72% support a government supported plan like medicare, which is free.( I know we pay taxes but lets pretend its really free.) Sounds like Obama is winning the debate right but wait a second if you ask people to pay only $500 a year or ruffly $42 a month which is significantly less than the average monthly cost of $600 ($7200 a year) most Americans currently pay for healthcare only 25% are willing to pay. (questions 59 and 60). For some other interesting tidbits check out questions 50,51,64,65,80,81.