Rand Paul Proposes $500 Billion in Cuts

From Fox 41:

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul wants to slash numerous federal programs, including food stamps for the poor, to save $500 billion in a single year.

A legislative proposal Paul introduced on Tuesday would slash $42 billion from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food stamp program — a 30 percent spending reduction. His proposal would eliminate numerous other programs, including the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Paul said the proposal would roll back federal spending to 2008 levels and eliminate what he considers the most wasteful programs…

Before you liberals get all “he wants to starve poor people” about the food stamp cuts, you should realize there is a huge about of waste and fraud in that program and, at any rate, it should be only for the most desperately poor who can get food absolutely no other way. Right now, just about anyone can walk up and make a claim for food stamps. The main thing is the roll back to 2008 levels – that is the crucial aspect here.

It has been reported that Social Security will start going broke this very year. It had been projected to stay in the black until 2016, but the drop in revenues these past few years plus Obama’s asinine payroll tax cut will put it in to the red in 2011, and it won’t go back in to the black, ever (meaning that even if the economy improves, it won’t improve to the point where revenues exceed expenditures in SS…only benefit cuts or tax increases will do the trick). We are up against the wall in fiscal matters and piddling $100 billion cuts or an idiotic freeze in spending won’t do it – if we are to save ourselves from economic catastrophe, we need to cut spending. And cut it quite a lot – and right away.

We can survive this, good people. Sure it will hurt to cut spending – but not as much as continuing spending until our national bonds are reduced to junk status. Yes, cutting spending will knock of a point or two from GDP. Yes, it will cause unemployment to spike as government employees are laid off. Yes, it will, as I said, hurt. But the hurt will be short lived – a year or two, at the most. After that, with a budget balanced and debt being repaid we’ll suddenly find that we have bags of money (real money, not stuff printed up by the Fed) to invest in new economic enterprises – if we combine this budget cutting with tax and regulatory reform to unleash making, mining and growing things, then we could be in an economic boom by 2013 or 2014.

All we have to do is show some guts. I know that Rand Paul is ready. I’m ready. Are you? Of course, the real kicker to this is that we have to some how, some way, get Obama ready…that might prove impossible and our hope will then become a replacement in 2013. If we wait that long, then it will be more painful than it would be this year – but that will be as it is. All we can do is the right thing – and that, in 2011, is cutting spending.

The Ruling Class Has Bankrupted the World

From Forbes:

The sovereign debt crisis now threatening Europe, as well as major American states and cities, discloses the sheer incompetence of a political class that has over-promised, under-delivered and squandered vast amounts of their citizens’ wealth.

Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, California, Illinois, Los Angeles and Chicago are simply the poster children for what happens when elected officials engage in reckless and irresponsible management of their economies, their banking system or their respective government’s public finances…

Two paragraphs which tell you pretty much all you need to know about the condition we’re in. Though the author should emphasize more that while politicians were leading the charge, there were plenty in big business cheering them on. The people in charge of the show – running Big Government and Big Corporation – have spent us in to oblivion. They did this by taking away our money and giving us slips of paper – and then borrowing like mad against the wealth of the people until we, the people, have little wealth left and massive debts hanging over our heads.

This will all crash and burn. Today, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year – one day, for certain. It can’t be sustained forever; I’m astounded they’ve managed to keep it together as long as they have. But it will fall apart – not least because while there is still a small and shrinking window of opportunity to dodge the worst of it, our Ruling Class is just continuing to print fake money and borrowing like mad.

Our job is to take back control of our destiny. What happened on November 2nd was just a tiny first step in the process. The Ruling Class doesn’t want to do this as there is no place in such a world for parasites who get rich and powerful by bamboozlement and fraud. And so the entire Ruling Class needs to be tossed out on its ear and a new system developed which rewards hard work, savings and careful investment. Until we do that, we won’t get back to prosperity.

Beware of those who allegedly fret about “extreme” positions. They are the people who keep trying to tell us that Sarah Palin must not be nominated – they were also the people who said we were fools for nominating Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Such warnings are mere attempts to get us to knuckle under – to be afraid of getting rid of those who wrecked the nation and the world. Thus the Master to the Slave – trying to convince the slave that without the master, the slave will perish.

No more; time for a revolution, my friends.

Rand Paul’s Lack of Civility?

You probably have hear how GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul refused to shake hands with his Democrat opponent after a debate. Paul made this refusal given the way he had been slandered on religious grounds by his opponent.

There is likely to be much hand-wringing over this lack of civility on the part of Paul, but all of that is really just liberal hypocrisy. You see, in liberal-speak “civility” means “I can question your parentage, but you have to be nice to me”. The only civil thing we can do with Democrats, these days, is to figure out civil ways to say, “you be d—-d”.

Democrats imported nastiness in to our politics many years ago – the first really hideously nasty campaign they ran was Truman’s 1948 muck-fest. But it was with the vile attacks on first Robert Bork and later on Clarence Thomas that liberal nastiness hit its stride. I know that they claim that we’re nasty and they are just responding – but that is just another in a long, long line of liberal lies. They made things this crude, not us.

A return to civility is very much desired. But it won’t happen until the Democrats learn some manners. Those who wrecked the system bear the primary responsibility for fixing it. No matter how disgusting liberal tactics get, we won’t answer in kind – but we’re not about to shake hands with those who spit in our faces.

Will a Rand Paul Victory Signal an Isolationist GOP?

Ron Paul’s son is rising fast in Kentucky and one theory is that the driver is his opposition to Iraq and concerns about Afghanistan:

Rand Paul, an eye surgeon who got into politics by working on the campaigns of his father, libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, is pounding Trey Grayson, a two-term secretary of state groomed for the Senate by fellow Kentuckian Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

They both label themselves as “100 percent pro-life,” small-government conservatives. They are both anti-bailout, anti-Obamacare, pro-border fence and pro-gun…

…Paul says invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, and while he supported the attack on Afghanistan, he expresses reservations about President Obama’s mission for U.S. forces there and speaks about the need to scale back overseas commitments.

Grayson, meanwhile, defends the Iraq invasion and argues for a long-term commitment to Afghanistan as part of “keeping America on the offensive” in the war on terrorism.

So, same/same on all issues but the war. Paul looks like a winner, ergo GOP voters are souring on the war and foreign intervention. Its a good theory, and true as far as it goes. But one shouldn’t read too much in to it.

The American people will sustain a military effort as long as victory is the goal. Part of the problem people are having with Afghanistan is that Obama is not seeking victory. He doesn’t even use the word as a goal – and without a clearly defined goal, it then becomes a question of “what are we fighting for?”.

If Rand Paul is making hay on this issue, it isn’t because the American people aren’t willing to fight for a better world but that they are not willing to fight endlessly just to spare an elected official the embarrassment of losing a war. If Obama were to vigorously proclaim victory and start being forceful – and stop coddling the Iranians who are backing our enemies – then there would be a much different dynamic in popular opinion about the war. A Paul victory will, in this sense, just instruct us – again – that in war there is no substitute for victory.

We can fence ourselves in, but we can’t fence the world out – in other words, we can’t become isolationist and wind up with other than a major war at some point. And probably with long odds against us because if we isolate, our friends in the world will be picked off one by one. But this doesn’t mean we have to plunge in to every conflict, nor does it mean we have to station troops in nations perfectly capable of defending themselves (Japan, Germany, South Korea – I’m looking at you).

The fundamental change I want to see in our foreign and military policy is that we only go forth to battle during a declared state of war against a particular nation or group of nations. In hindsight, President Bush should have sought a formal declaration of war against Afghanistan – and, in my view, against Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, Syria, Libya and Lebanon. All at once, and within days of 9/11 – might as well have fought it all out to the finish. It’d probably all be over by now – and while it would have been more costly initially, it would almost certainly cost less than its going to cost as we deal with this issue – including a nuclear-armed Iran – for another generation.

And if a President cannot carry Congress and people in to war, then the war should not be fought.