Skip to comments.Rand Paul maps quick path to balanced budget
Posted on 03/23/2013 7:51:21 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
Sen. Rand Paul formally rolled out his 2014 budget blueprint on Friday, offering a combination of tax and spending proposals that he said would balance the federal budget in five years without raising taxes.
The freshman Kentucky Republicans plan reshapes entitlement programs, abolishes four federal agencies and overhauls the federal tax code by establishing a 17-percent flat tax and eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and savings.
(Excerpt) Read more at p.washingtontimes.com ...
The spending proposal the freshman senator outlined Friday would put the nation on a path to a balanced budge five years faster than the plan that House Republicans adopted last week. The unveiling came as the Senate was debating a Democratic budget that would leave a major deficit even after 10 years.
The House Republican budget, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, the 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee, would spend $3.5 trillion next year and $41.5 trillion over the next decade, compared with tax revenues of $3 trillion in 2014 and $40.2 trillion over 10 years.
Mr. Pauls budget would spend $3.2 trillion next year and $37.6 trillion over ten years, compared tax revenues of $2.5 trillion in 2014 and $37.9 trillion over 10 years.
Mr. Pauls budget allocated $526 billion for national defense in 2014 and $5.6 trillion for national defense over the next 10 years. The House GOP budget, meanwhile, sets aside $579 billion for national defense in 2014 and more than $6 trillion over the next 10 years.
Mr. Paul, as well as GOP Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, and Mike Lee of Utah, joined Democrats Thursday in voting against the Ryan House budget arguing that the plan did not go far enough in getting the nations fiscal house in order.
Step #1: Admit that you have a spending problem.
They haven’t gotten to that point yet.
I will vote for this man.
10 years. Not quick.
Some good views on what needs to be done but the tax reform will not last because the tax code will be amended and amended and amended ad infinitum as it has in the past. A ‘Flat Tax’ never stays flat. Get with the FairTax tax for lasting reform.
sounds good to me.
The first legislator to ever advocate shuttering a govt agency.
I stand with Rand.
Reagan campaigned in 1980 on specifically eliminating the Department of Education. Of course, with a Rat Congress and RINOs, it didn't happen once he was elected.
My reps, Cruz and Gohmert, both have and so have others like Rand Paul. A dam break starts with a trickle.
For now, I too say Rand is da man.
Someone is coaching this guy right, he’s laying a hard to beat foundation for a serious run in 2016. Hopefully 2016 campaigns won’t turn into a GOP circular firing squad like 12.
Guess in Rand’s case his acorn fell just far enough from the Paul tree to retain the good stuff while missing the nuttiness.
It needs to abolish as many DEPARTMENTS of the Executive Branch, never mind "agencies".
There are thousands of those.
How about the "No Tax" plan?
Where the federal government bills the states for the federal services they choose.
Re-establish the work requirement for welfare recipients plus add the abolishment of the EPA and I think we have a winner.
I could not agree more regarding the FairTax.
I’m nitpicking here but Reagan wasn’t a legislator.
Social Security is already a raw deal for higher income workers. It already makes a massive transfer from high income to low income retirees:
How to read this chart: The ratio is the comparison of the cost of a career of contributions to Social Security, compared to the value of the benefits received if you live to 84 after retirement. This is average life expectancy at 67.
If the ratio is above 100%, you get more than you put in. If the ratio is below 100%, you get less. The value of money is taken into account with each line: They range from -1.0% to 2.0%. This is the rate of return after inflation.
Government T-bills have averaged about 0.5% above inflation for the past 30-40 years, so you can use the purple line to compare what Social Security should return. And you can see that the line crosses 100% at about $4,700/month -- very close to the median income. If your average income is above that, you are essentially giving up part of your Social Security contributions to the recipients below it.
This alone makes this politically nonviable. The political class would never let investors escape taxes.
A better proposal would have been to index capital gains for inflation, so that only the real gain is taxed and not the paper gain due to the devaluation of money. Eliminate double taxation of dividends by making them a deductible expense for corporations, and dividends would only be taxed once at the individual tax rate.
Under these circumstances, the flat tax rate could be lowered even further.
You are referring to a direct tax as provided in the original articles of the Constitution regarding taxation.
Such a plan must be done with apportionment but the 16th Amendment allows the federal government to do a direct tax without apportionment. Therefore, such a no-tax plan would never be sold to the states. Also the federal government billing the states would entail the states putting a levy of federal tax on people and businesses, so it would indeed be a tax plan.
The FairTax code does what you are suggesting by allowing the states to collect federal sales taxes but it also abolishes all the income tax code and endures only if the 16th amendment is repealed.
With the FairTax people will have the choice to be taxed or not. It’s much better than billing states directly.
Yeah, I don't know about that. This would make the states the highest taxing authority and allow states to choose which federal programs they wished to participate in.
Many would opt simply for defense.
A Flat Tax never stays flat.
In the history of the United States there have been 4 flat taxes beginning in 1861. Prior to that there was serious talk but never any legislation passed on it. Each of the flat taxes were amended to become graduated. Like cancer a flat tax metastacizes to what we have today.
Taking what we have today and stuffing back into a flat tax is very sloppy surgery allowing the disease to reappear later.
A Flat tax without apportionment can only exist under the 16th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment is a license to tax at will, to allow Congress to play with tax codes to satisfy their vested and special interests.
There have been 5 major tax reforms since the 16th Amendment was passed in 1913. Each such reform sought to make the tax code simpler and ‘flatter’. Each time the reform unraveled and failed.
Since the last major tax reform in 1986 there have been more than 20,000 amendments to the tax code. There is an entire industry engaged in rewriting and amending the tax code. The 16th is their business license to do this.
Any Flat Tax is a failure waiting to happen.
The solution is the FairTax, a consumption tax that starts only after everyone has spent the equivalent of essentials for living.
Those are excellent proposals -- especially the Departments of
Education Indoctrination , Housing and Urban Development Drugs, Disruption and Crime, and Commerce Regulation, Confiscation and Fascism, not even to mention the Transportation Security Authority Sexual Abuse and Humiliation Police.
But I had wanted to see Sarah Palin as Secretary of Energy in the next non-Democrap administration... Oh, well, a little sacrifice would be worth it to get rid of the rest!
It sure beats what we have now, which took 80 years to create.
I know, right? The dad creates a physical loathing in me. Whenever I see his face I hit the remote. There's only two other people I do that to, and their last names both begin with "O".
(And I don't mean O'Reilly.)
So, when the DOE gets wrapped up into the Interior Dept, make her the Secretary of that. She’s got experience with natural resources, hunting, fishing, parks, all sorts of that outdoorsy stuff.
“It sure beats what we have now, which took 80 years to create.”
Spending exploded under Bush II and has accelerated under Zero.
We don’t have 10 years left. We need immediate change, or it will be too late.
Never a Ronpaul supporter, by a country mile, but Daddy Ron wasn’t half as nutty as many of his Paulnutz folks, which PO’d a whole lot of us.
Ron did have a few great ideas, and a great many more off the wall ideas.
Hoping Rand will stay on the course he is now on.
Just more games. If anyone wanted to balance the budget then they would do it in one year.
The simple fact of the matter is that we are no longer even close to being able to balance the budget without major cutting in the Entitlement categories(we are in fact increasing that at a major clip). It is mathematically impossible to do otherwise. And when interest rates go back up then we are really screwed. If our debt cost us 10% interest then I believe that All of GDP would go to paying the interest on the debt. Leaving no money left to spend on anything.
Therefore any budget that intends to push this out 5 years, therefore putting us another 7 or 8 trillion in debt(or more)- is a just another scam. Because the problem is a whole lot worse at that point.
And then we are well aware that congress does not honor budgets anyways. They just keep voting on more spending regardless of any budget. Including another major banker bailout or so called “Stimulus” or what ever suits their fancy. Food stamps, Obama care...
This is just Rand Paul’s version of the same old trick being played on the masses. Anyone who falls for it is a gullible fool.
“Mr. Pauls plan abolishes the Departments of Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development and Commerce, and privatizes the Transportation Security Authority.”
I too will vote for Mr. Paul - There may be light at the end of this long dark night
The real spending explosion occurred after the 'rats took Congress in '06.
“The real spending explosion occurred after the ‘rats took Congress in ‘06.”
And bush II went along with all the spending, not vetoing it, funding two wars, expanding the earned income tax credit, expanding the drug benefit, etc. Republicans went along too. It was the ruin if the republican brand promise...
And let’s not forget it was this series of actions that led to the loss.
That's a great idea! :->
Mustn't shoot without aiming. Did it occur to you that God may be using this to sort the sheep from the goats?
“Mustn’t shoot without aiming.”
Are you kidding? This is triage. We spent $1 trillion more than we took in last year - again.
Freeze all expenditures. Stop automatic increases. Cut 1% from every department immediately - across the board.
Give me 12 randomly chosen Amish people and 60 days and the power and we’ll get it done.
“Did it occur to you that God may be using this to sort the sheep from the goats?”
Sure. Did it occur to you that we still have responsibility to be act with wisdom, regardless of what He does?
E.G., even in "Sequestration," the Feds are spending more money than last time. A slow-down in the rate of the increase of a budget is called a "cut."
It is generally conceded (IIRC) that an efficient government ought to reasonably consume about 15-16% of a nation's GNP. Soooo .... WTF is wrong with trimming the government to fit that number? There are indeed whole departments that we could well do without. In fact, we prospered through 2 centuries without them!
The last time we had a budget, it consumed well over 20% of GNP, and we're on track for 30% ... like Greece.
*But unlike Joe Biden, I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express. BTW, most elected reps are (failed) small town lawyers who know less about economics than even I! The Mombasa Kid is, among other areas in which he appears to have no basic knowledge, economically illiterate. He also was a lawyer, but unlike most Congress Critter lawyers, he was asked off the Bar in Illinois ... permanently!