[SJackson]

Easily done. Watch:...Now, selling off about 99 percent of NON-military-affiliated federally held lands would allow some latitude to get rid of one of the highest pieces of spending left, the interest on the debt... but once the debt is paid, NO MORE, ever. You can see where the Unconstitutional Spending could be dumped with very little impact on your average American, except for a major increase in his personal wealth as he was no longer constrained to pay over half or more of his substance to a bloated and evil government.

I am, and again you make my point, Paul's proposals are completely unworkable.

Your version of a Paul "budget" spends $838 billion, on $411.7 in revenue. Doesn't work. Even if one accepts your highly speculative proposal to eliminate all our debt by selling off federal land, to the Saudis I presume, you're still spending almost $600 billion, 50% more than revenues.

As to additional unconstitutional spending, you're spending only on defense, veterans benefits, law enforcement and general expenses. Which of those are unconstitutional?

I should note that if the income tax is unconstitutional, I don't think it is, it's unconstitutional. You can't collect corporate income tax. On the other hand since we will have no active war zone under Paul, he's withdrawing from Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else immediately, you could cut defense spending to far less than $500 billion.

In any instance, another source of revenue is needed to replace the income tax, including the corporate tax.

[dcwusmc]

I didn’t have either a calculator or the time to do the numbers, but in getting rid of ALL the UnConstitutional spending (and, per the Tenth Amendment, if it’s not specified as OK for FedGov, it’s NOT AUTHORIZED to FedGov to do), it would take FAR less money and a different system could be put in place that would be constitutional AND provide the legitimate needs of FedGov. That was my point.

[publiusF27]

Paul's proposals are completely unworkable.

He's not running for dictator, and would have to contend with Congress, and Congress would have to contend with him.

Who knows what might come out of the interaction, but it would be nice to at least have an advocate of smaller, constitutionally limited government at the table for a change.