Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
Politico reports Ron Paul will unveil his budget plan ahead of tomorrow night's debate in Las Vegas. His plan to eliminate five cabinet departments and slash budgets elsewhere would create a balanced federal budget by his third year of presidency, he'll claim:
Many of the ideas are familiar from Paul’s staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites like eliminating the departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he’ll propose immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.
Medicaid and food stamps would be block-granted to the states. The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut to $39,336 -- “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”
The top corporate income tax rate would be reduced to 15 percent, and capital gains and dividends taxes would be eliminated. Bush-era tax cuts would be extended.
President Barack Obama’s health care reform law would be repealed, but so would the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year.
Oh yeah, and the Fed would get audited.
Thoughts? Usually when politicians claim they have a bold plan, it's complete hogwash. In this case, the adjective fits.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
How about this: Tie the president's salary to median income, subtract a percentage equal to the unemployment rate, and give him a small bonus for every period of time he goes without giving a (non-SOTU) joint address to Congress or requests prime-time airtime from the networks. Set it up for an initial trial run that expires January, 2013.
-30% isn't anywhere near enough for the EPA...
Jun '10
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
Two comments: Paul always is offputting when he naively would destroy the military. If you're going to "ax Pentagon funding for wars" what then is the purpose for a military at all? Really, really silly.
Most of the other stuff is great. I would pay the President more than $39K--it is an important job. (Getting rid of some of the royal aspects of the American presidency would be great)
Jun '11
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
Its great that these candidates let their hair down and put the specifics of their vision out there for us to evaluate. I like all the cuts save the military and pushing responsibilities down to the states. Oh the ring of "eliminate 5 departments". Beautiful.
Aug '11
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
As usual with anything Ron Paul says, I like about half of it, the other half leaves me queasy. The Presidential salary thing is neat, symbolically, but I think would have a better carrot/stick effect if we did it to the House and Senate office holders.
May '10
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
It's maddening that each of the available candidates has such serious drawbacks along with his strong points.
But I love that he's forcing the "national conversation" in the direction of serious spending reduction.
May '11
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
Mollie, is this really complete hogwash? Do you agree with absolutely nothing Mr. Paul has proposed?
Jul '11
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
It is good to see him come out with a specific plan rather than just talking theory. He is learning from his son, a much more-skilled politician, I think.
Jun '11
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
I think the adjective Mollie meant is "bold." Go back and read the last two sentences again and see if that fits.
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
I like a lot of this -- except for the military cuts -- except for the presidential salary cap, which is sort of silly and unserious. And it reinforces the idea that the president has some kind of detailed control over the ups-and-downs of the economy.
Oct '11
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
This plan will not will Paul the nomination, but it could move the other candidates in the direction of serious, structural reform in government. This can only be a good thing.
And I think all of us are excited to see what Romney thinks of the plan.
Edited on Oct 17, 2011 at 10:47amFeb '11
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
Block grants to the states? That sounds so much unlike Ron Paul: why not let the states fund their own programs?
May '11
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
Whether it be OSW or Ron Paul, there is always somebody willing to scapegoat anyone making more money. As if billionaire Mitt Romney, or even multi-millionaire Barack Obama, gives a damn about his Presidential salary. A small-minded solution, intended to appeal to small-minded voters. Now if you cut the salaries of ALL federal employees by 80% you might be on to something.
Oct '10
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
I'm reminded of that first Fox News debate where he was asked how he'd get his plans through Congress. His response really says it all.
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
Christopher Esget
I think the adjective Mollie meant is "bold." Go back and read the last two sentences again and see if that fits. · Oct 17 at 9:51am
Thanks, Pastor. My writing was unclear but I think this is a pretty bold plan.
And I like the plan. Particularly when compared to what every other politician in the running is selling. I'm not sold on Paul as a candidate, but I tend to agree with much of what he says.
Dec '10
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
You complain of scapegoating then use federal employees as scapegoats. There are many federal programs that should be eliminated entirely thus eliminating many federal employees. Just "cutting their salaries" would hurt those who do useful work on behalf of the nation. Lumping all federal employees together as though they all work at HHS, HUD, etc. is the same as lumping all conservatives in with crazy racists who happen to hold small government ideals.
Dec '10
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
I think we should shorten the Presidential bus by half, and paint it yellow.
May '11
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Christopher Esget
I think the adjective Mollie meant is "bold." Go back and read the last two sentences again and see if that fits. · Oct 17 at 9:51am
Thanks, Pastor. My writing was unclear but I think this is a pretty bold plan.
And I like the plan. Particularly when compared to what every other politician in the running is selling. I'm not sold on Paul as a candidate, but I tend to agree with much of what he says. · Oct 17 at 11:54am
Whew! That was a close one. For a moment there I thought we were going to have to do an intervention with Mollie.
Also, it may be true that I am getting over-sensitized and a bit reflexive when I see good ideas and "hogwash" in the same article. Maybe I need a chill-pill (or one of Claire's mushrooms.) Oooohmmmm....
Nov '10
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
What some conservatiives appear not to grasp is that, unless dramatic cuts are made everywhere, including the military, there will catastrophic collapses everywhere, including the military.
Either way, America will be scaling back its empire. The only issue is timescale.
To argue otherwise is to argue, not with Ron Paul, but with economic reality.
As for the idea of prioritizing welfare cuts over warfare cuts: bread will trump bullets.
Edited on Oct 17, 2011 at 3:47pmApr '11
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
I am entertained by the degree to which Paul, who has often railed against the "but it's OK when we do it" GOP approach to big government, has chosen to remove 5/6 departments created by progressives or democrats since the 19th century (Transport somehow got a pass), but to keep the GOP additions to government bloat, whether under Ike, Reagan, or 43. Getting rid of Commerce and keeping Treasury seems pretty counter-intuitive, too.
Jul '10
Re: Ron Paul: $1 Trillion Budget Cut, $39K Presidential Salary
Well, when I'm not elected president I promise to cut the EPA by 90%.
Take that Ron Paul.
Aodhan: What some conservatiives appear not to grasp is that, unless dramatic cuts are made everywhere, including the military, there will catastrophic collapses everywhere, including the military.
Either way, America will be scaling back its empire. The only issue is timescale.
To argue otherwise is to argue, not with Ron Paul, but with economic reality.
As for the idea of prioritizing welfare cuts over warfare cuts: bread will trump bullets.
You have a point, sir. However, I would note two things:
1. Americans, like every other people in human history, are quite willing to debate economic reality until it smacks them in the face.
2. Bread only trumps bullets that are aimed externally.