Three cheers for Sen. Rand Paul
By
-
To the editor:
On Tuesday, I watched an of interview of Sen. Rand Paul on Public Television. If a few conservatives watched, they might not be so intent on cutting public broadcastings funding.
The interview centered on the pending budget battle and what has been termed by both left and right his "radical" cost cutting proposals. I may not agree with the newly elected Kentucky senator on some things, but I found myself shouting "Yes, Yes," at my TV a couple of times during the interview.
His attitude, like mine, was a pox on both Democrats and Republicans who are playing to their bases and ignoring the elephants in the room when it comes to balancing the federal budget. Unlike President Obama and the Republican leadership, he pointed out the simple truth that, if discretionary spending, other than on defense, was cut 100% we would still have an enormous budge deficit.
Americans have been sold a bill of goods in that respect since an actor playing the part of president convinced most people that it was possible to pay for huge increases in defense spending by cutting off aid to "welfare queens."
Back then, prior to more unfunded mandates such as Bush's prescription drug plan, the cost of all social programs combined was less than 0.5% of a federal budget that was running a deficit of over 25%. The increase in defense spending was justified primarily by a due primarily by a phony CIA report from outsiders, commissioned CIA director H. W. Bush in 1976, that completely reversed the actual CIA findings that said that the threat from the Soviet Union was decreasing and that the Unites States could therefore reduce defense spending. This week, President Obama awarded the Medal of Freedom to ex-President George Herbert Walker Bush, the man most directly responsible for exploding defense department budgets that have unnecessarily added several trillions to the national debt since the late 1970s. Go figure!
Sen. Paul's position, like that of his father, is that excessive spending on the military has to end, that we cannot afford to be the world's policeman, and that overseas bases left over from WW II need to be closed. He also contended that we should stop borrowing money from our children and grandchildren to provide foreign aid that goes into the pockets of dictators rather than helping people. Finally, he contended that Social Security shortfall could be handled easily by a combination of increasing the cap on payments into social security, increasing retirement age to reflect linger life spans and means testing. Three cheers for a bit of sanity in the budget debate.
I don't know this to be the case, but my worry is that Rand Paul, like his father, will favor eliminating income taxes without considering where government revenue would come from and would favor slashing military spending without taking the fact that the country's economy is overwhelmingly dependent on it. There has to be a transitional period during which alternate sources of government revenue can be established and in which jobs not related to producing weapon systems or patrolling the streets of third world countries can be created.
Back in 1979, the only candidate without a plan to make the country energy independent and to rein in defense spending was elected president and the country has been pretty much following the course he charted ever since. Given nearly a third of a century of misdirection to overcome, solutions will not be instantaneous, but having people in government, such as Senator Paul, with the courage to face our problems is s good start on solving them.
Sincerely,
Charles Leach
Lynchburg[[In-content Ad]]
On Tuesday, I watched an of interview of Sen. Rand Paul on Public Television. If a few conservatives watched, they might not be so intent on cutting public broadcastings funding.
The interview centered on the pending budget battle and what has been termed by both left and right his "radical" cost cutting proposals. I may not agree with the newly elected Kentucky senator on some things, but I found myself shouting "Yes, Yes," at my TV a couple of times during the interview.
His attitude, like mine, was a pox on both Democrats and Republicans who are playing to their bases and ignoring the elephants in the room when it comes to balancing the federal budget. Unlike President Obama and the Republican leadership, he pointed out the simple truth that, if discretionary spending, other than on defense, was cut 100% we would still have an enormous budge deficit.
Americans have been sold a bill of goods in that respect since an actor playing the part of president convinced most people that it was possible to pay for huge increases in defense spending by cutting off aid to "welfare queens."
Back then, prior to more unfunded mandates such as Bush's prescription drug plan, the cost of all social programs combined was less than 0.5% of a federal budget that was running a deficit of over 25%. The increase in defense spending was justified primarily by a due primarily by a phony CIA report from outsiders, commissioned CIA director H. W. Bush in 1976, that completely reversed the actual CIA findings that said that the threat from the Soviet Union was decreasing and that the Unites States could therefore reduce defense spending. This week, President Obama awarded the Medal of Freedom to ex-President George Herbert Walker Bush, the man most directly responsible for exploding defense department budgets that have unnecessarily added several trillions to the national debt since the late 1970s. Go figure!
Sen. Paul's position, like that of his father, is that excessive spending on the military has to end, that we cannot afford to be the world's policeman, and that overseas bases left over from WW II need to be closed. He also contended that we should stop borrowing money from our children and grandchildren to provide foreign aid that goes into the pockets of dictators rather than helping people. Finally, he contended that Social Security shortfall could be handled easily by a combination of increasing the cap on payments into social security, increasing retirement age to reflect linger life spans and means testing. Three cheers for a bit of sanity in the budget debate.
I don't know this to be the case, but my worry is that Rand Paul, like his father, will favor eliminating income taxes without considering where government revenue would come from and would favor slashing military spending without taking the fact that the country's economy is overwhelmingly dependent on it. There has to be a transitional period during which alternate sources of government revenue can be established and in which jobs not related to producing weapon systems or patrolling the streets of third world countries can be created.
Back in 1979, the only candidate without a plan to make the country energy independent and to rein in defense spending was elected president and the country has been pretty much following the course he charted ever since. Given nearly a third of a century of misdirection to overcome, solutions will not be instantaneous, but having people in government, such as Senator Paul, with the courage to face our problems is s good start on solving them.
Sincerely,
Charles Leach
Lynchburg[[In-content Ad]]