Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Rand Paul on Obama and cutting the budget
3 comments:
You are welcome to post at this blog. You are asked, however, to refrain from the following:
1. Name-calling;
2. Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;
3. Using obscenities or other expressions not appropriate or necessary to civilized discussion;
4. Taking disagreement personally;
5. Demeaning or insulting remarks.
The host will attempt to abide by the same rules and only asks that you not provide him with the temptation to do so in return by violating them.
Failure to comply with these rules can result (depending solely on the arbitrary and inscrutable will of the host) in the deletion of offending posts and suspension of posting privileges. Such measures are more likely if you post anonymously.
It's important to remember the reason why the surplus turned into a deficit: the primary cause was not increases in entitlement spending. Tax cuts are by far the primary cause (accounting for more than half of the spending that led to the deficit), and increases in defense-related spending are second. Entitlement spending comes in third at 15% (and remember much of that is from Republican initiatives, such as the Bush increases in Medicare, which were not offset by higher taxes).
ReplyDeleteIt's also important to remember that much Democratic legislation actually had the fund-raising mechanisms in the bill, in such a way that it actually reduced the deficit.
That CBO data is from 2005, and the newer data on the effect of tax cuts looks even worse.
ReplyDeleteFor the better part of a generation, Republicans have been willing to spend my kids' money on their excesses.
ReplyDeleteIt's amusing that the one tangible, unilateral thing* that Paul could do to reduce the deficit (if by only a smattering) is the thing that he would never, ever, ever do.
(*That is, of course, forswearing taxpayers' dollars in his own practice.)