Rand Paul's Budget

[El Guapo 8]

Been talking about this elsewhere. Would like others thoughts on it. I like the way he actually points out the issues with current parts of the budget/system.http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf

[ShakeZuma 585]

I've gotten through the first couple of pages here and I (of course) really like what I see so far. definitely does a good job in the intro of not seeming "crazy" like so many people try to label him. at first glance, the only number that I can think would really make anyone wince would be the department of education drop off (which he goes on to explain will be eliminated) and I think that is exactly what would need to happen to fix education in this country (no child left behind anybody?). everything gets cut, even defense and heavily so, so if you're for spending reductions, then I'd have to imagine this would be a fair way to do it.so far, the only things that I've seen that have given me pause are the elimination of the department of commerce and the department of energy, but that's mainly because I have no idea what their involvement is in the enforcement of laws and regulations in their respective areas (not sure if these are involved in protecting property rights, i.e. enforcing laws against theft and pollution respectively, or what they actually do).also, the first paragraph in the "deficits and debt" section is very interesting in regards to how the CBO gets it's figures. people always tout CBO stats but just from those few listed assumptions they have to make, it sure does seem like they're nearly completely hamstrung when it comes to producing accurate figures. making assumptions that you know aren't the likely outcomes is a pretty shitty way to forecast.I'll read more later, but I'm sleepy, and I don't think reading through a budget is going to help that.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

definitely does a good job in the intro of not seeming "crazy" like so many people try to label him.

the elimination of the department of commerce and the department of energy

Yeah, eliminating the DOE is pretty crazy. They regulate energy, power plants, nuclear waste, etc. But, almost as importantly, they are in charge of the many excellent national labs that we have in this country, and it is the department which funds more scientific research than any other. And the majority of research they fund is directly applicable to things like energy and defense.So, yeah, that's a bad idea.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Brief Policy ExplanationProgram Budgetary ChangeLegislative Branch Reduced to FY2008 Lev els (Discretionary Only )Gov ernment Printing Office EliminatedJudicial Branch Reduced to FY2008 Lev els (Discretionary Only )Agriculture Reduced to FY2008 Lev els (Discretionary Only )Agriculture Research Serv ice ElminatedNational Inst.of Food and Agric. EliminatedNatural Resources Conserv ation Serv ice EliminatedForeign Agricultural Serv ice EliminatedForest Serv ice Reduce 20% from FY2008 lev elsCommodity Payments to Wealth Farmers Means TestedFood Stamps Block Grant @ FY2008 lev els - Grow at CPIChild Nutrition Program Block Grant @ FY2008 lev els - Grow at CPICommerce Department EliminatedNOAA Transfer NOAA to NSFPatent and Trademark Office Transfer to Dept. of JusticeInternational Trade Admin Transfer to USTRDefenseMilitary Personnel Reduce 10% From BaselineMilitary Procurement Reduce 10% From BaselineMilitary Operations and Maintenance Reduce 10% From BaselineResearch and Dev elopment Reduce 10% From BaselineWar Funding / Emergencies Based on President's RequestDept. of Energy Reduced to FY2008 Lev els (Discretionary Only )U.S. Coast Guard Preserv edStrategic Petroleum Reserv e Preserv edEducation Department EliminatedPell Grants Presev ed at FY2008 Lev els- Grow at CPI and PopulationEnergy Department EliminatedAtomic Energy Programs Transferred to DoDHealth and Human Services Reduce to FY2008 Lev els (Discretionary Only )Food and Drug Reduce 20% from FY2008 lev elsHealth Resources and Serv ices Administration Reduce 20% from FY2008 lev elsIndian Health Serv ice Reduce 20% from FY2008 lev elsCDC Reduce 20% from FY2008 lev elsNational Institute Of Health Reduce 20% from FY2008 lev elsSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Reduce 20% from FY2008 lev elsBlock Grant SCHIP and Medicaid Block Grant @ FY2008 lev els - Grow at CPI and PopulationLIHEAP EliminateHomeland Security Reduced to FY2008 Lev els (Discretionary Only )TSA Reduce 20% from FY2008 lev elsHomeland Security Grants EliminateHousing and Urban Development Department EliminatedInterior Reduced to FY2008 Lev els (Discretionary Only )Land and Mineral Management Reduce 50% from FY2008 lev elsBureau of Reclamation EliminateU.S. Geological Surv ey Reduce 20% from FY2008 lev elsNational Park Serv ice Reduce 30% from FY2008 lev elsBureau of Indian Affairs EliminateJustice Reduced to FY2008 Lev els (Discretionary Only )Office of Justice Programs EliminatedLabor Reduced to FY2008 Lev els (Discretionary Only )Unemployment CompensationWorkers Programs Preserv edState Reduce to FY2008 Lev els (Discretionary Only )International Organizations and Conf EliminatedInternational Commissions EliminatedOther State Programs EliminatedTransportationFund @ Gas Tax Lev els:Federal Highway Admin Fund at Gas Tax Lev elsFederal Transit Admin Fund At Gas Tax Lev elsAmtrak subsidies Eliminated

[brvheart 1,752]

Yeah, eliminating the DOE is pretty crazy. They regulate energy, power plants, nuclear waste, etc. But, almost as importantly, they are in charge of the many excellent national labs that we have in this country, and it is the department which funds more scientific research than any other. And the majority of research they fund is directly applicable to things like energy and defense.So, yeah, that's a bad idea.

It's only a bad idea if he is saying that all research labs should close and all power plants and nuclear waste should immediately become unregulated. He's not.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

It's only a bad idea if he is saying that all research labs should close and all power plants and nuclear waste should immediately become unregulated. He's not.

That's not the ONLY way that it's bad. It's also bad if he reduces it a lot, for example, though not as bad.

[brvheart 1,752]

That's not the ONLY way that it's bad. It's also bad if he reduces it a lot, for example, though not as bad.

We all have to do our part to eliminate the deficit, Science Boy.

[hblask 1]

It seems like a nice start, something that future congresses can build upon for some real cuts.

[hblask 1]

Yeah, eliminating the DOE is pretty crazy. They regulate energy, power plants, nuclear waste, etc. But, almost as importantly, they are in charge of the many excellent national labs that we have in this country, and it is the department which funds more scientific research than any other. And the majority of research they fund is directly applicable to things like energy and defense.So, yeah, that's a bad idea.

See, that's just because your ox is being gored. Everyone wants a balanced budget on someone else's back.The DOE is obsolete. If they have a few specific projects that are still relevant, those can be saved, but most of what they do is pure corporate welfare. If they just maintained pure science projects, they could cut their budget by 95% and all the science would still be going strong.These are the people who have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on corporate welfare disguised as "alternative energy policy" going back to the 70s with zero result. I mean none. You could've dropped the money from airplanes and done better. They distort energy markets with environmentally harmful projects. The list goes on and on. Their few legitimate functions could easily be handled by another department.

[brvheart 1,752]

What if they cut the DOE and then spent 25% of the saved money on more science and research? What then, LLY!?

[El Guapo 8]

FYI cutting the DOE moves nuclear regulation to the DOD.

[Balloon guy 158]

FYI cutting the DOE moves nuclear regulation to the DOD.

We could outsource it to the Japanese, they got extra workers now since they have fewer plants...Too soon?I had my conspiracy friend explain to me that a US sub launched a nuke torpedo to set off the tsunami in order to bring down the nuke plants in Japan for the future depopulation of the planet to coincide with the 2012 Armageddon.

[vbnautilus 48]

See, that's just because your ox is being gored. Everyone wants a balanced budget on someone else's back.The DOE is obsolete. If they have a few specific projects that are still relevant, those can be saved, but most of what they do is pure corporate welfare. If they just maintained pure science projects, they could cut their budget by 95% and all the science would still be going strong.These are the people who have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on corporate welfare disguised as "alternative energy policy" going back to the 70s with zero result. I mean none. You could've dropped the money from airplanes and done better. They distort energy markets with environmentally harmful projects. The list goes on and on. Their few legitimate functions could easily be handled by another department.

For my kind of science it's NIH. I don't think reducing NIH by 20% is unreasonable as long as more expensive and wasteful things like "defense" are cut more heavily. Science is important, but it's something of a luxury in the grand scheme of things.

[SilentSnow 1]

Most of his facts seem reasonable. However, he couldn't resist starting off with a complete lie. He claims the government grew by 667%. This is wildly wrong. In his own document he gives us the historical spending average of 19.6% of GDP and currently 24%- for 22% government growth. The hugely expanding government is just a myth. It's been fairly stable for decades. He also talks about the crowding out effect to make things seem worse than they are. In practice, the crowding out effect is essentially nonexistent. He's talking about private investment being crowded out by government borrowing. But this would only be happening if we had a shortage of capital. In practice, we have far more capital than we know what to do with and interest rates(high are a sign of crowding out) are stunningly low. There is no indication crowding out will be any problem for the foreseeable future if we start cutting the deficit. It's nice to see he admits that his tax proposals will bring in less revenue. A lot of Republicans are still extremely dishonest about how much revenue we are losing to low tax rates. Also, low tax rates don't make up for themselves through increased growth. The CBO estimated that the increased growth from lower tax rates only replaces 1-10% of lost revenue. In other words, lower taxes do almost nothing to make the economy grow faster. I'm also glad he was willing to mention a little about how truly absurd our military spending is. Of course he isn't willing to cut it anywhere close to reasonable levels. The funniest part of his plan was the idea to cut aid to Israel to zero. Let's just say that will not be the headline feature when marketing his plan to his constituency. I didn't read through every detail. If there is a specific part you want me to comment on let me know. Here is my own preliminary deficit reduction plan-http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11...hoices=grx345ycIn the link there are about 180 billion in military cuts. I would cut military spending by another 300 billion. This would still give us by far the biggest military in the world, over twice as big as the next country. This is way more than enough to accomplish any legitimate national defense or security goal. I would cut aid to states by 50%, not 5%. Most of the red states are welfare leeches. If they want more independence, let them have it. This will save about another 300 billion. Also, I think they underestimate the revenue raised by repealing the Bush tax cuts. Currently taxes are at the extremely low rate of about 14.5% of GDP. 150 billion is 1%, so the tax raises I proposed are raising revenue less than 3% of GDP by the NYT estimate. But revenues were about 19% in the Clinton years. On the one hand, we probably won't have that good of an economy for a while. On the other, the wealth disparity is significantly larger than it was even 15 years ago. That means the same tax rate on the rich would generate more revenue now. I think adding in another 200 billion for these factors is a reasonable estimate.Keep in mind that the US health care system is extraordinarily inefficient. We basically spend twice as much money for the same level of care. If we adopted some of the systems that every other wealthy country has we could save a lot of money. I will leave any estimated savings from this out though due to uncertainty about their size. So my plan gives us a savings of 1.7 trillion per year. The CBO projected deficit of 600 billion in 2015 seems a little low. Of course the deficit shouldn't be anywhere close to this year's 1.6 trillion. 800 billion seems more reasonable, which would give us a massive surplus of 900 billion a year. The debt might get paid off somewhat faster than this number indicates since economic growth + inflation has historically been higher than interest on the debt. If anything, my plan is too extreme. There is no good economic reason to pay it off this quickly. However, one reason to pay it off quickly is justice(a concept we've almost forgotten about in this country). The faster we pay it off, the more those who benefited from the deficit spending in the first place pay it back- rather than future generations who unfairly have to pay a debt they did not benefit from.

[timwakefield 68]

It's cute how the one time Paul mentions global warming he puts it in quotes, making it clear that he does not believe it to be a fact.

Finally, since President Obama has determined to realign the goals of NASA away from human spaceexploration to science and "global warming" research, there is also a need to realign the agency’s funding. Current funding levels are inconsistent with the goals of the past and provide the opportunity to supportdeficit reduction.

There is no reason for "global warming" to be in quotes there. Even if he himself doesn't believe in it, the fact that Obama has apparently told NASA to get their asses to work on it would seem to be undeniable. Like if I was saying, Obama gave $250m towards the discovery of the Loch Ness Monster, "Loch Ness Monster" does not get quote marks because, even if I personally believe it to be a myth, the money has been allocated for it which is the only point being made. Paul simply went out of his way to make it very clear that he thinks global warming is a farce. The existence of the Loch Ness Monster, of course, does not have the support of every reputable scientist this side of Pluto.Don't worry LLY, I'm sure he's all about science though.

[brvheart 1,752]

It's cute how the one time Paul mentions global warming he puts it in quotes, making it clear that he does not believe it to be a fact. There is no reason for "global warming" to be in quotes there. Even if he himself doesn't believe in it, the fact that Obama has apparently told NASA to get their asses to work on it would seem to be undeniable. Like if I was saying, Obama gave $250m towards the discovery of the Loch Ness Monster, "Loch Ness Monster" does not get quote marks because, even if I personally believe it to be a myth, the money has been allocated for it which is the only point being made. Paul simply went out of his way to make it very clear that he thinks global warming is a farce. The existence of the Loch Ness Monster, of course, does not have the support of every reputable scientist this side of Pluto.Don't worry LLY, I'm sure he's all about science though.

Of course it should be in quotes. It's "climate change" not global warming. Remember, these same infallible "scientists" said we were headed for a new ICE AGE when I was little.

[SilentSnow 1]

Of course it should be in quotes. It's "climate change" not global warming. Remember, these same infallible "scientists" said we were headed for a new ICE AGE when I was little.

The nice thing about global warming deniers is that they are extremely lazy- using the same refuted myths again and again and again. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-pr...ns-in-1970s.htm

[brvheart 1,752]

I don't trust that site.Also, the link you provided says that 1 in 6 scientists thought that an ice age was coming. Ok, thanks for backing up my point.

[brvheart 1,752]

I meant to put scientists in quotes in that last post. Forgive me.

[mrdannyg 274]

The nice thing about global warming deniers is that they are extremely lazy- using the same refuted myths again and again and again. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-pr...ns-in-1970s.htm

I just don't get proponents like yourself. Great, so humans are causing warming. 97% of scientists agree. Awesome. So, what do we do? How much are we causing it? How much would a slowdown in certain activities prevent problems? As I'm sure you would agree, many of the recommended activities for preventing warming will also cause long-run economic harm and be a long-run inhibitor to gains in wealth.Most people who 'deny' global warming are not saying it doesn't exist. We're questioning whether the policies being recommended to prevent it are worth their cost. That's all. So when we raise issues like what I'm about to, it isn't because we don't think it is happening at all, we're trying to prevent lazy science and hippies looking for their next cause from denying our grandchildren of wealth for the wrong reasons.

[mrdannyg 274]

This is my favourite article so far from Skeptical Science:http://www.skepticalscience.com/Do-critics...rguing-for.htmlThe proposition - that critics of the hockey stick are arguing that it underrepresents earlier temperatures is completely wrong. This is a better representation of what hockey stick critics argue:http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htmIn short - the math that was used to construct the original models was wrong. This is the main study that brought global warming to the fore, and it was wrong.Now, the "science" says that, despite certain areas for improvement, the conclusion is still right, despite the math being wrong*. That is almost certainly correct. Doesn't change the fact that the original math was wrong, and purposefully exaggerated the effects of global warming. I bet if you'd asked scientists then, about 97% would have agreed that global warming was a significant issue, caused by humans.*Well, they don't admit the math was wrong, but it was. Professor McKitrick's favourite example was taking grade scores from the last 10 years, charting and manipulating the data the same way, and poof, hockey stick. Random data points, plotted according to Mann, and calculated how he did it, would show a hockey graph.

[SilentSnow 1]

I don't trust that site.Also, the link you provided says that 1 in 6 scientists thought that an ice age was coming. Ok, thanks for backing up my point.

Of course you don't. You don't trust anyone that disagrees with your opinion. Your complete dismissal of any counterarguments without even learning what they are ensures you will never learn the truth. Also, you are being illogical. Why would you trust those 16% of much less informed scientists back in the 70s, and now not trust the 97% of vastly better informed scientists now?

[SilentSnow 1]

I just don't get proponents like yourself. Great, so humans are causing warming. 97% of scientists agree. Awesome. So, what do we do? How much are we causing it? How much would a slowdown in certain activities prevent problems? As I'm sure you would agree, many of the recommended activities for preventing warming will also cause long-run economic harm and be a long-run inhibitor to gains in wealth.Most people who 'deny' global warming are not saying it doesn't exist. We're questioning whether the policies being recommended to prevent it are worth their cost. That's all. So when we raise issues like what I'm about to, it isn't because we don't think it is happening at all, we're trying to prevent lazy science and hippies looking for their next cause from denying our grandchildren of wealth for the wrong reasons.

Well what I am saying is not very confusing. First of all, many people still completely deny any warming, so it's relevant to keep talking about it. Of course each response should be tailored to the particular level of denial being encountered. What do we do? We stop emitting as much carbon and start building a society that doesn't depend so heavily on carbon emissions.How much are we causing it? Can't give an exact percent, but 90+% of warming caused by humans would be a good guess. Actually, I wouldn't agree. The idea that preventing warming is just some cute proposal environmentalists dreamed up is absurd. Even if you don't care at all about the rest of the animals and plants on this planet, global warming would be absolutely devastating economically in the long run. Also, much of what would prevent global warming has to be done anyways since fossil fuels are going to run out. Doing nothing is simply not an option unless your goal is to destroy society. The sooner we can do this transition(leaving more fossil fuels in the ground), the less economic destruction(from the negative effects of declining fuels and global warming) will result. Even conservative estimates of the economic damage from global warming assume hundreds of trillions of dollars in damage. This article talks about some of the estimates. Lets suppose you think the Stern Review is wrong(despite no clear evidence that it is). Also, about discount rates. This is basically how economists lie. The discount rate for people living in the future is zero. So any of the conservative models that use discount rates to lower estimates of future damage are wrong. Period. Anyways, lets use a 2% of GDP figure that is almost certainly underestimating things. Global GDP in 2050 is probably going to be about 100 trillion. The effects of global warming will last far longer than a century, but let's cut off the damage there to be conservative. That gives us 200 trillion dollars in damage. This is the really conservative estimate. In a worst case scenario things could get into the quadrillions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_ReviewAt this point there is no rational reason to do nothing, even if you don't agree with the specifics of a particular policy proposal. For what it's worth, I think a cap and trade is a bad idea since it would probably just give more wealth to corrupt corporations. However, it's hard to see how anyone could reasonably oppose a carbon tax that is used to fund renewable energy/energy efficiency.

[SilentSnow 1]

This is my favourite article so far from Skeptical Science:http://www.skepticalscience.com/Do-critics...rguing-for.htmlThe proposition - that critics of the hockey stick are arguing that it underrepresents earlier temperatures is completely wrong. This is a better representation of what hockey stick critics argue:http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htmIn short - the math that was used to construct the original models was wrong. This is the main study that brought global warming to the fore, and it was wrong.Now, the "science" says that, despite certain areas for improvement, the conclusion is still right, despite the math being wrong*. That is almost certainly correct. Doesn't change the fact that the original math was wrong, and purposefully exaggerated the effects of global warming. I bet if you'd asked scientists then, about 97% would have agreed that global warming was a significant issue, caused by humans.*Well, they don't admit the math was wrong, but it was. Professor McKitrick's favourite example was taking grade scores from the last 10 years, charting and manipulating the data the same way, and poof, hockey stick. Random data points, plotted according to Mann, and calculated how he did it, would show a hockey graph.

This post seems to be mostly irrelevant. I don't think the math was as wrong as you act like, but let's concede it wasn't 100% correct. This makes no practical difference. The hockey stick is still correct. "purposefully exaggerated the effects of global warming" No it didn't. After extensive review it was concluded that the original hockey stick pattern was almost entirely correct. Also, it refutes another denialist talking point that climate change scientists won't respond to criticism. They did respond and changed the model slightly to be more accurate.

[El Guapo 8]

However, it's hard to see how anyone could reasonably oppose a carbon tax that is used to fund renewable energy/energy efficiency.

I am going to try and post without bursting out laughing.Do you really think there are not hundreds of companies out there trying to figure out an alternative?Also, oil is not only used to propel SUV's. It's used in the making of plastics and lots of other things we use every day. The greenies years ago wanted us to stop using paper bags because we were cutting down the trees, so now we are using plastic bags, made from oil.Not that it would matter, but a more effective way of "paying" for a renewable energy research is to offer a reward from the federal government for the first person to create and prove a sustainable renewable resource to replace gas in cars.Of course we could cut carbon emission dramatically if we could just put in 20 new nuclear power plants. But the greenies don't want that either. They want us to be able to magically run cars on a mythical energy source that is plentiful, renewable, has not waste or byproduct. Do we need VB for another logic discussion? Because that was riveting.