Rand Paul introduces sequester bill


#1

While others… | Facebook

While others continue to fearmonger over the sequester, I introduced my plan today which replaces the cuts with savings and avoids any layoffs. There are all sorts of ways to save in Washington if anyone wants to get serious about it.

Rand Paul Introduces Sequester Bill - By Andrew Stiles - The Corner - National Review Online

Not only is Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) calling out the Obama administration’s “dishonest” doom-mongering on the sequester, he also put forward his own plan, released today, to replace the impending cuts with alternative savings, and to do so “without layoffs,” according to a release from the senator’s office.

Paul’s bill would reduce federal spending by more than $85 billion annually by directing the government to:

Stop Hiring New Federal Employees ($6.5 billion per year)

More than 60,000 people left the federal workforce in 2011. This provision would end the practice of hiring new employees to replace them.

Bring Federal-Employee Pay in Line with Private Jobs ($32 billion per year)

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal-employee compensation is 16 percent higher compared with the private sector. This provision would reduce federal salaries to a more commensurate level.

Reduce Federal-Employee Travel by 25 Percent ($2.25 billion per year)

The federal government spends about $9 billion on travel, according to the General Services Administration, which ironically was the center of a recent scandal for its exorbitant spending on travel and conference costs. Paul bill’s would rein in such expenses.

Focus Military Research on Military Needs ($6 billion per year)

Paul’s office cites research from Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), which found that the Defense Department spent $6 billion on research that had little or nothing to do with military needs.

Require Competitive Bidding for Government Contracts ($19 billion per year)

This provision would repeal prevailing-wage requirements under which employees are often paid higher wages to work on federal projects, and end the practice of awarding federal contracts without a competitive bidding process to ensure the government is contracting work at the lowest price possible.

Cut 50 Percent of Foreign Aid ($20 billion per year)

It is consistently one of the only portions of the budget Americans actually want to cut.


#2

More grandstanding for headlines. Did the PARTY ask him to do this?? Could it be contrary to Party STRATEGY??


#3

Yes, heaven forbid cutting what he mentioned there. Hard to have cronyism when cutting jobs with nifty titles and research money is only going to practical things. Just what is the party line for cuts anyway?


#4

[quote=“Cam, post:2, topic:38384”]
More grandstanding for headlines. Did the PARTY ask him to do this?? Could it be contrary to Party STRATEGY??
[/quote]LOL, that sounds like the Russians used to talk.


#5

The PARTY line for cuts is to NEGOTIATE the across the board cuts into sensible ones…without giving in to ANY new taxes.
Look at what Rand proposed and ask yourself if BHO would EVER sign that rather than take the “draconian” cuts that he can blame on Republicans.
The reason it is grandstanding is because RAND did it without ANY hope or thought that this proposal would be taken seriously.…and because he did it without consultation with the Party which is in negotiations at the moment where they have to present a united front.

There’s nothing wrong with the cuts…but this is why the Party came to despise his dad.


#6

Spending cuts contrary to party strategy? Of course!


#7

God forbid a politician care more about the country than the “party”!!! Rand sickens me!!!


#8

If there’s nothing wrong with the cuts, then support them. Just because they came from a Paul does not make them forbidden fruit. But alas, because a Moderate didn’t offer up a tax hike or expansion of some department to go along with them they must be stopped.


#9

That’s exactly what I thought. So why the distaste for Rand?


#10

Do I really come off as that serious of a person?


#11

No. But when you say, “Rand sickens me!!!”, repeated by that many exclamation points, I did rather get the idea that you meant it.
Maybe it’s the beer.


#12

I understand it’s just that thi is the second time this has happened. I feel that I may be losing my comedic edge.


#13

I’m confused. I thought Rand Paul was a libertarian. I thought libertarians would never consider themselves a republican or a tea partier. Do I have things mixed up here?


#14

Not a chance, Seravee! :rofl:


#15

Not to worry. It was the beer.
:beerchug:


#16

Rand Paul flew under the “R” banner when running for office. Politically speaking, he is a Republican. Ideology-speaking, he is a Tea Party man.
Cam is an “R”, in all the colors it means.
Clearer?


#17

There is the libertarian ideology (little l), and the Libertarian party (big L). Rand is actually more of a Constitutional conservative with libertarian tendencies.

The Tea Party includes a lot of people and ideas.


#18

Thanks, Cam for the explanation.


#19

*Bigfoot 88

lol


#20

OOPS!!! Sorry! :embarrese :whistle: