The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller
Politics

Rand Paul calls for military cuts, entitlement reform in CPAC speech

6:00 PM 02/10/2011
Matthew Boyle
Investigative Reporter

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, called for cuts to the Department of Defense budget and entitlement reform in his Thursday afternoon speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Paul criticized President Barack Obama for sounding like a conservative and offering small spending cuts, but adding $3.8 trillion to the national debt over five years.

“The president of the United States wants to sound now like he’s a conservative,” Paul said. “He says he wants to freeze spending. But, it’s going to be this much [a small amount] of the budget, with inflated levels of spending,”

Paul also criticized House GOP leadership for their proposals to cut small amounts of spending that he estimates would allow $3 trillion to be added to national debt over five years.

“The House Republicans’ proposal will freeze this much of the budget at 2008 levels and will add $3 trillion to the debt over five years,” Paul said. “It’s too little. It’s not enough. It’s too timid and we must be more bold.”

He recommended shutting down federal agencies and programs that aren’t specifically provided for in the U.S. Constitution, including the Department of Education.

“It’s time we go back to the Republican roots that says, ‘We believe in abolishing the Department of Education,” Paul said.

Tags: Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, Department of Education, Entitlement reform, Government debt, Rand Paul

  • Pingback: Blog @ MoreWhat.com » Blog Archive » Cut Spending, Repeat After Me, Cut Spending

  • Swen

    “The House Republicans’ proposal will freeze this much of the budget at 2008 levels and will add $3 trillion to the debt over five years,” Paul said. “It’s too little. It’s not enough. It’s too timid and we must be more bold.”

    Hear! Hear!! Trimming $100 billion off a $1.5 trillion annual deficit and patting yourself on the back for your fiscal responsibility? That’s just a bad joke. We desperately need to find a couple hundred more congresscritters like Paul.

  • Taters N Beans

    Well you do have to be bold to speak in front of a group of people with that ridiculous pelt on your head. He makes all his money off of medicaid patients in his practice so I’m doubting he’ll back any real cuts there. He and the rest of the tea party idiots are going to be real problem for the establishment gop.

    • VoxVeritasVee

      why attack the man for his hair? Why attack the man for being a doctor and making money for being a doctor? I guess in your world, doctors work for free and there is no such thing as a bad hair day?
      Unicorns and rainbows, lucky stars and green diamonds, next up lucky clovers…

      I suppose that next you’ll tell us that “he didn’t even graduate from Baylor” but fail to either realize, or even attempt to educate yourself on the facts, b/c if you did, you’d inform others that DUKE MEDICAL SCHOOL basically “drafted” him. Of course it’s obvious that you aren’t in the medical field, and most likely work for a local hair salon, so we will forgive ya this time. (eyeroll)

  • Jeugenen

    RONALD REAGAN CONSERVATIVES AND JOHN KENNEDY LIBERALS’ COALITION GOVERNMENT
    The Tea Party militias are quite capable of creating a Constitutional Coalition Party to restore their traditional constitutional rule of law, which has been so thoroughly corrupted by the insidious coalition of NeoCons and NeoLibs minorities of the Republican and Democrat parties who notoriously serve the economically ruinous banking lobby, insurance lobby, China lobby, Mexican lobby, and the aid extorting and warmongering Israel Lobby.

  • pairofpants

    Dear Rand:
    Get together with your Dad and draft an “across the board sunset law”, that would terminate every federal agency, program, and pet project, with a 10 year grace period, and an option to retain certain specific agencies, programs, and projects by Congressional vote only.
    Next, meet with……no wait, there is no next. Problem solved.

  • jadonofrio

    political cartoon: checking in on the House GOP’s big New Year’s Resolution – http://bit­.ly/dSvwok

  • des1

    Paul looks like he could be a force in the future of Republican politics. If he’s going to be a Presidential contender one day (and I think he can be) he needs to A) stay out of trouble, B) practice what he preaches, C) have legitimate and well thought-out policy plans (because he’ll have to debate everyone Left and Right), and D) continue to grow. I hate it when these guys have great ideas, then decide they know everything and no longer have to listen to people. It’s not a sin to have your mind changed on an issue (even if it’s by degrees). Paul strikes me as someone who is a legitimate thinker and is willing to truly debate the issues, even if that means possibly losing some fights or even finding out there could be a better way that he hasn’t considered.

    Depending on what happens in 2012, that would make him a strong contender in 2016 or 2020. But it’s a long way from the outside guy railing against the system to the inside guy keeping himself from being destroyed by it.

  • Free Willy

    “We believe in abolishing the Department of Education,”

    How on earth will that work?

    If there is one area you can’t foresake in the current world climate it is education.
    Education is your insurance for the future.

    Job security is good, employability is MUCH BETTER.

    • krjohnson

      You make the mistake of thinking that the Dept of Ed actually helps educate anyone. In fact they give about 10 cents out of every dollar they spend to the states, and those 10 cents come with 16 cents worth of mandates attached.

      There are 50 state departments of education that can handle the job of education just fine. We don’t need the federal Department of Education wasting a hundred billion dollars per year. In fact, I would argue that the money they spend is actually counterproductive and helps cement a soviet-style education system that is destroying our great nation.

      • russ311

        Agreed.

      • gringott

        Exactly.

    • des1

      Flips makes this same argument. It’s almost heartfelt until you read his other posts and realize he’s a down the line, Liberal talking points kind of guy. It’s not just a matter of you being wrong that cutting the department of education is somehow a negative to students, but I (and many people) believe that having a Dept of Education is in itself a giant leech living off the backs of the students, preventing them from getting a better education. They divert money from where it needs to go, put burdensome regulations on educators who are trying to solve problems, and runs interference for teacher’s unions and other bureaucrats who live off the funds that are supposed to be going to education.

      I don’t know if you believe yourself to be independent from Liberal philosophy or not (although I doubt it), but there is nothing you can point to that shows the Dept of Education has had a positive impact in any way on educating children at the local level. You’re belief that they are necessary is proof that you have accepted Liberal talking points, whether you have done so purposefully or have just been duped. I, on the other hand, would be more than happy to point out the falling graduation rates and test scores, along with the scandals that have rocked the department and the schools they are supposed to serve. In theory, the Dept of Education should help to keep standards high for educating our children, but the reality is that like many government agencies, their results have done more harm than good. It’s also lifelong jobs for incompetent people and that money could be better spent by the states through their own education standards.

    • silly knitter

      Federal mandates make it difficult for teachers to educate all children. I am all for control of education to be returned to the states and local governments.

  • thrashertm

    I agree with Rand Paul. We can’t afford to be the world’s policeman any more. Let Germany and Japan take care of their own security.

    We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs/ for details.

    • Steve53

      Charles Lindbergh isolationists; both father and son. It worked well leading up to the second world war, didn’t it? Germany and Japan are the least of our problems currently.

      • wayfarin

        i don’t think there exists even the slightest parallel between ignoring an expanding European power and keeping a base in japan or germany during peacetime. anyone tries to draw lessons from either of the world wars to justify an international network of expensive military bases in first world countries doesn’t really understand history.

        if you want an apt comparison, look at any world power that tried to maintain an overreached military empire while their coffers ran dry. spoiler: it never turns out well.

        • baseballguy2001

          I couldn’t have said it better.

          • mcgirv

            Me too!

        • krjohnson

          If anyone looks at the world wars and tries to draw any conclusion, it should be that intervention causes a lot of problems.

          When we entered WWI, with wide majority of Americans opposed to the war, we did it only to “make the world safe for democracy.” We didn’t have a dog in the fight, we just wanted a seat at the table to try and fix all the problems of Europe. Instead we shifted the balance of power and gave France and the UK the leverage they needed to impose an absolutely unworkable peace at the Treaty of Versailles. Germany collapsed into economic despair as a result of the excessive war reparations and sanctions. They recoiled by ELECTING Hitler, and the rest is history.

          WWII in Europe was caused by unnecessary intervention by Great Britain. The UK and France guaranteed the sovereignty of Poland, a country which they had no way of defending and which lay directly between Hitler and Stalin, who were armed to the teeth and desperately wanted war with each other. Hitler had no intention of going to war with France or the UK prior to the UK and France declaring war on him after he invaded Poland. His book, Mein Kampf, even pointed that out. Charles Lindbergh and a wide (80%+!) majority of the US population were happy to let Nazi Germany and Communist Russia beat each other to death, in fact they encouraged it. Their foreign policy vision of non-intervention would have not only saved hundreds of thousands of Allied lives, but also potentially averted the Cold War.

          • russ311

            We HAVE intervened, to use your term. What is your solution to the wars we have currently become involved? Just leave the 10s of thousands of patriots out there in the field without the support they deserve and need from back home?

            You want to make a difference? Then, FIRST, get your a hole leader to declare defeat and THEN bring home the troops. Until that is done you better da@n site support them.

            Otherwise, take another hit on your bong and drift off back to dreamland.

          • krjohnson

            My solution is to march home. Tomorrow. We don’t have to stop supporting the troops, friends of mine are in Iraq as we speak and I hope they come home safe. But we didn’t declare war so what is the point of declaring defeat? Just come home. I think we should support our troops by bringing them back to American soil. They signed up because they wanted to defend this country and that is not what we are risking their lives doing.

            We should have a strong Navy (the strongest in the world, I think, since we have so much coast), we should have a strong Coast Guard, and an adequate Army, Air Force & Marine Corps. But these forces should be concentrated on the mission of defending our country, not in projecting our values abroad. Should we have some forces in foreign countries? Perhaps. But we don’t need to be in 150 out of 200 countries for defense!

            By the way, I have never smoked pot in my life and don’t plan on starting.

          • russ311

            To f*ing che! Well done. If only you had the power to do as you said. Maybe in two years, eh?

          • krjohnson

            Ha ha. Well I can dream. But right now it looks like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are serious underdogs. The debates should be interesting though.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Frazier/100000159594397 Stephen Frazier

        You overlook the fact that, as a country the U.S. was isolationist until we lost 3000 troops at Pearl Harbor. Most MILITARY scholars agree that if we had helped the Brits during Hitler’s blitz of Britain we could have avoided the catastrophe at Pearl, not to mention having to bury 9300 young men at Normandy.

        Isolationism is fine as long as the war does not spread, but watching an aggressor build up his strength by destroying your friends and then rushing young boys off to face his machineguns when he turns his attention to you is not only reckless but stupid as well.

        Besides, isolationism is just another word for “nothing left to stand for”, which is just another word for YELLOWBELLY.

        Isolationists are also giant hypocrites. Would they also say we ignore the Japanese whale harvest? How about starvation in Darfur? If the Suez or Panama Canals were blocked, would they just hunker down and go with green bicycles? How will they heat their Jacuzzis? Why should they ignore flooding in India, or Hurricanes in Haiti? Why not be TOTAL isolationist and ignore the guy next door beating the hell out of his wife on the front lawn? Why should a TRUE isolationist, living in Augusta, care what Mike Vick does to his dogs in Atlanta?

        I know I am being absurd, but how else can you illustrate the absurdity of isolationism?

        • logic

          Your argument misses the same fact that many miss. We poke a stick at hornets’ nests. Relentlessly. It incites hatred and blowback, no matter what our intentions may be. We spread goodwill to one place in the world and are terrorists to others in other parts of the world. We act as the world’s police with predictably good and bad results.

          I really think a big problem is that too many Americans and certainly too many in government believe in American supremacy; that we are the best, that we know best and that would should run the world. The world just may disagree.

        • VoxVeritasVee

          Why is it that both right and left attack Ron and Rand for their “isolationism”, when the truth is that they are attacking Ron and Rand for their belie in NON-INTERVENTION? These men are NOT pacisfists! The reason “the right” goes w/ that journolist type meme comes down to the fact that they supposedly want to be “left alone”, but the fact of the matter, is that BOTH “sides” want to have their nose in everybody’s business BUT their own.

          One of the best headlines on The Onion I have ever read was titled, “99 Percent of Americans approve of mass transit for others”. It is the same idea here.
          George Bush WON on non-interventionism in 2000 against INTERVENTIONIST ie NANNY MAN Al Gore.
          Check it out:

          The George Bush we used to know
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkNgGafSSYk

          “The Left” attacks them on that meme b/c they think that everybody else alll over the world needs our “help”. C’mon, have you no heart??? It’s for “the children”.
          The “isolationist” propaganda serves a brilliant purpose if you think about it and it is a good study in propaganda techniques used by the MSM, the fourth wing of government. (well maybe it is the 5th wing of government because obama himself is a wing according to Biden, lol)

        • krjohnson

          Washington pointed out in his farewell address that you must remain strong in order to keep the right to be neutral. We failed to do that in WWII. Congress appropriated the money for strengthening our defense, as Lindbergh and the America First people advocated, but FDR never spent the money. Tens of billions of dollars. And then he actually tried to use our pathetic little fleet in the Atlantic to stir up trouble with Hitler by identifying U-Boats for the UK air force to fire at. And when the U-Boats fired back he claimed the American ships were just carrying mail. And he read the UK propaganda on the radio! As far as I’m concerned, FDR is hands down the worst president in American history. Horrible on domestic policy and utterly dishonest and traitorous in foreign policy.

          As I also pointed out, if you look not only at US policy but at UK policy, intervention led to a lot of problems in WWII. If the UK and France would have stayed out the two greatest dictatorships on the planet would have happily spent the 40s beating each other into a bloody pulp. Instead they decided to drag the great democracies into war.

          And it wasn’t just the elite who were against war, on the contrary the bankers and some industrialists really were aching for war. They’d made billions in WWI. It was main-street, it was every local chamber of commerce in the country who was against the war. It was the families of all of those who had died in WWI for a cause that they now saw to be futile and even counterproductive. Almost everyone in the country was against war. Both candidates for president in 1940 were against the war. In fact each attacked the other for not being anti-war enough!

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Rand Paul CPAC | Wants Military Cuts | Entitlement Reform | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment -- Topsy.com

  • VoxVeritasVee

    Rand Paul is political powerhouse. I am glad he is on our side.
    Excellent article Mr. Boyle. Straight and to the point. Just the facts ma’am. Good headline. I am not sure where that picture came from,but wtf is up with that faux feather duster with the duct tape (golf bag?) stand??? Very strange picture.

  • Matthew Boyle

    VoxVeritasVee – Thanks for the compliment. That’s what I try to do every time. Also, the fuzzy thing in the picture, I think, is a type of microphone cover television crews use to cut down on background noise around from the audience and to make it sound more natural.

  • krjohnson

    No, it’s actually a prop. It was an “air freshener” that some congresswoman sent to the DOE to get an “energy star” approval sticker. I think it’s actually a feather duster taped to a space-heater.

    He also brought a “gasoline powered alarm clock” that got approval.

  • VoxVeritasVee

    ROFL. That’s hilarious. Thanks kr. Perhaps Boyle has found a dual purpose for this, this, “thing”… hah hah. Gotta love “the air is fit to breath” EPA. Please Green Police, save us all!