On Friday Ron Paul was one of 4 Republicans to break from what was otherwise a party line vote and voted against Paul Ryan’s budget plan for 2012.  When asked by Caffeinated Thoughts for an official statement, Jesse Benton a Ron Paul spokesperson states:

“The Ryan Budget was a step in the right direction, but it still adds trillions of dollars to the national debt and would run deficits for years to come. America faces a crisis and we have to balance our budget now, not ten or 20 years down the road. Dr. Paul is fighting to elect members of Congress and a President who will cut spending immediately before over-spending causes a catastrophic crash of the Dollar.”

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office — Congress’s non-partisan arbiter of budgetary figures — doesn’t list the exact year that surpluses first occur under Ryan’s plan, but it agrees that it will happen sometime between 2060 and 2080.

But I’m sure you have heard that Paul Ryan’s budget is full of drastic even draconian cuts, well those are not really cuts at all, but simply less than the proposed spending under Obama.  Maybe a little illustration will help:

If each day I spend $5 on lunch, and my wife says, ‘tomorrow we should spend $10’, and I say, ‘no we should spend $8’, did I just cut our budget by $2? If you have any common sense you would say of course not! Then why is Paul Ryan’s budget considered draconian CUTS, when he plans to raise spending, but just less than Obama plans to raise spending?

Maybe we should be looking more seriously at the budget proposed by yet another Paul, Senator Rand Paul, whose proposed budget would be balanced in 5 years. Rand Paul’s detailed budget can be found here.


Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Thanks for subscribing!
  1. Paul Ryan voted for TARP, voted for the GM Bailouts, voted for adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare, putting it deep into a hole financially, and voted for no child left behind, amongst some points.

    Ron Paul…. didn’t.

    Don’t expect budgetary solutions from cosmetic conservatives.

  2. But would Ron Paul vote for a Rand Paul budget that didn’t balance the budget for another five years? If you answer “yes”, I say where are his principles now? I’d say it isn’t on principle, it is a tactic. Fine, but not a principle.

    1. Ron says it is better. I think he wouldn’t vote for it, though… when he was asked outright what he could vote for he said he has never voted for an unbalanced budget, and that MAYBE a budget that HALVED the deficit, if it were in front of him to be voted on, MAYBE he could vote for…. but the by the look on his face, I would’t put money on it.

      He thinks we should live within our means.

  3. I did not see any specifics in Rand Paul’s budget concerning how he would fix Medicare and reign it in. At least Ryan’s budget contains a plan. But maybe I missed something in Rand Paul’s budget?

    And about Medicare for disabled persons – ever wonder why people with perfectly good private insurance coverage get moved to Medicare when they are disabled? The load on Medicare would not be so great if the Congress was not always looking out for the interests of private insurers. Another example of that was the atrocious Medicare Rx plan.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Joni Ernst to Give Republican Response to State of the Union

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) will deliver the Republican Address to the Nation following the State of the Union address on Tuesday, January 20, 2015.

The Declaration and the Constitution

Watch the first lecture of the “Introduction to the Constitution” series from Dr. Larry Arnn the President of Hillsdale College.

US Ground Troops in Libya Being Seriously Considered

You can’t say you weren’t warned. Weeks before the no fly zone…

Congressman Price Offers Bill to Kill The Lame Duck Session of Congress

Congressman Tom Price, MD (R-GA) who is the Chairman of the of…