Sen. Rand Paul: Sequester Doesn't Cut Enough
Sen. Rand Paul, (R-Ky.), on sequester cuts and discretionary spending.
- Duration 8:27
- Date Mar 1, 2013
Sen. Rand Paul, (R-Ky.), on sequester cuts and discretionary spending.
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
I'm sure thankful all you young people out there -- and I can't take things like this -- Okay at a really need -- I don't want to steal from young people.
That's exactly what my government has arranged for me to do.
I'm 65 are now entitled to Medicare and Social Security a giant wealth transfer operation that takes from the young.
And gives to the old even the -- -- old.
And it's unsustainable.
Has nowhere near enough money to pay for the promises politicians made were already sixteen trillion in debt.
So most politicians response.
Spend more don't cut anything.
My president calls that sequester.
I'm meat cleaver approach.
-- meat cleaver we shouldn't take -- meat cleaver to the budget.
But the sequester -- is not a real cut -- not meat cleaver it's just economy amount they wanted to increase spending.
They wanted to add this much.
They're just gonna add this.
And there are still adding they're spending more don't believe me look at this chart.
The Red Line is what they planned to spend over the next ten years the Blue Line is what they will spend after the sequester cuts.
Spending still increases just a little less.
But he could say me I'm being unfair here because it's reasonable for government to grow to account for inflation.
That's a fair criticism.
So let's adjusted for inflation all -- 2% a year spending still will increase.
Even with the sequester.
American politicians increase spending outlays by more than inflation every year -- out of control.
The rare politician who understands that.
Senator Rand Paul congressman you voted against the sequestered because he didn't think it cut enough.
Yet now everybody squawking it's really just a slowdown.
In the rate of increase in government and when you look at that chart you put up.
You -- really see a space between the lines.
So it's still least we can do to get started.
And we've got people even on the Republican side saying oh well let's do the cuts over.
Ten years and instead of over one year they're gonna replace the sequester.
With ten years' worth of cuts instead of one year and that's such a cop ballot and if we can't do this little bit which is in the right direction.
Are we ever gonna balance the budget.
On the other hand if the sequester passes there will be real cuts to discretionary spending here's a graph of that.
But discretionary including military that's only a third of the budget is still not that big -- The other interesting thing John is that -- cuts in discretionary spending if you look at them by themselves.
Really only in the first year or so and then they rise to the quote you'll only -- Washington.
Could an increase in seven trillion dollars over ten years to.
-- -- -- But I've come up with a proposal that I call sequestration without layoffs.
And what we propose is why don't we not rehire anybody who retires.
That's about a 100000 federal workers a year -- six billion.
Why don't we pay federal workers the same as we pay private workers that be about 16%.
Less than we -- now that saves 32 billion.
What do we cut their travel budget by 25%.
That -- another two billion and then if we do competitive wages and competitive bidding for contractors.
That's another nineteen billion you've got out the entire sequester without losing a single job.
Although I do think -- -- government does need to use more you could actually do it without cutting any jobs if you wanted to.
Gone beyond that you've proposed a budget that would eliminate four cabinet departments commerce that would save nine billion dollars.
Education seventy billion energy 47 billion all summer that's for nuclear bomb maintenance and could go to the Defense Department.
Housing and development 41 billion.
I think many Americans hear that and they would say how -- we have commerce or education or housing.
My argument would be that we spend we spent about a hundred billion dollars a year on education's not any better.
We have tripled the amount -- per pupil spending.
And we cut classrooms in half.
And scores are flat we haven't gotten any better so I'm a big believer in school choice how will we have commerce without -- Commerce Department.
Well you know the great thing about trade is up people trade to try to benefit their self interest and we've had it since Friday.
Man first existed so I don't think the government we need government.
What I was -- the Commerce Department is.
They subsidize the travel of certain CEOs that are friends of government.
So if your friend of you know Barack Obama you get to travel around LPOs sweetheart deals like.
Or one point eight billion for the Kennedy family for bright source.
Really you don't need -- favoritism and it's really what's wrong with -- government is sort of corporate welfare.
How will we have housing without -- Department of Housing and Urban Development.
I think the government's actually torn down more houses than than ever bill and job.
Many of the public housing is go into disrepair and issues there are great programs out there for helping the for habitat for anatomy is one that I support.
And they build houses they -- ownership of people put sweat equity as well as.
Capital equity in them.
And got to get there are ways to help people.
But tough throwing government -- out on -- and then letting them get overrun by drugs and other problems.
Isn't the way to do it.
And how would we have energy without an energy -- -- I think basically the market place would determine the cheapest form of energy and right now CEO the government President Obama distorting that marketplace and giving money to people who are big contributors.
Who builds solar panel companies.
And really all of these companies seem to be going bankrupt.
So really what you need is a marketplace to directed and then there's those who could -- energy the cheapest consumers will buy those energy forms and those.
Energy companies will succeed.
Are at the current congress is not entertaining year cuts afford apartments but this is the -- shows so I'll go further.
Why are you so careful and -- of the Labor Department in the Agriculture Department.
-- you know I'm such a moderate John and so I'm just starting with you know about 30% of government will will go from there.
But here's the thing is is imagine if you're if they were seriously discussing.
My five year balanced budget.
Right now we're talking about a cut the rate of increase that never balances the budget we're becoming poorer -- sure each year as we dig the hole deeper and deeper.
But let me quibble with you about pay your balance the budget idea in that hey -- Republicans say that I automatically start to go to sleep.
But can be my understanding is we don't need did.
Get all the way balance if we simply slow the growth of government to one -- 2% a year we can grow our way out of the debt problem.
But it's true that growth is a big part of this in fact when you look and people say there's not enough tax revenue them.
The reason is not a tax revenues who -- had been in a terrible recession so it is about economic the economic engine of growth we have to have policies that cause growth.
But do you agree that yes it did.
Balancing the budgets a goal but you don't have to get all the way there if we just slow the growth that would allow us to get out of trouble.
Well that's how you get here you get into a more manageable -- I still think you should balance your annual -- I'm not up -- saying.
-- we have to immediately eliminate sixteen trillion dollars in debt.
That's going to be very difficult -- balancing your annual budget is is a good and wise.
Admonition and so I do favor getting to that.
There's another plan and another way of looking at it I propose -- -- any plan also.
Which cuts government about 1% a year.
For six years of the budget actually balances but -- just puts into perspective it's not that difficult to balance your budget but it have to be a real 1% cut.
And I think what -- most American families that deliver that I see no reason why government should.
Just 1% good luck with that thank you senator Rand Paul.