posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:17 AM
I applaud him for his efforts.
In addition to his own office’s spending, Its interesting to look at his position on spending as a whole.
Here is an article from the Washington Post that offers a different perspective on Rand Pauls types of cuts.
“Where would we cut spending? Let’s start with ending all foreign aid to countries that are burning our flag and chanting ‘Death to
America.’ In addition, the president could begin by stopping selling or giving F-16s and Abrams tanks to Islamic radicals in Egypt.”
Paul’s comment came just before he said that the looming automatic spending cuts known as the sequester would not reduce the budget deficit fast
enough. He quoted “many pundits” as saying that “we need $4 trillion in cuts” over the next decade.
Paul’s spokeswoman did not return a query about which countries Paul had in mind when he referred to burning the flag and chanting “Death to
But we searched news reports over the past year and came up with a list of five countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon and Iran. Many of
those protests were in response to a video that was considered anti-Muslim, so they were not necessarily in opposition to U.S. policies.
Iran, of course, receives no foreign aid from the United States, so scratch it off the list. The demonstrations in Lebanon were organized by
Hezbollah, which the United States regards as a terrorist organization. But Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, so we will keep it on the
Here’s the proposed 2013 level of aid for each of the countries:
Afghanistan: $4.6 billion
Pakistan: $2.4 billion
Yemen: $76 million
Lebanon: $167 million
Total: $7.243 billion
I think how Rand Paul conducts himself is great and should be replicated throughout the US.
In my opinion, Rand has identified some really good points on attempting to reduce the deficit. Though it seems he wants to extend his office’s
budgetary philosophy to international level with US foreign policy.
By his frugal spending habits, he was able to save a substantial amount of money, but would a similar result be the case if US foreign policy did the
same. Would counting every dollar and cutting expenditure on current goals result in a net reduction or would it perhaps incur similar if not more
expenses in another area.
For example, If the US was to cut support to Pakistan or Egypt both financially or the in the form of military equipment, could the US incur further
expenses in trying to combat the ramifications of not supporting these regimes and their policies?
With the validity and morality of supporting these countries Rand outlines aside, I am not sure if cutting spending would necessarily result in the
reduction of the deficit as expenses always seem to crop up in other areas once you cut them.
But back to the point at hand, I think its great he is setting an example for all elected officials. I just believe that it would be naïve to think
that his cost savings could result in a major contribution to the reduction of the national debt, but it’s a good start
The problem is with the entire structure itself. US spending/Foreign policy would need a major overhaul to stem the flow of cash and increasing amount
edit on 21-2-2013 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)