Thread: Ron Paul's - The 2008 Federal Budget

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - A weekly Column

The 2008 Federal Budget

April 2, 2007

The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representative last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.

To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.

About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.

For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.

The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007.

My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.

Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than projected.

The only certainty when it comes to federal budgets is that Congress will spend every penny budgeted and more during the fiscal year in question. All projections about revenues, tax rates, and spending in the future are nothing more than empty promises. Congress will pay no attention whatsoever to the 2008 budget in coming years.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst040207.htm

Here's the Crockett's Ghost budget plan:

Use profits from the various superfunds, which total in the tens of trillions of dollars, to pay for the mandated expenditures such as Social Security. The principal would remain in each of the superfunds, most of which are now many times the original amounts mandated. Once these assets are demonstrably covering the mandated expenditures, eliminate the FICA taxes and FREEZE entitlements at the current level, with an eye to the eventual weaning of all Americans from federal assistance. Cut all assistance to illegal aliens and strictly limit assistance to substance abusers and convicted felons.

For military expenditures, repatriate the Wanta fund. After paying off the current national debt (allegedly some $8.5 trillion), set aside the remaining funds in a market fund or other interest-bearing account and use the proceeds to fund military operations. If more revenue is necessary, divert some of the superfund profits. Better yet, in the event that the US is used as a police force on foreign soil, such as UN or NATO police actions as in the Balkans or the current enforcement action in Iraq, demand full or partial funding from the beneficiary state or mandating supranational entity to cover the costs of operations. Such cost determinations should be made by the military commanders rather than the mandating entity. Payments could be obtained in the case of a police action for the government of a given state through a tax or tribute (as from Iraqi oil revenues) until the debt is paid. This would solve multiple problems. It would relieve the American citizen of the vurden of paying for correction of the world's law and order problems, and it would provide an incentive for the client state or supranational entity to move as quickly as possible to correct the problems that gave rise to the police action, given that the meter is running on US participation.

For all other programs, limit their budgets to revenues that can be tied directly to the programs, such as excises and licensure. Such taxes have a tendency to be self-regulating (more on that upon request).

Because the Constitution does not have a provision for deceased American heroes or their ghosts to run for the office of President, kindly forward any donations or promises of support to the Ron Paul campaign.