The 112th Congress has pulled out the toolbox, looking to fix the broken machinery of government that was left by their predecessors. The 2010 campaign season was chocked full of these tales of reform and economic repair.
History will tell us that Congress, despite its innate propensity to spend, never buys a new toolbox. The villains, the former members of the legislative branch, just give a housewarming gift to the new session: the same toolbox full of the worn instruments.
Congress generally does the same things each year. Republicans have Medicare, Democrats have last year’s health care bill.
Each party has massive spending records of their own, then they both point across the aisle at the opposing side’s open wallet policies. Both parties preach fiscal responsibility, but unlike the people who put them in office, the politicians on the hill spend more than they make. It’s a sickening cycle, leaving us with less each year.
Thankfully, a newcomer has offered something a little different. Newly elected Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has offered a budget of his own. It is a rogue action for a new Senator, with just two weeks on the job.
The libertarian-leaning Republican has been in the spotlight since his victory in the Republican primary in May. Paul is predicted to offer some half a trillion dollars in cuts in the federal budget. Putting forth such cuts will fulfill some campaign promises and take a step towards balancing the budget, a central theme of his candidacy.
Is $500 billion in cuts too much? Is he crazy? Most would say yes to both.
Rand Paul is right. Everyone reading this column is subject to the laws of economics. We all take in money and can only spend as much as we have. Government seems to have written a self-waiver from such a standard.
After all, why should government be different? When the shortfalls come, you and I foot the bill through taxes or inflation.
Before you start saying “right-wing loon” under your breath, consider that, as a U.S. Senator, Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. Bill Clinton acknowledged the coming failure of Social Security; he at one time called for investment of Social Security funds to extend its solvency.
Rand’s father, with whom Rand shares many views, has joined forces with self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont in Senate versions of legislation. So maybe these “extreme” views of fiscal policy and adherence to the Constitution are not as fringe as portrayed.
In spite of all the attacks on Rand Paul during his campaign, including falsehoods saying he had called for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act, he still continues to take such a unpopular position. In the face of certain scrutiny, Paul calls for drastic cuts and the abolition of several Federal agencies and departments.
These programs simply are not functioning and performing as intended after several attempts to fix them. Everyone has an opinion on the role of government, but what we have been getting lately is unsatisfactory at best.
Sounds like a difference from the status quo to me.
Whether you are right there with Rand or vehemently opposed to his budgetary recommendations, you must admit a simple fact: he is doing something that hasn’t been done on Capitol Hill lately. He is offering ideas others have been hesitant or fearful to do. Most importantly, he is facing reality, which is the mass disorder of our fiscal house.
Look a little closer at propositions of budget cuts and austerity. And while carefully studying this proposition, think of the alternative, the last ten years of fiscal policy.
John Anselmo is a senior majoring in economics. His column runs biweekly on Wednesday.
