Loading...

Monday, February 07, 2011

Rand Paul Wants To Cut Department of Energy Budget

With a third consecutive year of greater than $1 trillion deficits (CBO), Senator Rand Paul has introduced legislation to significantly cut spending by over $500 billion over one year.
Rand Paul
Paul's proposal would first roll back almost all federal spending to 2008 levels, then initiate reductions at various levels nearly across the board.

Cuts to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation would create over $42 billion in savings each, while cuts to the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development would save about $50 billion each. Removing education from the federal government's jurisdiction would create almost $80 billion in savings alone. Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and you arrive at over $500 billion.

Senator Paul sites examples of what he considers to be federal waste:
"The Department of Energy's nuclear-weapons activities should be placed under the purview of the Department of Defense. Many of its other activities amount to nothing more than corporate handouts. It provides research grants and subsidies to energy companies for the development of new, cleaner forms of energy. This means nearly all forms of energy development here in the U.S. are subsidized by the federal government, from oil and coal to nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels. These subsidies often go to research and companies that can survive without them. This drives up the cost of energy for all Americans, both as taxpayers and consumers."
He concludes:
"For 19 months, unemployment has hovered over 9%. After a nearly $1 trillion government stimulus and $2 trillion in Federal Reserve stimulus, the Washington establishment still believes that we can solve this problem with more federal spending and the printing of more money."
Many evidently believe the deficit and debt are irrelevant.  In such case, we can keep spending and printing money until 'something bad' happend. (WSJ, 2/7/2010)

No comments: