http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/13/rand-paul-cuts-check-to-treasury-department/
Not sure if this is the right forum for this or not, my apologies if it isn’t. Some will say it’s a “political move” so I guess it applies to this section’s description.
Spin away! 
So Paul’s solution to the deficit is to have a system where workers follow his example and send in a certain proportion of their pay-checks to the federal gov’t each year in order to cover federal spending?
I think thats already a thing.
Yes, but he wants to make it voluntary.
Hooray for token gestures! We don’t have nearly enough of those in politics.
Is Rand Paul running for something I don’t know about? Seems like this thread belongs in either GD or MPSIMS.
This is not money coming out of his paycheck or his personal account.
This is his office budget.
The so-called check is one of those symbolic five-foot long checks and not a real check that can be cashed at a bank. (If you look at the picture, there is no account or routing number at the bottom and no bank name on the check.)
Reading between the lines, what he did was spend $500,000 less than the allowed maximum on his office expenses and then called a news conference and dramatized it with a fake check. (I don’t actually know if there is some formal process to “return” unspent office expenses or if just simply not spending the money is sufficient.)
I don’t mean to imply that reducing his office expenses is not admirable, but it isn’t coming out of his pocket.
So is Warren Buffet going to match it?
Good for him. He cut 16% of his office’s budget. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Rand Paul has also proposed cutting the budget for food stamps and child nutrition programs by 26%, NASA by 30%, the National Park Service by 34%, the Transportation Security Administration by 35%, and the Department of Education’s budget by 100%.
Let’s see him match those numbers.
POTUS in some future cycle, or so he might delude himself.
I dunno. Joking aside, I think we’d be better off if Congresscritters relied more on in house staff to do research and develop policy and less on lobbyists and outside groups. As Rand Paul demonstrates, his office budget isn’t a meaningful portion of the federal budget, and I’d happily support double or tripling it if it made for better policy coming out of the Senate.
At the risk of asking the obvious: If Rand Paul believes this is such a great idea, is there a reason that he isn’t introducing a bill to cut the annual office budgets for House & Senate members from $3 million to $2.5 million?
Because it could not succeed without the support of those same House & Senate members? He can’t even get them to agree that the war in Iraq has ended, how’s he going to get them to cut their own budgets?
It’d be interesting to see how much of it is spent on getting the work done, and how much is spent on getting it done in style. I’d be all about cutting back on the latter.
Since this is the Elections forum -
Has daddy Ron Paul (who actually is running for something or other) announced a similar or greater cut in his own office budget? And if not, why bring up what Rand did?
I’ve been in Senate offices, given the scale of the job, they’re not particularly stylish.
Congress justifiably gets a bad rap, but the idea that people go to Congress to live like kings on the publics money is pretty inaccurate. Its actually a pretty crappy job, you have to spend a lot of time shuffling back and forth between DC and your home district, you have to spend a lot of time away from your family, you spend a lot of your time either in very boring committee meetings that are largely for show or begging people for campaign money and your stuck trying to get things done in a dysfunctional institution.
There are some nice perks as well, but most Congress folks are well connected enough before they run that they would probably do better perk and salary wise if they just joined lawfirms or financial companies.
So again, I think this kind of populist “all Congressmen are jerks except me, lets defund Senate offices” is damaging. Like most things, Congress isn’t going to run better with less money.
You gotta admit he would be an (ahem) interesting choice for Romney as Veep.
Why limit this to just members of Congress? I’m willing to do my part. If the federal government gives me three million dollars, I’ll give five hundred thousand of it back to help the deficit.
Libertarian proves that government agencies can be run efficiently.
Film at 11.
CNN started the ball rolling (spinning?) … “relatively small chunk”. If one of their favored pols had done it we’d be reading about a" principaled gesture" .:smack:
How would you have characterized paying .00000035% towards a debt? I think they have to put something to give a sense of the size of the payment vs the size of what its going to pay for. Given the circumstances, I’d say “relatively small chunk” is pretty generous.