Maybe characterize it as his not using 16 % of his budget… oh I see that they did,… down a few paragraphs. I guess that’s why they call it spin.
He completely misses the point. Question isn’t whether or not the government spends money, its about how they spend it, how effectively. If you go over budget by ten percent but double your effectiveness at reaching stated goals, you’re doing a bang-up job, minor sins forgiven. If you save 16% of your budget, and brag on it, then you must offer some proof you did the same job as effectively on less money. Then you got something!
Which is an interesting point, because Senator Paul seems to be building a record of being the voice off in the woods that nobody seems to be listening to at the moment. I looked up his legislative record, and out of the approximately 100 bills and amendments he has authored, only one of them has passed the Senate. Now, we shouldn’t judge a freshman’s record too harshly, but he has received votes on a fair number of his proposals, too. He’s had a few near-party line votes, but several more really lopsided votes against him. His budget proposal garnered a vote of 7 to 90, his move to cut foreign aid lost 20-78, his effort to cut highway funds lost 14-84, plus a couple others that were a little less embarrassing.
That being a gratuitous shot against the senator that has nothing to do with his office budget, again he ought to be commended for returning the money he didn’t need. Lots of government offices sweep up year-end cash for things like upgrading computers and Blackberries (hey, use it or lose it!) and the idea of returning funds to the Treasury shouldn’t have the stigma that it frequently does. Very often, returning unspent funds is seen as a black mark against an agency, as in, “Man, your budget must be screwed up if you spent so much less than you asked for… next year, you’re going to REALLY take it in the pocketbook!!”
It was 16% of his office budget, not 16% of the national debt. I asked how you would characterize “something to give a sense of the size of the payment vs the size of what its going to pay for.” The 16% number doesn’t do that.
Of course, they could give the .0000003% number, but “relatively small chunk” makes Paul look better then actually saying how small a chunk it is, so if its spin, then its pro-Paul spin.
That may have been how you wanted me to respond but that is not exactly what you asked.