Politico reports on Republican Presidential candidate Ron Pauls planned budget cuts.
He’ll propose immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.
Medicaid, the children’s health insurance program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would all be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.
And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”
The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”
The Daily Caller reports that Rush Limbaugh said this about Paul’s ideas-
Now, these are not really Ron Paul’s ideas. On this program I myself have suggested freezing spending at 2008 levels. Let’s freeze spending back to Clinton’s years. Paul is stealing that idea. Cutting the EPA? We’ve (Conservatives) long been an advocate of this … eliminating whole bureaucracies. But nobody on our side has ever seriously proposed this and Ron Paul is going to.
I’ve always said that the Libertarians were just stealing Conservative ideas and trying to pass them off as their own. Good to see Rush Limbaugh agrees with me.
TrueblueNZ 
20 responses to “Rush Limbaugh- Ron Paul’s Spending Cuts Really Conservative Ideas”
Libertarians: Wannabe Conservatives without the morals – Social Liberals attempting to be economic Conservatives; the ultimate split-personality complex.
LikeLike
Libertarians generally only disagree with the left on economic matters – who gets to spend the money. If you read Cresswell’s site (for example) it is quite apparent that it is conservatives and Christians that they really hate.
LikeLike
Cresswell’s site is populated by people who have come to Libertarianism from the left. Like most leftists, they just don’t get it.
LikeLike
Yeah, the Libertarianz party is populated by reformed leftists, drug users and sexual eccentrics . . all 30 of them.
LikeLike
Ron Paul’s views haven’t changed: he’s not co-opting conservative policies as a calculated move. In fact, he’s “out-conservatising” the conservative candidates when it comes to limited government and fiscal discipline.
LikeLike
Libertarians and conservatives share many of the same principles. The difference is, perhaps Ron Paul may actually act on them. As for religion, believe what you damn well like, just keep it to yourself. Too much to ask?
LikeLike
@LabourDoesntWork
@William Dwan
I agree with both of you.
“Conservatives without the morals” This is exactly what I want from government.
Besides the “I said it first” from Rush (who has supported some recent Presidents who have hardly shown any fiscal restraint) he did seem to agree with Ron, who has been saying this for decades.
LikeLike
“As for religion, believe what you damn well like, just keep it to yourself. Too much to ask?”
Sounds more like a command than a request. I’m an agnostic, but I find the arrogance of proselytising secularists far more offensive than that of Christians. How about you keep your damn secularism to yourself?
LikeLike
You want a government without morals?
Like Joe Stalin right?
Anyone who wants a government made up of psychopaths is a threat to us all.
LikeLike
“You want a government without morals?”
You quoted me just above this, so it shouldn’t be difficult. I want fiscal conservatism without the moral conservatism.
“Like Joe Stalin right?”
“Anyone who wants a government made up of psychopaths is a threat to us all.”
Now you’re just making stuff up.
LikeLike
“Now you’re just making stuff up.”
..and you’re just wasting my time. Either get coherent or take your senseless rubbish somewhere else.
LikeLike
FWIW, I think you’re wrong John. It’s an eco-system, and one of the reasons the Left has been so successful in destroying it has been the attack on the traditional family. You can’t get fiscal conservatism without putting the traditional family back in the centre of society. You do that, you get rid of (or at least drastically reduce) the massive numbers of single mothers draining away the treasury reserves, you roll back the gains made by the militant homosexual lobby (which I admit is just one army in the attack on the family), you roll back the massive welfare state by making families responsible for caring for those who can’t (or won’t) contribute.
You need to put the traditional family right smack in the middle of that, or you’re smoking/snorting/injecting some of the crap the Leftertarians are always bleating on about.
LikeLike
I see your point TGG, and I’m certainly not anti-traditional-family. I just don’t see it as the place of government to promote or otherwise any “lifestyle” even the most common and accepted one.
Stop the finacial incentives for single mothers, ignore homosexuals (but afford them the same rights under the law as anyone else) and just get one with it. How do you propose to put the family “right smack in the middle” of society? I’d prefer government had a minimum of intervention possible.
LikeLike
“I’d prefer government had a minimum of intervention possible.”
A long way from saying you prefer a government without morality. What you really mean is you want a government with the same moral standards as yourself, which means you really do not want anything different to any other secular or Christian voter.
LikeLike
“How do you propose to put the family “right smack in the middle” of society?”
There are any number of ways to roll back the destruction wrought on the family unit. Elect politicians who don’t stack their teams with people who play for the other team, if you catch my drift. The war on the family has been won by the Left in increments; it will take incremental steps to win back. One thing’s sure, and I know you’re using Leftertarian language like “affording them the same rights blah blah blah) defacing or destroying traditional marriage is a step in exactly the WRONG direction.
LikeLike
@TGG
That just sounds like our current democracy you can already (and I assume you do) elect pro-family hetrosexual people.
@Red
“A long way from saying you prefer a government without morality”
That’s because I never said that. To quote myself…
“I want fiscal conservatism without the moral conservatism.” and.. “I’d prefer government had a minimum of intervention possible.”
I don’t see how this is a contradiction?
“What you really mean is…”
There you go again.
LikeLike
Gantt is right. Fiscal conservativism and social “liberalism” cannot coexist easily, if at all, because the pressure will always be on for bigger and bigger government to mend the damage done when the cohesive force of the traditional family is unraveled. . . . in other news, the government has announced 250 additional social workers are to be placed in schools to monitor for child abuse.
LikeLike
Thank you Angus, for saying so succinctly what I’ve been stumbling over.
LikeLike
Your intial statement was-
To me, this clearly means you want a government without morals. Which I disagree with. Every government must have morals. We merely compete within the democratic process to decide which set of morals is preferred.
LikeLike
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” ~ Ronald Reagan
LikeLike