Rand Paul Asked Senators To Balance the Budget. Only 28 Agreed.
Rising interest rates will only make it harder to balance the budget in future years.

As he pitched his Senate colleagues on a plan to balance the federal budget in 2018, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) warned that rising inflation would be one of the consequences of a failure to bring deficit spending under control.
At the time, Paul was pushing a bill that would have required a spending cut equal to one penny out of every dollar in the federal budget. The so-called "Penny Plan" would have balanced the federal budget by 2023, Paul claimed at the time, without requiring serious cuts to any specific programs. Paul exerted senatorial privilege to force a vote on the package; it failed 21–76.
That was before the federal government borrowed trillions of dollars in the name of combatting the COVID-19 pandemic. It was before President Joe Biden's $1 trillion infrastructure package. It was before four more years of bulging federal budgets authorized by a Congress that's increasingly blithe about borrowing.
With inflation now running seemingly out of control and trillion-dollar deficits being the new norm in Washington, Paul was back on the Senate floor Wednesday to offer another bill to balance the budget in five years. This time around, however, it would require cutting six cents for every budgetary dollar.
The proposal failed, 29–67.
"Washington's addiction to spending is hurting our economy and depleting our currency. Inflation is stealing every American's purchasing power and financial security," Paul said in a statement after the vote. "All this plan does is return to 2019 spending levels. If the federal government spent at 2019 levels this year, we would have a $388 billion surplus."
Indeed, about the only thing that's changed in the four years since Paul offered the Penny Plan is the size of the numbers involved. America has piled up an incredible $11 trillion of debt since 2018—that's more than one-third of the nation's total credit card bill—as annual budget deficits surged even before emergency pandemic borrowing blew them through the roof.
President Donald Trump oversaw an expansion of debt-fueled government spending during his term in office, and Biden has followed suit. In his first year in office, Biden has added $2.4 trillion to the nation's long-term deficit—despite the White House's best efforts to hide that fact.
In the face of this unsustainable fiscal situation, an across-the-board cut of six pennies per every dollar to balance the budget seems like a pretty good deal. But the jump from the Penny Plan to the Six-Penny Plan over a period of just four years serves as a nice illustration of how Congress has completely lost control of the fiscal situation.
And things are rapidly spiraling. The Federal Reserve announced a 0.75 percent interest rate hike on Wednesday, just hours before Paul presented his budget plan on the Senate floor. Those higher interest rates will rebound into the federal budget in the form of higher interest payments on the national debt. Under the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest budgetary baseline, interest payments on the debt are expected to triple between now and 2032. If interest rates climb higher than the CBO expects, however, the federal government could be paying trillions more simply to finance government spending that already occurred.
Obviously, that will make any future attempt at balancing the budget an even more difficult task.
The opportunity to balance the budget by cutting a mere penny out of every dollar of federal spending has come and gone. After Wednesday's vote, the Six Penny Plan's days are likely numbered too.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck Joe Biden
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going
this article... http://www.profit97.com/
I’m tired of these outrageous lies
And the horse or in the this case the “donkeys” he rode in on..!
Without really looking for it, I know Rand Paul's position on the COVID regime.
Without really looking for it. I know Rand Paul doesn't exactly like Trump but will work with Trump to achieve what I would call libertarian ends. I know Amash thinks he should be impeached for things that I'm, at this point, pretty sure aren't even crimes and are largely media hoaxes.
Lest someone say 'but Trump!' in Amash's defense.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (fhg-03) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home.
Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going
this article.......... http://payout11.tk
But Trump...
I would say it differently. IN GENERAL, Rand Paul is more willing to abandon his principles to give in to the republican party. Agree or disagree, Amash will go with his principles even if it's against the party and self destructive.
I agree that the charges Trump was impeached for were likely not even crimes (at best in a gray area) and media hoaxes though. "But Trump" is an authoritarian leaning narcissist guilty of many crimes (like all presidents) so it doesn't bother me at all that Amash voted to impeach.
I think Rand Paul is more concerned about America than his own career. Amash is more concerned about Amash.
Rand Paul handed Faucci his ass. Again.
Only GOP voted Yea. No surprise.
It's disgusting that little more than half of Republicans were willing to vote for it.
This is the easiest, most viewpoint neutral way to reduce the budget. And they couldn't even do that.
They don't even talk that much about fiscal responsibility anymore. There's still some spending hawks in there, but it's not the mainline messaging anymore. Which I think says something about the electorate currently. I don't know if inflation is enough of a bite in the ass to get people to wake up, but I know that the COVID bills were all hugely expensive and hugely popular when they were passed. I also see very little appetite for entitlement reform.
Totally agree. We got the representation we want, good and hard.
People love it when you promise to give them things, especially if you don't tell them where those things are coming from.
Or you tell them that Rich People and Evil Corporations will pay for everything.
^This EXACTLY... It's no coincidence that Democrats have wildly propagandized that the very source of human resources are "evil"..
It's hard to de-humanize Dictate and Steal from those very people who have been feeding and supplying us with human resources without some massively ignorant propaganda...
And as soon as the propaganda to de-humanize those who WORK and are a BENEFIT to society successfully paints them as "evil" then they illogical self-justify there need to STEAL and ENSLAVE them.
Democrats - Still the party of slavery.
Fiscal responsibility isn't an election winner any more. Or did you miss the 2020 election where the current highest officeholder won with more votes than any candidate in the history of Democracy, where fiscal irresponsibility was plastered all over his campaign website?
what we missed was the 2020 election.
It is pretty fucking shitty that they couldn't get their act together for this. I am wondering what team blue's excuse is? It will be pretty difficult to push the fiscal responsibility lie that they fall back on when trotting out the litany of falsehoods and canards.
Of those 28, how many would be serious about it if there was actually a chance of passing that? It’s easy to commit to something that has no chance of going anywhere.
Which GOP voted "nay"? That's more important to know...
That makes it bipartisan, if I'm correct.
"Rand Paul Asked Senators To Balance the Budget. Only 28 Agreed."
That's actually a bit of a miracle.
Ganbatte, Paul-san!
He got an extra 8 people to vote for it. Progress!
But we would have to cut spending all the way back to 2019 levels. And you know what happened in 2020.
This could be a great opportunity to get some financial sanity. We need some kind of balanced budget amendment, probably just requiring a large majority to pass spending bills. I'm pretty sure even something like this won't pass. Congress is too addicted to spending. It's like expecting a junkie to flush his stash down the toilet.
dafuq is the rest of (R) plus those two (D)s with brains in their heads?
Well, Cocaine Mitch was against it, so a lot of the old guard Republican / RINO senators went with him, apparently. Although, curiously, not Mittens Romney.
hey that dude saved the Salt Lake City Olympics you leave him alone
I am this time, he's one of the 28 that voted in favor besides Paul. I'm surprised, but he did.
Hold the phone! Pierre Delecto voted along with Rand for something Cocaine Mitch opposed???
Isn't that a sign of the first horseman of the apocalypse? Time to repent, folks...
He only voted for it because there is zero chance he will have to follow through.
Balancing the budget is a simple and easy to understand concept and hence, unsurprisingly, is bullshit.
There is a respectable argument for some form of balance over a business cycle but none for balancing year to year - huge loss of flexibility and doesn't allow the government to respond to prevailing economic conditions.
It's moronic that there's no clear distinction between current and capital expenditure in the Federal budget. If the government can finance capital expenditure at a lower rate than the projected returns for such expenditure it is generally rational to engage in it, and it is generally irrational to reject it on axiomatic grounds like "adding to the deficit is bad". Current expenditure is a different matter, of course.
But Rand Paul does like this performative garbage.
I love nothing more than the "Acksewalllies" of people trying to act as if we are talking about small overruns in budget year to year. The deficit is so bad, and the debt so out of control, that it is time for us to "be flexible" and try reducing the debt for awhile.
The idea that it is generally a good idea to engage in some capital expenditure if it will return a positive ROI is absurd nonsense. Sometimes the better thing to do with money is pay down existing expenses, cut jobs and inefficiencies and just get the house in order. We've tried it your way for hmmm...50 years. Why don't we try Rand's way?
I like the idea of measuring government ROI. They'd be shrunk way fast.
What's the ROI on Hope and Change? Not everything awesome can be reduced to a bottom-line number.
There is a huge ROI on dumping democrat and RINO congress weasels in a landfill.
That was going to be my critique of the idiot above. ROI on government expenditure is damned-near impossible to measure, let alone forecast. And pretty much any expenditure can be justified as an "investment".
Isn't there also usually the overlooked deferred maintenance on many "low" cost capital expenditures that swept under the rug until they become painfully due?
The idea that it is generally a good idea to engage in some capital expenditure if it will return a positive ROI is absurd nonsense
I guess finance isn't one of your strong points. This is an uncontentious business practice.
You have the gall to make this statement after calling out the rejection of structural deficits on axiomatic grounds?
Whoosh.
I have the gall, and the knowledge.
Deficits are not always bad. You insert "structural" where it did not exist., hence adding bad faith to your evident ignorance.
i
You insert "structural" where it did not exist
Jesus tapdancing Christ. What are you, 19? You sound like a college kid that wants to apply the one thing he picked up in Management 202 and ignore the historical context that informs the policy prescription.
It's your comment which is performative garbage.
It makes clear a mindset that the government should be in a place of maximizing its assets as well. That's a very Government As Business model of thinking. This goes along with how a lot of spending seems to happen at the federal level; we choose a number and then figure out how to spend it.
I tend to think it's healthier to instead ask what is it going to do, how much it costs, and then attempt to raise that money in the least intrusive way. If that system leads to surpluses then perhaps they can have discussions of investing those resources.
Going with your model though, two issues that come to mind for me are how expected capital returns on expenditure are determined, and how our debt is finances. For the first, we tend to use CBO estimates, which for many reasons tend to not fit real world constraints reasonably. The government does not have much impetus to do hard analysis of the capital expenditure. So, it's questionable whether it's really true that it's rational. Facts have borne out that it tends to not be super rational as the returns have not come, and in the last 10 years we've seen slower growth than in previous decades by about half.
For debt financing, the US refinances its debt at a high rate. The bonds are cycled through, and they have new growth rates on them as the bonds are sold to the debtors. This means the US debt is not locked in at some low rate, and rather quickly is affected by changes in interest rates. The fact that our debt is financed on something similar to a variable rate loan also calls into question whether the decisions we've made are generally rational.
Great point. The overall stance seems to be:
1. Everybody throw their wishes and wants in this pot.
2. Wow, we're gonna need some real dollars for all that. Gimme a figure.
3. Where's that marketing genius to give it a clever name. The 'We love you guys, really!' ACT but cleverer (is that a word?). Gotta be an Acronym these days to please the masses.
4. Spend, baby, spend. Have we touched all of our friends and wink, wink, associates?
5. We have great!
6. Wait there's some more billions left over? And everyone's good?
7. I guess it's ours then. What are we supposed to do, give it back.
8. You know if we don't spend this they will cut it next year.
9. Who wants some of the leftovers!
10. Oh, look. Something else needs our attention.
The MSM:
1. Congress lays out a 10 point plan to address that latest thing we said.
2. We support it.
3. Please Tweet out to your friends and shame your acquaintances who don't!
4. Oh, look. A new thing!
It's moronic that there's no clear distinction between current and capital expenditure in the Federal budget.
Government accounting is a joke, generally speaking, at every level.
There is a respectable argument for some form of balance over a business cycle but none for balancing year to year - huge loss of flexibility and doesn't allow the government to respond to prevailing economic conditions.
That's only true because the government immediately spends any and all existing and projected revenue and makes only symbolic attempts to actually budget its spending based on long term revenue projections because it knows it has a number of different means of making money magically appear in its accounts, so why bother with any of the rest of that noise?
It's moronic that there's no clear distinction between current and capital expenditure in the Federal budget. If the government can finance capital expenditure at a lower rate than the projected returns for such expenditure it is generally rational to engage in it, and it is generally irrational to reject it on axiomatic grounds like "adding to the deficit is bad". Current expenditure is a different matter, of course.
You're making this argument like you think there is anything approaching parity between capital and current expenditure by FedGov, which is simply absurd. Governments don't invest, they don't profit, and they don't benefit any shareholders.
"projected returns"
Yikes
The federal government has taken in more money year over year for as long as I’ve been alive (except I think 2009-2010 if I remember correctly). Why exactly does the budget HAVE to increase every year?
What wasn’t the federal government able to afford to do in say, 2016?
Yeah, proposing a balanced budget = grandstanding.
Just spending more every year = responsible governance.
Keynes recommended that government does deficit spending during recessions to keep "GDP" high, and practice austerity when times are good. Congress just seems to skip the second part.
Congress just seems to skip the second part.
Generally yes. But that doesn't mean that proposing non-Keynesian approach isn't grandstanding.
And as we can already see from some of the responses, many Americans have a deeply shallow understanding of the issue. supporting my general observation that there is no-one as loudly ignorant of economics as a right-wing American.
Your original point wasn't economics though it was specific piece which was the budget. Budgeting at it's base level doesn't take the post grad understand that you are proposing it does. You can be pretty effective at maybe even more so when it isn't clouded by theories of efficiencies.
many Americans have a deeply shallow understanding of the issue
Says the guy that's apparently unaware that problem is a structural deficit. Or who thinks that ROI has any relevance to a discussion about it.
A senator should force a vote on the question of which disaffected, friendless, faux libertarian Republican is the bigger asshole -- Cruz or Paul?
That would be a funny thing to happen.
Maybe a nice dose of inflation will bankrupt the retired assholes who have been sending their money to Trump and other delusional right-wing causes.
Maybe.
We can hope for a feel-good result like that.
Haha, yeah.
"That was before the federal government borrowed trillions of dollars in the name of combatting the COVID-19 pandemic. It was before President Joe Biden's $1 trillion infrastructure package. It was before four more years of bulging federal budgets authorized by a Congress that's increasingly blithe about borrowing."
I don't think Rand gets it that in the 21st the purpose of democracy is to elect people who will pay it back with ever-increasing spending, if not outright cash gifts.
The only hope I can see is to somehow weight votes based on net taxes paid. In other words, no hope.
Democracy only lasts until the people realize they can vote themselves cash from the public treasury. Which was also sometime in 2020. No wonder democracy is hanging by a thread.
Rand Paul reads Atlas Shrugged with one hand.
Very good!
If you’re a fucking retard.
Rand Paul is far and away, and it's not even close, the best Senator we have.
He may be the best Senator of my lifetime.
Total wishful thinking. They will never balance the budget. They will not stop overspending until they burn the whole damn thing to the ground. Get ready.
BTW the budget balanced in Clinton's last year, and before that, under Carter IIRC, so it is perfectly possible.
It is no longer possible.
Never-mind Clinton used S.S. funding to do it and also coincidentally rode the eCommerce initial wave. Then again.. Bill Clinton was only half the Nazi then as he is today.
The lie that the budget was balanced under Clinton can’t die.
Or the fact that it was twenty-five fucking years ago.
The "progressive progress" of Nazism on full display...
The only question remaining is why anyone has 'faith' in an ideology proven countless times to be a curse.
Rand Paul for President!!!!!!!
In another 10 years, he can just call it the Dollar Plan, and the math will be a lot easier.
Show boat bullshit. Paul voted for the $1 trillion Trump tax cut and the GOP has shown time and again the balance the budget line is for the rubes like this author. Even before Covid the deficit and debt went up under Donnie Fatso. Covid relief was a bipartisan effort with Trump calling for a bigger payout than Biden in the last plan.
Show boat bullshit... Democrats WROTE the Cares Act, then voided the actual congressional vote on it (never know who actually supported it in the house), complained that it wasn't enough endlessly (thus why they PITCHED MORE!!!)...
And here you are complaining that the Republicans didn't STOP them... That Paul voting to cut taxes (i.e. THEFT) is "evil" and complaining that Trump rose the deficit 1/2 as much a Obama did his 1st term where Democrats held congress..
You're absolutely right that Republicans should do a lot better but your narrative that they are anywhere near as bad as Biden and Democrats is complete and utter LIES...
Course you know that; but it's all about Gang-Color affiliation for you and which [WE] mob rules!!! As all Democratic Nazi's are.. This isn't a football game ya know.. These are players packing Gov-Guns around and using them against us citizens..
They always attack a Republican president for signing democrat legislation. Buttplug does that too. Thu would have attacked him for vetoing it too. Democrats are lying traitors. Joe Friday is but an extreme example of this principle.
It’s time for them to go.
Agreed. If the Republicans take control of Congress we will not hear are the debt it will be talk of another round of tax cuts.
Less Theft from the Nazi's!!!! Oh, what a curse.... /s
"I know; lets cheer on the BBB and other crony socialist measures, talk about 100% tax (100% slavery) and SPENDING MORE!!!", every Democrat.....
And don't forget to throw up your "I'M IGNORANT" freak-flag about Rand Paul (a Republican) pushing hard to balance the budget... No, no..... Those 29 Republicans that agree are just racist insurrectionists....
What is this; how to be stupid 101?
Thanks for guarding against the Nazi's TJJ.
However you are doing it, it's working. I haven't seen any.
"I haven't seen any" --- Ignorance isn't an excuse.
Did you think National Socialism conquering the USA happened on it's own accord or what?
I will start taking Rand Paul seriously when he speaks seriously. When he talks about spending cuts and tax increases. The time is past when spending cuts alone will solve the problem. If the debt is a problem, then treat it seriously and look at all options.
The Nazi......
"We need MORE Gov-Gun theft for socialism...."
"Omg! We're going broke and it's all those Rand Pauls!!!"
PROJECTION at it's finest...
The time is past when spending cuts alone will solve the problem.
This may be true politically. This is absolutely not true otherwise.
Of course the same can be said about raising taxes on "the wealthy" or "corporations", which are the only types of taxes the tax-hiking party seems interested in (and inconsistently even then). Accordingly we all need to strap in and get used to financial repression - it'll probably be a generation before we relearn our lesson, if we ever do.
"Relearn our lesson"
... that [WE] mob rules conquering the very foundation of the USA (A Government ONLY to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice) is treasonous and will end very badly every-time no matter how glorified the self-justifying excuses to use Gov-Guns to STEAL from 'those people' is ...
I disagree, I think we are well past the point where spending cuts alone will solve our financial problems. This is more than just politically true it is the real world, a place some politicians refuse to acknowledge.
You are correct in you statement that some politicians only want to talk about taxing the rich or corporations. That is no more viable or realistic than the talking about spending cuts alone.
The columnist George Will put it this way "Americans are over serviced". They are also undertaxed for that service and until they know the true cost, they will continue to demand the services. Tax at an appropriate level to service will make people understand the cost and then decide if the service is worth the cost.
You make taxing and paid dictation sound like an Individual choice. Sorry buddy... When Gov-Guns are involved it isn't an Individual choice it's [WE] mob armed theft.
It isn't going to do any good to keep giving armed criminals MORE money until their stolen credit card spending spree is ended... It's like you're trying to peg the problem as the solution.
Maybe if Rand Paul wasn't such a dingbat Trumper he'd get more cooperation from the rest of the Senate? Half the ideas he comes up with are from Mars.
I agree. Rand Paul's problem is he doesn't have any vision for what he believes. He talks like he wants to be a libertarian but then lines up with Trumper.
piss off, cut spending
LMAO.... Do tell... Who was the most libertarian president in the last 1/2-century then..... Because in my book a white house committee specifically for De-Regulation is pretty libertarian to me...
I often think leftards biggest handy-cap is letting their emotions over-ride any sense of logic.
I do believe that the person you are talking about is President Carter who is credited with starting modern efforts to deregulate.
In 1977, Carter appointed Alfred E. Kahn to lead the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). Commonly known as the "Father of Airline Deregulation,"
Apparently it was an appointee that De-Regulated....
Carter established the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. Created a national energy policy that included conservation and price control... Carter's tenure in office was marked by an economic malaise, being a time of continuing inflation and recession as well as an energy crisis in 1979.. (Typical Democrat)
Carter signed Law H.R. 5860 aka Public Law 96-185, known as The Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979, to bail out the Chrysler Corporation with $3.5 billion..
During his presidential campaign, Carter embraced healthcare reform akin to the Ted Kennedy-sponsored bipartisan universal national health insurance.
Oh yeah; you picked a winner there...
And never-mind he was longer ago than 1/2-century.