Rand Paul's Plans To Balance the Budget Are a Useful Illustration of Congress' Addiction To Borrowing
The budget could be balanced by cutting just six pennies from every dollar the government spends. It used to require even less.

As he does every year, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) asked the Senate on Wednesday to balance the federal budget by trimming a few pennies from every dollar that the government spends.
Yep, it's actually that easy.
The predictable result: a 39-56 vote that probably overstates the popularity of Paul's proposal—how many would vote for it if they believed it actually had a chance of passing, one must wonder.
If it had passed, Paul's "Six-Penny Plan" would balance the budget within five years by cutting six pennies off every dollar the government spends. That translates to a $329 billion cut for the new fiscal year that begins on October 1—a fiscal year that seems likely to begin without a real budget having passed Congress. It would make the 2017 tax cuts permanent (and would account for the decline in future revenue that would result from that change), would preserve Social Security, and would otherwise leave Congress to determine the specifics.
"There is no free lunch. You can't have free college—somebody has to pay for it. There's no money up here," Paul said during a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday. "They're not giving you somebody else's money. They're not even taxing the rich. They're just borrowing it."
The most notable part of this thankless annual ritual of Paul's is not the results of the roll call vote, but the number of pennies that the senator asks his fellow lawmakers to trim. That's become a useful illustration of how out of whack the federal budget has gotten, and how much harder the task of bringing it into balance has become.
When he first offered what was then called the "Penny Plan" in 2018, Paul was asking for a $400 billion cut in government spending followed by 1 percent annual increases. Had that been adopted, the budget would have been on course to balance by 2023 (although the COVID-19 pandemic may have interfered with that trajectory).
A year later, Paul was back with the "Pennies Plan" that called for a 2 percent across-the-board cut for five years, followed by a two percent annual increase in spending for the five years after that. That would have amounted to a $184 billion cut in the first year, but overall spending would have grown by 18 percent over the full 10 years of the plan—and the budget would have balanced at the end of the decade.
By 2021, it was a "Three Pennies Plan," and you probably get the gist. "When I started offering these kinds of budgets four years ago, we could balance with a freeze in spending. Not cut anything, then we went to just a penny, then two, now it is three," Paul said that year.
Well, it's now 2024 and the federal government will spend well over $6 trillion this year, up from about $4.1 trillion in 2018. The government is going to borrow nearly $2 trillion in the fiscal year that ends later this month. As a consequence of all that borrowing, the national debt now exceeds $35 trillion, more than $12 trillion higher than it was in 2018.
Fixing that mess is no longer possible by cutting a penny or two or three. It now requires six.
Still sounds pretty achievable, but the trend is undeniably heading in the wrong direction.
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
A penny for Act Blue’s response. I expect change.
Act Blue
Get a load of that conservative up there.
End the Fed...then the Treasury would have to compete for funds and discount the T's much more (offer higher rates of return) and given the current interest on the debt, the entire house of cards comes down....you would have real bond vigilantes and the govt would be forced to cut..bigly
Trump approves.
Ha ha, just kidding. He wants more spending, less revenue, more deficits and more debt.
Hey buddy. Where is your standard boilerplate defense of dems claiming conservatives never talk about cutting spending anymore? Embarrassed or something?
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/the-trump-budgets-massive-cuts-to-state-and-local-services-and
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/2068645/trump-slashes-16-4b-of-regulations-70-percent-of-agencies-cut/
https://apnews.com/article/biden-2024-government-regulations-democrats-6badc3b424b9eff3ba51e0ec35a8d824
https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2020/11/trump-has-slashed-jobs-nearly-every-federal-agency-biden-promises-reversal/170203/
Oh. I forgot. You blame Trump solely for every congressional budget lol.
It’s long day emptyin’ forties,
There’s a blackout running through his head
You sure slapped that strawman’s ass. Bravo!
I didn't bring up Democrats because they're not the ones claiming to care about deficits and budgets. They don't care. So saying Harris doesn't approve of Paul's proposal would be like saying water is wet.
Did the number of pages in the Federal Register increase or decrease while Trump was president? It increased. So he did not cut regulations.
Did the federal workforce increase or decrease while Trump was president. It increased. So he did not cut federal employment.
So democrats saying they don’t care excuses them because republicans claim to care.
Goddamn you’re stupid.
It means that there’s not much to talk about when Democrats increase budgets, deficits and debt. It’s what they do.
There is something to talk about when Trump and the GOP to the same fucking thing despite themselves and their defenders claiming they’re fiscally responsible.
They’re hypocrites and liars, and you’re a sucker making sucking sounds on their male nipples.
I’m so glad I’m on your mute list.
The list is blank.
At best Trump put a tiny little dent in the rate of growth. Very tiny. Like Stormy's description of his little mushroom.
More projection.
All he really has left.
Did the total amount of regulation increase or decrease while Trump was president?
Did the total number of federal workers increase or decrease while Trump was president?
Did federal spending increase or decrease while Trump was president?
Did the deficit increase or decrease while Trump was president?
Did the debt increase or decrease while Trump was president.
Answers are increase, increase, increase, increase and increase.
Now talk about inflation, you democrat tool.
He only discusses the 50B a year in tariffs. He stays far away from the estimated 1.7T In added regulatory policy from Biden-Harris.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/3165358/biden-administration-trillion-dollar-regulatory-costs/
Because only the tariffs apparently add to costs in his economic system.
Did the number of pages in the Federal Register increase or decrease while your God Emperor Trump the Deregulator was president?
Did the number of federal agencies increase or decrease while Trump the Destroyer was president?
Did the number of federal employees increase or decrease while Donald "You're fired" Trump was president?
Goddamn democrat faggot who gave the IRS 80 thousand assault rifles?
Explain how all those checks with Trump's name on them didn't cause any inflation at all because money is free when Trump gives it away, you useless idiot.
Dumb faggot is dumb.
Sarcles blame stump for every conceivable iill in all of time and space.
Sarc has daddy issues.
So does his daughter.
That’s definitely one thing he has in common with Biden.
Where is your boilerplate defense of Trump's out-of-control spending?
Wow! I haven't heard about Rand Paul as a feature in this magazine in [looks at watch, counts on fingers] the three "two weeks" that have passed since the last time I heard anything about President Biden.
Shelly Long was funny.
Does anyone else remember certain commenters claiming they’d vote for Trump to stop Rand? Good times.
I don't remember which/any 'certain commenters' claiming that. If the assertion is that I'm among the 'certain commenters' the assertion is the exact opposite of fact. I voted for Ron Paul in 2016 and would vote for Rand Paul over Trump even if, my State, it only or specifically meant I 'reluctantly and strategically' want him staying in the Senate.
Paul and Cruz were my top GOP picks on 2016. Fortunately, Trump worked out surprisingly well.
Paul was my top pick in 2016. I'd met Cruz, guy comes across like a used car salesman in person. I mean the cliche'd sort, not the real ones, who are actually not that bad.
Cruz seems like he would be better on the Supreme court
Mellow out dude. I wasn’t talking about you.
Eh. It's just virtue signaling. Paul is big on that. On realistic solutions, not so much.
Back when it was a 1% cut, it was a very realistic solution. The continued display of how much more people like you have fucked us has simply become tradition.
It's still a realistic solution. a 6% cut across the board is trivial to accomplish if one is being serious
They could tie it to each department’s budget. Use all of your budget this year, 6% decrease next year. Use all of that new, lower budget the following year, another 6% cut for you.
Stay under by 1% or more, keep the same budget next year (Still have to stay at least 1% under).
Suddenly an incentive to keep funds for you bureaucracy has meaning.
Getting rid of the illegals would help a lot. Plus cutting all DEI and ‘green energy’ related spending. And pretty much all democrat prioritized spending would make a pretty good dent in the deficit.
Then take out the fiscal scalpel and really go to work.
Yes. It's unfathomable that the government is being run so efficiently that any cuts will impact services.
GAO's 2024 annual report identifies 112 new matters for congressional consideration and recommendations to federal agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government. For example:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should collaborate with the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to clarify and document their responsibilities and decision-making process to better manage fragmented efforts to improve how the public is alerted to tsunami hazards.
Agencies should better manage fragmentation and enhance their efforts to establish a national wildlife disease surveillance system by more fully following leading practices for collaboration, including clearly defining common outcomes and involving relevant participants.
Congress could close regulatory gaps while seven federal financial regulators should improve coordination to better manage fragmented efforts to identify and mitigate risks posed by blockchain applications in finance.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of Personnel Management should better manage fragmentation and potentially realize cost savings by avoiding duplicative background investigations.
The Department of Health and Human Services should clearly track and report progress made toward goals for federal autism activities to better manage fragmentation and document procedures the National Institutes of Health uses to help ensure activities across 18 federal departments and agencies are not unnecessarily duplicative.
The Department of Defense should take action to better manage fragmentation in research projects on using wearable devices to address service member fatigue, potentially saving costs.
The Department of Homeland Security's National Biosurveillance Integration Center should better manage fragmentation among federal biosurveillance partners by developing clear performance measures with associated time frames in cooperation with federal agency partners.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency should conduct a comprehensive assessment of centralized and federated sharing methods to better manage fragmentation and assess the overlap of federal cyber threat sharing efforts.
The Department of Defense should reduce the risk of overlapping management activities and potentially save ten million dollars or more over 5 years in medical facility management by continuing its efforts to reevaluate its market structure and establishing performance goals.
Agencies could save one hundred million dollars or more by using predictive models to make investment decisions on deferred maintenance and repair for federal buildings and structures and could save ten million dollars or more over 5 years by setting building utilization benchmarks to help identify and reduce underutilized office space.
GAO estimates that by fully addressing these, tens of billions of additional dollars and improved government services could be achieved. For example, Congress should consider directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to equalize payment rates between settings for evaluation and management office visits and other services that the Secretary deems appropriate, which could save $141 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
How about a Zero increase instead of pushing for a decrease. It's a start. But they won't agree on that either.
Needs more complexity to be an agreeable idea.
"Oh, very well. We're tacking it onto this 1500-page omnibus bill."
Freeze the budget. It's not like the rest of us have been forced to just deal when we don't get a raise. It's time the government did the same.
If we froze your precious democrats, and their RINO collaborators, we could cut whatever we want. Just toss them in commercial freezers and lock the door behind us.
A leftist like you would never stand for that. Your welfare checks would get cut off.
Why do you want to kill my grandma?
/s if it wasn’t obvious
Whoever is the next president, the spending will remain out of control.
That said Rand Paul's plan is so painless, easy to implement and provides for the continuation of historic levels of over spending profligacy and EVEN THAT is not enough for those pigs to avert the disaster they are inflicting on us.
fuck them all.
fuck them all.
Do you mean it? You're not going to vote for either Team Red or Team Blue? Terrific!
It now requires six. Still sounds pretty achievable,
especially since cashiers are increasingly not concerned about *nickels*, not just pennies.
Good luck making a six percent cut in Social Security benefits. Your party will lose a hundred House seats in the next election.
Good luck convincing defense contractors to accept 6% less for their aircraft, ships, and tanks. Most of their contracts are cost-plus so they would have to be renegotiated, and they will refuse to accept the cuts. Their engineers and blue collar workers won't accept six percent pay cuts, and the executives won't accept lower bonuses.
Good luck getting hospitals to accept six percent lower reimbursements for Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare doesn't cover the full cost of care, and Medicaid is a huge loser as it is. Many hospitals will simply refuse to accept Medicaid patients and the spectacle of poor elderly dying from this is not going to play well.
And good luck getting bondholders to accept six percent less interest on their bonds. It would actually be a form of default and would require the US to pay a premium on all its bonds for the next century or more, and the US would probably have to start selling bonds in Euros or Yuan. China would have total control over our economy.
Rand Paul is like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Good at getting media attention. No workable solutions for governing.
Other People’s Money (OPM) is a hell of a drug.
I noticed you had no ideas in your pithy response. Just keep spending...
Fucking criminally retarded.
Charliehall is the dumbest fucker alive.
You’re going to make sarcasmic sad with that talk.
Second this. Sarc is trying his hardest for that title.
Sarc has the right stuff, but I’m not certain he has the ambition.
Fair.
Charliehall belongs in a landfill with his fellow travelers.
Until he starts posting links that refute his argument, that title will remain in shrike’s gross hands.
CHARLIE HALL!
^ these people are the ones who are driving us over the cliff. We MUST end the Fed and MUST allow currency competition. It is the only answer.
and the solution is? print print print? Well that hasn't worked out very well given the loss of industry due to deficit spending. Inflation?
I agree no one has the balls to seriously cut the federal govt. Closing down every federal agency created since 1960, making SS means tested and moving to a free market healthcare system pre Medicare/Medicaid. Oh and cut defense....to Ike's levels in real dollars when we had a real foreign threat (communism). But no I guess this is unobtainable..so just print baby print
Social Security and Medicare is not part of this budget. It’s accounted for separately, and that’s a problem too.
Fewer overpriced projects that don't function would not hurt the military. Dumping the Dept of Education would free up some funds.
Social Security will have an automatic 20% cut in less than 10 years (based on current projections) and Medicare will be bankrupt sooner. Maybe fix the system now.
We could cut the budget by billions by just not spending the unallocated Covid and inflation reduction act funds.
Billions would be saved by eliminating subsidies that purposefully increase our food prices. For example, quit funding inefficient ethanol subsidies - it burns dirtier and provides less energy and fuel efficiency than regular gasoline. That land can go back to food production.
So many areas to cut without reducing others.
You can't chip away at the federal budget, you have to have a big axe.
Eliminate entire cabinet level departments.
Anything that is just cut, not eliminated, will come back after the next election, and even bigger.
We could import all this laid off Argentinian government workers. They certainly deserve asylum after all they went through.
Checking in on my local Daily's headlines on the major candidates and current sitting president.
Trump:
Harris:
And last but not least, the current sitting president, commander in chief of the armed forces, J Biden:
*ctrl-f biden 0/0*
Observation, not sure why 'capitalist' in in scare quotes, and even the secret service is not immune from the herpetologist's handshake...
Without asking you to get a degree in Biology, any indication as to whether the agent that groped a Harris staffer would be 'embarrassed by Chappell Roan'?
Also, re: Biden.
Time to watch Dave, again, and laugh at all the other *other* parts of the plot that weren't as funny as the last time 'Anybody became President'.
I cannot fathom how Kamala listed as one of her wins that she was endorsed by the IRS Agents Union. Which, I should add, is enough to convince me that anyone voting for her has very little to do with what I consider libertarianism.
Rand Paul must demonstrate fiscal responsibility by purchasing himself a proper hairpiece.
Perhaps he could scalp one of the democrat senators with good hair. Or maybe he scalp all the democrat senators, plus Romney. Romney is a shitty RINO quisling, but goddam it, the man has good hair.
When it becomes a 25% cut accompanied with an ugly recession, then it will happen. Because that's about the time there will be no choice in the matter
Let's introduce some quantification.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/
Look at tables 3.1 and 3.2,
Couldn't find the 2024 roll call vote but the 2022.....
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00228.htm
ZERO Democrats supported it.
YEAS....
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Braun (R-IN)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cotton (R-AR)
Cramer (R-ND)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagerty (R-TN)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Lummis (R-WY)
Marshall (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Romney (R-UT)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Or you could fix social security and medicare.
And, not or.
Definitely "AND", not "OR"
Wow, this is great. Now all Rand Paul has to do is find that 6% cut in spending and get it passed. Senator Paul defines the problem, which is easy, it is the solution that is hard. Each of those six pennies has hard core supporters. Some of those supporters represent money for the campaign for reelection, some of those supporters represent votes. Don't tell me how much we have to cut, telling where you are willing to cut? Tell me how much money you are willing to cut from what Kentucky gets from the Feds?
Everywhere?
6% across the board, everything. How bout that? No sacred cows, no exceptions, everything.
Your view is let's continue spending the way we are and do nothing right? I mean all the dems did vote no.
Kentucky gets ~ 10 billion which is 35% of the state budget. I'm sure they could cut somewhere.
What about you? What is your plan?
"The budget could be balanced by cutting just six pennies from every dollar the government spends. It used to require even less."
WRONG! Rand Paul's plan calls for cutting six percent each year for five years, or thirty percent in total. Because that's roughly how big the deficit is in relation to federal revenue. Simply cutting six percent would only be a small reduction in the deficit.
You do realize if you rolled the budget back to pre covid 2019 and froze it with the 1 trillion deficit. You would grow your way out within a decade.
But a freeze or not constant raising of the budget is throw grandma off a bridge. What are we spending that extra 2 trillion on this year btw?
Buying votes.