Did you read Paul's rationales? Perhaps "laughable" and "naive" weren't the correct terms. Can I switch that to "mind-numblingly stupid," "blatantly false," and "ignorant" instead?Such as? Your OP listed Sen. Paul's explicit cuts in federal departments and percentages. Which entitlements to US citizens in particular do you suggest be cut and by what percent, to avoid the discretionary cuts originally labeled as "laughable" and "naive"?
Suppose that Paul had instead said something along the lines of "I propose a 25% across the board reduction in the non-defense discretionary budget" with a rationale of "we have a $1.5 trillion deficit and every government program will need to be cut." That would have been much, much harder to argue against. Our budget is terribly out of whack; cuts will need to be made everywhere.
However, Paul did not do that. He stuck his foot in his mouth instead.
I am admittedly putting words in Gokul's mouth here, but I think what he was alluding to was the fact that huge cuts do need to be made everywhere. As I said above, if Paul had used a different rationale, draconian cuts of the sort he is proposing would have been very hard to argue against.You have no idea how upsetting it is hearing that kind of analysis coming from you... who seems to often be the voice of reason. No offense, but this time I hope you're really wrong, even if I wouldn't put money against you.
The political reality is that the 12% sliver of the budget that represents non-defense discretionary spending is likely to suffer bigger cuts than defense or mandatory programs. That reducing that 12% sliver to nothing will do little to solve the budget problem is a bit irrelevant. That sliver is an easy target compared to the DoD and the mandatory programs, both of which have some very ardent supporters.