[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 27 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E302-E303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 15, 2011

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other 
     departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes:

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, both supporters and opponents of H.R. 1 claim 
that is a serious attempt to reduce federal spending, however, an

[[Page E303]]

examination of the details of the bill call that claim into question. 
For one thing, the often-cited assertion that H.R. 1 reduces spending 
by $99 billion is misleading as the $99 billion figure represents the 
amount that H.R. 1 reduces spending from the President's proposed 
Fiscal Year 2011 budget, not reductions in actual spending. Trying to 
claim credit for a reduction in spending based on cuts in proposed 
spending is like claiming someone is following a diet because he had 5 
pieces of pizza when he intended to have 10 pieces.
  In fact, H.R. 1 reduces federal spending by $66 billion. This may 
seem like a lot to the average American but in the context of an 
overwhelming trillion-dollar budget and a national debt that could 
exceed 100 percent of GNP in September, this cut is barely even a drop 
in the bucket.
  One reason that H.R. 1 does not cut spending enough is that too many 
fiscal conservatives continue to embrace the fallacy that we can 
balance the budget without reducing spending on militarism. Until 
Congress realizes the folly of spending trillions in a futile attempt 
to impose democracy on the world we will never be able to seriously 
reduce spending.
  Congress must not only reject the warfare state, it must also reject 
the welfare state. H.R. 1 is more aggressive in ending domestic 
spending than foreign spending, and does zero out some objectionable 
federal programs such as AmeriCorps. However, H.R. 1 leaves most of the 
current functions of the federal government undisturbed. This bill thus 
continues the delusion that we can have a fiscally responsible and 
efficient welfare state.
  Mr. Chair, the failure to even attempt to address the serious threat 
the welfare-warfare state poses to American liberty and prosperity is 
the main reason why supporters of limited government and individual 
liberty should ultimately find H.R. 1 unsatisfactory. Only a rejection 
of the view that Congress can run the economy, run our lives, and run 
the world will allow us to make the spending reductions necessary to 
avert a serious financial crisis. This does not mean we should not 
prioritize and discuss how to gradually transition away from the 
welfare state in a manner that does not harm those currently relying on 
these programs. However, we must go beyond balancing the budget to 
transitioning back to a free society, and that means eventually placing 
responsibility for social welfare back in the hands of individuals and 
private institutions. Despite the overheated rhetoric heard during the 
debate, H.R. 1 is a diversion from the difficult task of restoring 
constitutional government and a free economy and society.

                          ____________________