Rand Paul: “Listening to the claims of the opponents of this budget, one would think it represented a full-frontal assault on the…”

“Listening to the claims of the opponents of this budget, one would think it represented a full-frontal assault on the welfare state and the entitlements system. However, in fact--with all respect to Shakespeare--the sound and fury over this budget ultimately signifies nothing. Under this budget, the federal government will spend $3.5 trillion next year, while under President Obama's budget the federal government will spend $3.8 trillion. The small difference between the congressional budget and the President's hardly seem to justify the overheated rhetoric we hear emanating from both sides of the aisle. Even under the most optimistic scenario, this supposedly radical plan does not balance the federal budget until my one-year old great- granddaughter will be in college. Under less optimistic assumption, my great granddaughter will be almost 30 before she sees a balanced federal budget. This assumes that Congress will adhere to this year's budget in future years, a dubious assumption since we cannot bind future Congresses to abide by our spending plans. The only budget this Congress cannot legally bind any future Congress to follow a budget we passed today. The only budget this Congress controls is this year's budget. So why aren't we making substantial spending cuts this year, instead of putting off the hard choices?…”