for one, the "30% reduction" you mention is the federal budget amount, which i believe does not include the war in iraq...so add another couple billion to that sum.
second, isn't a balanced account a reasonable goal? ...so add a few billion more to that amount.
(imho a balanced account is much more important)
add into the equation the fact that the 2001 price index is about 15% less than the 2007 price index, so let's add a few billion more to that amount. 1994 price levels? forgetaboutit.
so no, unless you advocate to reduce our military equipment purchases, or the pay levels for our armed forces, or to stop constructing highways, or stop the provision of public health services, or to stop scientific research grants, etc.......where are you going to cut federal spending the 30% you and ron paul advocate?
if the idea was to reduce the federal budget by a reasonable amount, I'd support that. 5%? 10%? sure, let's cut the pork.
iow, it's easy to throw out the idea of getting rid of the income tax, and believe me I do not support the current inequitable and overly manipulated tax code, but it's unrealistic to expect that the revenue source wouldn't need to be replaced.
|