Cost cuts not indicative of better spending
Tea-partying, Civil Rights Act-opposing Sen. Rand Paul hasn’t been the most highly respected political figure in recent years. However, his decision on Wednesday to return $600,000 to the U.S. Treasury has garnered him heavy positive attention during the past two days. Claiming to return the unused government-distributed funds from his office back to the government to prove how easy it would be for the U.S. to cut down on its spending, Paul has once again attempted to call into question the less-than-frugal practices of our nation.
Whether Paul’s act was intended to do what he claimed or whether it was for the sake of boosting his own reputation for political purposes can be disputed. But even giving him the benefit of the doubt, we need to examine this more closely.
The cuts he made in order to be able to send a check back should be considered. If Paul decreased office expenses by providing a lower quality of services or fewer services to the constituents in his state, the saved money would have been at a cost to the people. Furthermore, while Paul may have saved by purchasing cheaper computers or fewer staplers for the office, he may not have skimped at all on personal expenses paid for by the office, and we all know how hard it is to give up traveling by private jet.
It’s good to know that our politicians have frugality in mind. That’s not something we see every day. However, cutting costs for one thing always comes at the price of something else, and it’s too early yet to sing Paul’s praises.