Ron Paul Suggests Axing 5 U.S. Federal Departments (and Budgets) 2247
sciencehabit writes with this selection from Science: "Presidential hopeful Ron Paul's new proposal to slash federal spending would wipe out large chunks of the government's research portfolio. The congressman from Texas and Republican candidate has unveiled a budget plan to reduce the deficit that would eliminate five federal departments: Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development. In one fell swoop, such a step would erase, among other programs, the Energy Department's $5-billion Office of Science, the $4.5-billion National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the $750-million National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the $1.1-billion U.S. Geological Survey."
I like his IRS plan! (Score:5, Funny)
I like his IRS plan!
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:4, Insightful)
Intel, HP, Apple, Xerox, Edison Electric Light Company, Standard Oil (they reduced the cost of kerosene by 80%), Ford, etc, didn't come from public anything.
Second, the states can pick up any of these 'profitable' public enterprises that Paul is proposing to be thrown out.
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:5, Insightful)
Edison Electric Light Company made extensive use of public owned right of ways.
The price of kerosene dropped 80% during Standard Oil's reign primarily due to increased supply from drilling on (mostly) public lands. Who knows how much more it would have dropped if there had been a free market rather than a monopoly in charge.
Ford benefits from massive public investment in road and bridge infrastructure. Ford didn't build any roads or bridges.
So... tell me again where would we be without the public sector?
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:5, Interesting)
You can keep dreaming your fantasy that Rockefeller was a altruistic philanthropist if you want but you really should do some actual reading on the subject.
Like all corporations, the automobile companies lobbied government at all levels to build infrastructure that was too expensive for them to build but which would make their products more desirable to purchase. That's the way the system works. Without government investment, their business would be quite different. Perhaps they would have invested more in floating cars that could cross rivers without bridges.
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Because lord knows without the Fed.gov no one would ever have bothered to build computers (and all base technologies) and it is only through the guiding light that is the government that such miracles could be wrought."
Government sponsored basic R&D and early-stage development make such miracles much faster. And many miracles depend on lots of other miracles already happening. Some product or idea may have commercial applications but depends on another advance which, in its original stage only had military application.
"Do you really believe that no one would have bothered coming up with semiconductors and all that if there hadn't been a fed.gov market for it? Really? "
There wouldn't have been anywhere near the money and intensity of development. Almost all the semiconductor physics advances from 1945 to 1980's were sponsored by Bell Labs, universtities, IBM (who had huge military contracts for the most advanced systems of course) and military funding and military contracts. At that time Bell Labs counted economically as a government agency---in return for being granted the telephone system monopoly, Bell had to spend a large amount of money on R&D.
We know what private industry would have done (Score:5, Informative)
We know what private industry would have done wrt creating the Internet in the absence of the federal government. Because they did create it. Or rather them.
Compuserve.
AOL
MSN
Prodigy
and others.
Each a walled garden, isolated from and incompatible with the others. Each created to require enforce the idea that customers are clients, rather than allowing arbitrary client/server or peer-to-peer relationships (as business has been trying to do with the Internet).
We already know what business would have created without the Internet. And they sucked in comparison to the real thing. That's why all of these networks began to wane the second the Internet became available to the public. They turned into nothing more than ISPs with portal websites and they only did that because it was that or disappear instantly.
In 1995 Bill Gates was saying that the Internet was a fad and everyone would return to the safety of MSN real soon now.
The idea that if the Internet didn't exist that private industry would have created it is simply a-historical.
Re:We know what private industry would have done (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but this is just proof that a (relatively) free market worked. In this particular case, "public money" created the Internet, but it sure as hell wasn't public money that allowed it to beat the others in the *gasp* free market. It was the local net providers, the little ISPs, that provided a better experience.
I think you're confused. The topic of discussion is whether or not private industry would have created the Internet if the government hadn't created it for them, and the simple fact is that they wouldn't have because they didn't. They created their own networks, but they were nothing like the Internet.
And the Internet beat these corporate walled-garden networks among the corporation's own customers. AOL retained an enormous number of subscribers and was the nation's largest ISP long after the AOL Network was completely irrelevant.
Without the Internet, those small ISPs wouldn't have had anything to Provide Service to. Without the small ISPs, the Internet would have still won over the walled garden networks. We know this because it did win over the walled garden networks even among those who didn't change providers.
The Free Market -- i.e. the Ron Paul Libertarian version where there's no federal government creating the Internet -- was tried, and it fucking failed.
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:4, Informative)
In October 1962, Licklider was hired by Jack Ruina as Director of the newly established Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) within DARPA, with a mandate to interconnect the United States Department of Defense's main computers at Cheyenne Mountain, the Pentagon, and SAC HQ. There he formed an informal group within DARPA to further computer research.
The 'idea' was published prior to this hiring, but the research into making it happen was decidedly government sponsored.
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:4, Insightful)
but NEVER can come up with plans or their own
You clearly don't read enough, or simply ignore what you disagree with. Frank, Kucinich, Sanders (independent), and others have alternatives. Each has merits.
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:4, Informative)
Barney Frank then blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie again in 2005, stating "Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you are not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble" - Citation [youtube.com]
While he didnt singlehandedly create the problem, combined with other democrats [youtube.com] he made sure that nothing was done it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, he's the only guy that makes any sense. The two entrenched parties can only shoot holes in his ideas, but NEVER can come up with plans or their own. Of course, he won't get elected.
Ironically, the last president to reduce the size of the federal government was Clinton (he really was a fiscal conservative) -- don't slash entire departments, pare them back, look for redundancy or those pesky things which were created but have now taken on a life of their own because their original directive has passed or become moot.
Re:I like his IRS plan! (Score:4, Insightful)
And members, aside from Paul, of those two parties with plans of their own are fairly common. Particularly, Republican incumbents and/or candidates for federal office with plans that involve dismantling large parts of the US federal government are easier to find than those without such plans.
Yes, there are a lot of politicians that will lie about what they will do in office (or make excuses about why they didn't do it before, but after the next election they will). The difference is that Ron Paul's voting record actually matches what he says.
all the better to rebuild plantation economies (Score:5, Insightful)
if folks don't know anything, it can't hurt them, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the department of education being axed means no more schools? Why do people think having bureaucrats interfering in a teacher's classroom is a good idea? The people at the Dept. of Education (DE) are not elected and are not accountable to the voters. Washington constantly pushes out unfunded mandates that increase the burden on local schools. Both parties push for these things when they get power, no child left behind, how many potatoes kids should eat during the week.
As for the task given to the DE, i
Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dept of Edu (Score:5, Insightful)
There, no moral discussion needed (a blessing since any that puts "moral right" and "fruit of someone else's labor" in the same sentence will always devolved into some mind-bending justification for how it is noble to exploit human beings).
In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, much better to see the effects of these policies in Federal politics.
I'm a Catholic (non-Creationist) from Kansas, and we choose to home school because we believe we will be able to give our children the best character and education ourselves.
The old controversy over evolution in Kansas never required students to be taught creationism. It only prohibited testing evolution on standardized tests. Schools were still free to teach what the parents wanted. That said, it was never an issue that I heard of that any schools stopped teaching evolution or started teaching Creationism. I think most of the Creationists who care about this issue probably home school or send their children to private schools. School districts in rural areas are prone to being of like minded people, so maybe there are some areas where they teach Creationism, but there is nothing preventing anybody being taught the truth at home which is where most good students are going to learn anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're duplicating efforts which are already handled from the (current) federal level all the way down to the very local level at your town's city hall.
Could the county government handle their own section of a federal highway? They may already be (I have seen survey markers from the state and USGS in the same general area). Can county parks personnel handle national parks? Maybe, maybe not.
However, what we do know is that duplication of effort is expensive and wasteful. We live in a time when we cannot affor
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see your point. The Federal Government doesn't always fix the potholes either. Just because it's the Fed doesn't mean that it operates any better or faster than local government does.
Now that's not to say I fully agree with Paul's decision here. I am far more interested in governance at the city and county levels than I am at the federal and thus I am not as well versed in their necessity and overlap as I am at the lower levels. That said, my final comments stand:
We need to make some very painful de
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm saying that local entities are only responsible to their local constituents. If a local entity is 100% in charge, they can let their section of the road go 100% to ruin if they don't want it there. And everyone else can just go suck eggs because anything else would be socialism!
My county has about 25 miles of an interstate through the northern section where almost NO ONE in the county lives. Maybe 1% of the county population regularly uses that road. If the county residents were suddenly tasked with the cost of the maintenance on that section of interstate our county taxes would probably double. Do you think most people in the county would vote for that? Nope, hardly any of us ever use that road. Goodbye freeway system.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Energy research can be done by corporations. Parks can be managed by the states they are located in - all of them have recreation departments of their own. The same is true of monuments. Public education is already managed by states. There is no need for any federal bureaucracy there AT ALL. Low income housing doesn't disappear because a federal government disappears. Let the housing be managed by each state where it resides. Let states fix roads and bridges directly with the gas tax. And so on and so on. There are a few departments that we do need, and they would continue to exist although their direction would be changed by Ron Paul. Many should have disappeared long ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Insightful)
And there are lots of US citizens who have property and part time residences there.
And it makes us a good neighbor. Just because you're nice to somebody doesn't make you a tree-hugging, money-spending, tax-and-spend liberal. Just as home schooling your kids doesn't make you a evangelist-christian, gun-totin', xeno-and-homophobic conservative.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I wish that he'd go a step farther and get rid of the abomination that is Homeland Security. That should be the first one on the chopping block and then we can worry about working backwards.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Based on Forbe's estimate of the cost of being U.S. military policy being $2 billion per day [forbes.com] If you want units solely in terms of the war in Afghanistan, that figure is $300 million per day. Adjust for other wars etc. War: it isn't cheap.)
I wonder why Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget, it would appear the potential savings are enormous?
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Butbutbut, all the little things add up! (Yes, they do. To a rounding error in the budgets of Defense or Medicare/Medicaid).
So, if this privatization stuff is such hot shit, let's privatize the military as well. I'm sure that'll work out just fine! I mean, if it's evil socialism to heal, feed and clothe people, it must be worse to publicly fund killing them, right?
Hell, on a related (hypocritical) note, Ron Paul, bastion of freedom, independence and libertarian wankery, seems to have no problem shilling for Federal public funds to deal with coastal damage in his own district. I'm sure, though, that he'd refuse funds to keep rising coastal waters from washing Galevston out to sea.
Typical libertarian nonsense: it's all waste and graft, unless it's my pet interest, then it's an essential part of the social contract. It's a movement that's just as delusional as Communism.
Does not he? (Score:5, Informative)
15% slash (right there, top line on the second page here: http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5fe6ba5e2c7e9376850ed45ac&id=bfc0992023&e=8c0ac983f9 [list-manage.com]) AND defunding all (undeclared) wars, resulting in immediate pull-out from all, what is it now, 5,6,7 places?
And, since most libertarians agree that national defence is legitimate function of Federal government, and knowing weather and coast around your country has obvious military uses, I would see nothing wrong with NOAA and USGS being funded from DOD budget.
"Fix weights and measures" is explicitly constitutional, so, I'd guess, NIST would be also safe under Dr. Paul's watch.
Paul B.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not clear here. What private corporation is going to do what the US Geological Survey does?
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not clear here. What private corporation is going to do what the US Geological Survey does?
The same ones that invented the internet, lasers, microchips, GPSs, and microwave ovens, went to the moon, built the largest highway system in the world, created our clean water infrastructure, and electrified most of a continent.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Informative)
In response you you list of inventions. DOD, DOD, NASA, DOD, DOD, NASA, DOT (Interior), EPA (Interior). Electrical was a mix of the rural electric loan program and state and local investment including eminent domain purchases.
Nothing you listed would have happened without federal involvement, either in providing the research money or planning the result.
Re:Which is what, exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
You are aware, I trust, that the USGS is responsible for a large number of monitoring programs. Basically, killing it would essentially leave the West Coast of the United States without tsunami, earthquake or volcano alerts. I'm sure the people that live along that very geologically active strip of turf will be happy to know that Ron Paul considers them essentially expendable in his quest for ideological purity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are aware, I trust, that the USGS is responsible for a large number of monitoring programs. Basically, killing it would essentially leave the West Coast of the United States without tsunami, earthquake or volcano alerts. I'm sure the people that live along that very geologically active strip of turf will be happy to know that Ron Paul considers them essentially expendable in his quest for ideological purity.
Why should the people of North Dakota pay for tsunami monitoring for California? If the west coast wants earth quake and tsunami warning, they can pay for it.
Re:Which is what, exactly? (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, then North Dakota should give up ITS share of Federal subsidies too. California gets less back from Fed on its taxes (as a fraction) than small podunk states like North Dakota. Which leaves Californa footing more than its share of the tax bill. How about North Dakota paying its share instead of sponging off of CA (and other big states)?
--PM
Re:Which is what, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which is what, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because North Dakota benefits from having a California that doesn't get devastated by tsunamis or earthquakes. The same way that the world benefited from Japan not being completely flooded by a Tsunami.
Re:Which is what, exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Why should the people of North Dakota pay for tsunami monitoring for California? If the west coast wants earth quake and tsunami warning, they can pay for it.
North Dakota is not geologically inert. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1909_05_16.php [usgs.gov]
He also wants to axe NOAA, of which the National Weather Service is a part, which tracks weather events like thunderstorms and blizzards that affect North Dakota.
Besides, your callous attitude would seem to lead to something like this:
"Why should I have to do anything to help anyone? Screw 'em." (later) "Eeek, I'm in trouble, why won't someone help me?!"
They pay (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Which is what, exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://nd.water.usgs.gov/floodtracking/ [usgs.gov]
Re:Which is what, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Alright, I want every small-government proponent to make a list of 100 things they want to fund, personally? Take a moment, I'll wait. Was drought-proof wheat on your list? Probably not. Do you need drought-proof wheat? If you don't what to be buying your food from Siberia, you sure do. Is there incentive to develop drought-proof wheat? There sure is. Is anybody going to follow that incentive? No. Why? Because it wasn't on your list or anybody else's. You didn't think of it. Or you (wrongly) believe it's not important. Or that somebody else will do it. Who funds drought-proof wheat research? Department of Agriculture research programs.
Alright, now, I want you to make a time budget. How many hours in a day are you going to spend evaluating who should receive your private funding. And be sure you do your research, we don't want Solyndra fraudsters getting it. The DC bureaucrats do this all day, but now YOU have to do it. What's that, you want to delegate it? To a company that takes your money and decides for you, and keeps a chunk of it for itself? Sounds familiar?
Oh but your system is voluntary. Except you don't actually have time to do it.
Do you really WANT to pay the free-market cost of education? Do you want everybody else to? Just how many burger flippers and drug dealers do you think this society can support? Do you want your cancer operated on by somebody who learned from Khan Academy of Medicine on Youtube?
Do you want clean water? Do you think there are incentives for private companies to keep water clean? Environmental protection is expensive, it's true. Turns out making small settlements and dragging out legal cases with in-house council is a lot less. The true incentive is to not keep the water clean. You live in a free society, but your child is DEAD. Oh well.
Re:Which is what, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the people that live along that very geologically active strip of turf will be happy to know that Ron Paul considers them essentially expendable in his quest for ideological purity.
That is simply untrue and completely preposterous. To make such baseless accusations, you should be ashamed of yourself. We all know that Ron Paul considers everyone to be expendable in his quest for ideological purity.
Re:Which is what, exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is also great incentive for them to keep that data secret and never publish any of their research, because doing so would allow their competitors to benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes...because only the almighty government can do these things...
Do you have any good counter examples?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You hit the nail square on the head! These departments can always use every last penny given to them. A private corporation 1) would make no attempt at dealing with any of these things, and if they did 2) they would fuck it up horribly. Private corporations are all about money. Making people (specifically shareholders and only shareholders) as much money as possible. They would take all of the money, stuff it into their bank accounts (for a luxury yacht or a new house in the Hamptons), and basically do
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying that all of these things are impossible without the Federal Government paying for them?
Yes. You can pretend that capitalism can provide exactly what the government provides now, but capitalism cannot magically make non-profitable things profitable. If it isn't profitable, it won't happen.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
The spending problem isn't NOAA or NIST, it's "entitlements" and defense. TFA mentions NOAA's $4.5 billion budget. For the services it provides, that's a pretty damn good bang for your buck. Axing NOAA would do about nothing for the national debt, but would cost us dearly in terms of weather data and services. You could axe every single non-defense discretionary spending agency and still end up with a decent deficit. Why go after the parts of the government that actually do a good job and provide useful services? What a fucking dumb idea. Seriously.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations are a creation of the government. They are like copyrights and patents - they only exist in law. Separating the two is impossible.
The conversation would be much more constructive if the conversation were: "What do we want corporations to do/be?"
But then we wouldn't be able to join the red team or the blue team.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Interesting)
From your own link:
How in the world are corporations not a creation of government?
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Interesting)
The ancient examples of "corporations" are churches and governments - a far cry from a modern corporation. Some would even say that the church and the government were the same thing at the time. Partnerships and guilds also do little to insulate the members from liability, make ownership difficult, and differ in many other ways. Google, Apple, Microsoft, GM... none could exist in anything like their current form as a partnership.
A "corporation" is only whatever the government says it is.
In short, I wasn't talking about when a town or church "incorporates" in the ancient sense, I'm talking about when I give the state of Nevada $1500 bucks to found an LLC.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, your link makes it clear that corporations are creatures of government, specifically, that their defining characteristic is the fact that they are recognized by government through law as having distinct legal personality.
No, they don't. Corporations are a legal structure created by government which provide special benefits (particularly, in the modern form, limits on liability) to their investors to encourage investment. Some investors make use of the availability of those incentives to use the corporate form to organize business that provide goods and services, others use them to set up tax dodges that serve their own interests without providing goods and services to others.
To the extent that there is a benefir from the existence of corporations (or other government-created business forms like the Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability Partnership) these benefits are ultimately benefits of government.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:5, Informative)
False.
The Mafia is not a corporation. A corporation is defined as an entity with separate legal personality from its individual participants. It is purely a creation of law; the Mafia is just a collective label given to a number of different groups of people.
When legal action is taken against the Mafia, its not in the form of "The People of the State of New York v. La Cosa Nostra, Inc."; its individual actions against individual members because the Mafia isn't a corporation and therefore doesn't have distinct legal personality.
Sure, if you redefine corporation to just mean "group of people", a corporation wouldn't require government, just like if you redefine "water" to mean "any compound containing hydrogen" then water wouldn't require oxygen atoms. But words have meanings.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad corporations can't go back to a more symbiotic instead of parasitic (profit maximizing) relationship with society, and that corporate and financial laws and regulations really won't allow this to happen, either (shareholder "rights", etc).
This is exactly the discussion we should be having. What do we want a corporation to be, and what rights should we grant them?
A lot of people disagree with the Citizens United decision, but have more trouble vocalizing how you would restrict them but not the New York Times. If the discussion were framed differently, people wouldn't just dismiss the court as a bunch of conservative kooks. Even the dissent (Stevens) focuses more on how it's just a bad idea to let corporations buy unlimited air time near elections than it talks about points of law.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the states will all do a fine job continuing the upward trajectory of American scientific greatness, though. After all, you don't need educated people for that, right?
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Informative)
And thus, his point is proved.
NOAA services are not free, they are paid for by taxes. TANSTAAFL. The fact that you call them "free" means you've stopped associating government services with the costs incurred through taxation.
This is one of the big problems. Too many people think of government services as "free" because there is no direct association with the taxes required to pay for them. The true costs are hidden, so people make foolish decisions because they don't see a cost.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Informative)
Most people don't seem capable of grasping that... the D.O. Education didn't even exist until 1979, and it's been downhill ever since it's inception.
Also, as others have pointed out, there certainly are some programs that could be considered best done by the federal government... and those would be moved to other departments.
Re:In other words, we should give up. (Score:4, Insightful)
How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting rid of the BATFE and the TSA instead?
Re: (Score:3)
But if we got rid of the TSA,, where would our high school drop-outs work and wield as much power over the higher educated masses?
How about their local police departments?
Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty Sure (Score:5, Insightful)
That if this happened, after the next earthquake or hurricane demolishes a few large metropolitan areas people would be wondering why we had no warning.
Re: (Score:3)
Who handles the nukes then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't the DOE spend a good deal of its time dealing with nukes?
Isn't that kind of important? Even to libertarians?
Re: (Score:3)
The NNSA has responsibility for servicing the nukes and that would be transfered to DoD where it belongs. I would expect any functions in the former weapons labs still related to stockpile management would be also.
Wow, he saves $12 billion, so 1% less deficit.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait... You think the DOE is not necessary anymore with the looming energy crisis and all the talks about global warming? And when is education ever NOT necessary?..
On top of that, all of this is just cents compared to the overall budget, yet the sacred cows like the DOD never get cut.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait... You think the DOE is not necessary anymore with the looming energy crisis and all the talks about global warming? And when is education ever NOT necessary?.. On top of that, all of this is just cents compared to the overall budget, yet the sacred cows like the DOD never get cut.
The DOD doesn't get cut because it is one of the few things the Federal Government is supposed to do . These things are good but are implemented at the wrong level, these should be covered by local/state government. The DOE is an abysmal failure if you look at what the Department was founded to do, decrease our dependance on foreign energy. It has not done that, at all and should be de-funded for failing to accomplish its mission. But as with everything in the Federal Government, no one knows what anyone e
Re: (Score:3)
We landed men on the moon a decade before the Department of Education was created. It's not that education isn't necessary, its that it doesn't have to be managed at the Federal level. Do you really think our education system is substantially better than it was in the fifties and sixties, and that the improvement is a result of Federal action?
Ron Paul... (Score:5, Insightful)
is a nutjob.
I had a long dissertation thought out, but man, this shit just boggles my mind. NOAA? Is he kidding? I'm sure all of you remember (probably not, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt) the fact that he said that "Hurr, Galveston didn't have anyone to bail them out during their hurricane" totally forgetting how many people /died/ because of no hurricane warning and forecasting.
The next time there's a hurricane coming up Galveston Bay, I want Ron Paul to be out in the middle of it. Outside. Naked.
--
BMO
Re:Ron Paul... (Score:5, Funny)
The next time there's a hurricane coming up Galveston Bay, I want Ron Paul to be out in the middle of it. Outside. Naked.
--
BMO
I don't want Ron Paul outside naked *anywhere*.
Re:Ron Paul... (Score:5, Funny)
Typical Libertarian Naivete (Score:5, Insightful)
So, he wants a 19th Century economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeez. Because deregulating the financial sector has worked soooooo very well.
It is a start. (Score:3)
Please look for your self and see how long until the amount of interest due on the debt is larger than what the government collects.
All the other politicians are fiddling while Rome Burns.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, more likely Congress would simply refuse to cooperate. I've long said it, that if Ron Paul were president, he'd be spending a lonely four years in the White House with a Congress that would refuse to work with him. It's not like most of what he proposes he can actually do anyways. To dismantle those departments would require Congressional approval. Do you think, for instance, that all those Congresscritters from California up to Washington State would ever stand by and let the USGS be killed or fa
knee-jerk (Score:4, Insightful)
Commerce -- Seriously? What about the constition? (Score:3)
-GiH
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahem. "The Congress shall have Power To..." is authority, not a mandate. The Congress can choose not to exercise its power in a given area if it wishes. In fact, in some circumstances, the fact that Congress has chosen not to legislate may itself be considered a form of regulation, and not subject to further regulation by the states.
Why not ... (Score:5, Insightful)
* I see he's not touching the Dept of Agriculture. Too many farmers on the gov't dole vote, I guess.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about as newsworthy as Ron Paul declaring that he plans to remodel my kitchen. Barring a long series of astronomically unlikely events, he's not going to get anywhere close to having the authority to do so. Providing passing entertainment on Slashdot during a slow news day may well be his high water mark.
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
He's living a fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the thing about Ron Paul. He makes a few good points once in a while, but he's such an extremist that he just wants to wildly slash everything in government with a machete. That's not the solution to anything. Most of the organizations he wants to destroy actually do good things and serve important roles, but may need to simply be restructured to better serve those roles instead of just throwing money at them in their current form. And that's not to mention the literally thousands of jobs he would be cutting to serve his agenda.
Ron Paul's mind is still a hundred years in the past. He's regularly citing things from far back in the country's history. Things that worked back then won't work today. Society's complexities and modernizations require some degree of management or oversight. Paul doesn't see that because all he can see is the fantasy of small government he envisions of yesteryear.
The USA isn't a western. Let's stop trying to treat it like one.
Way to make it sound insignificant.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I get it, they are reporting what they want to see kept (I want to see them kept too). They are a drop in the bucket compared to the 1 Trillion dollar the plan cuts.
Or in the plans on words:
"Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels."
"Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker. "
He also goes to lower taxes which I don't like, which he can actually "afford" in his plan. The plan is certainly not what I would want, but it's the first serious plan I've seen from the Right in a long time.
Read more. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ [ronpaul2012.com]
Get the overview from his website (Score:5, Informative)
Above is the link to his website directly. Some notable tidbits that the article (along with some slashdot commenters) seemed to miss:
"Cuts of this scale will also be accomplished by a Paul Presidency abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels."
Full plan is here: http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5fe6ba5e2c7e9376850ed45ac&id=bfc0992023&e=8c0ac983f9 [list-manage.com]
So as part of this plan he will get rid of:
-Entire TSA
-Corporate (including Oil) subsidies
-End the wars (likely the largest single current expenditure/drain on the economy)
-End foreign aid (which I suspect will keep the U.S. out of more wars and significantly reduce the terror threat to the U.S.)
-15% of military spending (on top of complete ending of war spending)
-Keeps Social Security and Veteran care in place but allows young people to opt out of social security (basically, ending the Ponzi scheme and recognising the debt owed from it).
I will agree that some things he wishes to cut are not things I would choose to get rid of BUT can anyone point out a single other candidate that has a plan in plain, simple terms like his to actually do something? I sure haven't seen anything like this from other candidates. Then again I feel they are all talk. Real problem solvers would have at least a moderately detailed plan up on their website with rough numbers on how to accomplish things. If anyone finds such from other candidates please post in reply. I'd be very interested in seeing other plans even at as high level as this one is.
The plan is extreme but note that even with everything he is removing and reducing it only ends the DEFICIT (i.e. we stop borrowing more) by year three. Most people seem to not realise or accept how much pain the U.S. will have to endure to climb out from the mountain of debt without defaulting. Much like those that make $40,000 and have $40,000 in credit card debt it's a long suffering process. Much more borrowing at the current rate and defaulting on debt is almost an assured result (hence the lowering of the U.S. credit rating). I should point out European nations, most local governments, etc are all in the same situation. Borrowing to get luxuries you can't afford is endemic in the western mentality currently.
I suspect this will also reduce the corruption considerably since there will be many fewer lucrative grants to bribe senators and congressmen to get. That is, if it passes at all. You'll likely need to toss the bulk of republicans AND democrats out to get anything like this through since it will dismantle many of the incentives for funnelling money to them.
Re:No more (Score:5, Insightful)
So people would have to pay to find out if a hurricane is going to nail them?
Ah America, land where sociopathic greed is not only approved of, but actually encouraged.
Re:No more (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, better to ditch essential services than tax rich people.
This is phenomenally dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're for a balanced budget, be for gov't. (Score:3)
-GiH
Re: (Score:3)
And why should Wyoming have to pay to predict and monitor hurricanes. Florida, Texas and the rest of those freeloading "water" states can fund a dozen satellites and planes to fly through the s
Re:Ron Pauls' economic ideas are head-crushingly S (Score:4, Informative)
You are the one smoking crack if you honestly believe we had libertarianism for 30 years. There are so many things wrong with your idiotic assertion I don't even know where to start.