You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Ron Paul proposes saving $1T by scrapping five federal departments
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html
Ron Paul proposes saving $1 trillion by scrapping five federal departments
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Monday unveiled a plan to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget within one year by eliminating a handful of federal departments, including the Energy and Education departments.
Paul's plan would shape the federal government to fit the Texas Republican's small-government, federalist views, slashing remaining department budgets, immediately ending all war spending, eliminating programs viewed as unnecessary, sending control over programs like Medicaid to the states, scrapping significant regulations and cutting taxes.
An executive summary of Paul's plan calls it "bold but achievable" by embracing "the bully pulpit of the presidency" and "the power of the Veto."
Along with the Departments of Energy and Education, Paul also proposes eliminating the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Interior. Paul would also abolish the Transportation Security Administration, leaving security at airports and other transportation systems up to the private sector.
Paul's plan would set the budget for most other departments at 2006 levels, which for some agencies would mean eliminating certain programs. For instance, Paul says he would cut all funding for the Justice Department's "Community Oriented Policing Services" (COPS) program, which provides grants to state and local law enforcement agencies to hire and train officers.
Paul also proposes reducing the federal workforce by 10 percent, slashing congressional pay and bringing down the president's salary to $39,336 -- "approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker," his campaign says.
Like most other Republicans, Paul wants to lower the corporate tax rate (he proposes to 15 percent), extend the Bush-era tax cuts and end taxes on capital gains and dividends.
He would repeal President Obama's health care overhaul, as well as his Wall Street regulatory overhaul and conduct a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
Under Paul's plan, states would simply receive block grants for Medicaid, food stamps, the State Children's Health Insurance Program and other welfare programs.
When it comes to Medicare, Social Security, and veterans' benefits, Paul says he his plan "honors" the commitment the nation has to seniors and veterans, but it allows young workers to opt out of those programs.
"Ron Paul's plan is the only one that seriously addresses the economic and budgetary problems our nation faces," Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign chairman and a co-author of the plan, said in a statement. "It's the only plan offered by a presidential candidate that actually balances the budget and begins to pay down the debt."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just thought it would be cool to see what people think about it. Anyone who knows me knows that I was a pretty big Ron Paul supporter in 2008 but this year Ron has consistently been coming in 3rd in national polls, in the 9-12% range. I told myself after 2008 I would stop getting excited, but I am excited this year even if nomination is a long shot (seems like media will convince everyone to choose Romney.) I feel like if Ron Paul was a bit younger and a better public speaker he would have this in the bag.
Also, the CNN republican debate is on tonight. Anyone else watching?
- Intercourse
- Rep: 212
Re: Ron Paul proposes saving $1T by scrapping five federal departments
I'm not an american but would like to know things work for you guys.
Being from the socialist mecca of Europe which I believe it is in bad need of a quango and public sector clear out but some things shoul remain.
That said I would like to know...
If there was no Department of Education how would schools be managed?
Would all schools be private?
Who would monitor and direct policy for education?
Paul also proposes eliminating the Departments of Housing and Urban Development
- Who would monitor building standards for fire protection, energy efficiency etc?
- Who would stop developer led urban sprawl or ghetto building?
With no Department of Energy who would make sure that your water table doesn't get permanently polluted beyond repair by private industry driving ahead with shale gas fracking?
Who would manage regulations around pollution from enery plants?
Let me be clear, I am not a stateist but I believe in government when it comes to protecting the people from the worst excesses of private greed.
That is the dream anyway. I think we all need slim efficient government which is surely better than no government at all??
Would welcome an education on this!!
Re: Ron Paul proposes saving $1T by scrapping five federal departments
If it was here, which it is obviously not, might be better too look a what things are being actually spent on, instead of scrapping them.
Health care for instance, US pays more than the rest of the major powers, yet has alot less beds than per a 10,000 Pop than UK, Canada, Japan, Germany, France and even Cuba for example along with a slightly lower life expentancy. Despite having more doctors than UK, Canada, Japan.
If you consider Russia's climate, there productivity on spending tech. sorta comes of alot better on Health than the US's as well.
Just some random examples, but only China comes of worse than a private Health driven states.
Re: Ron Paul proposes saving $1T by scrapping five federal departments
Interesting article. Wish I saw some of these debates however I don't have cable anymore. Jon Stewart had a great bit a few weeks ago about Ron Paul being 3rd yet the entire media skipping over him entirely. Constantly saying "Let's not forget Rick Santorum" ??? and "Of course Newt Gingrich is still a factor in all this" without mentioning Paul at all.
That said I would like to know...
If there was no Department of Education how would schools be managed?
Would all schools be private?
Who would monitor and direct policy for education?Paul also proposes eliminating the Departments of Housing and Urban Development
- Who would monitor building standards for fire protection, energy efficiency etc?
- Who would stop developer led urban sprawl or ghetto building?With no Department of Energy who would make sure that your water table doesn't get permanently polluted beyond repair by private industry driving ahead with shale gas fracking?
Who would manage regulations around pollution from enery plants?
Just a general answer to some questions, I think Education could be left up to the states & local townships to self regulate. I get what your saying about overall "direct policy" but the problem with America is there's probably wayyy to many people working in the Dept of Ed instead of 10-20 people directing the policy. I don't think the Federal Gov't should care too much about "Energy Efficiency", the market would regulate itself there. Where was the Dept of Energy when thousands of people were buying H2's & H3's?? (Hummers, Lincoln Navigators, Cadillac SUV's etc). Nowhere. Didn't hear a peep out of them. Now it's their duty to tell us to buy Energy efficient lightbulbs from GE who didn't pay any taxes last year? GTFO. HUD is good idealistically, but when welfare recipients are getting townhouses built like brand new suburban townhomes, someones abusing the system (Google Carl Greene). There was a story where he went to visit some new homes built, and in the little playground common area was a ledge made of faux granite or marble top. He disapproved and had it replaced with all pure original. It was something like a hundred foot walkway & the builder was astonished but did it anyway. I don't know much about Commerce & Interior & getting rid of them, but I agree some depts can go or be cut.
Water is actually the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and I agree to a point they're needed. Otherwise corporations would take advantage of it & our earth. BP Oil spill is a perfect example. Someone here made a good point back then about how everyone wants a smaller gov't but when emergencies like that arise they're who we count on to protect us.
Anyway, basically America's gov't is ultimately bloated & overpaid. They should get a reduction in staffing & salary. Never happens, which is why it remains bloated & overpaid yet corporations slash jobs in record numbers. The economics of it cannot hold.
Re: Ron Paul proposes saving $1T by scrapping five federal departments
Completely agree with the Energy, Education, Dept. of Interior, Transportation Security, and Defense policies.
Don't agree at all on the SS polcies and cutting Corporate taxes and earnings taxes at all. AT ALL.
Ron says great stuff, then kills it with pro-business garbage. I'm anti-big government and anti-big business.
Re: Ron Paul proposes saving $1T by scrapping five federal departments
I'm not an american but would like to know things work for you guys.
Being from the socialist mecca of Europe which I believe it is in bad need of a quango and public sector clear out but some things shoul remain.That said I would like to know...
If there was no Department of Education how would schools be managed?
Would all schools be private?
Who would monitor and direct policy for education?Paul also proposes eliminating the Departments of Housing and Urban Development
- Who would monitor building standards for fire protection, energy efficiency etc?
- Who would stop developer led urban sprawl or ghetto building?With no Department of Energy who would make sure that your water table doesn't get permanently polluted beyond repair by private industry driving ahead with shale gas fracking?
Who would manage regulations around pollution from enery plants?
Let me be clear, I am not a stateist but I believe in government when it comes to protecting the people from the worst excesses of private greed.
That is the dream anyway. I think we all need slim efficient government which is surely better than no government at all??
Would welcome an education on this!!
Good questions!! 
First of all, lets look at the surge of unemployed that would suddenly hit the market, because cutting government just means cutting jobs in government, in an already fragile economy with high unemployment.
Letting States take care of anything is an awful idea, based just on the vast differences in demographics and economic stability of each state. Some states have very high poverty and unemployment, while other states are doing well and have a better standard of living. Not all states are on equal footing, with some depending on goverment assistance just to get by. Some states cannot even afford to pay their law enforcement, and have actually not only had to lay off officers in understaffed counties (officers and fire fighters), they have actually had to revise what is or isn't a crime, such as domestic violence. Others have had to stop responding to certain crimes like grand thefts because they can't spend the resources to persue them. Now you want to put these states on the hook for education (not to mention urban development, etc.) when they're in such bad shape already. Right now, the government gives out grants that states have to fight for to hire and pay their officers, because of conservative legislation in the form of small goverment bills and "States Rights" ideology. This is a prime example of the effects of chipping away at goverment agencies and programs and the stark reality of what would happen if they didn't exist at all, which Paul is proposing.
Basically, the rest of it would be privatized, ie: put in the hands of industry and big businesses to monitor and police themselves. You know, corporations who pollute and have been spending billions of dollars in lobbiest to defund the EPA for example, and rip apart enviormental laws that curb the pollutions that their companies release into the water and atmosphere, would now be in charge of policing themselves.
Then privatizing social saftey nets. Take an American workers 401K for example. That's what the vast majority people rely on for retirement instead of solid pensions. They're retirement funds are tied up in the stock market under the control of Wall Street and banks... The same people that basically screwed everyones 401K because of their greedy and risky ventures and gambles that just lead us into an economic catastrophe, under already laxed regulations. Now, SS, which right now is a solid pension, would now be put into the stock market just like your 401K, under the control of the same Wall Street and Banks, who now wouldn't have ANY goverment oversight or regulation, and would be allowed to do whatever they wanted with YOUR money. So, there's no guarantee it will actually be there when you retire. And lets say it is there and they haven't pissed it away. Privatized SS under the control of banks and corporations would be hitting you with heavy fees, some even hidden, so you're not actually going to get what you put into the system even if everything goes okay... because it's all about free markets trumping everything and corporations entitlement to make a profit on anything they want, according to Paul and Small government peeps.
But wait, it gets better... If you don't like the sound of that, you can actually opt out of SS under Paul's plan, lets say when you're 18. So, since coporations can operate any way they want, they can choose to keep you at minimum wage the rest of your life, while at the same time the cost of living (groceries, rent, heat, etc.) skyrockets as you get older but your income stays the same (they say raising worker salaries eats into their profits too much at the same time they're giving themselves bloated bonuses), and once you hit 70, you're impoverished, there's no retirement, no money to fall back on and if you can't keep working you'll lose everything. But hopefully you'll have some kids to take care of you, but then again they're in the same position as you. Or maybe you end up in a church shelter, which you never know what the conditions of the place will be, because, yes, there's no department to check on the conditions of the joint or how its operated. But then you'll die and no one will have to worry anymore.
But, it STILL gets better... Since you live in a state that has a horrible state-run, low standard education system with high drop out rates and underfunded programs, and the fact qualified teachers won't step foot in your state, you can't get a better education to better your situation because, one, you can't afford a university or even community college for that matter, and you haven't had the proper education to afford you the ability to get a scholarship, which would now be in very short supply with no government assistance to help give them out.
AND now imagine you get sick! There's no government safety net to help you and no insurance company will touch you, no matter what state you travel to. On top of that, you can't afford the medications anyway. But, you might find a church run health care center that, you guessed it, there's no regulation, oversight, nothing to make sure these people are qualified or doing a good job, or even check the conditions of the place. Not to mention they can choose what ailments they treat, and which illnesses they won't.
But the wealthy will be in heaven. And that's all that matters.
Everyone agrees there should be restructuring over goverment run entitlement programs. They don't need to be destroyed. And there's only three things that's effecting our national debt: Military spending, SS (actually at present, SS isn't effecting the debt, but will in the future if it isn't tweaked) and Medicare, that was once sound but raided by republicans early in the decade. The stuff Paul wants to get rid of isn't affecting the debt, its just an excuse to lower taxes. I just don't subscribe to the belief that replacing big goverment with big business is the best way to go. AT ALL.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: Ron Paul proposes saving $1T by scrapping five federal departments
First off, SS is not a pension, it's a direct transfer program. There's no fund accumulating interest - money goes in one end and comes right back out the other. Wall Street and the banks can only do 'whatever they want' with your money if you give it to them. Wall Street and DC are in bed together, shrinking one's power shrinks the other. MisterID, you're viewing government as big business's enemy when in reality it's their best friend. Eminent domain, currency manipulation, the Fed making direct investments in Goldman Sachs and other financial firms - this is where the outrage should be.
Property has diminishing marginal utility, like most things. It's most valuable per unit to those with the least of it - and Paul's federal government philosophy of strong property rights and little else would ensure no one could be stripped of their belongings just because the government says so. How and how much to regulate finance is a legitimate debate, but regulation always biases in favor of pre-existing firms, raises start-up fees for new competitors, and leads us down the 'too-big-to-fail' path.
I'm not interested in getting into a long debate because as the head of a political organization, paid political commentator for a paper, and a major in government studies, this is probably the avenue where I'll reach the smallest audience of all my political advocacy - but I just wanted to say that I think you massively misunderstand Paul and the relationship between government and business. Your arguments would logically lead to a one-world government that consumes at least 50 cents of every dollar (CBO has the US federal government spending 80 cents of every dollar in 2080 using VERY conservative spending estimates - the CBO is required by law to take promises of future spending cuts at their word, a practice they frequently bemoan in their supplementary comments. Of course, the economy would crash completely well before the government could ever spend that amount - with slightly more realistic assumptions about spending cuts the economy crashes completely in 2037 - this isn't partisan, this is CBO's results except with altered assumptions about spending cuts).
