Cut government spending, shrink government 35

Ron Paul must not be elected president because he is dangerously unrealistic in his opinion of what the role of the US should be (effectively none at all) in world affairs.

But his proposals for cutting government spending, and so reducing the power of government, should be seriously considered by whichever Republican candidate is elected.

Here’s an outline of his ideas from an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily:

Paul proposes cutting $1 trillion within a year, including closing down five Cabinet agencies, the departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development and the Interior, and reducing most other federal spending to 2006 levels. …

He would slash the federal workforce by 10% and reform Washington’s fiscally doomed entitlements by letting younger Americans opt out of Social Security and Medicare. Medicaid and other social welfare programs would become block grants for the states, giving flexibility to local government.

The regulatory nightmares of ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank would all be dumped into the ashcan of history, the Bush tax cuts on income and investment would be extended, the corporate tax lowered to 15%, and the estate tax abolished.

That would be a good start – but only a start.

  • Don L

    Regarding my commenta bout Mr Griese:

    On first reading of his comment…I (whoops) assumed he was advocating for Nobama.  If , on second reading, he was only poining out that the other 8 candidates lacked luster and there was a risk, and that he is a conseravtive — as defined by Jillian, then my remarks are incorrect.  Of course…if he is saying Nobama is the his and the countries choice and that’s why he’ll win…it goes without saying.

    • George

      Gee , talk about an article going OFF TOPIC .    Well anyway , it’s either I can injest caffeine at the coffee shop  or I could have joined the NAVY and suffered from salt water and salt air hyper-exposure   aka   TMASS  ( Too Much At Sea Syndrome ) .     Yawnnnnnnnnnnn   !     Hiccup—-excuse me.

      • George

        Nevertheless I say HIGH FIVE for the  Navy SEALS  !!!!!!!!     My kinda guys !!       Semper Fi !!!

      • George

        I was referring to the comments  ( not the article itself ) —including mine.    Ok ok—-it’s the caffeine !

      • George

        Or in your case Don , you could have suffered from  JHAT ( Jar Head-A-Tosis ) .      Semper Fi !!!

  • Don L

    First, thanks Jillian for posting this! Of course, you KNOW this is my “on” button…LOL. Second, The commenter Rich Griese is unquestionably an enemy of America: a socialist — a dangerous unthinking fool.  The traitor to the American Way/Dream, Griese, cannot in any manner or fashion ever explain how his, or the enemy Nobama’s, socialistic utopia would actually function.  Why? because it can’t function.  Even the Swedish flagship is failing!  Socialism is solely an emotional concept that denies human nature (as animal spirit), reality, history (socialism has failed and is failing everywhere it has ever been imposed — in all its various derivatives) and assumes government bureaucracy is capable of managing an economy (LOL — this alone disqualifies socialism as a reasonable idea — it’s also why socialism always degenerates into violence).
     
    “To attempt to deduce ‘SHOULD’ from ‘IS’, is to fail.  Socialism attempts economic equality from the emotional ‘SHOULD’. Free market economics succeeds as it accepts inequality because it ‘IS’.”
     
    Now, returning to Ron Paul:
     
    Ron Paul advocates for Austrian economics.  It must be understood that economics is a way of thinking about economies…period!  It is not a political ideology.  Ron Paul has been fighting the good fight against the socialists, in both parties, for 30 years.  His economic views have proven correct year-after-year.  Indeed, Austrian economic projections and principles have been 100% accurate since introduced in the US nearly 100 years ago by Ludwig von Mises (the economic school derives its name from the nationality of initial contributors). The socialistic/progressive concepts (Keynesianism, monetarism, supply-side, public choice, etcetras) have all failed.  It is why America is bankrupt facing unfathomable debt.

    However, Ron Paul is a libertarian in views away from economics. In fact he represents a particulary extreme anarchistic branch of libertarianism.  As an adherent to Austrian economic thinking, it worries me that his liberterian ideas will negatively effect the furtherance of Austrian  economics.

    Back to the economics:

    Ron Paul’s wishing to eliminate departments is not necessarily a liberterian view.  Our Founders established checks and balances which would have precluded these functions ever being part of a central government. They are best handled, as envisioned, at State/local levels and by private enterprise. Austrian economics is the only economic school that comprhends and encompasses the vision of the Founders and the principles of free market capitalism.  Ron Paul, and other adherents to Austrian thinking are right because it is a way of thinking about economics that accepts human nature and is common sense deductively logical.

    Here’s a link to a page on my site. Read the copy and waych the video.  It will be the most important video you will ever see!

    http://teapartyeconomics.com/0005TheMostImportantVideoYouWillEverWatch.html

    PS:  Austrian economics was initially embraced and adopted by academia when first introduced.  Whereas academia is beholdin’ to pols/gov’t  for their bread & butter…it was supplanted by Keynesianism.  Austrian economics proves the failure of central gov’t planning…Keynesianism (Keynes was a flagrant Marxist) promoted and expanded central planning and tax and spend.

    Thanks for reading,

    Don L 
     
     

  • “whichever Republican elected?” Don’t be surprised when the Democratic president is re-elected.

    Cheers! RichGriese.NET

  • Frank

    Tao Te Ching – Chapter 57
    Govern a country with upright integrity
    Deploy the military with surprise tactics
    Take the world with non-interference
    How do I know this is so?
    With the following:

    When there are many restrictions in the world
    The people become more impoverished
    When people have many sharp weapons
    The country becomes more chaotic
    When people have many clever tricks
    More strange things occur
    The more laws are posted
    The more robbers and thieves there are

    Therefore the sage says:
    I take minimal action, and the people transform themselves
    I prefer quiet, and the people right themselves
    I do not interfere, and the people enrich themselves
    I have no desires, and the people simplify themselves

  • George

    The human race has advanced technologically on a grand scale   but ethically and morally the human race has  regressed back to savagery worse than the Stone Age.

    • Steve

      Agree except for the age. More knowledge about the “good book” would have made you inclined to say Bronze Age instead.

      • George

        I have a very indept knowledge of what you call the “good book” and the good book was never good to begin with .   And no I meant the Stone Age refering back to a specific era [ window ] during the days of the ancient cavemen   —not  the  Bronze Age which I am very well aware of  considering that history was a specialty of mine .  I can list a number of ages and I was aware of my statement when I posted it.   I meant precisely what I stated previously !

        • Don L

          LOL…LOL
           
          so was this misspelled inept or in-depth.
           
           Sorry, couldn’t  help myself.

        • Don L

          George,

          I know it’s IN-DEPTH!  Heck, I had to look up misspelled!  LOL.

        • George

          In reply to Don ———–

              Typo  :    I 4got  the hyphen and the “h”    so I guess I’ll get the electric chair or the gas chamber for that one !   Cut me some slack  , I’m at the coffee shop loading up on expresso !  

        • Don L

          Severe strokes about the head and shoulders with soft pillows!  George…the caffeine girene

  • Andrew M

    Let’s not forget Rep. Paul’s criticism of the drug war and all of the ills it promotes in the name of “protecting the people/children” (a thin veil for what is ultimately a socialist agenda). Imagine how much the economy would prosper if I could go to the joint store after buying my Grown In America hemp clothing – legally! No, instead we must import hemp fibers from China and shove the billion-dollar bud business underground because it is the scourge of society.

    I agree that his complacent rhetoric on our international relations disqualifies him as a serious contender for the Presidency, but he certainly would deserve to be the Secretary of the Treasury so he could instantly dissolve it and accordingly resign his position.

    • Keith

      Hemp was one of the best cash crops in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s mostly because of the fiber. If my memory serves me well it was Mr. Dupont who having just discovered nylon wanted no competition for his new fiber sought and succeeded in vilifying hemp to where it was outlawed.

      I am all in favor of legalizing everything but since personal responsibility in this country is gone that idea is entirely impractical. Whatever revenue is generated by taxation would be pissed away treating those with no personal responsibility.

      As far as Mr. Paul’s defense only strategy, if he means that we will take it to them with all the force of the US military if they screw with us or our interests with no regard for being nice or nation building or protecting innocents he would get my vote in a heart beat.  What I get from his strategy is he will let the muslim radicalism grow unchecked until what we have left is China, Russia and the rest of the world muslim. I don’t find that future appealing.

      • George

        Just think , when I purchased  my boat , instead of it being made of fiberglass , it would have been made of fiberhemp  !!!     Heck , people  would have been burning my boat and smoking it .  Try explaining that to the Coast Guard or the Marine Patrol  .   Hi sir , what happened to your boat ? Well officer, I came back to the marina and some bum  arsonists set my boat on fire, and then they crowded around it and started sniffing the fumes——-  what’s up with that ?    Hmmmmmmm  !!!!!!

        • George

          ”””””””””””””””””””   or , how about you turn your TV on and hear about the new sports car  with new fiberhemp body style  or how about the new fibercanibas ( different plant )   personal watercraft  or the brand new design 2012 fiberjoint travel trailer , or the new fiber-reefer fairing on your  “crotch rocket”  motorcycle ………….” Now that’s innovation .    The new age hippies , hillbillies, and ghetto bums would be in  hemp-heaven.

        • Andrew M

          That reminds me of an excellent story: conservative stalwart William F. Buckley would sail his yacht three miles away from shore and light up some of the good herb. And how? He could commit this horrible act of defiance because they were international waters and thus not subject to the idiotic drug war.

          It’s certainly better than getting drunk on the high seas, and strangely enough, that’s actually legal.

      • Andrew M

        That’s a small part of what is a much larger story, which is detailed here: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

        To hell with the insistence that hemp should be sin taxed, an idea coming mainly out of liberal camps. The business opportunities it will generate for knowledgeable, dedicated, responsible farmers far outweighs any deficit reductions it offers to the parasitic governments which until now have squandered our hard-earned dollars on a bogus Drug War.

        Guess what? The drugs are winning the war. Regardless of the dearth of personal responsibility, this expensive cat-and-mouse chase alone justifies the legalization of every, any, and all substances for personal use. Fight ’em or join ’em, it’s our call…

        • Keith

          I have researched the uses of hemp fiber and George’s tongue and cheek marketing aside everything he mentioned is likely. I have even read that early jeans were hemp jeans not cotton.

          I am in favor of legalizing everything but that will only shift the costs of trying to stop drugs from coming in illegally to treating brain dead addicts. There are those who say we already have all the addicts we will have because they will get the drugs legal or not but I disagree. 

          I live in the heart of meth land and if you never saw what becomes of a person who planned to only try meth once then further research on your part needs to be done. Even if it was legal I wouldn’t try it but many would because they assume legal means harmless.

          If all were legalized and at the same time it was stated that any costs associated with drug use was to be borne by the individual and that insurance companies had the right to cancel your policy if you choose to use drugs then maybe the costs would disappear. 

        • Andrew M

          Keith, I cannot reply beneath your comment, so I’ll write my response beneath my original comment.

          Just because I advocate legalization does not mean I advocate use. This is a critical distinction. I myself would never use meth, cocaine, heroin, opium, ketamine, barbituates, PCP, GHB, nutmeg, or any number of substances which are best left out of a human body except under very special circumstances. And that’s because I do my research.

          Some drugs are actually very good. Ninety percent of Americans take a powerful drug every day before going to work. So where are all the caffeine prohibitionists ready to rescue America from its depravity? Let us also not forget the relaxing, antiemetic, and anti-cancer effects of cannabis, nor the pain relief afforded to agonizing hospital patients by morphine, or the doors of perception Aldous Huxley opened when he took mescaline.

          Legalization itself would lend itself to more open discussion about the effects of these drugs, educate the population, and accordingly lower rates of use. Portugal actually tried out the bold experiment of full decriminalization in 2001, and the results have been nothing but positive. Long-term drug usage rates have fallen over all age drugs, along with the effects of concomitant hazards like infections caused by dirty heroin needles. Here is a report from the Cato Institute substantiating this conclusion.

          Any drug policy which does not prompt individuals to think for themselves represents an insidious form of covert socialism founded on fear, distrust, and the chilling effects of self-censorship. These ills can only be rectified by the honesty of speech that legalization offers.

        • Keith

          Andrew, my apologies. I keep forgetting I am talking with intelligent reasoned thinkers and not the liberals I come in contact with on a daily basis.

          I agree with what you have to say about legalization and that legalization doesn’t equate to advocating. I also know that legalization has been tried in other countries but we are different.

          After the earthquake and tsunami  in Japan do you remember how shocked our reporters were that there was no looting. Now flashback to Katrina where we had all those people who needed rescuing but only after all the stores were looted. We even had some of New Orleans finest partaking in the bounty that the hurricane brought. 

          Legalizing or not won’t affect me one way or another but I fear for those among us who need another excuse to suck at the teat of government in the form of addiction recovery.

        • Andrew M

          Glad to see we’re both riding George’s hemp fiber boat!

          Since we’ve successfully (but fruitfully) derailed the original conversation, I’ll keep this brief by saying that I absolutely agree with you regarding the specter of subsidized addiction recovery, which is why I’m hoping that America’s personalities change before the current regime changes before drug policy changes.

  • Anonymous

    Paul is not dangerous at all.

     His principle of using force only in self-defense is one, that if all mankind and our institutions chose to abide by, would bring peace to the world. 

    The initiation of the use of force and violence is not healthy for individuals or societies.  Advocating that the US government is somehow morally able to initiate the use of force makes no sense at all.

    • Anonymous

      In fact, back in the late 70s when Roger McBride was the LP candidate for president, I recall that his plane had a great name in opposition to the president’s jet Air Force One . . .
      McBride’s DC3 was named “Force No One”.
      The principle of non-initiation of force is a very important one.  The use of force must be reserved for self-defense only, otherwise . . . well, witness the modern world.

      • George

        When I was  in the military , I was taught that often times the best defense is a well planned and executed offense.  There are indeed times when a pre-emptive strike is necessary .  For example when the USA bombed the U-boat factories in Germany , we couldn’t wait for them to deploy the subs in the water and then after they launch the torpedos –say  : okay we’re in self defense mode now—so let’s engage the enemy now.    I know —some will say  : “but we were already at war”  ……….          We are at war NOW  with the jihadists that want to kill us around the world.   We shouldn’t have to wait until they put a nuke in one of our cities and detonate it before we take the terrorists out.   I learned in the military that you CANNOT negotiate with terrrorists.   
                        I am not talking aout innocent people who are doing us no harm. I’m talking about  full fledged terrorists engaged in terrorist acts and plotting more and going around the world engaged in mass murder and violent terrorist acts.
                             We wouldn’t be in this mess if we had strong leadership and politicians with courage and a strong will and dedication to protecting America and our allies.  Instead we have beaurocrats who care more for power ,  prestige and pushing a dubious agenda and making an image for themselves rather than saving America, protecting the American people and standing up for our principles and soverignty.

    • Jillian Becker

      Okay, cheongyei, but the question is how do you best defend the nation? Do you wait until the enemy is bringing your cities down in flames? Or do you perceive the threat coming a long way off and act against it in good time (as the US should now against Iran)? 

      • Mark

        Oh, but J; can’t we attack someone else? I can think of so many better places to die horribly than another putrid, blighted desert… 😉

      • Steve

        Soon enough Ms. Becker and the entire world can be a legitimate target as we will have pissed everyone off.

        Won’t that be glorious?

        Your brand of conservatism clouds your thinking.

        • Don L

          You still haven’t answered the question(s). 
           
          In a world enjoying itself not thinking and adopting emotional religious and/or socialistic concepts…they will be pissed at us anyweay.  But if they are pissed, threaten and notoriously seek WMD…do we gamble they won’t attack or do you pre-empt…?

          You choose to ignore and spout some cutesy reply…answer the question?

          I would wipe them off the planet!

          I can answer.

        • George

          Speaking up and telling the truth the way it really is  has nothing to do with “‘clouded thinking” .  Winston Churchill was quoted as stating :   ” You’ve got enemies ?   Good !   That means you’ve stood up for something “.    Sitting on your butt and allowing people to walk over you ( and I’m referring to the collective “you”   )  doesn’t make things improve , but rather it emboldens people to take advantage of you and consider you weak and easy to vanquish.
                           In fact an ancient proverb states –  ”  Never be the agressor , but fight with those who fight with you “.  No one on this discussion forum advocates any aggression , hatred , violence,  or antagonsim toward anyone , but we do advocate speaking up and standing up for ourselves , always tell the truth , admit when we are wrong  and let people see what most of the mainstream media  has chosen to censor because of  “political correctness “.   Then they can make an informed decision to decide for themselves whatever they chose to perceive as a result. 

    • Don L

      Paul argues that the Iranian’s are rational and don’t have planes or missles to deliver a nuke.  And, that USSR had more weapons.
       
      Rational…their leader is a thing called the supreme leader and all are religious fanatics.  Don’t need planes or missles..open  border  and unprotected ports…use your imagination.  Soviets were not a theocracy bent on destroying the big and little satans.  Paul holds to this notion as strongly as Nobama to his…reality be damned. 

      He has no right to accept this gamble/risk…he is, therefore dangerous.

      There is no doubt that American expeditions have been disasterous and against the warnings of our Founders (non-intervention).  Yet. having caused our own international problems…walking away and ignoring it is dangerous!!!   doncha think?

    • Don L

      Another point…

      They see America quite differently than we view ourselves.  We have lost every engagement since WWII becuse of PC.  Think Jane Fonda.  We lost Viet Nam politically…military we cleaned their clock…Tet was their end…had their been the will…we could have walked into Ho Chi Min City.

      We argued about a few thousand troops instaed of sending the overwhelming force to wipe out any insurgency to begin with.  So, here after 10 years…we walk away with out tails between our legs again.

      So, the Iranian regime only has to endure, at worst, 10 years  be fore we leave.  We will never use a nuke…even if they do…becuase it wouln’t be PC.

      The mideast is still in the 6th century, it’s why that crap religion can be foisted, even if we did nuke ’em…what do they lose compared to what they win?  Ignoring Iran and allowing them to have a weapon is to encourage 50 to 100 million radical islamists to seek their 72 virgins…Is this worth the risk of a Paul un-known notion?