LBJ treated animals right....
showed scars on his fat belly without being asked...
What more could you ask for in a Prez?
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Ron Paul's Economic Plan: Cut 5 Cabinet Agencies |
| 2011-10-18 |
| [Blogs.Wall Street Journal] GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul Paul is a libertarian, which is good, and an isolationist, which is bad... will unveil his economic plan Monday afternoon, calling for a lower corporate tax rate, cutting spending by $1 trillion during his first year in office and eliminating five cabinet-level agencies, including the Education Department, according to excerpts released to Washington Wire. I've been waiting for someone to formally propose that we start dismantling agencies. The west was won, the nation settled, and the civil war fought with seven cabinet agencies: state, treasury, war, the attorney general, the navy, the post office, and (President Zachary Taylor's contribution) interior. Since the Second World War, which you'd think would have required more control than we presently have, what with Nazis and Fascists and that kind of vermin to fight, we come up with an additional nine agencies, which is two more than it took to expand from coast to coast and defeat the Confederacy. Or is it ten? There's a certain amount of mitosis going on with them, so they split without warning. I'm in favor of abolishing anything created since 1945, transferring their functions (if any) to existing departments. Mr. Paul's "Restore America" plan calls for a drastically reduced federal government to help spur American business -- a familiar theme for the Texas Republican and many of the GOP White House hopefuls. But unlike some of his Republican rivals who have released economic plans, the libertarian congressman mostly avoids the weeds of tax and trade policy, according to excerpts. It's a basic principle of Republicanism that the lower taxes are the more money people have to spend on the things they want, whether necessities or frivolities. But Mr. Paul does get specific when he calls for a 10% reduction in the federal work force, The federal workforce grew by 11.7 percent between 2009 and 2011. At the same time the civilian workforce shrunk by 6.6 percent, or 7.5 million jobs. while pledging to limit his presidential salary to $39,336, which his campaign says is "approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker." The current pay rate for commander in chief is $400,000 a year. The $39,336 doesn't include the allowances and perks of the presidency, I'd say. Since he has no expenses he could bank the whole thing. Michelle doesn't have to go to Tar-zhay unless she feels like having her picture taken looking proletarian. The Paul plan would also lower the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35%, though it is silent on personal income tax rates, which Mr. Paul would like to abolish. The congressman would end taxes on personal savings and extend "all Bush tax cuts." Herman's 9-9-9 plan sounds simpler, but I'm open to any kind of change in the income tax code. What's nine percent of $450 billion? You'll notice the rake-off to the government wouldn't get us into the trillions even if they took the entirety of 2010 retail sales. I'd prefer to see the repeal of the 16th amendment. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they included a ban against any kind of head tax. They would have included a ban on income taxes if they'd ever heard of such a ghastly thing. He would also allow U.S. firms to repatriate capital without additional taxes. 'Tain't fair to pay twice, is it? Some politicians have recently proposed such legislation as a way to spur job growth. Its critics argue that a tax holiday for companies with money abroad has not historically led to domestic investment. A more comfy business climate would make it easier for companies to invest in the U.S., and double taxation would ease the climate. Or am I missing something? But the plan, at its heart, is libertarian. While promising to cut $1 trillion in spending during his first year, Mr. Paul would eliminate the Departments of Education, Since its institution we've seen education get worse, not better. Commerce, The Commerce Department was created in 1903, well after the nation was settled. It was originally called the Department of Commerce and Labor, but then split so the two agencies could be antagonistic. If Commerce is to be abolished so should Labor. Personally, I think Labor should go and Commerce remain, if only because it had the National Aquarium in its basement for many years. It would make a nice home for the actual beneficial functions of agencies like the EPA or OSHA, while the rest of their bureaucracies could be ditched. Energy, Established in 1977, a mere eight years after the repeal of the Oil Depletion Allowance (in 1969) led us into becoming an oil importing country and the gas crisis of 1973. Since its establishment it has created no energy that anyone has seen but has pissed lots of money away on solar, wind, and similar dead ends. Interior Established under President Taylor as a place to stash younger sons of political hacks. The Indians have been groaning under its inept administration since approximately the time of the Blackhawk War. No Department of the Interior was needed to uproot and deport the Cherokees, so why is it required to oppress the remaining Sioux and Apaches? and Housing and Urban Development. ... created in 1965. There are actually several pieces of the agency that could go into the reconstituted Department of Commerce. The FHA makes home loans with 5 percent down, versus the 20 percent required for conventional loans. As of the time I knew anything about it these were insured, with the premium being covered by an additional fee added into the monthly mortgage payment. The remaining functions of the agency appear to have been designed by people on heavy medication. God forbid they should ever come up with a Department of Suburban Development. When former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney unveiled his economic plan last month, he said he would submit legislation to reduce nonsecurity, discretionary spending by $20 billion. The 2012 federal budget is $3.7 trillion. A trillion is a thousand billion. Somebody else can build the fraction. My math skills just got daunted at the tiny size of the Romney cut. We could be looking at a nanocut. Or a picocut. I would much prefer to see a healthy slice. The entire federal budget in 1945, the year we beat the Germans and the Japanese, was $118 billion. Mr. Paul would also push for the repeal of the new health-care law, ... three quarters of a trillion if memory serves... last year's Wall Street regulations law ... the one picking the winners and losers, the winners being campaign contributors... and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the 2002 corporate governance law passed in response to a number of corporate scandals, including Enron. ... acknowledged even by its proponents as being a business killer... Other proposal are more vague, and the campaign has not yet released estimates of economic growth under the plan. What's there is pretty definite, and would be beneficial to the nation... Mr. Paul, who wrote the book "End the Fed," calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve and "competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation." The excerpts did not provide more details on how such legislation would work. Perhaps the Fed could be dumped, the restored Department of Commerce could establish target prices for key commodities -- gold, silver, copper, that sort of thing. Then any state could issue paper money pegged to the commodities and anyone, to include individuals, could issue currency reflecting those prices. If gold is $2000 an ounce and you have an ounce of gold you could spend it and get $2000 worth of groceries in return. There would of course be severe criminal penalties for counterfeiting and short-weighting. When it comes to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, Mr. Paul wants a system that "honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out." Without wanting to sound like Al Gore, Social Security and Medicare, along with any similar entitlement programs the government comes up with, should be off-budget and self-supporting (as in, in a lockbox). People have been paying into the system for years, and the premiums they've been paying should have been earning interest. Instead they've gotten "government bonds" as IOUs and the money's been pissed away on shovel-ready projects run by campaign contributors. I'd call for a congressional investigation but they're not better at picking out their own sins than most people are. In fact they're worse. He also wants to run Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor, and "other welfare programs" through block grants to states. I can't see any constitutional justification for a Federal hand in Medicaid. In fact, if I was a candidate (which I am not and never will be) I would call for a constitutional amendment to establish the office of the Tribunes of the People. There would be five tribunes, each serving for five years, with an annual election to fill the seat falling open. They would be elected by popular vote, preferably every January 1st. Once a person had served as a tribune he/she/it would be ineligible to hold any public office again, though they could be paid a nice pension to make up for it. Their function would be to examine every piece of legislation from the standpoint of the constitution, and if it wasn't within the original structure and intent any one of the five could veto it, with no appeal allowed so long as the provision violated or the lack of provision (in other words trampling the 10th Amendment) was cited. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #20 He kicked us all in the ass, it was called the Great Society. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-10-18 19:42 |
| #19 I have a friend who got kicked in the ass by Johnson. Long story. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2011-10-18 19:15 |
| #18 Paraphrasing Jerry Pournelle on the core of this issue: For everyone entitled to receive government benefits there must be those required to pay, and a tax collector who has the right to collect, by force if necessary. That almost never gets debated in discussions of citizen rights and entitlements. Has any candidate EVER mentioned this? |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-10-18 15:08 |
| #17 examine every piece of legislation from the standpoint of the constitution, and if it wasn't within the original structure and intent - rescind it. That used to be and IIRC still is one of Congress's many jobs that it refuses to do. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-10-18 15:04 |
| #16 What exactly does the Bureau of Indian Affairs do that couldn't be accomplished by other Bureaus? And the Education Department? Since our educational system seems to constantly be in danger perhaps having Federal oversite has been a negative factor. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2011-10-18 14:47 |
| #15 Thanks for that link to the Duke of Duval County. The guy makes JR Ewing look like a piker. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-10-18 14:09 |
| #14 We are debt slaves thanks to Washington big spending ways. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-10-18 13:42 |
| #13 well... the Duke of Duval County was always the support behind LBJ. It never hurts to have even a minor "slave/serf" holding fascist covering your ass |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2011-10-18 13:12 |
| #12 Yeah, that was after his gall bladder surgery. And there were people who maintained that beagles don't mind being hauled up by their ears. Still, I was glad to see him go back to Texas in 1969. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-10-18 12:44 |
| #11 Still... LBJ treated animals right.... showed scars on his fat belly without being asked... What more could you ask for in a Prez? |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2011-10-18 12:25 |
| #10 Let's see, the Energy Department was created in 1977? Wasn't that jimmuh carter who did that? 'Nuff said. And HUD, created in 1965 by good old Lyndon Johnson. A lot of people here at Rantburg claim that jimmuh was the worst president, evar. But I think that's because they don't remember LBJ and his so called Great Society guns and butter policies. I mean, why was he fighting communism in Vietnam when he was basically a communist himself? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-10-18 12:08 |
| #9 Paul is a LOON. Sorry but his ideas would be worse than even the Feds malfeasance. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-10-18 12:03 |
| #8 I like the concept of cutting 5 cabinet agencies, but the devil is in the details. To start with, federal employees have job security, so if their agency is cut, right now they must be transferred to some job of equal status and seniority. So this has to end first. That is, the federal government must be able to fire unneeded employees. Hundreds of thousands of them. Second, there are a ton of federal enabling laws and judicial decisions that have taken power away from the states for these agencies, so there will be a sudden rush of authority and responsibility. That is, right now they are fully funded through deficit spending; after their transfer, they won't be. Third, there are a lot more agencies than these five that will need to be consolidated, and a hellacious amount of federal power that will have to be stripped from many others. This is the reason I have advocated a 2nd Court of the United States, because this is far more than five slash-and-burn presidents in a row could accomplish, with a fully supportive congress. A 2nd Court, mirrored after the US senate, would be totally controlled by state judges responsive to their state legislatures, who would appoint them. They would be, in effect, a permanent federal government pruning mechanism. An analogy would be a permanent, standing constitutional convention, but without the risks inherent in such a convention, as they could not make law, only thwart new or old laws, regulations, executive orders and judicial precedents. Importantly, this would re-balance a system that was at risk of imbalance from the start, and thrown very out of balance with the 17th amendment. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-10-18 09:27 |
| #7 When it comes to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, Mr. Paul wants a system that "honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out." Yep, I know SCOTUS ruled that SS was 'legal' under the commerce clause [sort of like Scott and Plessey], that much abused entry employed to create an overpowering and authoritarian Big Brother, but it should have and still should be authorized by Constitutional Amendment. Won't happen because such a vehicle would also be the means to restrict the program to old age pension, limit eligibility to only those who paid in, and deny Congress the ability to play Hollyweird bookkeeping with the collections. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-10-18 07:37 |
| #6 I was a libertarian---when I was 15! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2011-10-18 05:37 |
| #5 while pledging to limit his presidential salary to $39,336, which his campaign says is "approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker." The current pay rate for commander in chief is $400,000 a year. From memories dating to Nixon the POTUS is expected to meet White House's expenses from his salary. Once he has paid them and the income tax he is not making _that_ much money. So this sounds as unadulteratzed demagoguery. |
| Posted by: JFM 2011-10-18 04:22 |
| #4 About international politics Ron Paul's message is very simple: if you ignore the wolf he will ignore you. I don't think it works and if were an AZmerican I would prefer higher taxes to an iranian nuclear mushromm over my city. My other problem with him is that I already caught him lying (about the Civil War). |
| Posted by: JFM 2011-10-18 04:17 |
| #3 The most sanity I have seen pass his lips. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-10-18 01:14 |
| #2 I have a seven year old nephew who like Paul is a Libertarian. Unlike Paul, his ethical, moral and political sense is more mature and grows each day. He has learned to share with his classmates and help people in need. |
| Posted by: Bigfoot Jeter8554 2011-10-18 01:03 |
| #1 Problem with Ron Paul, in my book, is that he wants to cut defense even more. And his 'impeachment for Obama' talk after that traitor was dronezapped. And I don't think he can win. The media already has him palin'ed as a wacko. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-10-18 00:33 |