Slashdot Mirror

You are likely confused by how often big-government types claim to be for a free market or libertarian.

No, that part does not confuse me, or progressives in general, for that matter. We are quite familiar with Republican hypocrisy in that area. :-)

Since you mentioned Ron Paul, let's take a look at him. His official campaign site does not mention climate at all, and seems mostly concerned about reducing the price of gas. He also seems to think I should make polluters "answer in court" for polluting my property. I guess I'm supposed to sue my entire city for raising my ozone levels...

His biggest fan site (or at least the first Google result for "Ron Paul on climate change") quotes him as declaring global warming a "hoax" and "terrorism", and links to a couple of hilarious conspiracy theory sites. So, er... what about Ron Paul again?

Also, this is not a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. That only applies when there are no real Scotman.

I think you have misunderstood this. The No True Scotsman fallacy is arbitrarily narrowing a category to exclude an individual that you don't like. By definition, there must be real Scotsmen for the fallacy to apply, as in the classic example:

A: "All Scotsmen love haggis."
B: "My friend is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like Haggis."
A: "He must not be a TRUE Scotsman."

But of course he is. Likewise, "libertarian" is not so easy to define. The very first thing in Ron Paul's list of issues is support for the religiously-motivated banning of abortion, which many people consider to be the very essence of big-government intrusion into personal liberty. But nobody has a problem calling him a libertarian, right?

You are likely confused by how often big-government types claim to be for a free market or libertarian.

No, that part does not confuse me, or progressives in general, for that matter. We are quite familiar with Republican hypocrisy in that area. :-)

Since you mentioned Ron Paul, let's take a look at him. His official campaign site does not mention climate at all, and seems mostly concerned about reducing the price of gas. He also seems to think I should make polluters "answer in court" for polluting my property. I guess I'm supposed to sue my entire city for raising my ozone levels...

His biggest fan site (or at least the first Google result for "Ron Paul on climate change") quotes him as declaring global warming a "hoax" and "terrorism", and links to a couple of hilarious conspiracy theory sites. So, er... what about Ron Paul again?

Also, this is not a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. That only applies when there are no real Scotman.

I think you have misunderstood this. The No True Scotsman fallacy is arbitrarily narrowing a category to exclude an individual that you don't like. By definition, there must be real Scotsmen for the fallacy to apply, as in the classic example:

A: "All Scotsmen love haggis."
B: "My friend is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like Haggis."
A: "He must not be a TRUE Scotsman."

But of course he is. Likewise, "libertarian" is not so easy to define. The very first thing in Ron Paul's list of issues is support for the religiously-motivated banning of abortion, which many people consider to be the very essence of big-government intrusion into personal liberty. But nobody has a problem calling him a libertarian, right?

My apologies for the long post, but Ron Paul pisses me off. From his own website:

Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

First line of his tax platform, and we've established that he wants to get rid of the income tax, which is currently the most direct way to put the burden of social support on those who benefit most: the wealthy. If you're of the opinion that everyone should support society equally, whether or not they can afford it, then I guess removing income tax makes sense. That's not my opinion.

To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes...

Excise tax is often connected to "sin tax" for good reason. The government gets to put a tax on anything it wants. The paranoid folks worry about the influence of government on our right to purchase particular things, but what actually concerns me more is the likelihood that a "fair" excise tax is applied to practically everything, so all prices rise by some amount, increasing the total cost of living. If wages also increase, then it's just inflation, and nothing changes (except we're in a worse position in the global economy). If wages don't increase, then the taxes affect the lowest-income population the most, while the middle and upper classes are unaffected.

...non-protectionist tariffs...

I don't think I've ever heard of any tariff that's not protectionist. Raising the price of an import necessarily makes outsourced manufacturing more expensive. Unfortunately, this isn't the 1800's, where America was capable of being (more or less) self-reliant. Americans want their electronics from Asia, and modern companies know this. The higher prices from the tariffs will be passed on to the consumers, which again will mostly hurt the lowest-income population. I don't think that's right.

massive cuts in spending

He defines what will be cut elsewhere. Notably, he intends to close the Department of Energy (because who needs energy research anyway, when you have big energy companies working on fossil fuels?), Housing and Urban Development (which currently manages federal programs for low-income people to buy homes), and the Department of Education (because the states do such a great job already). Less specifically, some other goals are "returning responsibility for security to private property owners" which I interpret to mean cutting federal support for emergency services, and "stopping foreign aid", of which the #1 recipient is Afghanistan. Sure... once we've screwed over a country for 10 years, let's cut off support to rebuild, so we can cut back 1% of the federal budget. He also boasts about his promise to take a personal salary of only $39,000, which is a savings of almost 0.00001% from the federal budget. Then there's his spending freezes, on Medicaid, SCHIP, food stamps, family support, and child nutrition programs.

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. ...

He wants to cut out 45% of income, but his vaunted $1 trillion in cuts only total about 33% of expenses. Without replacing the missing 12% of the budget, he's going to have a hard time meeting his promise to have a balanced budget in two years.

What strikes me about this contest is how the candidature of Ron Paul hasd been ignored by the entire US media.

"The countywide totals for Dr. Paul include 246 Congressional delegates, more than double Mitt Romney's 120, and 360 alternate delegates for Ron Paul, a clean sweep in that regard". link

(a) http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/, search for "end birthright citizenship", this would require repealing (or amending) the 14th ammendment which states, ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.''
(b) you don't understand what the gold standard is if you thing banks are on a gold standard: hint, no banks would have needed to be bailed out if they were
(c) citation please
(d) Ron Paul is THE sponsor of the sanctity of life act, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 which `` Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life.''
(e) the civil rights act is generally thought to be explicitly constitutional based on the commerce clause and the 14th amendment.
(f) wrong. states have no abilities to grant new rights. rights already exist and are not limited to the bill of rights. Ron Paul supports the rights of states to take away those rights, e.g. the right of two people to get married. and, seriously, you think states have the right to declare what sex acts in your bedroom are legal and which are not?

On all of those specific issues, I think it pretty easy to decide if Obama is better than Ron Paul or vice versa depending on your views. Take just three issues:

(a) http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

Do you really want to live in a US where citizenship is something earned rather than something imparted by birth? If so, Ron Paul is your man. If not, Barrack Obama.

(d) Ron Paul is THE sponsor of the sanctity of life act, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1096 [govtrack.us] which `` Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life.''

Do you really want all murder and manslaughter criminal laws to immediately apply to the unborn unless states take action to revise the language of statutes currently on the books? If so, Ron Paul is your guy. If not, Barrack Obama.

(f) The elimination of the federal right to privacy in light of state sovereignty

Do you want to live in a nation where states can outlaw specific sex acts conducted in private, e.g. oral sex between lawfully married spouses? If so, Ron Paul is your guy. If not, Barrack Obama.

I'll concede that there are some issues where I prefer Ron Paul's positions to Barrack Obama's positions. For example, I'm for decriminalization of drugs at the federal level and ending the drug war.

There are also issues where I think both are wrong. For example, with regard to the size of the military, I think Obama errs in keeping it too large but that Paul would err in keeping it too small.

Generally speaking, what is at stake for Ron Paul is an effort to turn the US Constitution into the Articles of Confederacy. The Federalists first won that debate when they US Constitution was ratified. The intellectual descendants of the Federalists won again in the US Civil War. And again with the rise of federal trustbusting. And again with the fight over the New Deal. And most recently with regard to civil rights.

Personally, I don't want to return to a nation where lunch counters can turn away customers simply because of the color of their skin. Nor do I want to live in a nation where state run schools can legally segregate based on race. I find it problematic that states like Maryland (where I currently live) can deny granting divorces to lawfully married gay couples (who either moved to Maryland or were married out of state where same-sex marriage is legal) because they do not recognized gay marriage. And I think that, on balance, these sorts of issues end up being more important than the places where Ron Paul has a more attractive position than Barrack Obama.

Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.

Yes, you are; and apparently quite the drama queen to boot.

Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:

Ooh, a high-and-mighty drama queen, even better!

Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"

It doesn't; According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" What part of that statement are you having trouble comprehending?

Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions."

Again, read the Constitution. It states very clearly that the federal government is prohibited from passing laws in regard to religion; it does not, however, extend that limitation to the states. Therefore, if, say, Texas wanted to become a theocracy, that's Texas' business.

Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy

Only because either A) you lack a basic understanding of context and the English language, or B) you disagree with it.

Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Source citation or it didn't happen.

Gay marriage: He sells cards of talking points in favor of DOMA on his website. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/protect-marriage-issue-cards-pack-of-100/

Ron Paul quote from the aforementioned cards:

I will stand against unconstitutional federal power grabs and will fight to protect each State's right not to be forced to recognize same-sex marriage against the will of the people."

Sounds like more of a state's rights issue to me. Nice misrepresentation there, tho; The question is, was your mistake intentional or out of ignorance?

Abortion: He sells similar talking point cards that dismiss even the possibility of a medically necessary abortion. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/a-pro-life-champion-issue-cards-pack-of-100/

Well, surely you're right on this one, and not again misrepresenting Paul's platform to support your own agenda... let's see...

From the card:
Ron Paul's "We The People Act" effectively repeals Roe v. Wade and would prevent activist judges from interfering with state decisions to protect life.

So again, we see that you are (likely intentionally) misrepresenting Paul's words to make his platform of state's rights seem more onerous than it actually is.

DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal

Yea, sounds like it; unless, of course, you're an abject failure at the basic art of proofreading... since surely someone who thinks as highly of themselves as you do

Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.

Yes, you are; and apparently quite the drama queen to boot.

Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:

Ooh, a high-and-mighty drama queen, even better!

Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"

It doesn't; According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" What part of that statement are you having trouble comprehending?

Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions."

Again, read the Constitution. It states very clearly that the federal government is prohibited from passing laws in regard to religion; it does not, however, extend that limitation to the states. Therefore, if, say, Texas wanted to become a theocracy, that's Texas' business.

Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy

Only because either A) you lack a basic understanding of context and the English language, or B) you disagree with it.

Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Source citation or it didn't happen.

Gay marriage: He sells cards of talking points in favor of DOMA on his website. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/protect-marriage-issue-cards-pack-of-100/

Ron Paul quote from the aforementioned cards:

I will stand against unconstitutional federal power grabs and will fight to protect each State's right not to be forced to recognize same-sex marriage against the will of the people."

Sounds like more of a state's rights issue to me. Nice misrepresentation there, tho; The question is, was your mistake intentional or out of ignorance?

Abortion: He sells similar talking point cards that dismiss even the possibility of a medically necessary abortion. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/a-pro-life-champion-issue-cards-pack-of-100/

Well, surely you're right on this one, and not again misrepresenting Paul's platform to support your own agenda... let's see...

From the card:
Ron Paul's "We The People Act" effectively repeals Roe v. Wade and would prevent activist judges from interfering with state decisions to protect life.

So again, we see that you are (likely intentionally) misrepresenting Paul's words to make his platform of state's rights seem more onerous than it actually is.

DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal

Yea, sounds like it; unless, of course, you're an abject failure at the basic art of proofreading... since surely someone who thinks as highly of themselves as you do

Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.

Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-18/ron-paul-limit-military-to-national-defense/

Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"

Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions." Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy -- or possibly one taken with full knowledge that it closes the door on explicit theocracy while opening one to a much more dangerous implicit one.

Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Non-acknowledgement of the right to privacy in the bedroom: He wrote this on the website of Lew Rockwell: "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution."

Gay marriage: He sells cards of talking points in favor of DOMA on his website.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/protect-marriage-issue-cards-pack-of-100/

Abortion: He sells similar talking point cards that dismiss even the possibility of a medically necessary abortion.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/a-pro-life-champion-issue-cards-pack-of-100/

DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal

Seriously, he's not the savior you people think he is.

Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.

Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-18/ron-paul-limit-military-to-national-defense/

Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"

Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions." Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy -- or possibly one taken with full knowledge that it closes the door on explicit theocracy while opening one to a much more dangerous implicit one.

Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Non-acknowledgement of the right to privacy in the bedroom: He wrote this on the website of Lew Rockwell: "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution."

Gay marriage: He sells cards of talking points in favor of DOMA on his website.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/protect-marriage-issue-cards-pack-of-100/

Abortion: He sells similar talking point cards that dismiss even the possibility of a medically necessary abortion.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/a-pro-life-champion-issue-cards-pack-of-100/

DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal

Seriously, he's not the savior you people think he is.

Actually it was already on the list and the campaign just issued the PR as yet another example of why. Odd that you read it as "just got added", as the first half of the sentence you quoted made that fairly obvious: “That is why my ‘Plan to Restore America,’ in additional to cutting $1 trillion dollars in federal spending in one year, eliminates the TSA."

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ plans for a DHS spending freeze, including "Transportation Safety Administration Privatized".

according to this:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/23/ron-paul-campaign-statement-concerning-tsa-abuses/

the entire TSA just got added to Ron Paul's list of things to eliminate:
quote: "in additional to cutting $1 trillion dollars in federal spending in one year, eliminates the TSA."

woooot!

Both Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul have been very vocal opponents of the TSA (I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is running on a platform to completely dissolve the TSA as well as a number of other agencies and departments of the federal government -- although that depends on where he's speaking and to whom).

It doesn't depend on who he's speaking to, the guy's one of the more consistent politicians ever in Washington. Here's the plan you're talking about documented in writing: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/
You may not like his ideas, but he doesn't flip flop on them.

Of course, if you lived in the 14th district of Texas, that would actually be true.

Ron Paul seems like an intelligent, thoughtful man. Let's avoid a knee-jerk reaction to this "news". Maybe he has an idea to continue providing the core public services of these departments while cutting bureaucratic complexity. I don't think there's enough information here.

Then again, it's a lot more fun to get indignant!

Man, if only there were a way that we could find out... oh, look! The actual plan, as released by his campaign! Here, take a look yourself, it's not like it's that long. According to the announcement on his campaign web site, that's the plan, "in full."

If his explanation to how to continue providing the "core public services of these departments" is in any way materially different from "the private sector," I'll eat my hat.

Why choose?

Cuts totaling $1 trillion during the first year of a Paul Presidency would be achieved by eliminating five federal cabinet departments – the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. 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.

(Note: please don't read this post as an endorsement of the plan.)

Actually Ron Paul outlined a very detailed plan on slashing $1T in his first year, balance the budget, and make significant inroads toward paying the nearly $15T debt: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Link to source: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

That military budget you talk about slashing? Yea, he does that.
You are aware the plan totals over 1 trillion slashed? It's just the mentioned departments that got zeroed out. Most everything else also took a 15-40% cut.

It's probably one of the best budget plans proposed in decades, from the perspective of actually spending less than you earn.

Ron Paul is cutting $902 billion in the first year (compared to baseline), including military cuts:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

He's actually cutting $1 Trillion...in the first year. Read the plan: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Actually, Ron Paul is *the* strongest advocate of any candidate D or R for cutting military budget. He is also the strongest proponent of bringing a swift end to middle east occupation and closing many bases in the over countries we have 'em in.

Search for Ron Paul's response on defense spending during the Oct. 18 debate in Las Vegas. Or, check out http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/ :
Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

Perhaps because the military spending can't actually be cut until military operations have curtailed. His platform has always been very consistent: Stop warmongering, shut down the numerous overseas US bases, and slash the size of the military.

Link:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/10/17/ron-paul-announces-ambitious-%E2%80%98plan-to-restore-america%E2%80%99/

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

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.

"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."
Source, his campaign website

I'll scream bloody murder for abolishing the Dept of Education and Energy, but I can see where Ron Paul-supporters are coming from.

How about getting rid of TSA, DHS, and cutting the military spending budget by something meaningful?

Sure, but that would be real, substantial savings and not a mere token gesture.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ Take a look at the plan I think you'll see he's giving you what you ask for. TSA is eliminated. DHS and Military Spending cut significantly. $1 Trillion is cut from the budget in the first year and the budget is balanced in the next three.

What makes you say he doesn't? You're only allowed to do one thing in your world?

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/ - "Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpedybOR2oY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RXWcKOYeeg

Clearly the military is a domain of the Federal Government so you can't expect him to say to junk the Department of Defense - he's reasonably consistant in having the Federal Government do the things the consitution says are its roles and nothing else. But he's always said the military budget needs to be cut dramatically because it is bankrupting the country.

FTFA:

Paul would also end funding for all research programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture

See also Dr. Paul's own site:

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.

Maybe you should go read the plan? He cuts the most (in dollar terms) from defense and is advocating closing the majority for our foreign bases (ie, Japan, Korea).

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/

For further reading on his plan to see what else he cuts, here it is. [pdf]