Slashdot Mirror


Ron Paul Suggests Axing 5 U.S. Federal Departments (and Budgets)

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."

32 of 2,247 comments (clear)

  1. all the better to rebuild plantation economies by swschrad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if folks don't know anything, it can't hurt them, right?

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd rather have my local affairs run... locally. And by my state rather than the feds. So what if they don't choose perfectly? At least I'm not stuck trying to get 60 votes in the US Senate to overturn ideas that don't work.

  2. In other words, we should give up. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No more energy research, no more parks, no more public education, no more low income housing, no more roads & bridges. What a grand utopia he has planned for us.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:In other words, we should give up. by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember the US is a federation. The states provide for those things as well. And pushing most of this load down to the states is probably a good idea from the point of view of balance of power.

    2. Re:In other words, we should give up. by hierofalcon · · 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.

    3. Re:In other words, we should give up. by Qzukk · · 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.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    4. Re:In other words, we should give up. by MightyYar · · 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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:In other words, we should give up. by uniquename72 · · Score: 4, 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.

    6. Re:In other words, we should give up. by chrb · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Put in standardized units:
      • Energy Department's $5-billion Office of Science = 2.5 days of the military
      • $4.5-billion National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration = 2.25 days of the military
      • $750-million National Institute of Standards and Technology = 9 hours of the military
      • $1.1-billion U.S. Geological Survey = 13 hours of the military

      (Based on Forbe's estimate of the cost of being U.S. military policy being $2 billion per day 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?

    7. Re:In other words, we should give up. by boristdog · · 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.

    8. Re:In other words, we should give up. by siride · · 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.

    9. Re:In other words, we should give up. by sarhjinian · · 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.

      --
      --srj/mmv
  3. How about... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Getting rid of the BATFE and the TSA instead?

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  4. Simple solution by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong."
    --H.L. Mencken

  5. Pretty Sure by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  6. Who handles the nukes then? by orphiuchus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't the DOE spend a good deal of its time dealing with nukes?

    Isn't that kind of important? Even to libertarians?

  7. Ron Paul... by bmo · · 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

  8. Typical Libertarian Naivete by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US needs a nuclear weapons program. We need border patrol. We need specialized regulatory and enforcement agencies like FCC. Pretending that all these programs are optional to anybody, even the most retrograde conservative, is just empty posturing and shameless pandering to ideologically driven morons.

  9. So, he wants a 19th Century economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Jeez. Because deregulating the financial sector has worked soooooo very well.

  10. Re:No more by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. knee-jerk by starmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  12. Why not ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... the DEA and ATF. Move their law enforcement functions into the FBI. Move their regulatory (drugs, alcohol, tobacco) functions into the FDA and Dept of Agriculture*. You could combine NOAA and the USGS. There's probably some remote sensing, mapping, tsunami/earthquake/tornado/weather/whatever warning functions that could be combined.

    * I see he's not touching the Dept of Agriculture. Too many farmers on the gov't dole vote, I guess.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  13. So? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  14. He's living a fantasy by FyberOptic · · 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.

  15. This is phenomenally dumb by sean.peters · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You do realize, right, that all those private companies who are "more apt at the weather stuff" are doing it based on... weather data that they get for free from NOAA, right? Jesus, I wish the "seasteading" movement would get going, so we could export all our libertarians.

  16. Re:Which is what, exactly? by NeutronCowboy · · 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.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  17. Re:Which is what, exactly? by tbannist · · 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.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  18. Re:I like his IRS plan! by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    HP, Apple and Xerox were all built on the foundation of US Government financed research and development of semiconductors and computer systems.

    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?

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  19. Re:Which is what, exactly? by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You just made a great argument for eliminating the federal government agencies that redistribute wealth amongst the states.

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  20. Re:Dept of Edu by Taevin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this a joke? Education correlates positively with productive value for society and negatively with burden on society. Put simply, without society paying for childhood education we'll be left with a bunch of drooling half-wits that cost us way more to support than it would to simply give them a K-12 education. If you must see it that way, it's very much self-serving to educate children. In all likelihood, I will never have children of my own so I'm not even talking about it from that angle. Someday when I'm old the current batch of students will be running things and personally, I'd like it if they were at least semi-functional insofar as the average human can be.

    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).

  21. Re:I like his IRS plan! by mbkennel · · Score: 4, 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.

  22. Re:Which is what, exactly? by ljhiller · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How are the people of North Dakota supposed to ship their wheat to China when a tsunami takes out a west coast shipping port?

    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.