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."

Comments

all the better to rebuild plantation economies

[swschrad]

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

In other words, we should give up.

[Kenja]

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.

Re:In other words, we should give up.

[Qzukk]

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.

Re:In other words, we should give up.

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:In other words, we should give up.

[chrb]

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?

Re:In other words, we should give up.

[boristdog]

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.

Re:In other words, we should give up.

[siride]

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.

Re:In other words, we should give up.

[sarhjinian]

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.

How about...

[i.r.id10t]

Getting rid of the BATFE and the TSA instead?

Simple solution

[i kan reed]

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

Ron Paul...

[bmo]

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

So, he wants a 19th Century economy

[Anonymous Coward]

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

He's living a fantasy

[FyberOptic]

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.

This is phenomenally dumb

[sean.peters]

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.

Re:Which is what, exactly?

[NeutronCowboy]

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.

Re:Which is what, exactly?

[tbannist]

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.

Re:Which is what, exactly?

[mr1911]

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