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

I like his IRS plan! by Joe_Dragon · 2011-10-20 03:48 · Score: 5, Funny

I like his IRS plan!

Re:I like his IRS plan! by MyFirstNameIsPaul · 2011-10-20 04:01 · Score: 5, Informative

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

--
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by truthsearch · 2011-10-20 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

but NEVER can come up with plans or their own
You clearly don't read enough, or simply ignore what you disagree with. Frank, Kucinich, Sanders (independent), and others have alternatives. Each has merits.

--
Developers: We can use your help.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by ackthpt · 2011-10-20 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yep, he's the only guy that makes any sense. The two entrenched parties can only shoot holes in his ideas, but NEVER can come up with plans or their own. Of course, he won't get elected.
Ironically, the last president to reduce the size of the federal government was Clinton (he really was a fiscal conservative) -- don't slash entire departments, pare them back, look for redundancy or those pesky things which were created but have now taken on a life of their own because their original directive has passed or become moot.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:I like his IRS plan! by MyFirstNameIsPaul · 2011-10-20 04:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

Intel, HP, Apple, Xerox, Edison Electric Light Company, Standard Oil (they reduced the cost of kerosene by 80%), Ford, etc, didn't come from public anything.
Second, the states can pick up any of these 'profitable' public enterprises that Paul is proposing to be thrown out.

--
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by EraserMouseMan · 2011-10-20 04:36 · Score: 2

Yes. Proof of this is California. They don't wait around for the Federal level to solve their problems. Neither should any other state. These agencies should be on the State level not the Federal level. This implies that some states will not need some of these agencies. Which is great.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by mspohr · 2011-10-20 04:41 · 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?
Re:I like his IRS plan! by John+Bresnahan · 2011-10-20 04:45 · Score: 2

Ironically, the last president to reduce the size of the federal government was Clinton (he really was a fiscal conservative)
Ironically, it took the Democrats losing both houses of Congress in 1994 for Clinton to declare that "the era of big government is over."
There was also the end of the Cold War and the Information Revolution (neither of which he had anything to do with) that had a huge positive impact on the U.S. economy.
Clinton was smart enough to roll with the punches, but mainly he was lucky.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by ElectricTurtle · 2011-10-20 04:53 · Score: 2

Ron Paul in fact has one of the most contrarian records in Congress today. He votes against his party constantly, and further has run as a 3rd party candidate in past Presidential elections.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:I like his IRS plan! by Curunir_wolf · 2011-10-20 05:16 · Score: 2

I think you're confused. The EPA is not on the list. Besides, most companies simply make their product meet the strictest standard of all the states, and sell that product everywhere. While that is NOT true of emission standards for cars (California emission standards being currently the strictest), it IS true of most other products, like dishwasher detergent and other consumables.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:I like his IRS plan! by mspohr · 2011-10-20 05:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

There was no semiconductor and computer system market until the defense department made one by financing research and buying the output. Ever heard of Fairchild semiconductor? They are one of the foundations of the the semiconductor industry and held most of the early patents on semiconductors. They wouldn't have existed without government paying for the research and buying their early products. HP, Apple and the rest came later.
You can keep dreaming your fantasy that Rockefeller was a altruistic philanthropist if you want but you really should do some actual reading on the subject.
Like all corporations, the automobile companies lobbied government at all levels to build infrastructure that was too expensive for them to build but which would make their products more desirable to purchase. That's the way the system works. Without government investment, their business would be quite different. Perhaps they would have invested more in floating cars that could cross rivers without bridges.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Re:I like his IRS plan! by Curunir_wolf · 2011-10-20 05:23 · Score: 2

but NEVER can come up with plans or their own
You clearly don't read enough, or simply ignore what you disagree with. Frank, Kucinich, Sanders (independent), and others have alternatives. Each has merits.
Sure, others have plans, and talk a decent talk, but they simply cannot be trusted. Ron Paul has been consistent and honest, one of the very few currently in office that you can say that about (probably Kucinich is another). Frank and Sanders are demonstrated black hearts and liars.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:I like his IRS plan! by Doctor+Morbius · 2011-10-20 05:23 · Score: 2

Roads did not magically appear. Some government entity had them built. Whether it was federal, state or local, roads were built with public money.

--
If I disagree with you it's because you are wrong.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by Curunir_wolf · 2011-10-20 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

And members, aside from Paul, of those two parties with plans of their own are fairly common. Particularly, Republican incumbents and/or candidates for federal office with plans that involve dismantling large parts of the US federal government are easier to find than those without such plans.
Yes, there are a lot of politicians that will lie about what they will do in office (or make excuses about why they didn't do it before, but after the next election they will). The difference is that Ron Paul's voting record actually matches what he says.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:I like his IRS plan! by interval1066 · 2011-10-20 05:36 · Score: 4, Informative

Frank? As in Barney Frank? The man who pretty much SINGLE HANDEDLY caused the real estate fiasco three years ago? You bet I disagree with him. Kucinich will get nothing pushed through that anyone will pay attention to, same with Sanders.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:I like his IRS plan! by gtall · 2011-10-20 05:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

"There shouldn't be any US gov't financed research and development." Yep, who the hell needs research on drugs for non-profitable disorders.
"There shouldn't be any public property and so there shouldn't be any public owned 'right of ways'." Yep, the interstate system was a tremendous boondoggle, no one made a dime off using it.
"There shouldn't be any subsidies to any oil drilling, all of it should be private and all land / sea should be private, so all of this drilling would bear full costs." No shit, we need to fish them damn oceans dry before anyone thinks of conservation. If the free market doesn't value it, it has no value.
"There shouldn't be any public infrastructure, including highways and bridges." Damn straight, you should pay to drive anywhere.
"There shouldn't BE a public sector outside of border protection, individual liberties/property protection and criminal/contract law." Yer right, who needs NSTA keeping them planes from falling out of the sky, Business School Product are very able to put a price on how many should die before it starts to crimp profits. And that housing bubble should be allowed to occur over and over again, we still have industries that haven't been decimated yet. Clean air and water? Crap, who needs it except a bunch of poor people, let'em buy their own clean air if they want clean air.
Jeezes you are a moron.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by bberens · 2011-10-20 05:48 · Score: 2

Ron Paul is really good at getting fringe elements (the more libertarian side) of the Republican Party fired up. He raises a truckload of cash in his "Presidential" campaign, drops out, and any money left over goes straight into the Republican general coffers. Ron Paul is a money maker, not a real candidate.

--
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Re:I like his IRS plan! by mbkennel · 2011-10-20 05:55 · 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.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by mspohr · 2011-10-20 06:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Intel did not invent the semiconductor.
You probably believe that Apple invented the computer.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Re:I like his IRS plan! by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-10-20 06:06 · Score: 2

Really? Ever heard of IBM? The Thomas J. Watson Research Center?

There are a great many things that came out of private industry, rather than government research. Among them: the transistor itself (without which there would be none of your vaunted microchips in the first place), and the laser.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by pixelpusher220 · 2011-10-20 06:16 · Score: 2

But while the government might have set it up to begin with, make no mistake. The internet you use and enjoy now was built by private industry. These electrons are going over private wires.
You do realize this is exactly what Ron Paul wants to kill. The research and investment of the 'setting it up' part. So yes without the government the internet does NOT exist as it does today.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:I like his IRS plan! by vajrabum · 2011-10-20 07:51 · Score: 3, Informative

I like how libertarians and teahadists if that's the particular stripe of know-nothings just boldly stuff up. This is an oversimplification but early on it was mostly funded by ARPA and was looked at least initially as a strategic investment in network technologies that could be used for military command and control. The IMPs (routers) which tied together the early ARPAnet sites were built by BB&N under contract to the federal government and yes the universities were involved from the beginning. That's where the ideas but not the $$ came from. Go read the Wikipedia article on the History of the Internet. It's the 2nd unpaid article that shows up for a google search on Internet.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by pixelpusher220 · 2011-10-20 07:58 · Score: 3, Informative

From wikipedia

In October 1962, Licklider was hired by Jack Ruina as Director of the newly established Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) within DARPA, with a mandate to interconnect the United States Department of Defense's main computers at Cheyenne Mountain, the Pentagon, and SAC HQ. There he formed an informal group within DARPA to further computer research.
The 'idea' was published prior to this hiring, but the research into making it happen was decidedly government sponsored.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:I like his IRS plan! by interval1066 · 2011-10-20 08:27 · Score: 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL59E2212CA40DA57D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ9l_AxKjA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIhxzNX738s The first url is the most on point, the rest are supportive/more detail.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:I like his IRS plan! by Rockoon · 2011-10-20 08:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Barney Frank blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie in 2003, stating "I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially, and will withstand some of the disaster scenarios, and even if there were a problem the federal government doesnt bail them out." - Citation

Barney Frank then blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie again in 2005, stating "Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you are not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble" - Citation

While he didnt singlehandedly create the problem, combined with other democrats he made sure that nothing was done it.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:I like his IRS plan! by chmodman · 2011-10-20 09:08 · Score: 2

Until Marc Andreessen and Netscape, the internet was limited to geek protocols like ftp, telnet, email and maybe usenet. Private industry had a big part in making the internet accessible to the average joe, which is why it was so successful. Not to mention the advances in search from the likes of Yahoo and Google.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2011-10-20 12:20 · Score: 2

Great, so we get rid of NIST, and now all fifty states get to maintain their own standard kilogram, current source, and atomic clock. That sounds really efficient.
Every time Ron Paul says something that makes sense at first, like ditching the Department of Education, it seems that he has to follow it up with something ridiculous, like the idea that public schools should be able to teach creationism. That, in turn, leads me to question my own judgment for giving him a moment's consideration.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by Qzukk · 2011-10-20 13:26 · Score: 2

Yes, yes, very good. I do note that none of the videos addressed Bush's Blueprint for the American Dream.
Nor did they address the fact that when Bush killed the Blueprint for the American Dream in 2005, he cancelled Clinton's CRA regulations, while the banks continued to invent new ways to give away money with Alt-A and NINJA loans.
Even so, let's say that ACORN was behind every last subprime and alt-a mortgage written by banks. That amounts to 50% of the crisis.
Who single handedly forced GM to get into the subprime market with ditech.com (remember, they're not a bank, you can't deposit money there, the CRA and ACORN never had any power over them)? And what about the rest of the investment firms and mortgage brokers and non-bank institutions that made up the other 50% of the crisis?
Who single handedly forced S&P to rate the shit AAA?
Who single handedly forced AIG to insure the shit?
Liberals aren't blameless, but pretending that it's all Jimmys fault what with his CRA forcing banks to make billions of dollars is just plain ignorant.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by Pseudonym · 2011-10-20 14:28 · Score: 2

Incidentally, the job of the NIST is explicitly authorised in section 8 of the US Constitution. It's not often that Ron Paul makes a proposal that goes against strict constitutionalism, but there you go.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:I like his IRS plan! by khallow · 2011-10-20 14:43 · Score: 2

"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.
Yes, really. He is making that argument even to the point of rationalizing Bell Labs as a US government agency even though it wasn't. I see he missed Intel and Motorola too.
Re:I like his IRS plan! by jcr · 2011-10-20 16:30 · Score: 2

It doesn't take a bureaucracy on the NIST's scale to establish standard weights and measures. Seriously, $1.1 BILLION dollars a bit much.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

all the better to rebuild plantation economies by swschrad · 2011-10-20 03:49 · 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?

Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

What the department of education being axed means no more schools? Why do people think having bureaucrats interfering in a teacher's classroom is a good idea? The people at the Dept. of Education (DE) are not elected and are not accountable to the voters. Washington constantly pushes out unfunded mandates that increase the burden on local schools. Both parties push for these things when they get power, no child left behind, how many potatoes kids should eat during the week.
As for the task given to the DE, improving the US schools, they have done a poor job. So yes get rid of it and let the states and better yet localities assume more control over the local schools. This ultimately gives parents and voters more control over the schools because local officials are more accountable and removable than people in DC.
Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies by demonlapin · 2011-10-20 04:26 · 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.
Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies by OldeTimeGeek · 2011-10-20 04:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

A good thought, but the elections that place people in position to make decisions on local affairs aren't run completely locally now. If you think so, look at the last "local" election and see how much money or staff came from districts outside of yours. There are groups of all political and social stripes with axes to grind and money to spend.
Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies by squizzar · 2011-10-20 05:12 · Score: 2

So if the plurality of people around you want to own other people, or to decide that some people don't deserve the same rights as others, or any other number of things, then you should put up or up and move? From what I know of US history that's not what always happened...
Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies by humphrm · 2011-10-20 05:53 · Score: 2

Education also provides all the funding for student aid and non-private grants. They also administer all federally backed student loans.
Now someone like Ron Paul probably wants all that gone anyway. But I for one question where we, as a country, would be today if we didn't provide these services.

--
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo

In other words, we should give up. by Kenja · 2011-10-20 03:49 · 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?"

Re:In other words, we should give up. by khallow · 2011-10-20 03:54 · 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.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by MightyMartian · 2011-10-20 03:56 · Score: 2

I'm not clear here. What private corporation is going to do what the US Geological Survey does?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by mean+pun · 2011-10-20 03:57 · Score: 2

Yes...because only the almighty government can do these things...
Do you have any good counter examples?
Re:In other words, we should give up. by garcia · 2011-10-20 03:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

We're duplicating efforts which are already handled from the (current) federal level all the way down to the very local level at your town's city hall.
Could the county government handle their own section of a federal highway? They may already be (I have seen survey markers from the state and USGS in the same general area). Can county parks personnel handle national parks? Maybe, maybe not.
However, what we do know is that duplication of effort is expensive and wasteful. We live in a time when we cannot afford waste and increased spending--something which always seems to happen regardless of what belt-tightening we do.
Maybe the best way to deal with it is to start axing groups outright. We're definitely in need of a change to how things operate and these changes will hurt--bad. We've been living on borrowed time and we need to cut spending, raise revenues (taxes), and pay off the debts we've incurred due to stupid policy.
Let's face the facts and fix the fucking problem.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by TC+Wilcox · 2011-10-20 03:57 · Score: 2

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.
Are you saying that all of these things are impossible without the Federal Government paying for them? And besides, what do you think is going to happen to all of those things if we keep spending like we have a bottomless pit of money? And when will all of this money that we borrow get paid back? Who will pay it back? Unless we change course it won't be us, but the next generation that is paying for all of the roads, public education, and other stuff that we are using now! And what will happen to that generation? They'll be slaves paying off a debt and they won't even get the benefit of spending the money.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by COMON$ · 2011-10-20 04:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Ya because the world just fails unless the Gov't doesnt do everything. I bet this space initiative just goes to hell too since NASA isnt doing it....

--
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Re:In other words, we should give up. by hierofalcon · 2011-10-20 04:01 · 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.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by defaria · 2011-10-20 04:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Have you no faith in the goodness of the American people? Do you serious think that without these cabinet level positions such things are impossible?!? Or have you diluted yourself into thinking that the reason we have say public education is because of the Dept. of Ed? You do know we didn't have that one til relatively recently and yet public education managed just fine without it. And why do you believe that energy is a commodity that only gov can research? We research all kinds of other things without a cabinet level office to "guide" us.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

You hit the nail square on the head! These departments can always use every last penny given to them. A private corporation 1) would make no attempt at dealing with any of these things, and if they did 2) they would fuck it up horribly. Private corporations are all about money. Making people (specifically shareholders and only shareholders) as much money as possible. They would take all of the money, stuff it into their bank accounts (for a luxury yacht or a new house in the Hamptons), and basically do nothing. The government's focus is on people, private interests interests are, private. Any time a private corporation has gone into this kind of thing, the results have been craptacular. Among right-wing blowhards there is the idea that private corporations can do anything. This is a trillion miles from the truth. Any industry or organization where people *must* come before profits, private corporations fuck it up beyond all measure. Non-profit organizations are very effective for niche areas, but for very large scale needs, governments must be involved.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Megane · 2011-10-20 04:07 · Score: 2

Right. Because there was no public education before 1980. Nope, we can't do anything unless sugar daddy gummint does it for us.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:In other words, we should give up. by jittles · 2011-10-20 04:08 · Score: 5, Informative

No more weather forecasting either. It's not just the US that depends on NOAA's National Hurricane Center. Many Caribbean countries that would be hard pressed to track hurricanes depend on this service.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Qzukk · 2011-10-20 04:09 · 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.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by MightyYar · 2011-10-20 04:10 · 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.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by alvinrod · 2011-10-20 04:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Department of Education was created in 1979. Are you seriously suggesting that we wouldn't have public education anymore if it were removed? Only the Department of the Interior has been around for nearly the entirety of the nation. Somehow things managed to get done before they were put in place.

Personally, I wish that he'd go a step farther and get rid of the abomination that is Homeland Security. That should be the first one on the chopping block and then we can worry about working backwards.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by uniquename72 · 2011-10-20 04:14 · Score: 2

My state can't even be bothered to provide a decent university, which I guess is fine since the high schools have a 30% dropout rate and those who do graduate can't read.

I'm sure the states will all do a fine job continuing the upward trajectory of American scientific greatness, though. After all, you don't need educated people for that, right?
Re:In other words, we should give up. by mx+b · 2011-10-20 04:17 · Score: 2

If you think the federal government is inefficient, just wait to you see what fifty state governments working independently on the same things can come up with.
I don't know, competition can do wonders. All it takes is a couple states doing awesome things, and every other state will start to ask "Well why can't we have that too?". Keeping up with -- and trying to smash and overpower -- the Joneses. Will it work out that way? Not sure, but I can hope so -- and it sure is nice to think that your local government and local taxes hold more water. Live in a community that is set up the way you like it, and pay only the things important to you. Rather than having the federal government take so much of your money and decide to give it to other states that need money but don't want to raise taxes on the "job creators" to pay for their own stuff. Seems much more fair, and quite possibly a way to touch off enough competition to improve the quality for everyone.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-10-20 04:18 · Score: 2

How is Nebraska going to get weather data for the entire US? Are Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama all going to have hurricane hunter aircraft?
Who is getting control of NOAA's satellite fleet?
Re:In other words, we should give up. by garcia · 2011-10-20 04:19 · Score: 2

I don't see your point. The Federal Government doesn't always fix the potholes either. Just because it's the Fed doesn't mean that it operates any better or faster than local government does.
Now that's not to say I fully agree with Paul's decision here. I am far more interested in governance at the city and county levels than I am at the federal and thus I am not as well versed in their necessity and overlap as I am at the lower levels. That said, my final comments stand:
We need to make some very painful decisions here and politicians and The People need to understand that we cannot do this from spending cuts and/or tax increases alone. We need to do both and suffer the consequences we've created for ourselves by living mostly on credit for the last 30 years.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Rolgar · 2011-10-20 04:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes, much better to see the effects of these policies in Federal politics.
I'm a Catholic (non-Creationist) from Kansas, and we choose to home school because we believe we will be able to give our children the best character and education ourselves.
The old controversy over evolution in Kansas never required students to be taught creationism. It only prohibited testing evolution on standardized tests. Schools were still free to teach what the parents wanted. That said, it was never an issue that I heard of that any schools stopped teaching evolution or started teaching Creationism. I think most of the Creationists who care about this issue probably home school or send their children to private schools. School districts in rural areas are prone to being of like minded people, so maybe there are some areas where they teach Creationism, but there is nothing preventing anybody being taught the truth at home which is where most good students are going to learn anyway.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-10-20 04:23 · Score: 2

You are both wrong.
Corporations don't need a government to create them, but they are now legally formed within a legal framework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_corporations
The Governments of the US provide more than corporations, the governments set quality and safety standards, food inspections, air and water quality, national defense, protect air, land and sea trade routes, provide an education.
Corporations provide the means to produce goods and services.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by uniquename72 · 2011-10-20 04:24 · 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.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by chrb · 2011-10-20 04:25 · 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?
Re:In other words, we should give up. by jo_ham · 2011-10-20 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, they could take off tiny, tiny sliver of the defence budget. That would pay off all the money borrowed to fund parks, energy research, public education and roads.
Just a thought.
"We must tighten our belts! We must slash spending! No more waste!"
"Ok, how about we cut this thing that has doubled in cost since 9/11 for no real tangible benefits...."
"No! Cutting defence spending is unamerican! Slashing Planned Parenthood's spending will solve the problem once and for all!"
"But they only account for 0.01% of the budg....."
"I said once and for all!"
Re:In other words, we should give up. by MightyYar · 2011-10-20 04:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

From your own link:

Originally, corporations were solely able to be established through an act of the state, for example through royal charter or an act of Parliament.
It was only in the mid nineteenth century, the first being through the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 in the United Kingdom, that private individuals could through a simple registration procedure be considered to have established a corporation with limited liability.
How in the world are corporations not a creation of government?

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-20 04:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, if the Federal government does not do it, the only other choice is for the private sector to do it? You mean the states can't do any of this stuff?

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:In other words, we should give up. by guttentag · 2011-10-20 04:29 · Score: 2
By giving the money back to the people, they will invest it in things that are important to them, which will spur innovation. That's the Republican Dream. Just think... we'll have an HP in a garage on every block! Millions of companies that had big plans and... oh wait... gave up on them.

When Paul was running for president, I saw an attractive woman in dark sunglasses standing on the median of a busy expressway during rush hour holding a sign that simply said, "Ron Paul for President." She was apparently enjoying herself, swaying back and forth a bit, and as I sat in traffic I thought this was a perfect representation of Ron Paul:
- Looks good at first glance, but doesn't go any deeper than that
- Screams "look at me" and really says nothing else
- Middle of the road but not going anywhere or doing anything
- Distracting people to disrupt the productive flow of things
Whenever I hear another ridiculous idea of Ron Paul's that plays to people's general discontent without offering any actual solutions, I think of that woman. He should really be on Wall Street leading the OWS protesters. He appeals to their message: "The only thing we agree on is that we're pissed off, and we have no solutions." He won't go, though, because then when he fails it would finally become apparent that it's not because people didn't understand what he was about... it's because they did.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by gfxguy · 2011-10-20 04:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Most people don't seem capable of grasping that... the D.O. Education didn't even exist until 1979, and it's been downhill ever since it's inception.
Also, as others have pointed out, there certainly are some programs that could be considered best done by the federal government... and those would be moved to other departments.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by jo_ham · 2011-10-20 04:30 · Score: 2

If your spelling and grammar are anything to go by, then yes indeed you've proved we're doomed!
Re:In other words, we should give up. by chill · 2011-10-20 04:35 · Score: 3, Informative

And thus, his point is proved.
NOAA services are not free, they are paid for by taxes. TANSTAAFL. The fact that you call them "free" means you've stopped associating government services with the costs incurred through taxation.
This is one of the big problems. Too many people think of government services as "free" because there is no direct association with the taxes required to pay for them. The true costs are hidden, so people make foolish decisions because they don't see a cost.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by boristdog · 2011-10-20 04:35 · 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.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by gfxguy · 2011-10-20 04:35 · Score: 2

Long live the state park systems!

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by siride · 2011-10-20 04:36 · 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.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by DragonWriter · 2011-10-20 04:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

Corporations don't need a government to create them, but they are now legally formed within a legal framework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_corporations
Actually, your link makes it clear that corporations are creatures of government, specifically, that their defining characteristic is the fact that they are recognized by government through law as having distinct legal personality.

Corporations provide the means to produce goods and services.
No, they don't. Corporations are a legal structure created by government which provide special benefits (particularly, in the modern form, limits on liability) to their investors to encourage investment. Some investors make use of the availability of those incentives to use the corporate form to organize business that provide goods and services, others use them to set up tax dodges that serve their own interests without providing goods and services to others.
To the extent that there is a benefir from the existence of corporations (or other government-created business forms like the Limited Liability Company or Limited Liability Partnership) these benefits are ultimately benefits of government.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by MikeB0Lton · 2011-10-20 04:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

I am of the opinion that many federal departments are formed to manipulate state functions through legal wrangling and finance, like threatening to pull funding of highways if the state doesn't prohibit alcohol to people under the age of 21. While I agree with that example in principal, it was a shady way to implement it. I'm now a big fan of small federal government, and large state.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:45 · Score: 2, Informative

For those of you reading this without critical thinking skills: No private corporation did any of those things.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Forbman · 2011-10-20 04:49 · Score: 2

No, actually, the big thing corporations provide is legal absolution for the investors in the corporation to not be held personally responsible for any negative things done in behalf of the corporation.
People working make goods and provide services, whether they're bound up in a corporation or not.
The means to make those and get (commodities and products) to and from corporations and markets is infrastructure, and that is mostly provided and/or maintained by or was initially provided by (land grants to railroads, airports and harbors, eminent domain laws, etc) governments...
Corporations are a convenient abstraction. Remember that the Brooklyn Bridge was financed by a corporation (the Brooklyn Bridge Corporation), that had private investors, and dissolved after some period of time after the bridge was built and moneys returned back to the investors with some measure of profit IIRC (but not a windfall...)? Too bad corporations can't go back to a more symbiotic instead of parasitic (profit maximizing) relationship with society, and that corporate and financial laws and regulations really won't allow this to happen, either (shareholder "rights", etc).
Re:In other words, we should give up. by sarhjinian · 2011-10-20 04:50 · 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
Re:In other words, we should give up. by MightyYar · 2011-10-20 05:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

The ancient examples of "corporations" are churches and governments - a far cry from a modern corporation. Some would even say that the church and the government were the same thing at the time. Partnerships and guilds also do little to insulate the members from liability, make ownership difficult, and differ in many other ways. Google, Apple, Microsoft, GM... none could exist in anything like their current form as a partnership.
A "corporation" is only whatever the government says it is.
In short, I wasn't talking about when a town or church "incorporates" in the ancient sense, I'm talking about when I give the state of Nevada $1500 bucks to found an LLC.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Mike · 2011-10-20 05:05 · Score: 3, Informative

Hello clueless Mr. Anonymous.
For all the pissing and moaning about evil corporations (much of which I agree with), you seem to miss the fact that these wouldn't have the power you abhor in a free market. They only have all these magical, mystical and evil powers over us because the government allows (and encourages) it. Without the guns of government behind them, the largest corporations in the world would be inert.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by dr2chase · 2011-10-20 05:13 · Score: 2

And if some states decide to test out driving on the left-hand side of the road?
That's a joke and an exaggeration, but one of the annoying things about driving in New England, where much of the infrastructure predates federal standards, is bizarro signs and light standards. WTF does a combined red-yellow light mean? WTF does a blinking green light mean? I never saw this weird stuff in Texas, Florida, or California.
Or, more recently "Left lane for left turn". Apparently this does not mean "Left lane must turn left". Perhaps they are informing us that left turns are not allowed from the right lane?
I think there are also federal standards (not yet learned by the Massachusetts highway departments) for proper sign placement, to ensure that (1) you can see the sign and (2) you can read it soon enough to do something useful with the information.
Federal standards are boring, conservative, and UNIFORM.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by MightyYar · 2011-10-20 05:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Too bad corporations can't go back to a more symbiotic instead of parasitic (profit maximizing) relationship with society, and that corporate and financial laws and regulations really won't allow this to happen, either (shareholder "rights", etc).
This is exactly the discussion we should be having. What do we want a corporation to be, and what rights should we grant them?
A lot of people disagree with the Citizens United decision, but have more trouble vocalizing how you would restrict them but not the New York Times. If the discussion were framed differently, people wouldn't just dismiss the court as a bunch of conservative kooks. Even the dissent (Stevens) focuses more on how it's just a bad idea to let corporations buy unlimited air time near elections than it talks about points of law.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by dr2chase · 2011-10-20 05:23 · Score: 2

I have no particular faith in the goodness of the American people. Consider health care as an example. We spend more than any other country per capita or as a percentage of GDP. We leave many people uninsured, medical expenses are a common cause of personal bankruptcy, our infant mortality rate is high, our life expectancy is low.
If governments were as bad as you seem to think, and the American people so fundamentally good, if we looked at the 20-some OECD countries with government funded/run/heavily-regulated healthcare, we should NOT see the following:
- their life expectancies are longer than ours
- their infant mortality is lower than ours.
- everyone gets medical care
- no bankruptcies caused by cost of medical care
However, that is precisely what we do see. Based on this evidence, I MUST have more faith in government (at least, government in all those other countries) than I do in the "goodness of the American people", because government-run health care is better and cheaper and covers everyone.
(And if you want to quibble about "better", my two metrics are "fewer dead babies" and "longer lives".)
Re:In other words, we should give up. by DragonWriter · 2011-10-20 05:26 · Score: 5, Informative

But corporations do exist without any need for government.
False.

I can think of one that has been around for a very long time, is very well managed and highly profitable. Millions of dollars worth of goods and services move through this organization every year, and many of the consumers of the products would not have access to these products without this organization. The Mafia.
The Mafia is not a corporation. A corporation is defined as an entity with separate legal personality from its individual participants. It is purely a creation of law; the Mafia is just a collective label given to a number of different groups of people.
When legal action is taken against the Mafia, its not in the form of "The People of the State of New York v. La Cosa Nostra, Inc."; its individual actions against individual members because the Mafia isn't a corporation and therefore doesn't have distinct legal personality.
Sure, if you redefine corporation to just mean "group of people", a corporation wouldn't require government, just like if you redefine "water" to mean "any compound containing hydrogen" then water wouldn't require oxygen atoms. But words have meanings.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by rahvin112 · 2011-10-20 06:37 · Score: 4, Informative

In response you you list of inventions. DOD, DOD, NASA, DOD, DOD, NASA, DOT (Interior), EPA (Interior). Electrical was a mix of the rural electric loan program and state and local investment including eminent domain purchases.
Nothing you listed would have happened without federal involvement, either in providing the research money or planning the result.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Panaflex · 2011-10-20 07:14 · Score: 2

Oh please... your state's DOT ***ALREADY*** maintains those freeways. Sure, there is federal funding - but that money is generally money that bounces back to the state from federal fuel taxes already.
The Federal Government uses that bounce back as a noose on your state government right now. If your state pisses on the Feds, they don't get all their money back... e.g. Louisiana.

Highway maintenance is primarily a function of state and local governments. The federal government spends relatively small amounts ($70 million annually) on national parks, Indian reservations, and other federal lands. For local governments - counties, towns, cities - road and street maintenance is their largest expense item.
Get an education, fool. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/98may/finance.cfm

--
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Overzeetop · 2011-10-20 07:31 · Score: 2

Yes, they pay for it. But they do not pay for all of it, as they would. The whole reason the US level things exist is so that those areas with disproportionate resource needs which are shared by the collective population are not the sole financial responsibility of the local residents.
We may disagree which programs rise to that level, but nearly everyone benefits from a federal program they would not like to pay for in full, our of their own pocket.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:In other words, we should give up. by Overzeetop · 2011-10-20 07:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

And there are lots of US citizens who have property and part time residences there.
And it makes us a good neighbor. Just because you're nice to somebody doesn't make you a tree-hugging, money-spending, tax-and-spend liberal. Just as home schooling your kids doesn't make you a evangelist-christian, gun-totin', xeno-and-homophobic conservative.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:In other words, we should give up. by teg · 2011-10-20 09:06 · Score: 2

Hardly. You need regulation like anti-trust law to ensure a free market. If there was no such thing, e.g. consolidating the top wireless carriers and refuse interaction with others would clearly be a profit maximizing move by their owners - and the free market would disappear. Monopoly is the most profitable situation for its owners, and in many markets considerable barricades to entry can be made. Some technical ("you won't be able to communicate with anyone on our network, so you won't have any customers"), and some by a threat that you'll just undercut their pricing until they're broke and you can raise yours again.
To quote Adam Smith: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” [1]
Re:In other words, we should give up. by snowgirl · 2011-10-20 11:31 · Score: 2

Most people don't seem capable of grasping that... the D.O. Education didn't even exist until 1979, and it's been downhill ever since it's inception.
Also, as others have pointed out, there certainly are some programs that could be considered best done by the federal government... and those would be moved to other departments.
The DE was formed in 1979 as a split off from the Department of Health Education and Welfare which was formed in 1953...

--
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS

How about... by i.r.id10t · 2011-10-20 03:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Getting rid of the BATFE and the TSA instead?

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

Re:How about... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2011-10-20 03:56 · Score: 2

But if we got rid of the TSA,, where would our high school drop-outs work and wield as much power over the higher educated masses?
How about their local police departments?

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org

Simple solution by i+kan+reed · 2011-10-20 03:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Simple solution by MyFirstNameIsPaul · 2011-10-20 04:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

For every complex argument reduced to simple terms, there is a bonehead who will use a one line quote as a counterargument.

--
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

Pretty Sure by OverlordQ · 2011-10-20 03:52 · 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.

Re:Pretty Sure by hierofalcon · 2011-10-20 04:04 · Score: 2

The functions of NOAA could easily be considered as a national defense issue and moved to the Department of Defense. So could the CDC or a few other critical pieces of government. Any necessary agency can find a home. If you move the portions of government that have been placed in odd departments out of them and to where they make sense, you really start to see just how much of a waste some of the other departments are.
Re:Pretty Sure by CraftyJack · 2011-10-20 04:04 · Score: 2

I had no idea that NOAA, NIST, and USGS operate on such small budgets. Color me impressed.
Re:Pretty Sure by MightyMartian · 2011-10-20 04:28 · Score: 2

And, in fact, where you basically have to shoehorn it into another department (NOAA in defense?), you're probably going to produce a vast number of inefficiencies as unlike organizations have to try to figure out how to talk to one another, and where the parent department has a mission statement that tilts in one direction now either has to accommodate one that tilts the other way, or simply force it to their direction.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Efficiency by hierofalcon · 2011-10-20 03:52 · Score: 2

There are many niches in several huge departments that need saved. I suspect that Ron Paul would agree with that. Roll these few small portions over into some other existing department that has some constitutional basis for existing and let it be managed from there without the entire overhead of a full department structure. Return control of all the rest to the states where they belong. If individual states feel the services were worth it, they can create their own departments (if they don't already exist) and hire the federal workers. Perhaps some federal workers can be hired into existing state departments. If they have no constitutional basis for existing at the federal level - GET RID OF THEM.

Re:Efficiency by CreatureComfort · 2011-10-20 04:25 · Score: 2

Yeah, because who really needs or wants all those nasty national parks. Sell them to corporations to "develop". If future generations, those worthless ingrates, want to have natural beauty, they can bloody well buy 'em back from the corporations and return them to "pristine" beauty. By god we need the money now!

And why should Wyoming have to pay to predict and monitor hurricanes. Florida, Texas and the rest of those freeloading "water" states can fund a dozen satellites and planes to fly through the storms if they care about them so much. Why should everyone else care about minimizing damage to the Port of Houston, the gulf refineries, or the fruit and vegetable crops. It doesn't affect me... I get all my stuff from Walmart, not any of those places.

Because, nowhere in the Constitution can I find authorization for a National Parks Service, or NOAA, or even FEMA.

--
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar

Who handles the nukes then? by orphiuchus · 2011-10-20 03:53 · 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?

Re:Who handles the nukes then? by Lawrence_Bird · 2011-10-20 04:15 · Score: 2

The NNSA has responsibility for servicing the nukes and that would be transfered to DoD where it belongs. I would expect any functions in the former weapons labs still related to stockpile management would be also.

Wow, he saves $12 billion, so 1% less deficit.... by Fallen+Kell · 2011-10-20 03:54 · Score: 2

Yeah, that 1% really does a whole lot.

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"

Nice by COMON$ · 2011-10-20 03:55 · Score: 2

Not the departments I would choose necessarily but this is the type of thinking I am on board with. As a states rights individual, I believe that the best way to serve our interests is to make massive cuts in the form of getting rid of Administrative service departments that are not necessary anymore.

--
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?

Re:Nice by Nemyst · 2011-10-20 04:00 · Score: 2

Wait... You think the DOE is not necessary anymore with the looming energy crisis and all the talks about global warming? And when is education ever NOT necessary?..
On top of that, all of this is just cents compared to the overall budget, yet the sacred cows like the DOD never get cut.
Re:Nice by zzsmirkzz · 2011-10-20 04:16 · Score: 2

Wait... You think the DOE is not necessary anymore with the looming energy crisis and all the talks about global warming? And when is education ever NOT necessary?.. On top of that, all of this is just cents compared to the overall budget, yet the sacred cows like the DOD never get cut.
The DOD doesn't get cut because it is one of the few things the Federal Government is supposed to do . These things are good but are implemented at the wrong level, these should be covered by local/state government. The DOE is an abysmal failure if you look at what the Department was founded to do, decrease our dependance on foreign energy. It has not done that, at all and should be de-funded for failing to accomplish its mission. But as with everything in the Federal Government, no one knows what anyone else is supposed to be doing, so we've had new Federal Agencies/Departments proposed to do what? Decrease our dependance on Foreign Energy. Gut it all and start building back only what you need to survive.
Re:Nice by BarefootClown · 2011-10-20 04:23 · Score: 2

We landed men on the moon a decade before the Department of Education was created. It's not that education isn't necessary, its that it doesn't have to be managed at the Federal level. Do you really think our education system is substantially better than it was in the fifties and sixties, and that the improvement is a result of Federal action?

--
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

Ron Paul... by bmo · 2011-10-20 03:55 · 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

Re:Ron Paul... by Theolojin · 2011-10-20 04:05 · Score: 4, Funny

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
I don't want Ron Paul outside naked *anywhere*.

--
Life is short; think quickly.
Re:Ron Paul... by Kugala · 2011-10-20 04:07 · Score: 4, Funny

How could he be out in the hurricane if we don't know it's coming?
Re:Ron Paul... by Bardwick · 2011-10-20 04:52 · Score: 2

Confused.. We're going broke and looking quickly down the barrel of economic collapse with most if not all government programs being suspended, massive unemployment, riots, murder and general lawlessness, possible starvation. Not to mention the collapse of the finest country the world has ever known. Your counter argument is "We need to know if a hurricane is coming.". That pretty much sum it up?

Typical Libertarian Naivete by mathmathrevolution · 2011-10-20 03:58 · 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.

Re:Typical Libertarian Naivete by Jawnn · 2011-10-20 05:15 · Score: 2

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.
This. A thousand times this.
And the saddest part? The ideologically driven morons are legion, and many of them vote.

So, he wants a 19th Century economy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:No more by MightyMartian · 2011-10-20 04:00 · 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.

Re:Wow, he saves $12 billion, so 1% less deficit.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

He also brings home the troops and ends the empire abroad. That saves nearly a trillion. Per year.

It is a start. by Beer_Smurf · 2011-10-20 04:01 · Score: 2

Ron Paul is putting out something that might start to make a dent in looming disaster that is the budget.
Please look for your self and see how long until the amount of interest due on the debt is larger than what the government collects.
All the other politicians are fiddling while Rome Burns.

Re:It is a start. by MightyMartian · 2011-10-20 04:25 · Score: 2

Well, more likely Congress would simply refuse to cooperate. I've long said it, that if Ron Paul were president, he'd be spending a lonely four years in the White House with a Congress that would refuse to work with him. It's not like most of what he proposes he can actually do anyways. To dismantle those departments would require Congressional approval. Do you think, for instance, that all those Congresscritters from California up to Washington State would ever stand by and let the USGS be killed or farmed out? Do you think all those Congresscritters along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Seaboard would actually go along with wiping out NOAA?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

knee-jerk by starmonkey · 2011-10-20 04:02 · 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!

Commerce -- Seriously? What about the constition? by GodInHell · 2011-10-20 04:03 · Score: 2

The Federal Government has a constitutional mandate to regulate interstate and international commerce. But hey, fuck that right? Pass me a heroine needle and that copy of Atlas Shrugged, it's Ron Paul's world now.

-GiH

Re:Huh? by unimacs · 2011-10-20 04:03 · Score: 2

Does that apply to software too? The only good software is produced by the private sector?

This just doesn't hold water. There are some things that the private sector does well. Regulate itself is not one of them. Anything that is not immediately (or ever) profitable in and of itself is also something the private sector sucks at.

In the private sector short term profitability is often the only thing that matters and there are so many things for which this is the completely wrong approach.

Why not ... by PPH · 2011-10-20 04:05 · 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.

Re:No more by lochnessie · 2011-10-20 04:06 · Score: 2

They're more apt at what, interpreting the massive amounts of weather data supplied to them by NOAA?

If you're for a balanced budget, be for gov't. by GodInHell · 2011-10-20 04:07 · Score: 2

1) Gov't Research reaps massive returns on growth, which spurs gov't income through growth (rather than higher taxes). Look at the moon mission, indirectly responsible for everything from plastic to palm-top computing. 2) For gov't institutions to be efficient they need to be run by talented and reasonably motivated people. Shitting on gov't as wasteful and "the problem" every two years in order to gin up bullshit and votes -- not a winning governance strategy.

-GiH

So? by Angst+Badger · 2011-10-20 04:07 · 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.

Re:So? by BetterSense · 2011-10-20 07:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

It does provide the United States with a candidate (however unelectable, and I do plan to vote for him, and I have voted for him), who has an actual plan. His plan cuts spending, leaves most entitlements in place, and increases government revenue. Those are the only ways to dig us out of our hole. In a world where "electable" politicians squabble endlessly over cutting miniscule spending, at least somebody has a reasonable (IMO--drastic is reasonable in desperate times) plan.

Re:Which is what, exactly? by MightyMartian · 2011-10-20 04:07 · Score: 5, Informative

You are aware, I trust, that the USGS is responsible for a large number of monitoring programs. Basically, killing it would essentially leave the West Coast of the United States without tsunami, earthquake or volcano alerts. 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.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Which is what, exactly? by SuricouRaven · 2011-10-20 04:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

"In terms of mapping rocks and whatnot, there are great incentives for energy and mineral companies to perform this kind of research internally."

There is also great incentive for them to keep that data secret and never publish any of their research, because doing so would allow their competitors to benefit.

He's living a fantasy by FyberOptic · 2011-10-20 04:13 · 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.

Way to make it sound insignificant.... by gQuigs · 2011-10-20 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

This is phenomenally dumb by sean.peters · 2011-10-20 04:16 · 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.

Re:Wow, he saves $12 billion, so 1% less deficit.. by kevinNCSU · 2011-10-20 04:18 · Score: 2

The amount of work and planning that would go into closing those 5 departments, their assets, and signed federal contracts under those departments, would most assuredly increase costs for that first year.

Re:REDUNDANT DEPARTMENTS? by willworkforbeer · 2011-10-20 04:19 · Score: 2

(My 'insert state here' got dropped) We are already paying for a STATE Department of Education.

--
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..

Re:Which is what, exactly? by ArcherB · 2011-10-20 04:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are aware, I trust, that the USGS is responsible for a large number of monitoring programs. Basically, killing it would essentially leave the West Coast of the United States without tsunami, earthquake or volcano alerts. 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.

Why should the people of North Dakota pay for tsunami monitoring for California? If the west coast wants earth quake and tsunami warning, they can pay for it.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.

Re:No more by Altus · 2011-10-20 04:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yea, better to ditch essential services than tax rich people.

--

"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

Re:Commerce -- Seriously? What about the constitio by BarefootClown · 2011-10-20 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ahem. "The Congress shall have Power To..." is authority, not a mandate. The Congress can choose not to exercise its power in a given area if it wishes. In fact, in some circumstances, the fact that Congress has chosen not to legislate may itself be considered a form of regulation, and not subject to further regulation by the states.

--

"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

Ron Pauls' economic ideas are head-crushingly STUP by SlippyToad · 2011-10-20 04:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ron paul's economic ideas are head-crushingly, fucking stupid.

There is no practical acknowledgement of the role of government in his world-view. He's one of those fucking crazy idiots who thinks that economies magically regulate themselves. We've got 30 years of history demonstrating that he and all libertarian fetishists are DEAD WRONG regarding that subject.

Why the fuck is anyone listening to this doddering old fool?

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on

Re:Thoughts from a 'four year' libertarian... by ticklemeozmo · 2011-10-20 04:27 · Score: 2

We need a Unix-like government: efficient, fast, responsive, cleanly designed, compartmentalized, and well documented. People need to feel like they can participate and have a voice, because when you don't have that people end up rioting in the streets.

It's a good goal, but this is near impossible. There's no way that information can travel from department to department being as well-documented as you want in a efficient, fast and responsive manner. The problem is the PEOPLE. A grade 36 bureaucrat is not going to be efficient, fast and responsive.

--
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.

Re:Which is what, exactly? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · 2011-10-20 04:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

OK, then North Dakota should give up ITS share of Federal subsidies too. California gets less back from Fed on its taxes (as a fraction) than small podunk states like North Dakota. Which leaves Californa footing more than its share of the tax bill. How about North Dakota paying its share instead of sponging off of CA (and other big states)?

--PM

As a former DOE employee... by bcrowell · 2011-10-20 04:30 · Score: 2

...I would support elimination of DOE. DOE does a random collection of stuff. One of the things it does is support physics research, which is what I was doing -- it sort of plays the same role as NSF does in the life sciences. The thing that most non-scientists don't understand about science is that the vast majority of scientific papers are both (a) correct and (b) utterly unimportant. Researchers get tenure or permanent jobs by publishing as many papers as possible. Quality matters, but quantity is also mandatory. Because DOE does so many different things, I can't comment from personal experience on all of them, but I would be 100% in favor of closing the DOE lab (Argonne National Lab) where I worked. It would have absolutely no impact on the amount of important new scientific discoveries coming out, only on the number of scientific papers coming out. There is really sort of a conservation law at work in science. At any given time iin history, scientific techniques are capable of doing certain things, and people will use those techniques to do the obvious, important things. If you hire ten times more scientists, they'll just continue using that technique to do more of the same.

I currently work in education, and I would say ditto for the department of education. I teach at a community college, and we get 100% of our funding from state and local taxes. Education is not a traditional or proper field for the federal government to be involved in. The federal government does fund research at universities, but that's not education, it's research. (Yes, the two do overlap, but only partially.) If we ever needed a demonstration of what can go wrong when the feds get involved in education, NCLB was it.

--
Find free books.

Re:Which is what, exactly? by cdrguru · 2011-10-20 04:31 · Score: 2

The problem is that it is coming to a choice: medical care for the poor or USGS. Housing for the poor or USGS. Investigation into the mating habits of obscure owls or USGS.

We cannot convince China to continue to finance the US spending forever. Sooner or later they are either going to say no or start having a hand in what gets funded and what does not. That will mean the US President starts needing to ask China's permission to do anything that spends money.

Maybe we need to trim some stuff before that happens, huh? I guess the other choice is the one a lot of other countries have made: 70% taxes on anyone with money, 0% taxes on anyone without a job. So far, we haven't seen that proposal, but you can be sure it is coming. Sure, we can tax the "rich" except in the world we are looking at anyone with a job is "rich" and everyone else is "poor".

Re:Which is what, exactly? by NeutronCowboy · 2011-10-20 04:34 · 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.

Re:Which is what, exactly? by MyFirstNameIsPaul · 2011-10-20 04:35 · Score: 2

Actually, he co-founded the Mises Institute, which is chock-full of details. He's published books like Liberty Defined where he breaks his arguments into easily understandable explanations. The real problem is that mainstream media doesn't cover him.

--

I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

Re:Which is what, exactly? by tbannist · 2011-10-20 04:36 · 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

Just another blowhard? by fredrated · 2011-10-20 04:38 · Score: 2

If he isn't gutting the military-industrial-spy complex then he is just another fraud and blowhard.

Re:Just another blowhard? by zwede · 2011-10-20 06:50 · Score: 2

And if you had bothered reading his plan you would have known that he is also including the military in his cuts. Close most foreign bases, end all undeclared wars and cut overall military spending at least 15%.

Re:Dept of Edu by kb1cvh · 2011-10-20 04:39 · Score: 2

If we got rid of the Dept of Edu -
would my two high functioning autistic kids get any kind of free and appropriate public education ?

They are a pain to deal with sometime, but what else will society afford ?

--
Peter AI6PG

What about the DEA? by istartedi · 2011-10-20 04:40 · Score: 2

What about the DEA? It's a total waste of money. Not only that; but legalizing and taxing marijuana would be revenue positive. RP is showing that he has at least a modicum of political savvy. He knows that would never sell in the party in which he has chosen to house himself.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

Re:Which is what, exactly? by mr1911 · 2011-10-20 04:43 · 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.

Re:Which is what, exactly? by ceoyoyo · 2011-10-20 04:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unfortunately a little trimming isn't going to get you guys out of this. You're going to have to look at cutting more than a few tenths of one percent.

Now, there IS a major money sink you guys fund up the wazoo that you could probably cut VERY deeply. This budget item apparently loses (as in, has no idea where it went) more money than the entire savings suggested by Ron Paul, and nobody knows how much funding it actually gets because a good portion of it is secret.

Re:Ron Pauls' economic ideas are head-crushingly S by darjen · 2011-10-20 04:45 · Score: 3, Informative

You are the one smoking crack if you honestly believe we had libertarianism for 30 years. There are so many things wrong with your idiotic assertion I don't even know where to start.

Re:Corporations... Right by chill · 2011-10-20 04:51 · Score: 2

You're not an American, so the implied context is lost on you. Sorry, I'll clarify.

Ron Paul is a fairly staunch Libertarian, but not an Anarchist. His objection isn't to government, but rather to the doing the things our Constitution explicitly says is the responsibilities of the States.

The idea being the closer the government is to the people (and visa versa), the more responsive it will be. And, in turn, the more participatory they can be.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

Re:I'd love to see a libertarian airline by mr1911 · 2011-10-20 04:54 · Score: 2

Just cut out all the security before the flight and issue a taser to each passenger over the age of 18.

That is a closer description to where you are going under the TSA and DHS.

Every in-flight threat since 9/11 has been stopped by the passengers on the plane. Allowing someone to board with their pocket knife (or even, God forbid, 3.5oz of shampoo) is not going to create a plane full of people stabbing one another. It would, however, create an environment that 5 jackasses with box cutters will never take control of again.

Put you head back and the sand and keep telling yourself that big government groping children and grandmothers is about keeping you safe.

--
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.

Re:Other thing that will erase Government Programs by Mike · 2011-10-20 04:55 · Score: 2

The U.S. has never been isolationist, and neither are any of the presidential candidates, including Ron Paul. While striving for a noninterventionism, he strives for free trade with all.

Ron Paul asked for government energy loan subsidy by mspohr · 2011-10-20 05:09 · Score: 2

Front page of today's Washington Post points out and inconvenient fact that three years ago both Ron Paul and Rick Perry pressured the Energy Secretary to grant a federal loan subsidy to a Texas based nuclear energy company...

These political scumbags are all hypocrites.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?

Department of Science -- why not? by concealment · 2011-10-20 05:09 · Score: 2

These programs are filed under the wrong parts of government. We need a department of science to aggressively advance all scientific discovery, not just those convenient for politicians.

Get the overview from his website by trevelyon · 2011-10-20 05:10 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Does not he? by PaulBu · 2011-10-20 05:17 · Score: 4, Informative

15% slash (right there, top line on the second page here: http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5fe6ba5e2c7e9376850ed45ac&id=bfc0992023&e=8c0ac983f9) AND defunding all (undeclared) wars, resulting in immediate pull-out from all, what is it now, 5,6,7 places?

And, since most libertarians agree that national defence is legitimate function of Federal government, and knowing weather and coast around your country has obvious military uses, I would see nothing wrong with NOAA and USGS being funded from DOD budget.

"Fix weights and measures" is explicitly constitutional, so, I'd guess, NIST would be also safe under Dr. Paul's watch.

Paul B.

Re:Dept of Edu by squizzar · 2011-10-20 05:21 · Score: 2

You are arguing that we shouldn't have society? What is best for society and best for an individual are not always the same thing. It may be best for you not to pay for other people's education - I presume you paid for yours? - but it is better for society for people to be educated.

In the case of people with difficulties the moral argument is that we can afford, as a society, to help those who are less fortunate. Tell me: if you ever lose your job will you and your family starve to death on principle, because you can't morally justify accepting support that society may give you?

Re:Which is what, exactly? by Thuktun · 2011-10-20 05:26 · Score: 5, Informative

Why should the people of North Dakota pay for tsunami monitoring for California? If the west coast wants earth quake and tsunami warning, they can pay for it.

North Dakota is not geologically inert. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1909_05_16.php

He also wants to axe NOAA, of which the National Weather Service is a part, which tracks weather events like thunderstorms and blizzards that affect North Dakota.

Besides, your callous attitude would seem to lead to something like this:
"Why should I have to do anything to help anyone? Screw 'em." (later) "Eeek, I'm in trouble, why won't someone help me?!"

Re:Dept of Edu by Taevin · 2011-10-20 05:31 · 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).

They pay by publiclurker · 2011-10-20 05:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

because the rest of us pay for their tornado monitoring. Just because you can only think of yourself does not mean that the civilized members of society know how to do whats best for the entire group. Hopefully you'll realize this when you grow up.

What happened to Federalism by scamper_22 · 2011-10-20 05:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

At least two of these should definitely be cut.
Education
Housing and Urban Development.

I never understood the purpose of the federal department of education. I'm Canadian and education is provided at the provincial level (states). It lets provinces do their own thing. What does the federal dept of education do what individual states cannot? If there is anything that is local, it is education.

Again Housing and Urban development at the federal level? This is such a local matter which should primarily concern cities themselves... and at most states.

Some of the other things make more sense at the federal level. Not that I agree with all of them, but they at least have a plausible rational. Especially things like standards and global issues (Atmosphere and ocean)...

Plan cuts spending - not an attack on science by Mardak · 2011-10-20 05:48 · Score: 2

The overall goal of the plan is to cut spending, and the majority of that is through ending wars ($800 billion over a term). The plan also cuts these departments that happen to provide some science funding, but the goal is *not* targeting science; otherwise, he would have cut NSF and NASA. Ron Paul knows that when the federal government stops doing something, e.g., science funding, the private sector (businesses and non-profits) will fill in -- most likely doing a better job than going through federal bureaucracy. The plan also includes over $500 billion of tax cuts in addition to the $1 trillion cut from spending. These tax cuts will fund the science research without penalizing good companies that get taxed to pay for bad companies that happened to hire the right lobbyists.

Re:I don't see federal teachers or road crew by geekoid · 2011-10-20 05:57 · Score: 2

WIthout federal backing, state parks will be gone in a decade. What about parks the move across several states?

"If the federal government is funding education from my tax dollars, then why do I pay thousands of dollars to the school district for property taxes each year? "

Different missions. The DoEs goal is:
" to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." meaning : Education for everyone.
This is a good goal, and needed. An ignorant population is more dangerous, and less productive.

When Bush added NCLB, it's budget shot up dramatically. from 14B to what is project to be 71 Billion.
Get rid of NCLB. and you will save far more the RP will.

"Why do my niece and nephew send me fund raisers for the school district year round? "
Becasue school expensic go up, but no one wants to pay for them, so they nede other avenue of revenue.

I think this approach is wrong. I also think going to parent to hepl with class room itrems is wrong.
IT hides the growing cost until it get to big, then suddenly its a massive problem instead ogf a growing concernt hat culd ahve been planned for.

"I have no kids in school."
And you still reap the benefit of an educated society.

If I were to have kids and send them to a private school, I would not get a tax credit.
Nor should you. Please bear in mind you would have the right to participate in all extracurricular activities.

"If the federal government is funding roads and bridges, then why do I pay 31.2 cents per gallon of gasoline to my state to pay for road and bridge maintenance and construction?"
Because not all roads are federal roads.

"Low income housing - cut me a break. That is a scam to absurdly overpay politically favored contractors. They build housing, on the tax payer dime, to house more non-taxpayers and non-contributors."
you think that's bad? try living with all those people on the street.
Maybe I'm biased because I lived in public housing; which allowed for an education and now I am better off then my mother was.
Or I could have lived o the street with no education and still be a drain.

And contractor are monitored and regulated.

"Something stinks. "
You're ignorance.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Lot of knee-jerk responses by goldspider · 2011-10-20 06:07 · Score: 2

I wish people would take more than 5 seconds before replying in these threads to stop and consider what precisely the federal government does better than either private industry or state governments.

Yes, there are plenty of things that require a national scope, and oddly enough, a lot of those federal roles are defined in the Constitution.

However when it comes to departments that exist on shaky Constitutional grounds and/or duplicate efforts of state departments, you'll find that they provide the least benefit and are the most vigorously defended.

--
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy

Re:Which is what, exactly? by horigath · 2011-10-20 06:14 · Score: 2

Or perhaps the state of North Dakota could voluntarily enter into a kind of contract that spells out some ways in which the two states will aid one another as well as mechanisms to appoint representatives to modify the contract over time to account for changes of circumstances.

Oh wait, that's the Federal Government.

RP's plan by wilsonjd · 2011-10-20 06:26 · Score: 2

I RTFA (I know...) The linked article is an editorial. It links to another article summarizing Ron Paul's plan. That article links to the actual proposal: http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf The plan is actually really interesting. It DOES cut DOD by 200B per year. It makes some deep cuts, and balances the budget by 2015. I don't know if he could get it though congress, but at least he is proposing SOMETHING. We can't keep our heads buried in the sand and spend money we don't have. Even with RP's plan, it shows national debt as 92.5% of GDP in 2013! Getting out of the mess we are in is going to require some hard choices, and sacrifice.

Re:Which is what, exactly? by ExploHD · 2011-10-20 06:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

For the same reason that the people in California help pay for flood monitoring
http://nd.water.usgs.gov/floodtracking/

We know what private industry would have done by Chris+Burke · 2011-10-20 06:44 · Score: 4, Informative

We know what private industry would have done wrt creating the Internet in the absence of the federal government. Because they did create it. Or rather them.

Compuserve.
AOL
MSN
Prodigy
and others.

Each a walled garden, isolated from and incompatible with the others. Each created to require enforce the idea that customers are clients, rather than allowing arbitrary client/server or peer-to-peer relationships (as business has been trying to do with the Internet).

We already know what business would have created without the Internet. And they sucked in comparison to the real thing. That's why all of these networks began to wane the second the Internet became available to the public. They turned into nothing more than ISPs with portal websites and they only did that because it was that or disappear instantly.

In 1995 Bill Gates was saying that the Internet was a fad and everyone would return to the safety of MSN real soon now.

The idea that if the Internet didn't exist that private industry would have created it is simply a-historical.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:We know what private industry would have done by Chris+Burke · 2011-10-20 07:36 · Score: 4, Informative

Sorry, but this is just proof that a (relatively) free market worked. In this particular case, "public money" created the Internet, but it sure as hell wasn't public money that allowed it to beat the others in the *gasp* free market. It was the local net providers, the little ISPs, that provided a better experience.
I think you're confused. The topic of discussion is whether or not private industry would have created the Internet if the government hadn't created it for them, and the simple fact is that they wouldn't have because they didn't. They created their own networks, but they were nothing like the Internet.
And the Internet beat these corporate walled-garden networks among the corporation's own customers. AOL retained an enormous number of subscribers and was the nation's largest ISP long after the AOL Network was completely irrelevant.
Without the Internet, those small ISPs wouldn't have had anything to Provide Service to. Without the small ISPs, the Internet would have still won over the walled garden networks. We know this because it did win over the walled garden networks even among those who didn't change providers.
The Free Market -- i.e. the Ron Paul Libertarian version where there's no federal government creating the Internet -- was tried, and it fucking failed.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:Which is what, exactly? by CraftyJack · 2011-10-20 06:55 · Score: 2

Why should the people of North Dakota pay for tsunami monitoring for California? If the west coast wants earth quake and tsunami warning, they can pay for it.

This has got to be the best discussion ever. This guy here, and the one up there that wants to know what "moral right" other people have to use his taxes for education.

These are the people that eat all the food on the life raft.

The US hits 100% of GDP in about 2 weeks by Colin+Smith · 2011-10-20 07:57 · Score: 2

After that, it's Banana Republic time.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

--
Deleted

So who paid the academics? by rsilvergun · 2011-10-20 08:07 · Score: 2

and where'd the money for the equipment come from?

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Which is what, exactly? by ljhiller · 2011-10-20 08:49 · 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.

Re:Education != Department of Education by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2011-10-20 12:36 · Score: 2

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was created in 1953.

Are you going to tell me that education has been on the decline since 1953 as well?

As someone who entered elementary school in 1953 I can assure you that the public education I experienced went downhill from then until I transferred to a non-public school in 1963. B-b

In particular, about six years later, when "social studies" (dumbed-down history) covered the founding of the US federal government, the textbook didn't bother to actually quote the declaration or the constitution. But it had a cute cartoon of two legislators stretching a scroll to illustrate the "Elastic Clause" and explained how this allowed the federal government to do just about anything the congresscritters wanted to do.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Re:All Right, I'll Plant my Flag Here by jcr · 2011-10-20 16:33 · Score: 2

All those government agencies evolved because we needed them.

It only takes one counter-example to debunk your statement. My counterexample is the Drug Enforcement Administration. If you're claiming that we need a federal agency to harass cancer patients, then to hell with you.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Slashdot Mirror

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

174 of 2,247 comments (clear)