Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the sounds-pretty-good-to-me dept.

sciencehabit writes with this selection from Science: "Presidential hopeful Ron Paul's new proposal to slash federal spending would wipe out large chunks of the government's research portfolio. The congressman from Texas and Republican candidate has unveiled a budget plan to reduce the deficit that would eliminate five federal departments: Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development. In one fell swoop, such a step would erase, among other programs, the Energy Department's $5-billion Office of Science, the $4.5-billion National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the $750-million National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the $1.1-billion U.S. Geological Survey."

79 of 2,247 comments (clear)

  1. I like his IRS plan! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I like his IRS plan!

    1. Re:I like his IRS plan! by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · 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.

    2. Re:I like his IRS plan! by truthsearch · · 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.
    3. Re:I like his IRS plan! by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · 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.

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

      Edison Electric Light Company made extensive use of public owned right of ways.

      The price of kerosene dropped 80% during Standard Oil's reign primarily due to increased supply from drilling on (mostly) public lands. Who knows how much more it would have dropped if there had been a free market rather than a monopoly in charge.

      Ford benefits from massive public investment in road and bridge infrastructure. Ford didn't build any roads or bridges.

      So... tell me again where would we be without the public sector?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:I like his IRS plan! by mspohr · · 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?
    6. Re:I like his IRS plan! by Curunir_wolf · · 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
    7. Re:I like his IRS plan! by interval1066 · · 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".'
    8. Re:I like his IRS plan! by mbkennel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Because lord knows without the Fed.gov no one would ever have bothered to build computers (and all base technologies) and it is only through the guiding light that is the government that such miracles could be wrought."

      Government sponsored basic R&D and early-stage development make such miracles much faster. And many miracles depend on lots of other miracles already happening. Some product or idea may have commercial applications but depends on another advance which, in its original stage only had military application.

      "Do you really believe that no one would have bothered coming up with semiconductors and all that if there hadn't been a fed.gov market for it? Really? "

      There wouldn't have been anywhere near the money and intensity of development. Almost all the semiconductor physics advances from 1945 to 1980's were sponsored by Bell Labs, universtities, IBM (who had huge military contracts for the most advanced systems of course) and military funding and military contracts. At that time Bell Labs counted economically as a government agency---in return for being granted the telephone system monopoly, Bell had to spend a large amount of money on R&D.

    9. Re:I like his IRS plan! by vajrabum · · 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.

    10. Re:I like his IRS plan! by pixelpusher220 · · 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
    11. Re:I like his IRS plan! by Rockoon · · 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."
  2. all the better to rebuild plantation economies by swschrad · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    2. Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    3. Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies by OldeTimeGeek · · 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.

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

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

    --

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

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

    2. Re:In other words, we should give up. by COMON$ · · 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?
    3. Re:In other words, we should give up. by hierofalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Energy research can be done by corporations. Parks can be managed by the states they are located in - all of them have recreation departments of their own. The same is true of monuments. Public education is already managed by states. There is no need for any federal bureaucracy there AT ALL. Low income housing doesn't disappear because a federal government disappears. Let the housing be managed by each state where it resides. Let states fix roads and bridges directly with the gas tax. And so on and so on. There are a few departments that we do need, and they would continue to exist although their direction would be changed by Ron Paul. Many should have disappeared long ago.

    4. Re:In other words, we should give up. by defaria · · 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.

    5. Re:In other words, we should give up. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:In other words, we should give up. by jittles · · 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.

    7. Re:In other words, we should give up. by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you saying that all of these things are impossible without the Federal Government paying for them?

      Yes. You can pretend that capitalism can provide exactly what the government provides now, but capitalism cannot magically make non-profitable things profitable. If it isn't profitable, it won't happen.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:In other words, we should give up. by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Corporations are a creation of the government. They are like copyrights and patents - they only exist in law. Separating the two is impossible.

      The conversation would be much more constructive if the conversation were: "What do we want corporations to do/be?"

      But then we wouldn't be able to join the red team or the blue team.

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

    10. Re:In other words, we should give up. by Rolgar · · 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.

    11. Re:In other words, we should give up. by uniquename72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      The same ones that invented the internet, lasers, microchips, GPSs, and microwave ovens, went to the moon, built the largest highway system in the world, created our clean water infrastructure, and electrified most of a continent.

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

      (Based on Forbe's estimate of the cost of being U.S. military policy being $2 billion per day If you want units solely in terms of the war in Afghanistan, that figure is $300 million per day. Adjust for other wars etc. War: it isn't cheap.)

      I wonder why Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget, it would appear the potential savings are enormous?

    13. Re:In other words, we should give up. by MightyYar · · 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.
    14. Re:In other words, we should give up. by Attila+Dimedici · · 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
    15. Re:In other words, we should give up. by gfxguy · · 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.
    16. Re:In other words, we should give up. by chill · · 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.
    17. Re:In other words, we should give up. by boristdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm saying that local entities are only responsible to their local constituents. If a local entity is 100% in charge, they can let their section of the road go 100% to ruin if they don't want it there. And everyone else can just go suck eggs because anything else would be socialism!

      My county has about 25 miles of an interstate through the northern section where almost NO ONE in the county lives. Maybe 1% of the county population regularly uses that road. If the county residents were suddenly tasked with the cost of the maintenance on that section of interstate our county taxes would probably double. Do you think most people in the county would vote for that? Nope, hardly any of us ever use that road. Goodbye freeway system.

    18. Re:In other words, we should give up. by siride · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The spending problem isn't NOAA or NIST, it's "entitlements" and defense. TFA mentions NOAA's $4.5 billion budget. For the services it provides, that's a pretty damn good bang for your buck. Axing NOAA would do about nothing for the national debt, but would cost us dearly in terms of weather data and services. You could axe every single non-defense discretionary spending agency and still end up with a decent deficit. Why go after the parts of the government that actually do a good job and provide useful services? What a fucking dumb idea. Seriously.

    19. Re:In other words, we should give up. by DragonWriter · · 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.

    20. Re:In other words, we should give up. by MikeB0Lton · · 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.

    21. Re:In other words, we should give up. by sarhjinian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Butbutbut, all the little things add up! (Yes, they do. To a rounding error in the budgets of Defense or Medicare/Medicaid).

      So, if this privatization stuff is such hot shit, let's privatize the military as well. I'm sure that'll work out just fine! I mean, if it's evil socialism to heal, feed and clothe people, it must be worse to publicly fund killing them, right?

      Hell, on a related (hypocritical) note, Ron Paul, bastion of freedom, independence and libertarian wankery, seems to have no problem shilling for Federal public funds to deal with coastal damage in his own district. I'm sure, though, that he'd refuse funds to keep rising coastal waters from washing Galevston out to sea.

      Typical libertarian nonsense: it's all waste and graft, unless it's my pet interest, then it's an essential part of the social contract. It's a movement that's just as delusional as Communism.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    22. Re:In other words, we should give up. by MightyYar · · 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.
    23. Re:In other words, we should give up. by Mike · · 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.

    24. Re:In other words, we should give up. by MightyYar · · 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.
    25. Re:In other words, we should give up. by DragonWriter · · 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.

    26. Re:In other words, we should give up. by rahvin112 · · 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.

    27. Re:In other words, we should give up. by Overzeetop · · 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?
  4. How about... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Getting rid of the BATFE and the TSA instead?

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

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

    1. Re:Simple solution by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · 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.

  6. Pretty Sure by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That if this happened, after the next earthquake or hurricane demolishes a few large metropolitan areas people would be wondering why we had no warning.

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

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

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

  8. Ron Paul... by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is a nutjob.

    I had a long dissertation thought out, but man, this shit just boggles my mind. NOAA? Is he kidding? I'm sure all of you remember (probably not, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt) the fact that he said that "Hurr, Galveston didn't have anyone to bail them out during their hurricane" totally forgetting how many people /died/ because of no hurricane warning and forecasting.

    The next time there's a hurricane coming up Galveston Bay, I want Ron Paul to be out in the middle of it. Outside. Naked.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Ron Paul... by Theolojin · · 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.
    2. Re:Ron Paul... by Kugala · · Score: 4, Funny

      How could he be out in the hurricane if we don't know it's coming?

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

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

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

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

  11. Re:No more by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So people would have to pay to find out if a hurricane is going to nail them?

    Ah America, land where sociopathic greed is not only approved of, but actually encouraged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is about as newsworthy as Ron Paul declaring that he plans to remodel my kitchen. Barring a long series of astronomically unlikely events, he's not going to get anywhere close to having the authority to do so. Providing passing entertainment on Slashdot during a slow news day may well be his high water mark.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:So? by BetterSense · · 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.

  15. Re:Which is what, exactly? by MightyMartian · · 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.
  16. Re:Which is what, exactly? by SuricouRaven · · 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.

  17. He's living a fantasy by FyberOptic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's the thing about Ron Paul. He makes a few good points once in a while, but he's such an extremist that he just wants to wildly slash everything in government with a machete. That's not the solution to anything. Most of the organizations he wants to destroy actually do good things and serve important roles, but may need to simply be restructured to better serve those roles instead of just throwing money at them in their current form. And that's not to mention the literally thousands of jobs he would be cutting to serve his agenda.

    Ron Paul's mind is still a hundred years in the past. He's regularly citing things from far back in the country's history. Things that worked back then won't work today. Society's complexities and modernizations require some degree of management or oversight. Paul doesn't see that because all he can see is the fantasy of small government he envisions of yesteryear.

    The USA isn't a western. Let's stop trying to treat it like one.

  18. Way to make it sound insignificant.... by gQuigs · · 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.

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

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

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

  20. Re:No more by Altus · · 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

  21. Re:Which is what, exactly? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · 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

  22. Re:Which is what, exactly? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because North Dakota benefits from having a California that doesn't get devastated by tsunamis or earthquakes. The same way that the world benefited from Japan not being completely flooded by a Tsunami.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  23. Re:Which is what, exactly? by tbannist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure the people that live along that very geologically active strip of turf will be happy to know that Ron Paul considers them essentially expendable in his quest for ideological purity.

    That is simply untrue and completely preposterous. To make such baseless accusations, you should be ashamed of yourself. We all know that Ron Paul considers everyone to be expendable in his quest for ideological purity.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  24. Re:Which is what, exactly? by mr1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
    Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
  25. Re:Ron Pauls' economic ideas are head-crushingly S by darjen · · 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.

  26. Get the overview from his website by trevelyon · · 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.

  27. Does not he? by PaulBu · · 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.

  28. Re:Which is what, exactly? by Thuktun · · 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?!"

  29. Re:Dept of Edu by Taevin · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    There, no moral discussion needed (a blessing since any that puts "moral right" and "fruit of someone else's labor" in the same sentence will always devolved into some mind-bending justification for how it is noble to exploit human beings).

  30. They pay by publiclurker · · 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.

  31. Re:Which is what, exactly? by ExploHD · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  32. We know what private industry would have done by Chris+Burke · · 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
    1. Re:We know what private industry would have done by Chris+Burke · · 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
  33. Re:Which is what, exactly? by ljhiller · · Score: 4, Insightful
    How are the people of North Dakota supposed to ship their wheat to China when a tsunami takes out a west coast shipping port?

    Alright, I want every small-government proponent to make a list of 100 things they want to fund, personally? Take a moment, I'll wait. Was drought-proof wheat on your list? Probably not. Do you need drought-proof wheat? If you don't what to be buying your food from Siberia, you sure do. Is there incentive to develop drought-proof wheat? There sure is. Is anybody going to follow that incentive? No. Why? Because it wasn't on your list or anybody else's. You didn't think of it. Or you (wrongly) believe it's not important. Or that somebody else will do it. Who funds drought-proof wheat research? Department of Agriculture research programs.

    Alright, now, I want you to make a time budget. How many hours in a day are you going to spend evaluating who should receive your private funding. And be sure you do your research, we don't want Solyndra fraudsters getting it. The DC bureaucrats do this all day, but now YOU have to do it. What's that, you want to delegate it? To a company that takes your money and decides for you, and keeps a chunk of it for itself? Sounds familiar?

    Oh but your system is voluntary. Except you don't actually have time to do it.

    Do you really WANT to pay the free-market cost of education? Do you want everybody else to? Just how many burger flippers and drug dealers do you think this society can support? Do you want your cancer operated on by somebody who learned from Khan Academy of Medicine on Youtube?

    Do you want clean water? Do you think there are incentives for private companies to keep water clean? Environmental protection is expensive, it's true. Turns out making small settlements and dragging out legal cases with in-house council is a lot less. The true incentive is to not keep the water clean. You live in a free society, but your child is DEAD. Oh well.