• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul proposes saving $1T by scrapping five federal departments

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Along with the Departments of Energy and Education, Paul also proposes eliminating the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Interior. Paul would also abolish the Transportation Security Administration, leaving security at airports and other transportation systems up to the private sector.

Paul's plan would set the budget for most other departments at 2006 levels, which for some agencies would mean eliminating certain programs. For instance, Paul says he would cut all funding for the Justice Department's "Community Oriented Policing Services" (COPS) program, which provides grants to state and local law enforcement agencies to hire and train officers.

Ron Paul proposes saving $1T by scrapping five federal departments - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Works for me
 
It is a bold approuch with many questions.
One of his recommendations is to do away with Interior. Does he understand Interior has the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Fish and Wildlife Service?
Without information on how he would propose protecting and managmement of our national parks and monuments, public lands, and wildlife refuges, not to mention our obligations to Native Americans by doing away with Interior, I can't say I can buy into all of his plan.
 
but wait...if he abolishes the Department of Commerce

Where will Conservative and the rest of us get our bls.gov and bea.gov numbers????
 
but wait...if he abolishes the Department of Commerce

Where will Conservative and the rest of us get our bls.gov and bea.gov numbers????

I know where Con will look first.

*shudder*
 
totally lifted from a blog comment:
... take a look at just ONE department he proposes to cut: Commerce. This would then cut the following:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) including the
National Weather Service (NWS); hope you don't mind NOT knowing when and where the tornado or hurricane are landing.

U.S. Census Bureau; so much for the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED count of the country which, by the way dictates Congressional representation.

Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO); so much for intellectual property rights.

Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA); well we won’t really need the economic data after this.

Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS); want to export a dual-use nuclear trigger? Go ahead!

International Trade Administration (ITA); oh well, the isolationist policies will make this obsolete anyways…

Also forget about:

Economic Development Administration (EDA)
Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA)
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)


HEY, GREAT PLAN BEAV!
 
Bubba, the Census and Patent offices can be rearranged elsewhere, but they're the only two CONSTITUTIONAL operations that I know of in any of those 5 Departments. It would be a NICE START.
 
Bubba, the Census and Patent offices can be rearranged elsewhere, but they're the only two CONSTITUTIONAL operations that I know of in any of those 5 Departments. It would be a NICE START.

then we could move everything in those agencies elsewhere ... rearranging the chairs on the titanic so to speak
as much as i like the guy, this was an instance of hyperbole because his campaign is flat
 
then we could move everything in those agencies elsewhere ... rearranging the chairs on the titanic so to speak
as much as i like the guy, this was an instance of hyperbole because his campaign is flat

No, because the other operations inside those agencies have NO CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE. Personally, I think what has been suggested is just a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done to our budget. Give me a weekend and a red marker and I'll fix most of our budget problems before 9am on Monday morning.
 
For the most part these are great choices and proposals. Here's the disingenuous disconnect...

Believe it or not, Presidents in the past on occasion have attempted to eliminate smaller bureaucratic entities within larger departments, and pretty much always have been thwarted. Why does he think... no, why does he want US to think... that he is the proverbial knight in shining armor that can actually get it done?

This begs the question: When a candidate campaigns, should they sell us their idealistic visions, or should they be selling what is plausible that they can actually get done.

Like I said, nice choices and proposals, but I think a fail on his part for putting it forth as if he can pull it off.
 
This begs the question: When a candidate campaigns, should they sell us their idealistic visions, or should they be selling what is plausible that they can actually get done.

Politicians should run on what they believe. If they win, they should interpret that as a mandate.
 
For the most part these are great choices and proposals. Here's the disingenuous disconnect...

Believe it or not, Presidents in the past on occasion have attempted to eliminate smaller bureaucratic entities within larger departments, and pretty much always have been thwarted. Why does he think... no, why does he want US to think... that he is the proverbial knight in shining armor that can actually get it done?

This begs the question: When a candidate campaigns, should they sell us their idealistic visions, or should they be selling what is plausible that they can actually get done.

Like I said, nice choices and proposals, but I think a fail on his part for putting it forth as if he can pull it off.

I believe the POTUS still has the power to issue a Presidential Order, doesn't he? Of course that is subject to SCOTUS review, but I believe a very strong case can be made for the UnConstitutionality of each of those departments (minus the two groups I discussed earlier).
 
Interesting ideas but sadly he is just showing his own links to big business with this plan.

For one he does not want to dump the Department of Homeland Security.. if one agency needs removal then it is that. Talk about waste of money and more red tape. This agency was suppose to fix the issues between the 132613461 so called US intelligence agencies and has not done so. All it added was yet another layer of red tape and cost a fortune. If anything the US should cut many of their so called "intelligence" agencies who fight each other over secrets and fame..

He also "only" puts a spending freeze at the Department of War.. err Defence. Seriously? If there is one place you can cut waste by the bucket load it is the DOD. No a toilet seat does not have to cost 40000 dollars (yes taken from Independence Day).

And then he wants to eliminate Departments of Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior and Education.... his priorities are clear that is for sure... deluded to say the least but very clear. I expect that education standards in the US will get much much worse and very segregated under President Paul. And considering that one of the biggest problems of the US is energy independence, he suddenly wants to get rid of the Department leading that chase? And he wants more homeless.. no worries his buddy Bush fixed that for him. And I understadn why he wants to get rid of the Department of Commerce,... being an isolationist as he is, then there is no need to promote US products to people outside the US.. after they are non Christian freaks right?.. And then there is the Department of Interior.. seriously? So in other words he wants to sell off all federal land and what..finish of the American Indian genocide once and for all?

Now I understand that you can merge some of these departments into others and so on, but out right getting rid of what they do... gezz. Why not get rid of the DOD and leave US security to the private sector?
 
totally lifted from a blog comment:

... take a look at just ONE department he proposes to cut: Commerce. This would then cut the following:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) including the
National Weather Service (NWS); hope you don't mind NOT knowing when and where the tornado or hurricane are landing.

U.S. Census Bureau; so much for the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED count of the country which, by the way dictates Congressional representation.

Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO); so much for intellectual property rights.

Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA); well we won’t really need the economic data after this.

Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS); want to export a dual-use nuclear trigger? Go ahead!

International Trade Administration (ITA); oh well, the isolationist policies will make this obsolete anyways…

Also forget about:

Economic Development Administration (EDA)
Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA)
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)


HEY, GREAT PLAN BEAV!

Amazing. A plan to throw us back into the 18th century. That will work so well in a global economy

Taking the example of NOAA a little further, not only will communities not know where that hurricane or tornado is likely to hit, placing millions at risk of death, Paul would also kill FEMA so that those hit by catastrophic storms or events would have to go it alone in restoring and rebuilding in the aftermath.
 
Last edited:
I believe the POTUS still has the power to issue a Presidential Order, doesn't he? Of course that is subject to SCOTUS review, but I believe a very strong case can be made for the UnConstitutionality of each of those departments (minus the two groups I discussed earlier).
In a sense what you're saying is that the president should be more of a dictator. Unfortunately (or, rather, fortunately), the practical realities of our political system doesn't allow for that. Presidential orders are powerful, but not anywhere near all-powerful.
 
Interesting ideas but sadly he is just showing his own links to big business with this plan.

For one he does not want to dump the Department of Homeland Security.. if one agency needs removal then it is that. Talk about waste of money and more red tape. This agency was suppose to fix the issues between the 132613461 so called US intelligence agencies and has not done so. All it added was yet another layer of red tape and cost a fortune. If anything the US should cut many of their so called "intelligence" agencies who fight each other over secrets and fame..

He also "only" puts a spending freeze at the Department of War.. err Defence. Seriously? If there is one place you can cut waste by the bucket load it is the DOD. No a toilet seat does not have to cost 40000 dollars (yes taken from Independence Day).

And then he wants to eliminate Departments of Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior and Education.... his priorities are clear that is for sure... deluded to say the least but very clear. I expect that education standards in the US will get much much worse and very segregated under President Paul. And considering that one of the biggest problems of the US is energy independence, he suddenly wants to get rid of the Department leading that chase? And he wants more homeless.. no worries his buddy Bush fixed that for him. And I understadn why he wants to get rid of the Department of Commerce,... being an isolationist as he is, then there is no need to promote US products to people outside the US.. after they are non Christian freaks right?.. And then there is the Department of Interior.. seriously? So in other words he wants to sell off all federal land and what..finish of the American Indian genocide once and for all?

Now I understand that you can merge some of these departments into others and so on, but out right getting rid of what they do... gezz. Why not get rid of the DOD and leave US security to the private sector?
You had me. You had me in the palm of your hand. Then you lost me with the last sentence.
 
In a sense what you're saying is that the president should be more of a dictator. Unfortunately (or, rather, fortunately), the practical realities of our political system doesn't allow for that. Presidential orders are powerful, but not anywhere near all-powerful.

What I am suggesting is that when Congress refuses to act WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS there needs to be a means for the POTUS to tell them to go to Hell. Such a Presidential Order would initiate a SCOTUS fight, as we all know. At which point the SCOTUS would have to rule on whether or not those Departments have a Constitutional basis per Section I, Article 8 and the 10th Amendment. Should they rule improperly, then it would be time for the populace to burn Washington, DC to the ground and start all over circa 1775.
 
Amazing. A plan to throw us back into the 18th century. That will work so well in a global economy

Taking the example of NOAA a little further, not only will communities not know where that hurricane or tornado is likely to hit, placing millions at risk of death, Paul would also kill FEMA so that those hit by catastrophic storms or events would have to go it alone in restoring and rebuilding in the aftermath.

18th Century, GREAT. Though I'm sure you realize that there are other meteorolical organizations out there beyond NOAA, right?

As for FEMA... please show me a Constitutional Mandate for such a program. I don't believe you can. Therefore it is an illegal and UnConstitutional program (and I would suggest an immoral one as well).
 
Look at how ohmigodwereallgonnadie!!! dependent on the fed everyone is. How funny.

Many of those services have redundant state government agencies that could easily absorb the tasking. At the very least, killing or seriously looking at killing federal agencies would force people to be able to streamline government agencies and become more efficient. There are layers and layers of beauracracy that just absolutely choke the life out of the taxpayer. The alternative of course is to continue to marginalize Ron Paul and his ideas and continue to run business as usual in DC with the Fed oeperating at an annual deficit of 1.3 to 1.6 trillion a year. And hey...if you are all for that...next time the grandkids are over at your house just kick em in the crotch a few times and laugh at em. Get them used to later in life when they have to pay for our continued insistence on maintaining status quo.
 
Last edited:
What I am suggesting is that when Congress refuses to act WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS there needs to be a means for the POTUS to tell them to go to Hell. Such a Presidential Order would initiate a SCOTUS fight, as we all know. At which point the SCOTUS would have to rule on whether or not those Departments have a Constitutional basis per Section I, Article 8 and the 10th Amendment. Should they rule improperly, then it would be time for the populace to burn Washington, DC to the ground and start all over circa 1775.
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean a SCOTUS test of a line-item veto? If so, I would LOVE to see that tested once and for all.
 
For one thing, this plan would immediately cause our GDP to shrink by 7%, merely due to the fact that all that government demand suddenly dried up. And that's not really a matter of opinion, anyone with basic math skills should be able to calculate the same figure. And this is before we even take into account all the other consequences...with that many government workers suddenly laid off, unemployment will skyrocket, the average consumer will have less money to spend on private goods, and the economy will contract further.

Combine this with Ron Paul's asinine suggestions about eliminating the social safety net (which would further reduce aggregate demand as consumers struggled just to meet their living expenses), and abolishing the Fed / bringing back the gold standard (which would shrink the money supply by a huge amount), and we could easily see the economy contract by 50% or more if Ron Paul had his way. :roll:

Fortunately this raving lunatic will never be anywhere close to the White House.
 
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean a SCOTUS test of a line-item veto? If so, I would LOVE to see that tested once and for all.

No. I mean that the Presidential Order to disband those five departments would face a SCOTUS challenge. If written properly, the PO would force the case to look at whether those departments (and many more) have any Constitutional standing, and if not whether they are legal and legitimate powers and expenditures of the Federal Government. Assuming the PO was upheld, it would be the first step in a return to LIMITED Federal Governance.
 
18th Century, GREAT. Though I'm sure you realize that there are other meteorolical organizations out there beyond NOAA, right?

As for FEMA... please show me a Constitutional Mandate for such a program. I don't believe you can. Therefore it is an illegal and UnConstitutional program (and I would suggest an immoral one as well).

Yes, I do. However there is information so critical to the welfare of our nation, like this, that we should have it under our control. Outsourcing is not always the answer.

As far as FEMA, of course it comes under the purview of the "General Welfare Clause". Look around the country this year alone. There are communities which have been devastated by storms and related natural disasters. I'm sure the first thing a person in Joplin, Missouri was thinking about was the constitutionality of national disaster relief. I have a friend who worked there for a short bit, then was pulled off to work on the flooding in North Dakota. Joplin was pretty much destroyed. Workers had to be bussed in daily because there was no place to stay in town. Destruction like that is so enormous that state funds and resources are not sufficient to deal with it.

Of course, if your community is ever severely damaged, you are free to refuse help.
 
Back
Top Bottom