Eliminating all federal funding to local governments (regulatory, environmental, HUD, public ed., extraneous police funding, social work, etc.) would solve the problem and leave enough federal government intact.
How bout we split the difference and go for REALLY small government?
A strong military and properly functioning infrastructure(police, highway maintenance,sanitation, services for AMERICAN citizens who TRULY need them,etc) should be the gov’t’s only purpose. These things alone cost tons and tons of $$$ I have no objection paying my fair share, as long we’re getting the most bang for the buck.
The Founding Fathers were trying to find the golden mean between tyranny and anarchy. Tyranny is statism, and anarchy is just another form of statism of warlords or tribal gangs in the long run.
Those are certainly socialist/communist red agencies, but I've never heard them referred to as "Rouge" before.
things like the IRS, the Departments of Energy and Education or rein in rouge agencies like the EPA and the NLRB
Oh, and I'm not for reigning in the EPA and NLRB. Those are also on the elimination list on my wish list.
That has to be accomplished locally.
familyop wrote:
Eliminating all federal funding to local governments (regulatory, environmental, HUD, public ed., extraneous police funding, social work, etc.) would solve the problem and leave enough federal government intact.
In my state, our city council, county commission and all state officials also swear an oath that includes upholding and protecting the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of our State.
We (my local TEA Party patriots and 9-12ers) actually go to our county commission and school board meetings and ask our commissioners and board members, "Where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution did We the People give Congress the power to tax us at the federal level for (education, parks, local roads and projects)? How are you following your oath of office accepting (or worse, requesting) "federal grant money?"
they may want smallER government, but in no sense do they want “small” government.
We want a government of LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers - rather than one of limitless powers unnumbered.
Our Constitution outlines a government of limited and enumerated powers.
Just because something is worth doing doesn’t mean the government should be doing it.
Once we get to where we all know we have nowhere near enough government...well, that’s something of a beginning, and we can start some major cutting from there...
No Government = Anarchists
Bare Minumum Gov = Libertarians
Small Government = Conservatives
This talking point annoys me too.
Conservatives believe in the Constitution.
What is the Constitution?
It’s a framework for small federal GOVERNMENT.
So, conservatives advocate for government, just a very specific kind of government.