Now that Paul admitted on FNS that he is for giving illegals path to voting and claims they are ‘natural conservatives’ who he never met one who wanted a handout, we can forget about this.
His new Dreamer voters want all these things and more, they want Obama-care now
yeah and?
nice thought...since it wasnt going anywhere anyhow, shouldve at least tripled the gutting of whole depts...
RIP - the sooner the better.
Sounds like a good start.
Where are all those FReepers with questions about if Rand was weak on Defense?
“It replenishes $126 billion to the Defense Department stripped in sequestration...”
There’s part of the answer.
A good start....
Hey, it’s a start!!
WOW !
That’s what I’m talkin’ about. CUT CUT CUT. And start with Government departments FIRST and foremost.
As well, any and all Progressive legislation that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Go Rand. I may not agree with him 100% of the time, but he is one true patriot at least TRYING to take back this country from these elitist power hungry a-holes.
The Department of Commerce was created in 1904 and its main purpose is “to create jobs, promote economic growth, encourage sustainable development and improve standards of living for all Americans.” If it had achieved its stated purposes why the “War on Proverty”, food stamps, etc/ 110 years old and it has failed its stated purpose.
The Department of Education was created in1979 with the stated purpose of improving the education system as measured by college board scores. Does anyone think that the college board scores have improved over the last 30 plus years?
The Department of Housing and Urban Development was founded in 1965 with the expressed purpose “is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.” If you walk down almost every “Martin Luther King Blvd” in the nation you'll have to wonder where all teh money went supporting the 14 laws issued since its establishment as a Cabinet level organization.
The Department of Energy was expanded of a nuclear centric organization to being the point man for energy independence after the first oil embargo in 1973. Its publically announced purpose was to make the US independent from Middle East Oil. Forty years later how is that going?
None of the four departments listed are Constitutionally mandated functions of the Federal Government. None of them have a record of successfully meeting their mission statements. So what business would continue to pay for failure and expand failing operations? Why should the tax payers continue to pay for institutional/bureaucratic failure?
So he’s an amnesty-promoting loon. He still has a lot of good ideas.
We must get to a balanced budget quickly with the elimination of departments. I would end EPA and OSHA letting the state agencies in those areas take over responsibility.
I don’t know if Paul’s plan is quick enough, but its better than the business as usual politicians plans.
Now all we need to do is cut the enforcement budget of the EPA and we are off to a really go start. As Levin says it is the private sector destruction agency.
The problem I have with Paul Ryan and his budgets is that he can never bring himself to name even one govt agency he can bear to shut down.
Oh, Goody! That’ll pass without a peep from either side of the aisle, LOL!
Not a bad start. Which ones are you going to eliminate next year?
Where bold plans like this fall flat for me is the ‘how’, not the ‘what’. There are few if any on this forum who express any support for the department of education, but if you would kill it, what happens to all those programs currently in place for grants and financial aid? What of all the student loans underwritten and outstanding?
Let the looters swing? Yeah, that ain’t going to work when the looters can tie up any reforms with lawsuits and get voted into office the very next election, claiming the reformers are trying to destroy the nation or alternatively unable to prove any results from the ties up reforms.
Weaning the American populace off the government teat is not going to be easy, the judiciary is not on the side of strict constitutionalists, nor is academia, the media, or much of the business world which has developed a codependence to the stability a government ‘in’ gives then. Big reforms need to be done smartly and explained clearly (and often... and tenaciously) and they’ll need to be unwound in the same way they were wound in the first place: with support of congress and approval, sometimes haltingly, of the judical branch.
One of the constitution’s key benefits is that any one administration can’t drastically change the direction of the government quickly. This is also one of it’s key problems if you don’t like the way things are going. If you can claim the ability to enact big changes, so can your successor, in the opposite direction or further. A lot of people will be motivated to stop the unwinding of big government from the throat of liberty because they’d lose their sugar daddy. This has to be factored into whatever plan is ultimately put into place, and pursued more relentlessly than its attackers with a passion for justice and freedom, not punishment and retribution. Assuming a burst of constitional adherance will just wake America out of some sort of funk and everything will be peaches and cream from here on out is just circlejerk material.
A reasonable start, how about agriculture, homeland security, and all the rest of the socialist commissions?
The EEOC and the NLRB could go, too.