Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the sounds-pretty-good-to-me dept.

Government 2247

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."

cancel ×

2247 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I like his IRS plan! (5, Funny)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775884)

I like his IRS plan!

Re:I like his IRS plan! (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776014)

Crud, and I dont have any mod points to mod you up.

I agree!

Re:I like his IRS plan! (5, Informative)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776180)

For further reading on his plan to see what else he cuts, here it is. [ronpaul2012.com] [pdf]

Other thing that will erase Government Programs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775886)

Debt. [usdebtclock.org]

Re:Other thing that will erase Government Programs (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776270)

What you saying Willis?

That an American bankruptcy will eliminate those and many more programs?

Are you saying if we don't do anything. Then those programs will disappear regardless.

You're crazy Vulcan. Don't use logic. Just pretend that we can print limitless money.

But seriously, let's not forget that a $14 trillion debt with a $1.5 trillion annual deficit is unsustainable.

all the better to rebuild plantation economies (5, Insightful)

swschrad (312009) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775892)

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

Re:all the better to rebuild plantation economies (1)

rwven (663186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776188)

We're gonna be rebuilding plantation economies at this point anyway if something isn't done about the present economy and the flimsy standing of the government. It wouldn't take A-bombs to turn the US into a Jericho scenario.

Just keep going down the road we're going for another decade or two (or less?) and we're looking at a guaranteed complete collapse of the US Govt and us/world economy. A lot more than just "5 government programs" will be axed.

Ignorance is Strength (0)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776272)

It says so right in the Bible. Take my word for it!

Without interference from the government and people who actually know things, free enterprise will be able to create more marketable, affordable, and Job Creator-friendly realities for today's busy consumers.

Luap Nor proposes year zero for US science (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775896)

What a man,

Maybe not completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775898)

But a vast reduction in the scope and purview of each of those departments is probably in order.

Re:Maybe not completely (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776302)

Not everything in all the departments would be eliminated. Some would be moved to other departments.

In other words, we should give up. (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775902)

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.

Re:In other words, we should give up. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775944)

But but... the CORPORATIONS will magically provide this stuff for us! And it will be even better! And ponies! And Unicorns!!!

Re:In other words, we should give up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776046)

Yeah, all it takes is some tax breaks, as motivation. And very favourable loans. And some relaxation in legislation. I mean, at the end of the day you're taking things away from the people, and giving things to corporations, but the balance will shift back the other way eventually.

Right?

Re:In other words, we should give up. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776114)

But but... the CORPORATIONS will magically provide this stuff for us! And it will be even better! And ponies! And Unicorns!!!

Not corporations, jackass. States will provide this.

Re:In other words, we should give up. (1, Insightful)

defaria (741527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776282)

Corporations have already provided you with 1000 times more stuff than government has ever had. Do us all a favor and stop right now from every purchasing another thing that a dirty corporation produced. You'll die within the month!

Re:In other words, we should give up. (1, Troll)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775950)

Yes...because only the almighty government can do these things...

Re:In other words, we should give up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776032)

By definition, only the government can provide public education. The rest of them have been public for so long that NOBODY else is willing to do them, or (low-income housing) only exists at all because of government rules and oversight. So yeah, it does fall to the government to do those things.

Re:In other words, we should give up. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776040)

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

Which is what, exactly? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776226)

> What private corporation is going to do what the US Geological Survey does?

Which is what, exactly?

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

On earthquake research, there are a number of universities (many of which claim to be privately funded/endowed) that compete with each other on prestige that would likely continue this research.

It's nice to have a federal agency with a nice web site, but at some point in the past we may have hit a point of diminishing returns on additional spend here.

Re:In other words, we should give up. (1)

chomsky68 (1719996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776266)

What private corporation is going to do with the US Geological Survey's annual budget?

FIFY

Re:In other words, we should give up. (2)

mean pun (717227) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776078)

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. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776278)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775998)

we are trying to kill off public education anyways. cyber school is crushing some districts which for some reason the districts and tax payers have to foot the bill.

Re:In other words, we should give up. (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776010)

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. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776140)

Yeah, I can't wait to see Kansas science in action.

Re:In other words, we should give up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776198)

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.

You and your common sense, sir, have no place here.

Re:In other words, we should give up. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776288)

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.

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.

Re:In other words, we should give up. (1, Insightful)

MikeB0Lton (962403) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776068)

Most of that is either a function of the state and local governments or privatized.

Re:In other words, we should give up. (2, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776082)

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. (2)

TC Wilcox (954812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776084)

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. (3, Informative)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776142)

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....

Re:In other words, we should give up. (4, Insightful)

hierofalcon (1233282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776162)

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. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776174)

Whether he plans it for us or not doesn't matter, because you won't have those things when the whole country is broke and has no one willing to buy its debt.

I like helping low income people myself, but only when I'm not low income or broke.

Re:In other words, we should give up. (3, Insightful)

defaria (741527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776244)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776248)

My take on Ron Paul is that most everything should be state-level. The services would reappear at the state level (as would, I'm sure, the necessary taxes to sustain them). An argument could be made that this would work for parks, roads, and bridges from your list. Not so much for Energy/Office of Science.

Scary (1)

ugen (93902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775904)

EOM

How about... (5, Insightful)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775910)

Getting rid of the BATFE and the TSA instead?

Re:How about... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775966)

And while we're axing annoying government existences, can we kill the IRS too?

And preferably replace it with something that isn't full of holes for the rich.

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776002)

Seconded!

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?

Re:How about... (2)

Ellis D. Tripp (755736) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776050)

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?

Re:How about... (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776020)

Those are in his plans, too. Paul especially hates the TSA because he has titanium knees and gets nut-checked every time he flies.

Re:How about... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776064)

He does plan on getting rid of TSA too.

Re:How about... (1)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776102)

I don't know about the BATFE, but I know that the TSA is out in his plan. It'll be privatized, or, really, returned to the airports and the airlines' responsibilities.

Simple solution (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775916)

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

No more (1)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775942)

warnings about hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis.

Re:No more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776062)

no, private companies would take over those. they've already proven more apt at weather stuff

Re:No more (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776146)

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.

Pretty Sure (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775948)

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.

Re:Pretty Sure (2)

hierofalcon (1233282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776224)

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 (2)

CraftyJack (1031736) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776230)

I had no idea that NOAA, NIST, and USGS operate on such small budgets. Color me impressed.

Efficiency (2)

hierofalcon (1233282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775952)

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.

This is actually not as surprising as it sounds (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775956)

Ron Paul is about less government, so he is realigning money from the government to... I'm not sure, health care?

He is assuming the slack will be picked up by corporate America and independent agencies, or perhaps he wants to offer research grants later?

Either way, not enough information in the article to make an educated opinion on his stance besides it makes him sound like a moron, but it may not be as straight forward as that when you factor in everything. I'd also be interested in seeing department benchmarks to see if these departments are performing as they should, ex. for the longest time NASA was not.

Re:This is actually not as surprising as it sounds (1)

JustSomeProgrammer (1881750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776094)

I sure hope there are other factors. Because I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be the smart candidate.

Re:This is actually not as surprising as it sounds (1, Flamebait)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776148)

Ron Paul is about less government, so he is realigning money from the government to... I'm not sure, health care?

Taxpayers and US debt holders.

He is assuming the slack will be picked up by corporate America and independent agencies

I'd say that's a reasonable assumption to make.

I'd also be interested in seeing department benchmarks to see if these departments are performing as they should, ex. for the longest time NASA was not.

Depends on the benchmark. There's "All government spending is evil!" benchmark, and the "Everytime government spends a billion dollars, an angel gets its wings!" benchmark, which would yield strictly opposite results.

Love this guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775958)

Slash and burn baby! Until the federal budget is cut below current tax revenues we will never dig ourselves out of the hole that democrats have made.

Re:Love this guy (1)

sxpert (139117) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776066)

For the record, the hole was dug by that bloody moron called GWB

Who handles the nukes then? (4, Insightful)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775978)

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

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

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775986)

For everyone posting above, do you really think it is the job of government to provide these services? Put them in the private sector where they can be run efficiently.

Re:Huh? (2)

unimacs (597299) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776218)

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.

Wow, he saves $12 billion, so 1% less deficit.... (2)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 2 years ago | (#37775988)

Yeah, that 1% really does a whole lot.

Re:Wow, he saves $12 billion, so 1% less deficit.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776160)

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

Re:Wow, he saves $12 billion, so 1% less deficit.. (1)

Theolojin (102108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776228)

Yeah, that 1% really does a whole lot.

I know this is /. but the article does state that eliminating this spending is part of a trillion dollars in cuts in his first year. Five departments would be eliminated entirely while several more would be greatly reduced in size. So, yeah, twelve billion isn't a lot, but a thousand billion is.

Re:Wow, he saves $12 billion, so 1% less deficit.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776254)

It does do a lot. That's how compounding works. It's incredibly dumb, but would save a lot of money in the long term.

A Realistic Look at What America Can Afford (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775990)

We should all have trouble sleeping knowing that a trillion dollars in budget cuts won't eliminate the deficit.

Nokia T7 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37775994)

Nokia T7 [nokia.usa.cc]

Where is his defence cuts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776004)

His defence cuts were main reason I was thinking of supporting him. There are no base closures in this. No cuts in R&D. His plan state we would hold defence spending where it is after ending the wars. That sucks. Thats not what he has been promosing. Way to roll over Ron Paul.

Re:Where is his defence cuts? (1)

sglider (648795) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776086)

*No base closures*? You mean, except all of our overseas bases? With all those troops home, we're probably going to need all the bases we have open right now in the Continental US.

Re:Where is his defence cuts? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776212)

How about laying off all the mercenaries? It's not like they have tenure, is it?

Still no mention of military spending (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776006)

The Department of Energy manages the nation's power supplies, the Department of Commerce collects taxes, the Interior governs our damn national parks and the immense stretches of government-owned land along with all our environmental efforts, the Department of Education mandates school curriculum and is perhaps the only way social mobility even exists, let alone educated poor (free lunches etc.), weather forecasting would be impossible without NOAA, and neither would our current understanding of climate change, without NIST our clocks wouldn't run on time and our industry would not have any baseline standards, and without the USGS, well, we'd have no idea what our natural resources look like--or our flood risk, earthquake data, and so on.

Without government spending a great many things that people take for granted would disappear and the world would become a much more unpleasant place.

Re:Still no mention of military spending (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776236)

The Department of Energy manages the nation's power supplies, the Department of Commerce collects taxes, the Interior governs our damn national parks and the immense stretches of government-owned land along with all our environmental efforts, the Department of Education mandates school curriculum and is perhaps the only way social mobility even exists, let alone educated poor (free lunches etc.), weather forecasting would be impossible without NOAA, and neither would our current understanding of climate change, without NIST our clocks wouldn't run on time and our industry would not have any baseline standards, and without the USGS, well, we'd have no idea what our natural resources look like--or our flood risk, earthquake data, and so on.

When you put it that way, his spending cuts do make a lot of sense. After all, most of these with the exception of the regulatory stuff and tax collection, can be done by the private world.

Nice (2)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776022)

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.

Re:Nice (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776144)

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.

Ron Paul... (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776028)

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... (4, Funny)

Theolojin (102108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776262)

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*.

TANSTAAFL (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776036)

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

If you as an individual value these departments so greatly, you should ask who to make the check out to. Just don't ask me to split the bill, I brought my own lunch.

I like Ron Paul (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776042)

I like Ron Paul's stance on many things, bringing the troops home, non-interventionalism and auditing/ending the fed. I am wondering though if he cuts these departments if aspects of these programs might be allocated somewhere else? I am pro science, but I am also pro balanced budget, less government intrusion and stopping the government overextension. Ron Paul is also unlike any of the other candidates in that he explains himself instead of parroting buzz words and playing to the public's emotions.

Umm how about (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776052)

How about getting rid of TSA, DHS, and cutting the military spending budget by something meaningful?

Why is federal spending the only way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776056)

...and is being bound to a government teat really best for science? Is that how we want the future to unfold?

I think pulling all that stuff from the federal government would be a good thing. If it's really important to you, form a research non-profit and build up a private endowment for the sort of reasearch you want done. It will be more independent, and less likely to be abused, cut, or jerked around like a doggie toy next time a GWB or BHO is in office.

Slashdot = CNN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776060)

Wow i didnt realize that slashdot was a liberal mouth peice. Get bought by turner?

I can almost sympathize... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776072)

I kind of understand the reasoning behind this. I know more about Canadian public service departments, but it's probably similar in the USA.

It's not uncommon knowledge that there are many departments which appear on the surface to have legitimate purposes are very far from actually doing anything useful. There are departments where some 80% of workers come in, work for some 1 hour a day, and generally just forward emails around in an attempt to push their work onto who they think should be doing it, who, of course, in turn pushes that email onto someone else.

You could easily axe 80% of the personnel from such departments just by hiring competent people and giving them the training and authority to actually do things themselves.

These departments may not be completely useless, but if they are horrendously bloated and consist primarily of cushy fabricated jobs, they they still could be 90% useless.

Imagine a society where most people actually worked while at work! I'm not sure what would happen to the hopelessly incompetent people who tend to end up in government jobs though in such a society.

Overall it's a very tricky problem to solve.

Should work fine.. (1)

greywire (78262) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776076)

.. as long as he doesn't cut the military budget.

We'll need the army when the american people revolt and martial law is instituted.

Ron Paul is god dammed retard!!! (1)

r0k3t (1142151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776080)

Ron Paul is god dammed retard!!!

Typical Libertarian Naivete (4, Insightful)

mathmathrevolution (813581) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776088)

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 (1)

CadentOrange (2429626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776170)

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.

As a reformed libertarian, I whole heartedly concur.

Over the top campaign promise (1)

ddd0004 (1984672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776106)

This sounds like some over the top plan a'la Ross Perot, but in reality there is no way something like this would happen. This wholesale closure would be nixed by Congress, but a moderated plan to review and reduce needless functions would make perfect sense.

It would kill Boulder, Co. (1)

scum-o (3946) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776122)

NOAA and NIST have huge headquarters in Boulder, Co. Cutting these departments would affect Boulder in a *huge* way - much like GE's pull-out of Michael Moore's home town devastated that town.

Re:It would kill Boulder, Co. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776234)

whatever, I'm sure all of the out of work engineers, meteorologists, and scientists can find work manicuring buds for the local cannabis club.

Political chat on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776126)

I forget most of you are big government, possibly one world government supporters, so fending for yourself or attempting to save money doesn't mean much to you.

How's that Obama sticker holding up on the back of your car? Faded out yet?

So, he wants a 19th Century economy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776130)

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

Still a drop in the lake of the US debt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776172)

Total debt is 10 trillion around, structural debt is around 1 trillion a year and he wants to cut very necessary services for a total of 11.35 billion dollars in savings.

More people out of work and less people to make sure companies and educators are doing what they are suppose to be doing. The multiple effect of these people going out and spending money. More strain on unemployment benefits. What is the value of educating people to work? Whats the value of being able to predict the weather? Or warn people about Hurricanes, Tornadoes, etc? I mean I guess your fellow citizen can call you when a Tornado is on the way much better the NOAA.

All for a 10% reduction in the annual debt and no means of lowering of the total debt already incurred.

I thought Ron Paul has some good points, then he does something as dumb as this. BRILLIANT!!!!

It is a start. (2)

Beer_Smurf (700116) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776184)

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.

knee-jerk (4, Insightful)

starmonkey (2486412) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776190)

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? (2)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776214)

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

Duplicated departments (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776238)

The Feds have duplicated many functions of the states - education, health, research and many other things do not belong in the federal government.

Don't forgot: Ron Paul is a fucking moron (0)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776256)

Oh, and a racist. So, about that . . . um, fuck Ron Paul.

Why not ... (4, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37776258)

... 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.

Link to actual Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776290)

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

Graphs and everything.

this is fact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776296)

in order for our current system to continue to function we will need to dramatically increase taxes on all individuals and dramatically decrease spending in all aspects of government.

this is not partisan, this is reality.

Even Simpler Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37776308)

Axe the department of defense...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>