Understanding Ron Paul: Elimination of 5 Departments

 Series By Dan Beaulieu
Twitter

"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"    

–  Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series: 

Understanding Ron Paul




Eliminate Five Departments and Save Taxpayer a Trillion Dollars

Joseph Zrnchik

Before It's News

In every area which our society has decided to make the province of government, or where government itself has decided to intervene, it has distorted the free market, added costs that do not reflect economic reality, excluded competition, established political fiefdoms and created no-bid crony capitalism at great expense to the taxpayer.

Ron Paul has identified this problem and promised to follow his ideological consistent goal of working to allow free market forces to regulate or, where that is not feasible, to place the decision-making and control at lowest level of governmental unit closest to those who are affected by and can provide input into the decisions that impact citizens’ lives.

The five departments Ron Paul has decided to get rid of are Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development along with reasonable cuts in military spending that do nothing to make America more secure, but instead make America less secure because the costs are unsustainable, wasteful, counter-productive or not in the interests of national security.

The Department of Energy held secret meeting prior to the invasion of Iraq, and the D.C. court decided there was no requirement for them to notify the public as to what planning was taking place.  The Department of Energy is being run by oil interests and allows oil corporations -private businesses- to determine the actions of government in manner that promotes the interests of Big Oil.  As more and more corporations form agreements with government behind closed doors or via special interest political contributions, the private individual always ends up suffering from higher prices.  If the market suddenly made feasible an alternative fuel, does anyone believe oil corporations would not work through the Department of Energy to stymie new innovation?

In the Department of Commerce, bigger businesses often lobby for rules and regulations that prevent smaller businesses from being able to compete by stifling competition.  According to former Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher, the Department of Commerce (DOC) is "nothing more than a hall closet where you throw in everything that you don't know what to do with." The General Accounting Office reported that DOC "faces the most complex web of divided authorities" of any government agency, sharing its "missions with at least 71 federal departments, agencies and offices."  This department has a budget of $8 billion and 34,000 employees.  Money via grants are not based on market efficacy, but instead are divvied out according to political considerations that are extremely wasteful.

Everyone says Ron Paul is against education because he wants to get rid of the Department of Education, but this is a lie.  His goal is to leave the maximum amount of money at the local level so that individual school boards can decide how to best run their school without interference from Washington D.C. where bureaucrats devise unfunded mandates and are thousands of miles removed from the challenges a community faces in relation to educating their children.

The Department of the Interior has a budget of $12.2 billion and employs 70,000 employees at 2,400 different locations.  None of the functions of this department are based on the constitution, accordingly, it creates many rules that deny property owners the right to use and develop their property because in some case a gnat that is on the endangered species list has flourished on someone’s property that has been designated a wet land.  If government wants to save a gnat, then the government should be required to pay the landowner and assume ownership as opposed to denying him the use of his land without him any compensation whatsoever.  This is an unconstitutional attack on private property that serves as the basis for a free society in which individual liberty and economic liberty are once again united.

The last department Dr. Ron Paul advocated abolishing is the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  We all remember the individual who dressed as a pimp to get advice from ACORN on how to avoid paying taxes.  Many ACORN employees were paid through HUD.  Their budget is at $100 million and yet they have been unable to provide requested statistical information that shows any program efficacy at all.  With HUD taxpayer money goes to developers who are politically connected, very rich, extremely expensive construction corporations.  Ron Paul is not against public housing, but the way this program is administered and the extent to which it is politically corrupted.  The end result is that less homes are built for the needy and a well-meaning program does nothing more then serve as a means of corporate welfare that helps the rich.

Ron Paul would abolish any federal agency whose powers were not 'enumerated' in the US Constitution. The "enumerated powers" clause of the US Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8 defines the powers of the US Congress. These "enumerated powers" do not authorize the creation of certain federal agencies, specifically the Dept. of Education, HUD, and many others. Ron Paul believes that each federal agency must be looked at through the lens of the enumerated powers clause of the US Constitution, and if that agency is not specifically authorized then it must be abolished.

These departments have been allowed to create regulations that violate the U.S. Constitution, deny due process and destroy individuals’ private property rights.  These agencies stand the objective of law on its head because it leaves employers in the position of never knowing if they are subject to lawsuits because administrative judges interpretation of arcane rules hidden in ever-growing mountains of government regulation.  These rules contain within themselves the full force of law without ever having to stand review of any legislative body.

Without any constraint on government and allowing it to use the Commerce Clause to expand its influence into every facet of human endeavor thereby establishing an excuse for unlimited government, Americans have found they have become poorer and less free.  The decision we now face is unlimited government or an unprecedented role back of government tyranny and abuses.

Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

Follow @transfer_point

Understanding Ron Paul: Mitt Romney's 'FED: A Love Story

 By Dan Beaulieu
Twitter

"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"    

–  Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series: 

Understanding Ron Paul



Mitt Romney's 'FED: A Love Story


If you look at where Mitt Romney receives his campaign finances from, this video should be no surprise. Large Banks caused the mess we're in and Mitt Romney's intimate relationships with these banks are a tell sign that a President Romney would be a continuation of bad monetary policy.





Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

Follow @transfer_point

Understanding Ron Paul: Earmarks

By Dan Beaulieu 
Written by: Regulate the Regulators

Twitter

 "I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"  –  Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series:

Understanding Ron Paul 


In Defense of Ron Paul: Earmarks

Written by: Regulate the Regulators

Many people have brought up Ron Paul's manifold requests for earmarks to be appropriated for his district as evidence of his "hypocrisy." (You can see a list of these requests for 2007 here.) This charge is easily refuted.

First of all, what is an earmark?

Most often, it is pet projects that lawmakers seek for their districts and states. It can include road projects, water and sewer funds, community development grants, military base improvements and grants to local hospitals, universities and nonprofit organizations. 

Earmarks can be tax breaks aimed at a specific company or research grants for a single employer. Such companies often reward lawmakers with campaign cash. In the case of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., it was bribes. (1)

How do they work?

In the case of appropriations bills, there is an application process. Lawmakers fill out forms and say which projects they want the most. Staff and lawmakers scrutinize to make sure everybody's following the rules and to weed out bad ideas. The party controlling the House or Senate gets about 60 percent of the earmarks allocated to each chamber. (1)

Some rice farmers from Congressman Ron Paul's district were in his office the other day, asking for this and that from the federal government. The affable Republican from south Texas listened nicely, then forwarded their requests to the appropriate House committee. It may or may not satisfy their requests in some bill dispensing largesse to agricultural interests. Then Paul will vote against the bill. (2)

Do they increase the budget?

The misconception seems to be that members of Congress put together a bunch of requests for project funding, add them all together and come up with a budget. The truth is, [...] [t]he total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members' requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members' district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. (3)

[...] [C]utting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent. This point cannot be stressed enough because even the writers at the Wall Street Journal do not understand it. After quoting a spokesman from Paul’s office reminding them that earmarks do not directly increase spending, the WSJ reports, "On the other hand, good libertarians should want to start cutting somewhere." Didn’t Paul’s office just point out that cutting earmarks does not cut spending? (4)

The Brookings Institution’s Paul Cullinan, research director of the Budgeting for National Priorities Project [says] [...] that earmarks "might be an allocation issue" rather than a spending issue. And Scott Lilly, a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress, told us that "there’s no evidence that if you took earmarks out, federal spending would go down." (5)

Is Ron Paul a hypocrite?

On net, therefore, the quid pro quo of earmark trading is likely to increase government spending. Yet considering that Dr. Paul always votes "no" on the appropriations bills he requests earmarks for – as his critics concede – he is not involved in this negative aspect of the earmarking process. No amount of earmarks promised to him will convince him to vote "yes" on the bill. (4)

You know, the big issue is the spending. If you don’t like the spending, vote against the bill. (6)

[...] Ron Paul's claim that he is meeting two obligations is a position I wish most people in congress took. He has a duty to represent his district. He also has a duty to protect the constitution. (7)

Are earmarks a large portion of federal spending?

[...] [A]ccording to most estimates, earmarks constitute less than 2 percent of the [2009 Obama Spending Act's] total spending. (8)

Are earmarks bad?

Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. (9)

[...] [I]t is the responsibility of the Congress to earmark. That’s our job. We’re supposed to tell the people how we’re spending the money. Not to just deliver it in the lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it. And then it’s dealt with behind the scenes. [...] Earmarks really allow transparency and we know exactly where the money is being spent. (6)

It's kind of like if your spouse says she's going to the store and will purchase $100 of groceries. You request that she picks up steak for one of the meals. She still spends $100, but you've at least had your say on what you get to eat. Eliminating earmarks takes all of the spending decisions out of elected officials and puts them in the hands of unelected officials. (10)

[T]he drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. (11)

Do we need earmark reform?

[...] [A]ll members should support efforts to bring greater transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main priority — restricting federal spending by returning the government to its constitutional limitations. (11)

In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better. (12)

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in 2007's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Cutting even a million dollars from an appropriations bill that spends hundreds of billions will make no appreciable difference in the size of government, which is doubtless why politicians and the media are so eager to have us waste our time on [earmarks]. (13)

Read more informative articles from: Regulate The Regulators

Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

Follow @transfer_point

Understanding Ron Paul: The Real Newt Gingrich

By Dan Beaulieu

Twitter

 "I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"  –  Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series:  

Understanding Ron Paul



The Real Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich is a man who represents the problems we face here in America: Self-motivate and corruptible career politicians who vote where the money is. Newt's history is all we need to know he'd be a worse president than Obama is. Newt has a big government, anti-constitution, globalist and socialist agenda.

This in depth video displays Newt biggest flip-flops, scandals and flaws which Obama will absolutely exploit. A vote for Newt is a vote for Obama. (More on why Mitt and Newt cannot win.)

Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

Follow @transfer_point

Understanding Ron Paul: Mitt Romney: Serial Flip-Flopper

By Dan Beaulieu

Twitter

 "I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"  –  Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series:  

Understanding Ron Paul



Flip-Mitt Romney & His Serial Hypocrisy 

The fact that Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on such a large number of issues makes him not only an unrealistic contender versus Obama, but makes him a less than ideal candidate for president. Does America really want a man who changes his views from one extreme to the next at the drop of a dime to be their leader?

This short video displays some of Mitts biggest flip-flops which Obama will absolutely exploit. A vote for Mitt is a vote for Obama. (More on why Mitt and Newt cannot win.)

Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

Follow @transfer_point

Understanding Ron Paul: Iran, Nuclear Threats & Propaganda

 By Dan Beaulieu
Twitter

"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"    

–  Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series: 

Understanding Ron Paul

Ron Paul: Propagandist or Prophet?
by Jeremy R. Hammond
December 24, 2011

Ron Paul is “the best-known American propagandist for our enemies”, writes Dorothy Rabinowitz in a recent Wall Street Journal hit piece. To support the charge, she writes that Dr. Paul “assures audiences” that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 “took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions”. It’s “True,” she writes, that “we’ve heard the assertions before”, but only “rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us”—and, she adds, he doesn’t care about the victims of the attacks.

The vindictive rhetoric aside, what is it, exactly, that Ron Paul is guilty of here? It is completely uncontroversial that the 9/11 attacks were a consequence of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The 9/11 Commission Report, for instance, points out that Osama bin Laden “stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.”

Notice that Rabinowitz doesn’t actually deny that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by such U.S. policies as these. Rather, Ron Paul’s sin is that he actually acknowledges this truth. The fact that other political figures choose to ignore or deny this fact hardly reflects poorly on Dr. Paul. Refusing to bury one’s head deeply up one’s arse, as Rabinowitz is so obviously willing to do, is hardly a character trait to be faulted.

From this position of willful ignorance, Rabinowitz then implores her readers that “a President Paul” would “be making decisions about the nation’s defense, national security, domestic policy and much else.” The conclusion one is supposed to draw is that anyone who could actually acknowledge the ugly truth that 9/11 was a consequence of U.S. foreign policy isn’t fit for office; only someone who is willing to delude him or herself that the U.S. was attacked because “they hate our freedoms” is worthy of the presidency. Anyone who wishes to change U.S. foreign policy is unfit; only a person who is willing to continue the status quo should be allowed a seat in the Oval Office.

Rabinowitz warns that “The world may not be ready for another American president traversing half the globe to apologize for the misdeeds of the nation he had just been elected to lead.” It’s not clear who she has in mind with the “another”, but it’s by now a familiar refrain. “I’ll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don’t care what the facts are,” President George H. W. Bush declared to the world after a U.S. warship had shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in Iranian airspace, killing all 290 passengers aboard, including 65 children. Surely, any president willing to apologize for the murder of innocent children must not lead the nation. The horror of the thought!

(continue reading at www.foreignpolicyjournal.com)

Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

Follow @transfer_point

Understanding Ron Paul: How Ron Paul Would Defend America

 By Dan Beaulieu
Twitter

"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect"    

–  Ron Paul

One thing is certain of Dr. Ron Paul, he is not a sound-bite candidate. That is, he often speaks over the heads of voters which causes a lack of understanding. It is in my personal opinion that Ron Paul cannot be understood in the 30 seconds allocated to him in debates. His ideas must be studied; however, once one does understand Dr. Paul, they often stick around.

For this reason I present to you my series: 

Understanding Ron Paul

Judge Andrew Napalitano and Campaign Blogger Jack Hunter discuss:




Back to Understanding Ron Paul Index

Follow @transfer_point