Getting rid of the Department of Education is supported by conservatives but it is not going to accomplish much in the way of paring down government expenditures.
Most of the government spending is in entitlements and military. About 20% of the budget goes to the military but 9% of that 20% is borrowed. Historically, Americans have always had a government that spends about 20% of its tax revenue on military without significant borrowing. I view that as a good and necessary thing.
Military bases are not so expensive. What is expensive is the procurement of new weapon systems and the maintenance of operating military systems and assets. But then historically Americans have always been willing to pay taxes to have those assets.
Reagan’s 600 ship Navy has already been pared down and GHW Bush pared the military down a lot just before it was decimated by Clinton. Bush the Terrible restored morale but did not launch a Reagan-like expansion.
The military is not the problem, overseas bases are cheap and defense assets are vital. GITMO was a huge savings for detaining terrorists for otherwise the budget for their legal fees alone on the mainland would have rivaled the budgets of some expensive defense procurement programs.
No, the problem with spending is not so much the military as it is entitlements, all the regulation that follows the entitlements and the government union contracts.
For example, just to comply with Medicare regulations, hospitals have to spend a fortune on responding to never ending federal government audits. Audits are good but if there were no Medicare like in the early 60s, then there would be no reason for the federal governmet to be involved, and hence no federal expenditures needed to regulate the medical industry other than interstate commerce law.
Government unions are under fire now as people are waking up to the facts of their large benefits and salaries at taxpayer expense. The federal government unions also show very small improvements in productivity as contrasted with their private sector counterparts.
As for the analogy of the federal government as an obese 800 lb. teenager sitting in our house controlling our life, your remark that Paul’s prescription for the teen to never eat a Twinkie again, this remark misses the point. Whether you tell the Obese teen to not eat so much or lose weight amounts to the same thing. You say these are entirely different things, no they are not. Regardless, you missed the point.
Ron Paul has not done anything or proposed anything concrete that others have not already seen or voiced. IOW Ron Paul is nothing new except for articulating and reminding Americans in an appealing way just what the Founders intended us to have in the way of a federal government. In this sense, Ron Paul was an original Tea Party voice. But his prescriptions fall flat or they are nonexistent. Often his observations are nothing more than “We’re sick and we’d better do something about it.” But he never gets to the ‘what’ is supposed to be done other than cut the twinkies out of the teen’s diet.
That obese 800 lb. teen can stop eating Twinkies and go on a starvation diet, get down to 600 lbs. and then flip out by having a high glycemic 16th Amendment cake with some Federal Reserve frosting and then surge back to 800 lbs. in no time flat.
What is needed is to repeal the 16th, take back money control from the Fed and enact the FairTax. The FairTax will have the analogous effect of getting the obese teen on the scale at a routine interval to see how much weight they have lost and then inquire as to how much they have been eating. Under the FairTax it will be the American taxpayer that observes the teen getting on the scale and if they don’t like the results, they can alter the obese teen’s diet to effect change. As it is now, Americans are not even allowed to see the results of the obese teen’s weigh-in but they can feel the results as the obese teen continues to eat them out of house and home, reaches into their pocket books and takes the cash and credit card etc.
I do agree with much of what you’re saying.
I do think, though, that Ron Paul has been plenty specific about the cuts to be made. He too, of course, wants to end the Fed, as you seem to. End the Fed, and audit the Fed, and audit the Gold, are among Ron Paul’s signature issues. I could do a google search and find various specifics about what agencies he’d want to do away with, etc if you want.
You’ve said that Ron Paul is “nothing new”. That’s partially right on the money. Back in the day, Ron Paul would’ve been considered a typical conservative. Back in the day, Ron Paul’s positions were fairly standard, mainstream positions. A lot of politicians back then were saying things that Ron Paul is saying now.
But, today, Ron Paul is the only one saying these things. Refreshingly Retro, to use the Pepsi Throwback slogan.