Posted on 08/15/2014 4:19:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This week, the Heartland Institute offered up a modest proposal: Eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency's 15,000-person staff, move the headquarters from Washington to Topeka, Kan., and reload it with 300 state delegates.
The policy brief from the libertarian think tank that promotes climate skepticismwritten by Heartland science director Jay Lehris something of a dream scenario for tea partiers and other conservatives, who would like a smaller government and a chance to wipe clean EPA's federal regulations. Lehr writes that "incremental reform of EPA is simply not an option," hence his proposal for a "Committee of the Whole" made up of state delegates that could slash 80 percent of EPA's budget.
It's hardly the first time conservatives have proposed trimming the government with an ax rather than pruning shears. Plenty of departments big and small have found themselves on the hypothetical chopping block for total elimination. Here's a look at some of the proposals to clear out the Cabinet room.
Note: The buzzkills at the Congressional Budget Office said in a 2013 report that eliminating entire departments may not yield savings. "At best," CBO wrote, "simply transferring programs to another department might reduce administrative support costs, but in most cases, such costs are much smaller than the costs of direct program activities."
1. Commerce Department: An easy target for those hunting federal-department game, Commerce is always in someone's sights. In 1995, the Department of Commerce Elimination Act cleared a committee in the Newt Gingrich-led House, and a 1996 nonbinding budget resolution that passed both chambers also called for eliminating the department. Under the 1995 bill, trade programs would have been consolidated under a new "Office of Trade," while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would be parceled out to agencies like the Interior Department or Fish and Wildlife Service.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
Others on the list:
Education Department
Energy Department
Interior Department
Agriculture Department
Housing and Urban Development Department
Transportation Department
Interior Department
Labor Department
Homeland Security Department
Council of Economic Advisers
Small Business Administration
CLICK ABOVE LINK TO READ THE REASONS AS TO WHY WE CAN DO WITHOUT THEM.
Simple, if it isn’t part of the 18 enumerated powers of congress, then it’s gone.
Isn’t going to happen.
Define the interstate commerce clause as it should have been, and almost everything Federal goes away.
For good measure, repeal the 16th amendment and watch the states reassert their power.
The very first step is to crush the unions, without that none of the rest is possible!
RE: Define the interstate commerce clause as it should have been
Whose definition should take precedence?
Interstate commerce should be defined as the actual exchange of goods or services that crosses state lines, nothing else. Presently interstate commerce is considered anything that might influence the stream of interstate commerce, that is, everything. Thus since what a pizzeria pays its delivery drivers influences how much it can pay for the cheese it buys from another state it is considered interstate commerce. This is the basis for federal minimum wage laws and other regulations on purely local businesses.
The feral govt could be reorganized into 18 departments, and rather than naming them, they should be numbered... according to the order in the Constitution. Department 1, Department 2, and so on.
That sends the message for later that if some statist wanted to add a 19th department, he damn well better get an amendment first.
Its not like we are defining the meaning of tea leaves. The original debate and intent is quite clear. The intent was to prevent the application of tariffs to commerce between the states. In what universe does that morph into a Department of Education?
Thanks, ping for recollection.
I guess we can dream.
And let’s take the 13th Amendment for what it truly says.
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States”
Slavery is not banned. It is merely regulated. But lawmakers are too cowardly to institute it.
I think first dibs on that goes to the author, James Madison:
Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. Letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829.
Good, and needed thread.
This is FYI for Governor Rick Perry, in case he’s reading this and planning to ran for POTUS again :)
Slash the CBO budget by 85%.
I doubt this gets much notice but did you know that USDA mpw underwrites loans for non-farm properties, as in houses in subdivisions, in “certain” designated rural areas? E.g. a house on a street on a lot of less than one acre in Goldsboro, North Carolina.
ZERO down.
Just wrong.
But it's so much easier to be a naysayer, isn't it? You don't have to actually do anything.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I agree that incremental reform is not an option. The EPA needs to be wrestled to the ground and a stake driven in its heart. Then rinse and repeat for the Dept of Energy and Education just to start.
Rinos and middle of the road Republicans should investigate the libertarian agenda with an open mind. There are different flavors of libertarianism. My pick is the one that created this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpO-WBz_mw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.