2 votes

Cut 5 Departments? I'd keep 5 (and create 1)!

Sort of a side topic, in my "Federalist Platform" I organize all the executive responsibilities under 5 departments (State, Defense, Treasury, Justice, and Interior) and a newly created Department of Welfare.


What do you all think?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

All of your work is for naught as long as you hold on to that

"Welfare" department and Socialist Security.

Retirement, if someone wants it, is for each individual to provide for themselves. Just like it is their responsibility to provide everything else in life for themselves.

Individual States may decide such fiscally questionable and doomed to fail policies, but certainly they are NOT within the purview of the national government.

I think there is a reason why even Dr. Paul made those last cut

Dr. Paul made things like School Food programs, SS and Medicare, last priority to cut, or transition out.

I think a optional health-care system and a senior stipend that has to come out of corporate taxes or public banking revenues is a huge reform over the current system. National retirement and health-care are a huge staple of our society, people have already bought in and are dependent. We need to empower individuals to remove themselves from these programs, but at the same time, work with what we have to deal with.

Cut the wars and corporate welfare, end the interest that goes to the Fed, and end the personal income tax and all payroll taxes. Refine the goals and create a Welfare department to handle those that are dependent.

However, the point of my article is to say then, well, you aren't interested in the "Welfare" aspects of that platform but are interested in the rest? Then let's work on those positions and forget the parts that aren't something we can work on together.

Jack Wagner

There is a difference between saving it for later to abolish and

institutionalizing it even further - which is what you advocate.

And I disagree with Dr. Paul on his economic plan / budget.

I take more to his advice that government is causing major market dislocations and lots of pain by meddling where it shouldn't.

His prescription is to take the medicine of market corrections and then the problems will be sorted out faster and in a less painful fashion.

He should heed his own advice on this with respect to any government program that has no business existing, most especially SS et al.

Abolishing the Federal program doesn't mean the States wouldn't step up with their own transition solutions to ease the pain. (not that such is any more correct or proper, but at least it would be "politically feasible")

I'm also not keen on how you intend to fund it.

But I'll take a look at the rest.

We'll have to disagree on the Welfare department for now.

Institutionalization vs. Proper Amendments

I like the point you made about institutionalizing. I assume you refer to using the amendment process to make legal any programs like a single-payer system, or a senior stipend. I can see how that is cementing it more legally than it currently is. I'd make a couple points though.

First, it can be abolished in the same manner.

Second, by making it legitimate through law (which I see as respecting the Constitution by at least having the law be legit, whether or not you agree with the program), it makes a proper "repeal amendment" clear and legitimate.

Third, since I don't think we should cut off Welfare tomorrow, and that a lot of these programs will have to at least see through the current peoples' lives that are on them, 30-40 more years of legal gray areas seems to undermine the part of not just the platform I propose, but the Libertarian, Liberty, Ron Paul, platform, of a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Fourth, in case of Health-Care. Notice what I propose is to 1. allow inter-state purchase (lowering costs by opening markets), 2. allowing doctors to compete (lowering costs; opening markets), then 3. allowing the government to negotiate price with insurance companies to cover the participants of a public option (lowering prices; keeping a little a bit of the market for public goods). Think of it as the City keeping the parks after cutting sales taxes, income taxes, and business taxes and legalizing marijuana to tax in order to pay for the parks (and schools, and roads).

Fifth, we can work together (Greens, Progressive Democrats, "Socialists", Libertarians, Liberty Republicans) more than we can with the establishment Republicans and Democrats. We need to build a trans-partisan coalition centered around "generalized and precise" principles; such as Peace, Liberty, Freedom.


Jack Wagner