Why ? Was the synopsis provided deficient in some manner ?
... freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels ...
... drastically reducing spending elsewhere.
... EPA ... a 30 percent cut,
... the Food and Drug Administration ... 40 percent
... foreign aid ... zeroed out immediately.
... an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.
Medicaid, the children’s health insurance program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would all be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.
... (SS) plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”
The federal workforce ... reduced by 10 percent,
president’s pay ... cut to $39,336 — ...
... — $1 trillion in cuts,
block-granting some big entitlements,
creating a Social Security opt-out: ...
.... For all my reservations about Ron Paul, he does a real public service by reminding conservatives that, while we are rightly hesitant about radical proposals, tinkering around the edges is not going to get it done in the long term. The age of unpleasant choices is upon us.
Granted - the proposal shows some 'major' tinkering around the edges - it does not go far enough.
When I see a proposal to reduce the Federal Government to LESS THAN 30% (ie. a minimum 70% reduction) of it's current size - then I will be interested in reading the details of the plan.
Like I said - I like the 'short term' goal - but WITHOUT the LONG TERM GOAL (ie. less than 8 years) as stated above - there isn't a hope in hell.
| 
