With the U.S. Federal government ever-encroaching on personal rights and liberties, the pending doom of Keynesian economics, and the threat of perpetual war (including global ignition of WWIII), the “back to the Constitution” and minimal government platform of Presidential candidate Ron Paul resounds like the clarion call of Paul Revere…
But is it true?
First of all – electing Ron Paul to the office of President (for that matter, electing any candidate for any office) is no guarantee that the campaign platform and promises will be implemented. Even if Ron Paul plans to hold true to his promises, he still has to:
- Battle a Congress hostile to his stated goals
- Ensure he conforms to Constitutional limits on the Executive branch and adheres to existing laws. If, in order to implement his proposed changes, he takes even more steps to consolidate or expand the Executive branch’s powers (i.e., Executive Orders), then he is as much a danger to constitutional reform as any previous president.
- Fight the entrenched bureaucracy, private and government unions, corporate interests, and many others who would be negatively impacted by his proposed changes.
- Most importantly, change the perception and expectations of the American public. We’ve become accustomed to the services and “handouts” provided by the Federal government, and many of Ron Paul’s proposed changes eliminate or reduce those.
After being denied Hope and given incorrect Change, the American people need to look more carefully at our candidates for office (any office) before casting their ballots.
Here are the highlights from Ron Paul’s campaign (taken from his website www.RonPaul2012.com), consolidated, then broken down into bite-sized sections and reviewed:
Note: Any discrepancies between the Ron Paul website and text here are mine. Some editing has been made for space purposes, and these changes are in no way meant to misrepresent his platform. I encourage you to read his entire platform on his website.
Federal Budget:
- Cut $1 trillion in spending during the first year of presidency
- Return most other spending to 2006 levels
- Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce
- Slashes Congressional pay and perks
- Curbs excessive federal travel
- Take a personal salary of $39,336
The Congressional pay cuts and lowering the President’s personal salary are pretty easy for the American public to stomach – we’re all a bit tired of Congress voting themselves pay raises while the rest of the country slides into poverty, and the President should set the example…
Regarding the rest of the items:
$1 Trillion Spending Cut
It’s easy to talk about cutting $1 trillion from the Federal budget; heck, it’s even fairly easy to make sure it happens. The difficulties lie in making sure the right cuts are made in the right programs. For longer-term viability, the cost-saving actions should also be documentable and repeatable.
At the top levels, what happens is that the affected Cabinet level department(s) will apply their portion of the spending reduction in a single place (or a few places); usually high-profile programs that will cause a Congressional district to lose a few jobs or otherwise negatively impact someones political career, and the committee to review the cuts will make changes to the allocations by hiding them in future bills…
To make effective, repetitive budgetary changes, the cuts should focus on ways to reduce expenditures across the board – from saving a penny on every black ink pen purchased to saving a million on every jet aircraft (or drone, or tank). Then, the cuts must be protected from “back-door” re-funding in future legislation or Congressional actions.
Where and how will the Federal government (even a reduced government) find cuts at that level? What is Ron Paul’s plan?
Reducing Spending Levels to 2006
Again – where are the cost savings going to come from? With the increase in costs (or, more correctly, the devaluation of the dollar), things cost more than in 2006. How will we absorb the increase of costs and what will be lost?
According to USGovernmentSpending.com, the Federal government spending in 2006 was
- $2.655 trillion total spending
- $248 billion in deficit
- $8.451 trillion gross public debt
In 2011, the Federal government spending was:
- $3.601 trillion total spending
- $1.298 trillion in deficit
- $15.476 trillion gross public debt
That is a $950 billion budget cut, on top of a $1 trillion dollar budget savings (promised earlier), which – unless Ron Paul is counting both of these as the “$1 trillion budget reduction” – reduces the overall budget to nearly 1/3 the current budget. When you factor in the increased debt payments on the current gross public debt (expected to be $241 billion in 2012) it’s even a larger cut in spending.
10% Reduction in Federal Workforce
This plank in the Ron Paul platform sounds as pleasing to the public’s ears as the pay freeze for Congress. 10% fewer bureaucrats, 10% fewer people to stand in the way of your requests, 10% fewer “Federal payroll welfare queens/kings.”
We’ve been through this before – we went through a reduction in the Federal work force during the Clinton/Gore years. The decision was made to reduce layers of management and save on the Federal budget. Worked great short term, but what we find now is we are experiencing a huge turnover of senior management (non-executive level) and we have a shortage of mid and lower-level management to fill the void (Note: I work at a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and we are chronically short-staffed).
Also, what happens when these formerly employed people hit the job market? The Office of Personnel Management at shows a Federal workforce (civilian and uniformed) at 4.443 million employees. A 10% reduction means nearly 450,000 more people searching for jobs, or an additional 3% on the unemployment rate (8.5% as of January 6, 2012). To compare, the highest level of unemployment over the last few years of “recession” was 10.1%.
Again – I agree with and like the “idea” of cutting the Federal workforce and saving some money – but we need to see where the cuts come from, make sure they are taken from the right places, and programs that are not being cut are fully staffed.
Curbs Excessive Federal Travel
Another great-sounding one – perhaps we could start with the junkets and vacations taken by Congress and the White House. 
I’ve been part of several professional organizations, attending related conferences and training seminars around the nation. They are an integral part of career progression, sharing of experiences and solutions (mostly outside of vendors – another sticky issue with the Federal government), and can help their members realize there is another “world” of experience and assistance. Some travel has real benefits!
This is an easy one to talk about, but harder to implement and control (we’ve had this problem for years). We need to find a balance that allows professional association, localizes resources (have “regional” or state meetings instead of national), uses more cost-effective options (tele-conference, PC-based communications, meetings in low-cost locales (OKC would be a great option!) etc.), and also ensures those that attend such conferences are expected to share what they learn when they return to their home station – no more vendor freebie hunters or Federal-travel vacations.
We’ve implemented this solution at the VA Medical Center where I work – when you request travel, you have to provide a list of the classes you attend (and proof of attendance when you return), and you are expected to share what you learned with appropriate staff in the facility. Travel is tightly controlled, and the same person is not allowed to have multiple trips in the same year (exceptions are made for specific reasons).
To be continued!
