Re: solutions

Doesn't this make him the only candidate that has a plan on paper??

On Oct 17, 9:31 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Ron Paul Set to Unveil a $1 Trillion Budget
> Cut<http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/17/ron-paul-set-to-unveil-a-1-tri>
>
> Matt Welch <http://reason.com/people/matt-welch> | October 17, 2011
>
> [image: He'll cut you]Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) today "will lay out a budget
> blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the
> elimination of five cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American
> troops fighting overseas," *Politico* is
> reporting<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html>.
> The $1 trillion in cuts aims to balance the budget within three years.
> Details:
>
>  Many of the ideas [...] [include] tea party favorites like eliminating the
> departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he'll propose
> immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006
> levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal
> budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30
> percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent
> and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He'd also take 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.
>
> [image: B-b-b-b-ut -- we've already cut to the bone!]And in a noticeable nod
> to seniors during an election year when Social Security's become an issue
> within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan "honors our
> promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt
> out."
>
> The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president's
> pay would be cut to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is
> "approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker."
>
> Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing
> the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains
> and dividends taxes, and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital
> without tax penalties.
>
> Whole thing here <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66114.html>.
> Needless to say, this is quite different from politics as it is currently
> practiced<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020477460457663135006150...>
> .
>
> Read *Reason* economics columnist Veronique de Rugy on how cutting spending
> is the most effective
> way<http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/29/the-facts-about-spending-cuts>
> to
> reduce deficits and debts, then check out her (and Nick Gillespie's) "19
> Percent Solution<http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/14/the-19-percent-solution>"
> for bringing sanity back into federal budgeting.
>
> Reason on Ron Paul here <http://reason.com/topics/ron-paul>. Thanks to
> commenter
> Joe M<http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/17/reason-morning-links-bitcoin-v#comm...>
> for
> the link.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.