Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
...
No, but he's a spokesman for everything big government how much better government performs the bigger it is.
|
Thanks for making me a spokesperson, but at least get it right....I have never said anywhere that "the bigger government, the better". You misrepresented the "general welfare" clause and FDR's "stacking the court" and now you are misrepresenting me.
I have said that it is in the best interest of the citizens and the states that some functions like regulating the environment, the workplace, food and drugs, securities and banking, the civil rights of citizens, etc....are best performed by the federal government. That doesnt it mean it cant be more efficient.
Clinton/Gore had the right idea with their
National Partnership for Reinventing Government . They eliminated 250+ outdated government programs, slashed more than 160,000 pages of regulations, cut more than 640,000 pages of internal rules, and (with a Repub Congress) balanced the federal budget for the first time in 30 years. They just didnt have the balls to follow through and do more because of a lack of support from the Repub Congress and external (ie lobbyists) pressures. All the more reason for serious campaign finance reform, which Ron Paul opposes.
Ron Paul's arguments that these federal government functions are unconstitutional are false. His "states rights" argument that these are state mandated responsibilities in the Constitution is also false and would result in the ultimate in inefficiencies and inequities. And his argument that industry/private property owners make better self-regulators is simply absurd...with no basis in fact anytime in US history.
He is an extremist who wants to return to a 19th century federal government in a 21st century world.
Again, all of which explains why he has no mass appeal and is stuck at low single digits in the polls.