No he can't.
He could eliminate the heads of those from his Cabinet if he wanted, but the fundamental basis of those Agencies and the annual funding that keeps them going is in the hands of Congress, not the President.
I'd like to know the finer details. Of course there'd be a massive mandate if Paul won, most weaselly Senators blow in the direction of the wind.
Regardless, that's his plan.
Spending Cuts
eliminate 5 cabinet-level agencies (Education, Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development)
privatize the FAA and the TSA
cut the federal workforce by 10%
cut funding (down from 2006 levels) for the
- Food and Drug Administration by 40%
- Centers for Disease Control by 20%
- Department of Homeland Security by 20%
- National Institutes of Health by 20%
- Environmental Protection Agency by 30%
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration by 20%
cut the Department of Defense budget by total 15%; eliminate all foreign war funding
freeze funding for most other federal agencies at 2006 levels
eliminate all foreign aid
eliminate international drug programs
substantially reduce foreign travel
eliminate international organizations and commissions
administer Medicaid and other joint federal-state social welfare programs (SCHIP, food stamps, etc) through block-grant funding mechanisms to the states
I find this highly unlikely.
No dept is going to get away with ordering huge quantities of non-disposable syringes costing $350 each without a valid reason.
They had a reason. Their syringes were used to inject a miniscule amount of radioactive I125 labeled protein. Which is easily washed off with .... OMG..... "H2O" and safely diluted into the sink :shrug:
People piss higher concentrations in their urine when they're treated with I125 for thyroid problems.
No, I'm both free and moral and I don't support either.
In fact you have shown no plausible way you can have a Federal Govt and no Income tax and an agency to collect it.
I disagree.
IMO you can't
morally use violence to take a persons income who has done nothing to you. The use of force is immoral unless in self defense. This is why I said earlier, it's only the government that can initiate force legally.
Anyway, just think about it logically. Suppose you caught some fish. Suppose a group of people didn't catch as many. Maybe they'd like your fish. Do you think they have the moral right to beat you up and take your fish? That doesn't make sense.
That seems
moral to you? :bugeye:
At the end of the day governments are just groups of people. Groups of people don't get a pass on morality just because they're a group. It's still not moral to rape a woman, just because you can gather up a group of guys all saying it is. It's still not moral :shrug: You can dress a human in a blue suite, give him a title, and pretty sticker, and he's still acting immoral if he initiated violence against you and steals your stuff.
AND, sadly, on top of income tax, we also have the Federal Reserve immorally inflating the currency - which is, when your trapped using the USD, another means to steal from you.
I suppose it really depends on what sort of society you can see yourself living in. If you think the one you're living in now is a good one, vote for Obama or Mitt, if not, then vote for Paul or someone who might actually try and change things. IMO, it's that simple.
Oh, and you're not "free" just try choosing not to pay your income tax or property tax or State tax or any number or taxes - you'll find out it's not the same as choosing not to buy an iPhone. Very different scenarios. At the end of the day, all of this is really just interactions with other humans.
Why would anyone think it bright to give some of those humans the legal right to initiate violence for your peacefully choosing not to give them your wealth? What can you do with your wealth? You could hoard it, but then you don't get to enjoy it. Also, if we had competing currencies, your hoarding probably won't matter. You can invest it. That seems reasonable and good for society so long as it's for peaceful purposes. You can loan it out. That's also reasonable. You could spend it. Well, that's supporting the economy.
Why on earth would you want to give it to some dip-shit in the government who couldn't make in the "real" world and let them decide what to do with your wealth? That just doesn't make much sense. Oh, sure, if you want to do so, YOU can. But, I don't think you can decide that for other people. And I'm positive you can't morally take from other people.
