From a friend’s facebook wall:
Liberal: In Ron Paul’s America there would be no FEMA for Texas tornado victims, no Medicare for the elderly, no federal money for highways, no national standards or dollars for education, and no environmental protections at all. Most folks think those are some pretty good things and don’t take away our Liberty.
Jason: Jim, I think if we are going to continue to survive as a country we have to really change our mind about what government should and should not be doing. I encourage you to at least look at the arguments and citing of sources below.
Folks may think the idea of helping people are good things, which they are. But the automatically accepted idea (by some) that the Federal Government is the best way to handle all of these things is just wrong. No society in history has ever continued to prosper under an overspending, ballooning Federal Government.
FEMA: I had some friends that had some property loss in the recent Tornados in the Dallas area. They haven’t gotten anything from FEMA. Most of them would rather have their taxes reduced by that amount and go through their insurance companies, than pay money into a Federal system that might graciously give you back 0.5% of what you paid into it. Remember the disastrous way that FEMA handled Hurricane Katrina? They actually were turning away donations that were not FEMA sanctioned. I was involved in volunteering at a Katrina shelter in Dallas, TX that had no FEMA handouts. Everything was donated by the state of Texas and the residents. So many people donated items; they actually had to start sending the donations elsewhere. Dr. Paul is right on target… FEMA should go.
Medicare for the Elderly: 95% of the people I talk to that are on Medicare despise it. They are forced into it because if they don’t play along, they won’t get their social security benefits that they paid into for so many years. They are restricted on what type of care that they can receive and get shuffled to the back of the line due to government red tape, authorization, and paperwork. Not to mention the government is going to soon run out of money to fund 100% of the scheduled recipients. They would have much more prosperity if they didn’t have to pay all of these taxes their whole life and instead invest in a private insurance program that would meet their needs. A good example is when Galveston County, TX opted out of the SS program in the 1980’s. Elderly people had a double (and up to) triple the rate of return versus Social Security. There were no taxes to increase and they weren’t forced into a limited government run health care to get their benefits. This is Dr. Paul’s argument.
Saying Paul would abolish Federal funding for highways is an incorrect statement. Our fuel taxes are collected through the Department of Transportation. This is not on the list of the 5 Unnecessary Federal Departments that Paul wants to end. He doesn’t like that we get taxed on our fuel by the Feds and then only have a percentage of it given back to the states with strings attached, while creating a huge unproductive bureaucratic department that wastes many of our hard earned dollars. They end up spending a lot of this on other things besides transportation many times.
National Standards / Dept. of Education: Dr. Paul certainly wants to abolish this and for very good reason. In many states, most public schools get the majority of their operating funds from state taxes, not federal. Sure there are some federal programs and some poor schools that are propped up by the Feds, but that is the exception. Since the Feds have been involved we now have an 82% failure rate of public schools in regards to standards, thanks to their “one size fits all” solution. Look at the schools in the Dept. of Education’s own back yard (Washington), they are some of the most deplorable in the nation. The only helpful thing that I can see that the Dept. of Education does is provide student loans. That can be done through a private bank. They have failed us. The expense of this huge government department is not worth the low amount of returns citizens receive. The states can manage just fine without it.
Federal EPA: Certainly this department needs to go. They have failed to protect us from true dangers and do nothing but eat up federal dollars. Don’t assume that if the Federal program goes away that there would be no protections. Take your state (IL) for example, it has its own agency (I.E.P.A) that handles everything from air quality to water standards. You’re already paying state taxes for it, so why have a federal one as well? Stricter state laws make it much easier to take a polluting company to court and impose criminal and civil fines. Under the Bill of Rights, Tenth Ammendment, each state has the right to determine how lenient or strict that they want to be. This is good because you don’t get an ineffective, bloated federal agency.
If we really do still have all this liberty (like you say), then…
Why can citizens be arrested without trial or charge and held indefinitely under the NDAA if only accused terrorist activities? This completely does an end run around the Constitution.
Why is there legislation to censor the internet like SOPA? Sure it failed, but have you noticed there is a new bill out now referred to as CISPA that will do the same thing? They are going after the internet with a vengeance.
Why are dairy farmers being arrested for selling raw milk to informed citizens that wish to consume it?
Why did the supreme court rule that if you are ever arrested even for a minor crime like expired drivers license that you can now be stripped search (body cavity and all) without any warrant, oversight, or probable cause?