 |
| Cruz's logo for the plan to get rid of these five departments |
Cruz’s
point is that the way to get the budget under control requires discontinuing
expenditures for things that aren’t authorized in the Constitution, and combine
that with major tax reform—to a flat tax. That simplification and relief to
businesses would leave more money in the private sector, freed up to be used in
a growing economy.
The way
things are budgeted in Washington is different from your household. In a lot of
ways. One way is that they only look at revenue estimates, not how leaving
money in the hands of citizens will affect the economy. So, in Washington, a
tax cut must be “paid for” to be revenue neutral. You’re supposed to ignore the
Laffer Curve and assume you get less revenue with a lower tax, even when that
is known not to be so.
You do
spur the economy with a tax cut. And you get more taxpayers willing to pay the
tax rather than find tax shelters. So you can get more revenue. But the
government will still have trouble making ends meet if it keeps up the same
spending rates.
The
Spherical Model suggestion all along has been to spend only on what the
Constitution enumerates as part of the federal government. So I’m happy to see
a candidate who agrees, and spells out some of the first steps toward that end.
Cruz
additionally suggests other means of eliminating extra-Constitutional expenditures. But for today’s discussion, we’ll just look at the five biggies
he mentioned in the debate.
Do we need the IRS?
We didn’t have an IRS from
1776 to 1913, when the income tax was instituted. There’s a treasury
department, and revenue comes in somehow. The income tax was sold with a
promise that it would affect only the most wealthy, and would never go above 7%
(the original rate was 1% on income above $3,000 to 7% on income above
$500,000). That promise was thrown out the window within just a few years, when
it suddenly seemed necessary for everyone, and at a rate up to 95%.
So,
anyway, the IRS wasn’t necessary before the income tax. Is it necessary with an
income tax? Not if the law is simple enough, which a flat tax is. You still
need a way to collect the taxes. How do states do it? There aren’t state-level
IRS agencies. What is the mechanism? Probably a revenue department, connected to a
department of the state treasury. There will be codes and forms, and formulas. There’s
no doubt that a state can come up with a way to collect their revenue.
But there’s
no IRS, and particularly no IRS that targets individuals and organizations for
political reasons. And no IRS that can used for either targeting or favoring
various earners.
I can
imagine a country after deleting the IRS, and it looks lovely.
Do we need the Department of
Energy?
The stated
mission, according to the government website, is: “to ensure America's security
and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges
through transformative science and technology solutions.”
So the question is,
what does the Constitution say about energy? That would be nothing. But, then,
gas-powered engines hadn’t been invented at the time, and certainly nuclear
power wasn’t being considered.
But, just
as the IRS generates no income (it merely confiscates it from citizens), the
DOE generates no energy. As for ensuring America’s security, that comes under
the Department of Defense, and possible the State Department through diplomacy.
Does the Constitution require the federal government to ensure prosperity? Not
actually. It does expect the federal government to ensure the right conditions—fair
and consistent laws, standard medium of exchange, for example. But it doesn’t
require the federal government to get involved in energy development or any
other commodity or utility. The government has “volunteered.” It takes our tax
dollars, and distributes billions to companies it decides to favor (remember
Solyndra). It subsidizes, in an attempt to alter the market, rather than
trusting that the market will lead to the greatest innovation and best result
for the people.
The DOE
became a cabinet-level department in 1977. Its purpose was to combine the
Defense purpose of developing nuclear weapons with the possibility of creating
nuclear energy. We used to live near the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington
State—and felt quite safe there. It was part of the DOD when we got there, with
both energy purposes and development of nuclear storage (vitrification was the
main method, still underway I believe). But it was in the conservative corner
of the state, and when Bill Clinton became president, he placed the site under
the DOE. If felt much like the oil industry does when gasoline prices drop
below $2 a gallon: people get laid off, or leave for other opportunities. Those
who stay miss the days of growth, rising pay, and security.
It is
likely that the free market, if not stifled by the DOE, would innovate and
provide all the energy we need—with plenty to export as well.
We would
still have energy—probably more—without the DOE. Let's delete the DOE?
Do we need Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)?
What does
the Constitution say is the federal government’s responsibility related to
providing housing and building urban areas? It’s silent on that too? Hmm.
Did we
have housing before HUD? Well, government-provided housing was a Roosevelt invention in 1937, and became
a cabinet-level department in 1965. We had housing before that, clearly. In
fact, housing is what individuals have built in response to the basic
need for shelter wherever people settle.
The free market is pretty good at providing “affordable”
housing. Intervention, to provide “affordable” housing—as with every other
intervention of the federal government beyond its proper role—causes prices to
remain high. It interferes with supply and demand. Cities with the most
interference tend to have the least affordable housing—putting even relatively
high earners in the category of those who can’t afford housing. Without the
interference, the market would settle the price at what people are willing and
able to pay. What a concept!
So, let’s
delete HUD.
Do we need a Department of
Commerce?
Again, what does
the Constitution say? There is actually a role, referred to as the commerce
clause. It refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which gives Congress the
power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,
and with the Indian tribes.”
So then we
need to know what regulate means.
Back in the day, when the Constitution was written, it was commonly used to
mean made regular, functioning as
expected. A well-regulated clock, for example, would be set to the correct
time, wound up, and allowed to keep accurate time. A well-regulated militia
would be one that had members of the citizenry armed and practiced in their
ability to work together in defense.
So
well-regulated commerce would mean commerce that happens regularly, smoothly,
without hindrances getting in the way. And the federal government was supposed
to make sure that regular free commerce could happen internationally,
interstate, and with Indian tribes.
Unfortunately,
the meaning of regulate has been
twisted over time to mean the government micromanages,
controls, limits, and makes all decisions concerning. So we’re spending
$10B a year to have the government favor cronies around the world.
If we go
back to the original meaning, suddenly there’s no need for a cabinet-level
department. All we need is an expectation of free trade within the United
States, and treaties that lead to free trade abroad.
Deleting
the Commerce Department would mean deleting mounds of red tape, and actually
lead to the free trade the Constitution intended. Press Delete.
Do we need a Department of
Education?
We’ve only
had this department since 1980—under Jimmy Carter, not Reagan, who was elected
that year but didn’t take office until January 1981. Did we have education
before 1980? Yes. I am an example of a student who went through my entire
public school and college education before there was a Department of Education.
Does the
Constitution require the federal government to educate the populace? No. It’s
not mentioned. There are those who can argue that government has an interest,
and therefore a role, in an educated populace. But even those who successfully
argue that viewpoint can’t justify a federal government takeover of something that is a
parental responsibility, possibly aided by local government, or state
government as the least local.
As always
happens when the government steps beyond its proper role, the goal of more
efficiently and effectively educating students is exactly what fails. Scores are
lower. Graduation rates are lower. Preparation for the job force is
compromised. And the cost for this outcome is triple per student what it was
before the Department of Education was created. And lately they make the
fallacious claim that Common Core is a national solution—providing standards
that will improve our educated place in the world. Whenever the federal
government says something like that, you can trust they are heading 180 degrees
in the wrong direction.
The
Department of Education has also stuck their fingers into higher education,
with the purported purpose of making college more affordable. So you know it
would do exactly the opposite. Since its “help” began, the cost of tuition has
increased at a rate 2 ½ times the rate of inflation. If you’re having trouble
with the math, because of your education, that simply means it’s a lot more
expensive to get a college education than when the government stepped in to “help.”
If it were
only money, we could almost forgive the government for being wrong but well
intentioned. But it has overstepped boundaries to impose social engineering. It
tries to force schools to allow biological males into dressing rooms with
underage females. It controls curriculum and accreditation. And it has a
stranglehold on hiring in higher education, so that your young person is at
least three times more likely to hear the opinions of a leftist (i.e., southern hemisphere tyrannist) than a conservative (northern hemisphere freedom lover).
If education is meant to teach students to think, the Department of Education
is meant to force students to think what the government wants them to think.
That’s not education; this is brainwashing.
If you
value education, delete the Department of Education. Return the money and the
decisions to the local level in contact with the actual students, and let the
free market, with its innovation, adjust the price.
So, yes,
let’s select the IRS, DOE, HUD, the Department of Commerce, and the Department
of Education, and press Delete. And then empty the trash bin so they can never
be brought back.
If you’re
wondering how a President Cruz would accomplish this deletion, and how
disruptive or sudden it would be, here’s what he says:
To do that,
I will press Congress relentlessly. And I will appoint heads of each of those
agencies whose central charge will be to lead the effort to wind them down and
determine whether any programs need to be preserved elsewhere because they fall
within the proper purview of the federal government. I do not anticipate lists to
be long.
And in
addition to these big five, which he calls “Five for Freedom,” he’s also
planning on deleting an additional 25 specific agencies, bureaus, programs, and
commissions. And then he’ll look further, and get rid of everything that exists
in defiance of the Constitution—which he has known from memory since his early
teens. He knows the law. And I agree with him that America thrives whenever it
abides by our brilliant, inspired Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment