Cookie Control

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

Some cookies on this site are essential, and the site won't work as expected without them. These cookies are set when you submit a form, login or interact with the site by doing something that goes beyond clicking on simple links.

We also use some non-essential cookies to anonymously track visitors or enhance your experience of the site. If you're not happy with this, we won't set these cookies but some nice features of the site may be unavailable.

By using our site you accept the terms of our Privacy Policy.

(One cookie will be set to store your preference)
(Ticking this sets a cookie to hide this popup if you then hit close. This will not store any personal information)

"Are GOP Pledges To Nix Agencies Undoable?"

As GOP primary candidates compete with claims over who can destroy more US government agencies, a small problem arises: they could not do what they promise.



"Republican presidential candidates are promising to save taxpayers a buck by turning entire government agencies into dust.

The familiar conservative rallying cry is met with almost universal skepticism from anyone who's seen the wreckage from past bungled attempts to ax big bureaucracies like the Education, Commerce and Energy departments.

But with a $15 trillion federal deficit and evidence of agency overlap — remember President Barack Obama's State of the Union wisecrack about salmon regulators? — GOP candidates led by Ron Paul and Rick Perry are seemingly in competition to out promise each other.

Paul's 'Big Dog' ad shows mushroom clouds bursting over animated images of the five agencies he'd eliminate in his first year in office: Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development. A macho-sounding narrator reminds voters that the Texas congressman's pledge would save $1 trillion — 'That's trillion with a T!' before concluding, 'Later, bureaucrats. That's how Ron Paul rolls.'

Paul's website also says he would 'eliminate the ineffective EPA' because 'polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create — not to Washington.'"

Darren Samuelsohn reports for Politico December 27, 2011.

 

Source: Politico, 12/29/2011