Ron Paul's Budget Proposal

Ron Paul published his budget proposal.  From what I understand, he's not polling in a way that makes him a viable candidate for the Republican nomination, but his budget proposal is a template for what Libertarians like to see.  It raises some interesting questions to discuss.

The high level on his budget plan: Deregulate, shrink government, lower taxes, cut the power of the federal reserve.  I think there are a lot of people who see this plan, and think "what's not to like?"

Do you like Salmon?  Do like hiking in the woods occasionally?  Have you ever visited a National Park?  How about that tax break for installing new windows, or high efficiency appliances?  Do you invest in stocks in your 401(k) or IRA?  All of these would be at risk.

RP would eliminate the department of the interior, department of energy, department of commerce, department of education, and the department of housing and urban development.  The EPA is another favorite target of conservatives.  These departments are responsible for our national parks service, fisheries and hatcheries, regulation of logging practices, publishing of economic statistics, energy policies, mining regulations, the list goes on and on.

Also RP would repeal pretty much all financial regulations.  Every regulation of corporate and financial controls that has been put in place since the collapse of Enron and WorldCom, not to mention the collapse that occurred in 2008/2009 would be taken off the books.  This would encourage unethical behavior at US corporations, and after a lot of people have their money stolen, there would probably be a large scale contraction of the public market for US corporate equity.  People will look for greater returns in other countries whose governments do have significant regulation of financial controls and reporting, which would put the US at a disadvantage.  The cost of capital for US corporations would be higher than in other countries, and RP's 15% corporate tax rate probably wouldn't be low enough to compensate.

He also joins the movement of people who want to continue paying social security to seniors while allowing young people to opt out of paying into social security.  The only way he manages to do this is by cutting out every federal protection for the environment, the poor, food and drug quality, center for disease control, etc.  Yay, what a win!  Now Grandpa has the resources to walk down the crumbling sidewalk to buy his food laced with unregulated industrial toxins that is devoid of all informational labeling.  It'll be just like the good old days when 5 year old children worked in factories for 80 hours a week.

The traditional Libertarian response is that if people care enough, then they will be willing to pay for these things, and private business will fill the void.  I just don't think this is realistic.  The health of our environmental and the existence of a variety of animal species is a public good.  The perception that when you buy a share of stock in GE or Apple, that their financial statements are accurate and comparable to other companies has a public goods component as well.  The market will NOT step in to provide those things, and individual citizens or groups of citizens are powerless to force these things, except, perhaps, by electing representatives who will.