Ron Paul: get rid of the Department of Homeland Security

[CTLawGuy]

I think he doesn't know which party he's in...

[Error]

1. ding ding

shut that guy up!

[MADem]

2. Well, actuallly that was the ORIGINAL GOP position....

Georgie wanted DHS to just be an "office" out of the WH, easily controlled, no oversight. The Congress insisted that if they were gonna fund it to the levels that Porgie wanted, it had to be a cabinet level job.

[pinkpops]

3. I believe it was Leiberman who suggested it. I agree with Ron Paul

The Homeland Security thing is a little much for me.

[MADem]

7. My point is simply that BUSH didn't want it in the cabinet, subject to advise/consent

He wanted the job to be like a Rove-thug. See this exchange for some "history" on how BushCo wanted to keep it:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/03/wh032002.html

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, testimony is reserved for Cabinet secretaries, for operational officers of the United States government to go up before the multitude of committees that Congress has, to explain their budgets, to explain their operational programs. That's what Cabinet secretaries' responsibility is, under the Constitution and under good government, to do for the Congress.

Presidential aides, presidential advisors, are in a different capacity and a different context. They talk to members of Congress all the time, often on the phone with members with Congress. But it is not their job to go up in sworn testimony, as it is the job of Cabinet officials. So the information is flowing, the information is flowing freely. It's just that Congress, as congresses do, always wants more.

Q: So he can go talk to them, but he just wouldn't be a sworn witness in the same way that a Cabinet secretary would?

MR. FLEISCHER: Testimony before a congressional committee is not the purview of the Homeland Security Advisor, the National Security Advisor, the Counsel to the President, the Chief of Staff to the President. They're White House staff. They traditionally have not been asked to go up and testify. This is a dramatic break with the way Congress usually does its business.

Q: So not sworn and not before a committee, is that it?

<...>

Q: Ari, to follow up on some of Jim's questions, where is the oversight over the expenditures of the Homeland Security Director?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, the Homeland Security Director does not have expenditures other than his immediate office here in the White House, just like any other aide to the President has funds to oversee his immediate staff. The people who have operational oversight and who have actual money in the billions to spend are the Attorney General, is FEMA, the government agencies that have the operational responsibility for homeland security. The Attorney General's office, the various border agencies, all those are the entities that are tied into homeland security. It's kind of like asking if Dr. Rice controls the defense budget. She doesn't, Defense does, and that's why Defense testifies on the Hill. Same thing with Governor Ridge.

[babylonsister]

4. I think it's a fantastic idea; they suck, haven't worked, run by sycophants

who don't know what the hell they're doing, etc. We need some new brains in this country; the ones in charge don't work.

[BlackHawk706867]

5. I agree, get rid of it.. Anyone tell what they have done that is positive since their inception? ww

[Canuckistanian]

6. I've never understood why it was needed

You've got the FBI to track and hunt down criminals nationally and worldwide.

You've got the CIA to look for potential threats through international surveillance.

You've got the Border Patrol service and Immigration watching the borders.

You've got the National Guard, Coast Guard and Reserves to plan domestic defense.

And a whole host of other agencies who were already doing the job.

So, why was DHS necessary?

[cloudbase]

8. It's all part of the "show."

n/t

[donco6]

9. The very name makes my skin crawl.

Ugh.

But can't believe I agree with Ron Paul on something . . .

[TheFarseer]

13. That's the nature of libertarians

40% of what they say sounds absolutely brilliant and 60% sounds totally insane.

[ISUGRADIA]

10. It's more his dislike of government period than any

Democratic leanings. He's for elimination of the Department of Education, and I bet if asked he'd probably get rid of more than half the cabinet positions.

[Bullet1987]

11. Where Ron Paul hurt himself was when he didn't come back with a strong rebuttal against Guiliani...

[Chulanowa]

12. Indeed, he's a Plutocrat.

Libertarians (even ones who call themselves Republicans) long for a return to feudalism.

[TheFarseer]

14. especially the ones that call themselves Republicans

most true libertarians want everyone to live in a cabin in the woods and hunt and fish for their livelihoods. They don't seem to realize that in the absence of a strong government, large corporations will step in to fill the power void. Libertarian-Republicans fully realize this and that is exactly what they want. At least, that's my take.

[Chulanowa]

15. Most true libertarians realize it.

They just don't want anyone else to. As a group, they spend an immense amount of time misrepresenting themselves and their ideas, in the hopes of snookering voters into letting them into office in the name of "reform".

[primative1]

16. Libertarianism is philosophy ..

I don't think it has any true application in politics ...
One can be true to the libertarian philosophy outside of politics but for someone in politics to claim to exude that philosophy is a great big misnomer IMO. They dont mix.

[donsu]

17. yes, get rid of it

nt

[fazoolius_2006]

18. Agree

What a waste of money.