The perfect scenario...

Stop making excuses... you are President of the United States, your party holds a simple majority in the House and Senate, and the SCOTUS is basically the same as it is now. I can't offer any more than that. To look for any more (super majority in the Senate is a rare thing, and if you are doing something so radical that it needs that, we are back to defeating the purpose, right?) is to move into the realm of fantasy rather than intellectual exercise.

What I am looking for is a discussion of the means to an end. We all know the end we'd like to see achieved is a smaller, less intrusive and less costly Federal government. We all know that there are some areas of government that we are not going to agree should be removed or reduced, or others that should be saved or expanded. I'm not looking for the 100% fix-it-all budget that has eluded actual elected officials for more than half this nation's history, I'm simply looking for details that explain President Ryan's position more clearly. I know he wants to cut spending... I want to know where he is going to cut it, and how those cuts can be achieved.

I'll even give an example to start things off:

The Department of Education (ED) is the smallest Cabinet-position department in the Executive Branch with only about 5,400 employees... but it has the 7th largest budget in the entire Cabinet at just under $47 billion dollars for 2010. It has been a controversial institution since it was given its first Secretary in 1979 by Carter, and Reagan ran on the promise of eliminating the Department completely (something he never managed to do, by the way). He reduced its budget by more than 40% for most of his terms, funneling the funds back to programs and Departments that he though needed the money more, and so (to a lesser degree) did Bush Sr.

What bothers me about the ED is that its primary stated purpose in our Government is NOT to establish, foster and promote a national standard of education goals and guidelines for the State and local districts to follow (that isn't even part of its "mission statement"), it is to determine who gets what portions of Federal funds (Pell grants, etc) and to protect and preserve the privacy and civil rights of students within the American education system.

That to me is a prime example of redundancy in Government, and we don't need it. If a student's civil rights are being violated, call the Department of Justice. If there is money to be awarded to districts, universities and students, then it shouldn't take 5,400 people to spread it around and they certainly don't need $47 billion to do it. Roll what is required into another Department (HHS, Treasury, or down to a State-level), and reduce the need and cost for redundant services.

Speaking of redundancy, let's talk about the Environmental Protection Agency. With a 2010 budget of more than $10 billion (which is 35% MORE than they got last year), it isn't as big as the ED... but it is even more of a waste of money that the ED. There are 17 Executive Departments (meaning Cabinet-positions) with the same authority to regulate environmental policy on a national level (DoD, DoE, Interior, Agriculture, etc), and more than 20 Congressional Committees with the same power... so why are we throwing $10+ BILLION dollars at the EPA? 18,000 full-time employees and regional offices spread across the land... all to manage an Executive agency that shares its regulatory and enforcement powers with as many as 37 other Federal departments, Agencies, Committees and Subcommittees? How utterly stupid is that? What the hell was Nixon thinking of when he signed this turd into the punch bowl? The icing on the cake though, is this: EPA regulation applies ONLY to areas where the 37+ other departments/agencies/committees don't have jurisdiction. So, by my calculations (carried out on the fingers of one hand), I can conclude that the EPA has NO REAL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER. There isn't a single square mile of this nation that isn't already regulated, in one way or another, by the policies of another Federal department like the DoD, DoE, Interior, Agriculture, etc... so what the hell do we need EPA for again?

There, see how easy that was? In just a few minutes and two cups of coffee, I have eliminated $57 billion dollars from the budget, and reduced the size and scope of the Fed by 23,000 jobs and two redundant departments.

Who's next?