The only way you can begin to cut the Federal budget by $620 billion is to eliminate organizations and programs that don't contribute to the fulfillment of any of the primary functions of Government. These functions are: to defend the borders; to adjudicate disputes within those borders; and to defend the lives, liberties, and property of the persons who live within those borders. The National Institutes of Health does not perform any of these functions. Therefore, it is a candidate for the budget axe.

Because its budget of $28.4 billion is so large, elimination of the National Institutes of Health would constitute a significant step towards eliminating the Government deficit. But what does NIH do, exactly? Would the country suffer, if it were eliminated? The answer is, "Of course." You don't just close down a $28.4 billion financial fire-hose and not expect to see repercussions in the economy. Jobs would be lost. Studies would go unperformed. Universities and businesses would be deprived of a significant source of subsidy.

The NIH is a medical research facility and a provider of grants to other medical research facilities. At first glance, its mission statement doesn't seem to include any assaults on individual lives, liberties, or property. But it's doing work that the Federal Government is not empowered by the Constitution to be performing. Where, in the Constitution, is the Executive Branch empowered to subsidize businesses or set up libraries and "information clearinghouses"? The answer is, of course, "Nowhere."

It may well be that the work of the NIH is indispensable to the advancement of medical science and to the free flow of information. If that turns out to be the case, then I'm sure a Constitutional Amendment will be quickly passed, which empowers the Federal Government to recreate the NIH. Until then, it's history. Its libraries and research files will be sold or donated to one or more Universities, on the condition that the information be freely available to the public.

That's $28.4 billion saved. $589.9 billion to go. What's next?

Two trillion dollars ain't what it used to be. That's how much the US Government takes in, in taxes. You'd think it would be enough money to run the country on. Unfortunately, it's not. Last year, the Government had to borrow an additional $620 billion, just to make ends meet.

Did you know that the US military won't station a soldier in Iraq, if he or she is too far in debt? The military views excessive indebtedness as a security risk. The military won't give overly-indebted soldiers the security clearances that they would need, to be stationed in a sensitive area like Iraq. Meanwhile, the US Government owes a debt of more than $8.5 trillion, which is more than four times its annual income. And that debt is increasing at a rapid clip. If the US Government were a soldier, would the military grant it a security clearance?

We owe more than a trillion dollars to China, alone. If China were to call in the loans that she has made to the United States, the dollar would lose value overnight. It's a serious situation. Assuming that the Government of the United States wants to preserve a veneer of stability, in the US economy, our debt to China represents a vulnerability to blackmail. We have got to get out of debt!!

When economics drives a decision, that decision is easy to make. Are you over your head in debt? The decision you have to make is simple: stop borrowing. In order to implement that simple decision, however, you have to make other decisions. Those decisions must flow from principle. They flow from your values, your beliefs, your ideas of what is important. They are a reflection of your character.

The United States is at war. Therefore, cutting the defense budget is probably not a good idea. Yes, the United States spends more, on defense, than do all of the other countries in the world combined. But if we want to win this war (however you define "winning"), we probably shouldn't reduce the budget for defense. Assuming that we've made the decision, as a country, to stop borrowing money, how do we do it? How do we cut $620 billion, the amount we had to borrow, last year, from the Federal budget?

The first act I would propose, in the effort to balance the Federal budget, would be to close down the Drug Enforcement Agency, which would involve a savings of $1.7 billion. Yes, I'm talking about calling an end to the War on Drugs.

If you're wondering why I would close down the DEA, don't expect me to give you the standard arguments. Yes, the War on Drugs has disproportionately affected the minority communities in the United States. Yes, drug addiction is a health problem, not a criminal issue. But these "soft", sociology-based arguments against the War on Drugs hold little interest, for me. I am not "soft" on drugs; I am a hard-liner in support of individual liberty and responsibility.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government empowered to prohibit the ingestion of any substance by any person in the United States. The People of the United States are sovereign individuals in command over their own bodies. Only they have the power to decide what they will ingest, and what they will not. If the People should decide to delegate that power to their individual State Governments, that is their affair. But the exercise of Federal power to wage a War on Drugs is unConstitutional. It ought to be stopped.

In my opinion, the Federal and State Governments should not be in the front lines of any War on Drugs that might continue to be waged, in the absence of the Drug Enforcement Agency. The front lines should be the People, themselves. The People must make individual decisions that affect their individual lives, and must bear the responsibility for the consequences of the decisions that they have made. For that reason, I would remove from all employers any restriction that might be interpreted as preventing them from firing an employee who is shown to be using what are now called "controlled substances". Employers should be able to decide whether drug use impacts their profitability enough to institute a policy banning drug use on the part of their employees. And yes, I would count alcohol and tobacco as drugs, for this purpose. If employers want to spend money to test their employees for drugs, let them do so. And let them act on the results.

The end of the War on Drugs need not result in the further degeneration of American society. If Americans, themselves, take responsibility for protecting their local environments, they can do a better job, in the fight against drugs, than the Federal Government has done, so far.

That's $1.7 billion saved. One small step for the Government, one giant leap for liberty. There are $618.3 billion left to cut. What's next?

Just a reminder, there will be a social meeting this coming Sunday. Details can be found on the event page.

Someone from the Kevin Zeese for US Senate campaign will be speaking at this event.