The read to me as if they're meant to make an academic point rather than be in any way related to actual achievable policy.
I think that is my issue. For example, the first point -- not signing any legislation to allow more debt, any budget that is not balanced, etc. While it sounds good on paper, it ignores the reality -- that we have debt and going from the current budget to making the cuts to make it balanced within less than a year will cause far more economic issues than it will "fix" by having the budget balanced.
As one example of that, bringing all the military home. Yes, long term this will save money. The issue is that short term -- the first year or two after you've made the order -- you suffer significant expenses as you pay for shipping home all these military members and their families (and household goods), you transport all the equipment they use on a daily basis back to the States, you close, turn over, or mothball bases overseas, etc. There are going to be huge bills in doing this in a year or two -- so do you basically "defund" most of the military to "balance" those expenses, do you shut down Social Security for a year, where does that money come from?
Additionally, that idea that you can save 75% on medical expenses just by simplifying forms seems like a simplistic claim. Yes, the medical bureaucracy has become bloated, particularly with the various requirements and forms of different insurers -- not to mention needing to call to get authorizations that they will cover the procedure the medical provider wants to perform. In particular, how do you force this change without the added government regulations that you are complaining about. Last, even if you push this through -- how do your force medical providers to lower what they charge. Again, we know that the medical industry is not a true "free market," and cannot be made to be, as it is difficult to "shop around" for emergency treatments.
I'm not saying that things can't be improved and things streamlined -- but you can't do it by cutting regulations (since that won't reduce the paperwork required by insurers). Instead, it would take a "large government" program to do what is being proposed.
Those are just a couple of examples. The policies, as you stated, are "ivory tower" solutions that just won't work -- not as stated all together -- in the real world. Additionally, there is such an odd mix of liberal vs conservative ideas (small government, almost open immigration, cutting social programs, support for abortion) that I have trouble seeing how a majority would ever vote for this agenda.
