Ron Paul in his own words - "My Plan for a Freedom President"

As some have expressed concerns recently for what shape a Ron Paul presidency might take, I'd like to provide an article from Dr. Paul that might clarify some of these issues: My Plan for a Freedom President (How I would put the Constitution back in the Oval Office)

Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.

There's not much I can do to improve on what Ron says for himself, so I'll keep this mainly to his words. Dr. Paul is quick to clarify that while he does want to make some changes to our current entitlement programs, he also would strive to do so in the least-shocking ways possible.

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help—churches and private charities.

As I am fond of emphasizing, the president also has fairly limited power to enact any sweeping changes on his own:

No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress...

...While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years, he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process.

He then goes on to lay out his initial budget proposal, which sounds very reasonable to me, personally:

A constitutionalist president’s budget should do the following:

1. Reduce overall federal spending

2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military

3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare

4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt

5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states

6. Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

As regards any congressional dispute of the proposed budget, Ron Paul takes a clear and constitutional stance:

If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it’s irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

The rest of the article, as it is more extensive and provide additional clarity and addresses other issues, is definitely worth a read for anyone concerned about Paul's proposals or interested in better understanding his views.

Please check it out over at this page at the Young Americans for Liberty website.

Be well.

I love Ron Paul I only Pray He wins!

Chances of him winning, pretty freaking slim but i'll vote for the guy anyways.

Afterall, voting doesn't matter, what harm can it do?

reply to post by anon102


Thanks anon, just remember how important it is to get registered republican (if required to vote in primary elections in your state) and then get out to support him in the primaries, as well as encouraging your friends and family to do the same.

Ron challenges a lot of people in positions of power on quite a few issues, so the media and establishment political structure are NOT his friends - if we care to see him win, some work will be needed. It does us no good to wait for a general election if we don't have the candidates we need running in it - then it's back to a definite case of the lesser of two evils, yet again - and we all know what we get there, regardless.

Spread the message!

Originally posted by lifeoflyman
I love Ron Paul I only Pray He wins!

love him too but he wil never win the candidacy, we will have to wait for Rand Paul to run in 2016

I don't understand how point #5 is supposed to do anything (it just shifts the burden to individual states rather than Washington) but the others are fantastic and I would support anyone who ran on similar principles here in Canada.

Please, my American friends, vote Ron Paul You guys deserve a good president after so many bad ones.

O.P., I love your vid......

Gets me fired up......lol

S&F

reply to post by DragonsDemesne


Hey there, DD -

You really should go read the entire article as he expounds on all these points, but re: education:

Eliminating federal involvement in K-12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem.

In the years since No Child Left Behind was passed, I don’t think I have talked to any parent or teacher who is happy with the law. Therefore, a constitutionalist president looking for ways to improve the lives of children should demand that Congress cut the federal education bureaucracy as a down payment on eventually returning 100 percent of the education dollar to parents.

Traditionally, the battle to reduce the federal role in education has been the toughest one faced by limited-government advocates, as supporters of centralized education have managed to paint constitutionalists as “anti-education.” But who is really anti-education? Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level? When the debate is framed this way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win. When you think about it, the argument that the federal government needs to control education is incredibly insulting to the American people, for it implies that the people are too stupid or uncaring to educate their children properly. Contrary to those who believe that only the federal government can ensure children’s education, I predict a renaissance in education when parents are put back in charge.

Thanks for posting...loves me some Dr. Paul

I'd like to cite Ron Paul, quoting Hugo:

"No army can stop an idea whose time has come".

It's time for this honorable man, this statesman, to be President of the United States of America. This rEVOLution of the heart and mind has taken root...it will only grow more between now and election time...

Ron Paul : "On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well."

"I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“


Good thing we know that Dr. Paul's concern for individual liberty ends when a brood mare (woman) is involved.

And it's real 'scientific' to claim that dead, lifeless sperm and eggs somehow become infused with "life" when they bump in to each other in the night.

If you take such perverted logic to its obvious end... any woman who engages in a sex act which MIGHT cause pregnancy should be immediately placed on bedrest and constant medical monitoring for the rest of the gestation. Anything less is a abrogation of the rights of the Individual residing in her womb.

Oh wait. The fetus has no individual rights because it isn't recognized as INDIVIDUAL until birth.

Ron Paul is no different than any other politician. Government is great when it is enforcing what he wants enforced. And being a rabid pro-life freak hiding behind small government propaganda is not revolutionary. It's legislating morality which should be anathema to a Libertarian.

This is insane. Ron Paul wants to turn it over to "market forces". He thinks that the citizens will act like some giant organism and regulate the market. Is he a time traveler from 1890 perhaps?

World markets (there are no local or even National markets anymore) will never, ever respond to some small group of pissed off Americans. I am stunned that those of you that speak of one world government, illuminati, etc actually believe that Ron Paul's ideas of "freedom" are a good idea, much less will work.

You are choosing to be ruled by corporations with no government for protection. We are suffering the most in America, compared to the rest of the Western world, because we are on this insane "no deficit, no regulation" orgy.

Wanna sweep in the NWO even faster? Vote for Ron Paul.

reply to post by Crimelab
You might want to research that a bit further, friend.

If you check into it, you'll see the sanctity of life act merely, as with most other issues Paul addressed, gets the federal government out of it and forces the individual states to handle the issue themselves by removing any federal jurisdiction and preventing SCOTUS from hearing challenges to state law one way or the other - as the constitution gives the FEDGOV no authority to be involved in the abortion debate. While knocking Paul for this somehow conflicting his other stances on liberty - you might want to note that this is EXACTLY the same as his approach to other subjects, like drugs, etc.

You might also want to go review other statements Paul has made as he HAS offered up the morning-after pill, etc. as an option for situations that might arise.

On a side note as regards abortion itself and "lifeless sperm and eggs," I don't research abortion much, but a surprising amount of development occurs in a fairly short period of time, and I'm not sure that many pregnancies are even noticed before about 6 weeks, by which time a beating heart is already in place.

You do also have to keep in mind that Paul is a former OBGYN and has personally witnessed abortions, including a "fetus" being excised and then ignored to die while stuggling to live. I'd imagine that might help shape one's views, understandably so. Regardless - states' rights issue, no constitutional authority for the feds one way or the other.

reply to post by Scytherius

You are choosing to be ruled by corporations with no government for protection. We are suffering the most in America, compared to the rest of the Western world, because we are on this insane "no deficit, no regulation" orgy.

The opening of your post was somewhat vague and unspecific, so I'll just let it pass unless you choose or elucidate.

As far as this bit, though - we're ALREADY ruled by corporations, and THEY are protected by the government - ironically enough, through the regulations you claim we don't have.

Big business LOVES regulations - they can afford to meet all the niggling requirements that choke out new/small businesses and stifle innovation and competition as a result, as well as buy off the regulators themselves, usually through the revolving (and disgusting) door of hiring former members of regulatory agencies once they've done something nice to help the business.

Why do you think it's so hard to be a new small business owner in the US? A profusion of regulations is a big part of it. Pray tell, what regulations would you like to see that we DON'T have in place (not my area of expertise, so you might easily educate me here, honestly). Getting these out of the way drives big business to remain competitive, leading to lower prices and higher quality as well. I've never understood why everyone thinks everyone is stupid, and that the government, magically, is somehow anything but.

Remember, there are always unintended consequences with intervention of any type - including the great depression. Regulation on banks preventing branch offices/franchises was one of the reason so many banks failed and everything went south so quick for so long, individual offices were quickly decapitalized via fractional reserves and not having any fellow branches to help cover bank runs.

Sidenote:
I also have a hard time seeing how reinstating an old american order does anything to help initiate a new world order...Paul would seek to de-globalize us by seeking to get us out of NAFTA, GATT, the UN, and reinstating US sovereignty and independence, as well as returning more power and resources to the people as compared to the corporately-owned governmental behemoth we currently have. As Thoreau said:

That government is best which governs least.

Then again, I suppose he may just have been a NWO shill. Be well.

If Ron Paul isn't going to get rid of the federal reserve, he's as useless as all your other presidents. Without tackling the federal reserve, his plan is like doing the dishes while the house is on fire.

reply to post by Scytherius


Ron Paul believes in Ayn Rand Philosophy.
THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS
marsexxx.com...

How about her movie trailer for the book she wrote Atlas Shrugged.

Originally posted by Crimelab
Ron Paul : "On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well."

"I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“


Good thing we know that Dr. Paul's concern for individual liberty ends when a brood mare (woman) is involved.

And it's real 'scientific' to claim that dead, lifeless sperm

Uh.. sperm are quite active as they wriggle and "swim" their way to the egg...

Great: let's sidetrack Dr.pauls campaign because of f'n, roe v wade. Libs...
And get another round of b.s. candidates. I'm sorry,Right now this country needs a federal unravelling far more than quibbling over the all time divider "abortion". I would never equate a woman to a broodmare" I'll bet you envision yourself a sophisticated champion of womans rights.. ( nice language "broodmare").
If we need to find an honest candidate 51% of us will agree100% on we are trully screwed.

Originally posted by Crimelab

and eggs somehow become infused with "life" when they bump in to each other in the night.

If you take such perverted logic to its obvious end... any woman who engages in a sex act which MIGHT cause pregnancy should be immediately placed on bedrest and constant medical monitoring for the rest of the gestation. Anything less is a abrogation of the rights of the Individual residing in her womb.

Oh wait. The fetus has no individual rights because it isn't recognized as INDIVIDUAL until birth.

Ron Paul is no different than any other politician. Government is great when it is enforcing what he wants enforced. And being a rabid pro-life freak hiding behind small government propaganda is not revolutionary. It's legislating morality which should be anathema to a Libertarian.

Originally posted by Scytherius
This is insane. Ron Paul wants to turn it over to "market forces". He thinks that the citizens will act like some giant organism and regulate the market. Is he a time traveler from 1890 perhaps?

World markets (there are no local or even National markets anymore) will never, ever respond to some small group of pissed off Americans. I am stunned that those of you that speak of one world government, illuminati, etc actually believe that Ron Paul's ideas of "freedom" are a good idea, much less will work.

You are choosing to be ruled by corporations with no government for protection. We are suffering the most in America, compared to the rest of the Western world, because we are on this insane "no deficit, no regulation" orgy.

Wanna sweep in the NWO even faster? Vote for Ron Paul.

"I'm melting.... oh what a wicked world....melting".
The strangely pleasing; wilting, last cry of the neo liberal as big government is slowly deconstructed and returned to the confines of its factory original box.
ahhh.

reply to post by Praetorius


Think he will push for the legalization of marijuana? Can't really be a "freedom" president without doing that right? If so, let's get the ball rolling, tax it to all hell, and get us out of debt!!!

I wonder if he can be elected.

I mean, where is the charm? The good looks? The inspiring (empty) rhetoric? The soaring speech?

This is nothing but logic and straight-forward-ness.

Presidential Candidate Fail.

Originally posted by Scytherius
This is insane. Ron Paul wants to turn it over to "market forces". He thinks that the citizens will act like some giant organism and regulate the market. Is he a time traveler from 1890 perhaps?

World markets (there are no local or even National markets anymore) will never, ever respond to some small group of pissed off Americans. I am stunned that those of you that speak of one world government, illuminati, etc actually believe that Ron Paul's ideas of "freedom" are a good idea, much less will work.

You are choosing to be ruled by corporations with no government for protection. We are suffering the most in America, compared to the rest of the Western world, because we are on this insane "no deficit, no regulation" orgy.

Wanna sweep in the NWO even faster? Vote for Ron Paul.

"He thinks that the citizens will act like some giant organism and regulate the market."

ever heard of adam smith?

en.wikipedia.org...