How could RP have done what he promised??

[riner69er]

Apologies if this has been addressed here already, but I have heard this complaint recently and was wondering if RP ever really outlined how he could implement the kind of changes he wanted.

Could he close military bases in Germany, Taiwan, Korea, Korea, etc., and bring those troops home, or would he need some type of congressional approval for that?

Same with the Fed, could he as President have just ended the Fed and put America on a gold standard? I cant believe it would have been that easy, and I cant believe it would have had the support of, well pretty much anyone else in government. So how was he going to do that?

What about abolishing the IRS? I have heard that because the IRS is a government entity, they are totally funded through the budget, and all RP would have to do is exclude any funding for the IRS in his budget.

[dannno]

Military bases: He could refuse to sign the spending bills and effectively shut down the government.


IRS: He could decide to effectively pardon anybody who didn't pay income taxes.


War on Drugs: He could pardon any non-violent drug criminals



I'm not saying what he would do, but the fact is he has the tools to do what he wanted to accomplish. One of the biggest thing would be the fact that he could sit down and have fireside chats to educate people about liberty. He would have a bully pulpit or whatever.

[acptulsa]

Hell, the Republicans in Congress are sitting up and taking notice as it is, and he lost. I can't believe the way our Sen. Inhofe is voting these days. It's like someone jacked up his hat and drove a carbon copy of Coburn in under it. Imagine if he had won...

[Truth Warrior]

A lot of things are said, in campaigns. When all is said and done, usually a lot more was said than is done. ;)

[riner69er]

I appreciate the responses thus far, but I was wondering, did RP ever outline or talk about how he planned to do all of these things?

[acptulsa]

I appreciate the responses thus far, but I was wondering, did RP ever outline or talk about how he planned to do all of these things?

Not that I know of. Generally when he had a camera pointed at him he tried to educate, and when it was for our benefit he was trying to encourage us not to get too upset or disillusioned. But you can get an idea by looking at some of the bills he has introduced how it could be done.

[Truth Warrior]

I appreciate the responses thus far, but I was wondering, did RP ever outline or talk about how he planned to do all of these things? This MAY answer your question. I hope so. :)

"Of course I'm cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood. Ultimately, however, I do not believe that politics offers a way out. What we need is a new consciousness concerning the idea of human liberty." -- Lew Rockwell

Without Lew, I kinda doubt that Ron would have even run.<IMHO> ;)

[MRoCkEd]

I'm guessing he would do what Dannno said.
As commander in chief, he does have the authority to retreat forces.
He mentioned that he would pardon all non-violent drug offenders and I'm sure he'd do the same for those who do not file income tax.

[riner69er]

Those are all bills though, and need Congressional approval, at the very least. I can see that working for things like auditing the Fed, but for abolishing the IRS? I cant see it.

And if RP just vetoed every bill/budget proposal that had funding for the IRS or for military bases, the government would grind to a halt. How would that be a good thing? Neither side would budge and things would spin out of control. I think in that situation the person who would have to go would be the President via impeachment. I don't think it would work.

[MRoCkEd]

And if RP just vetoed every bill that had funding for the IRS or for military bases, the government would grind to a halt. How would that be a good thing?
How wouldn't that be a good thing?

[riner69er]

I knew that was coming....lol

I dont think any of us are advocating an anarchist government. We want a constitutional government and a government ground to a halt is not a Constitutional government. Maybe it would be better than the current system, but I don't think this idea is what RP advocates.

[Truth Warrior]

Those are all bills though, and need Congressional approval, at the very least. I can see that working for things like auditing the Fed, but for abolishing the IRS? I cant see it.

And if RP just vetoed every bill/budget proposal that had funding for the IRS or for military bases, the government would grind to a halt. How would that be a good thing? Neither side would budge and things would spin out of control. I think in that situation the person who would have to go would be the President via impeachment. I don't think it would work. The government "shutdown" in the 90's for a few days. Not too many folks complained, so the petty squabble got patched up REAL quick. ;) :D

[MRoCkEd]

I knew that was coming....lol

I dont think any of us are advocating an anarchist government. We want a constitutional government and a government ground to a halt is not a Constitutional government. Maybe it would be better than the current system, but I don't think this idea is what RP advocates.
Well, there should be funding for a military, but hundreds of billions less than the budget is today. The federal government should also provide courts and police. All of this can be funded with light tariffs and user fees.
That's it.

[riner69er]

I agree with that, but how do we get out of our current system by using ONLY the authority of the President?

[acptulsa]

I agree with that, but how do we get out of our current system by using ONLY the authority of the President?

Um, the Constitution limits his authority for a reason. We need Congress, too.

[nate895]

When a President wins office, he has something called "political capital," and that means he can push through many points of his agenda without much Congressional resistance because he has the support of the American people to pass the key points of his platform. Also, if someone as revolutionary different as Ron Paul won the Presidency, you can bet that many Senators and Representatives won on his platform, meaning there would be many new members of Congress that there would be very few incumbents left in besides those who live in diehard neocon or socialist districts.

[Truth Warrior]

I agree with that, but how do we get out of our current system by using ONLY the authority of the President? A declaration of martial law COULD be used to do the trick.<IMHO> However, that doesn't sound like a Ron style tactic to me.

[Spook]

I think Ron knows very well there is little he can do by himself if he won. The whole idea was to stir the pot and be an educator and expose the misdeeds of government. It's not one man in a position of power that can change the country, the counrtry itself has to have a change in philosophy. Educate the people and they will apply the remedy. That is all that needs to be done...

[Stary Hickory]

Ron Paul could refuse to sign budgets and advise all states to take over functions previously done by the Federal Government. People would then see that the Federal government is impoverishing them.

[anaconda]

He didn't need to veto budgets to stop the military bases or occupations. As commander in chief he could simply order all of the troops home. The bases would simply be left to be taken over by Iraqis. Or Japanese or Koreans or Germans, as the case may be.

[Elwar]

Dr. Veto

[Feenix566]

Don't shoot me for saying this, but Ron Paul never expected to win the presidency. His presidential campaing was a soapbox from which to make his views known to more people. And it worked.

Now I know you're all going to remind me that Dr. Paul told George Stephonpolis that he wanted to win, but think about it for a minute. What do you think would have happened if he had told the reporter that he didn't expect to win? That would have been the end of his campaign right there. So of course he didn't say that.

[Zippyjuan]

His plans were goals he knows he could not possibly achieve most of- even if he go two terms. You can't get rid of the IRS until you cut enough of the budget to do so and Congress writes the budgets. Closing all US bases? That would cost billions if not trillions to shut them down and bring everybody home and their families and equipment. There is a limit of how fast that could be done in part due to limited shipping capacitiy. It was estimated that just bring everything home from Iraq will take at least two years of nearly non-stop shipping. We have been sending things over their for almost six years now. So probably decades to empty all of our bases overseas. Get rid of the Fed? Again you need Congress to go along with that.

Just to try to balance the budget and get rid of the income tax would require you to cut every single item in the "discressionary spending" category along with another $300 billion from the "Mandatory spending" category. That means zero for any department including Defense and only having Social Security, Medicare, the interest on the debt (which is going to be higher) and unemployment insurance (which is also going up) from the 2008 budget. Not even looking at the massive additional spending of the past six months or year. He said he would not cut Social Security or Welfare to honor commitments made to our seniors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008

Since Dr Paul has never voted for a spending bill, would he, as president, veto every one?

He covers some of this in an interview with Tim Russert during the campaign:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/

MR. RUSSERT: Let's start right at the very top, the issues. This is what you have been saying on the campaign stump, "I'd like to get rid of the IRS. I want to get rid of the income tax." Abolish it.

REP. PAUL: That's a good idea. I like that idea.

MR. RUSSERT: What would happen to all those lost revenues? How would we fund our government?

REP. PAUL: We have to cut spending. You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as, as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago. So there're sources of revenues other than the income tax. You know, you have, you have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there's still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn't have it.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much lost revenue that would be?

REP. PAUL: A lot. But...

MR. RUSSERT: Over a trillion dollars.

[idiom]

Well he would veto the Bailouts... that would be several Trillion in savings right there. If nothing else, threatenign to walk out of all the foreign countries would Force congress to pass bills requiring occupation if they wanted to stay. Then Congress would be taking responsibility like it is meant to.

The President can order most of the government to do all sorts of fun things, Congress would have to start earmarking and investigating like crazy. Just forcing congress to get off its ass would be a huge help.

[Zippyjuan]

So you think we should unilaterally walk away from treaties with other countries?

[BillyDkid]

Apologies if this has been addressed here already, but I have heard this complaint recently and was wondering if RP ever really outlined how he could implement the kind of changes he wanted.

Could he close military bases in Germany, Taiwan, Korea, Korea, etc., and bring those troops home, or would he need some type of congressional approval for that?

Same with the Fed, could he as President have just ended the Fed and put America on a gold standard? I cant believe it would have been that easy, and I cant believe it would have had the support of, well pretty much anyone else in government. So how was he going to do that?

What about abolishing the IRS? I have heard that because the IRS is a government entity, they are totally funded through the budget, and all RP would have to do is exclude any funding for the IRS in his budget.

Ron Paul has made the point many times that he didn't have the power to just "do" all of these things. He made it clear that he would have to build a consensus and it would take time.

[anaconda]

His plans were goals he knows he could not possibly achieve most of- even if he go two terms. You can't get rid of the IRS until you cut enough of the budget to do so and Congress writes the budgets. Closing all US bases? That would cost billions if not trillions to shut them down and bring everybody home and their families and equipment. There is a limit of how fast that could be done in part due to limited shipping capacitiy. It was estimated that just bring everything home from Iraq will take at least two years of nearly non-stop shipping. We have been sending things over their for almost six years now. So probably decades to empty all of our bases overseas. Get rid of the Fed? Again you need Congress to go along with that.

Just to try to balance the budget and get rid of the income tax would require you to cut every single item in the "discressionary spending" category along with another $300 billion from the "Mandatory spending" category. That means zero for any department including Defense and only having Social Security, Medicare, the interest on the debt (which is going to be higher) and unemployment insurance (which is also going up) from the 2008 budget. Not even looking at the massive additional spending of the past six months or year. He said he would not cut Social Security or Welfare to honor commitments made to our seniors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008

Since Dr Paul has never voted for a spending bill, would he, as president, veto every one?

He covers some of this in an interview with Tim Russert during the campaign:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/

I don't see how closing the bases would be particularly expensive, especially compared to operating them. Also, I've heard multiple scenarios about how a president could do an end run around the Fed by introducing alternate currencies. Also, the President could probably issue an executive order to ignore the 16th amendment, on the grounds that it was never ratified. Plus a lot of other cool shit. I think a President could do an incredible amount without a consensus. As long as the Congress doesn't gang up and impeach him.

[Zippyjuan]

Starting in 1998, the Department of Defense recommended and got four rounds of base closures/ reallignments. A total of 451 ended up being part of the program. Pentagon estimated that this would result in a reduction in their base structure of 21% and yield a projected savings in costs of about $5.6 billion a year. If we were to extrapolate that to getting rid of 100% (the remaining 80% or four times the amount closed back then) this would result in saving $23 billion a year. https://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/993

The closing of all 451 BRAC installations (major, minor and "other") from the four rounds is expected to be completed by the end of FY2001, as originally scheduled. The disposing of all the closed property, however is expected to take many more years. The Pentagon's current estimate of the percentage reduction in base structure as a result of the first four rounds is 21%. This figure is used as support for additional infrastructure reductions, since other key indicators, such as the defense budget and the force structure (personnel and units) have declined 40% and 36%, respectively.

In terms of costs and savings associated with the first four rounds of closures and realignments, a DOD report (April 1998) estimated a net total savings of about $14 billion through FY2001. It projected that net annual savings, thereafter, would be in the vicinity of $5.6 to $5.7 billion.

A General Accounting Office report says the savings have actually been less than expected with naturally the costs higher.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08341t.pdf
On page 8 they have a chart which indicates the first four rounds of base closures cost $22 billion and estimated savings of $7.2 billion but says the savings were overstated because they did not assume that personel at closed bases would not end up working somewhere else (ie another not closed base- abroad or in the US). Their 2005 projections show costs estimated to be $31.2 billion at a savings of $4.0 billion a year.
Existing facilities may have to be enlarged to accomodate the people and equipment coming back to the US meaning costs for building them in addition to the costs of closing the bases abroad.

Department of Defense (in the same report) says they do not expect "break even" on the already approved base closlure and reallignments for about a 20 year period. (see page 21) -and the GAO says they are too optimistic.

The 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (the Commission) estimated that 30 recommendations would not pay back—meaning recoup up-front costs—within 20 years. Our analysis of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) fiscal year 2008 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) budget submission shows that 73 recommendations will not pay back within 20 years.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't see how closing the bases would be particularly expensive, especially compared to operating them. Also, I've heard multiple scenarios about how a president could do an end run around the Fed by introducing alternate currencies. Also, the President could probably issue an executive order to ignore the 16th amendment, on the grounds that it was never ratified. Plus a lot of other cool shit. I think a President could do an incredible amount without a consensus. As long as the Congress doesn't gang up and impeach him.


I don't believe Dr. Paul has claimed that the 16th Amendment was never ratified. In his many speaches on the subject he asks for a repeal of the amendment with the words "Until the passage of the 16th amendment". One such example: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr013003c.htm This seems to show that he recognizes it as legit in terms of being passed but inapropriate in terms of its content. He would not ignore the law or any Constitutional amendment but he could try to get them changed. A President who tries to ignore or "end around" Congress would find himself unable to get anything acomplished. Even George Bush recognized this.

[heavenlyboy34]

A lot of things are said, in campaigns. When all is said and done, usually a lot more was said than is done. ;)

Such is archism. ;):p lol

[Athan]

He does have the ability to reallocate troops, declare an end to hostilities, and introduce a sensible foreign policy that would be rather highly regarded worldwide that would make Congress public enemy everywhere if they refused to allow it after he offered it to the world.

President Paul can undo a lot of damage with the authority. His ability to introduce his own budget to congress as advice would literally scare the pants off congress because of its lean nature. What are they going to do when they are facing a collapsed economy?

He can also pardon non-violent criminals in regards to tax-evasion or for four years. Think how people will react once he leaves office and the government wants to try to lock up new citizens.