Ron Paul: My plan for a Freedom President

[bobbyw24]

03-06-2010 6:05 pm - Ron Paul
Below is my plan for a Freedom President, or: 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.

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.

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

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.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.


Continue:

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_28650.php

[sevin]

Wow! That is one of the greatest articles he's ever written. I'm gonna read it again...

[robertwerden]

This is an excellent statement, did Ron really write this? If so this displays a clear intent to run in 2012

[bobbyw24]

This is an excellent statement, did Ron really write this? If so this displays a clear intent to run in 2012

It says Ron Paul wrote it but I am trying to verify it

[Ninja Homer]

I'm pretty darn sure that Ron Paul wrote it. It's also posted here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html

[Fozz]

This statement is a masterpiece. Absolutely magnificent. I was waiting for Ron Paul to actually give a thoughtful answer of how he would handle the presidency if he were to win.

A lot of naysayers who say that Ron Paul would be a disaster or not get anything done should read this for an answer to that claim.

[bobbyw24]

I'm pretty darn sure that Ron Paul wrote it. It's also posted here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html

That verifies it for me. Thanks

[nf7mate]

Ron Paul 2012!! This article is great!

[Anti Federalist]

A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with the current administration’s policy of not prosecuting marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority, as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these areas.

http://thumb2.visualizeus.com/thumbs/08/09/01/animated,gif,applause-2c1762e4d30a8013ee5d93d47b67d891_m.jpg

[Paulitical Correctness]

:D

[bobbyw24]

Bump

[Bruehound]

Does anybody here have any doubts that Ron Paul is going to run in 2012?

[therepublic]

That is a great article, Bobby. Thanks for sharing it.

[therepublic]

I hope he runs in 2012. But I also hope there are enough young people preparing themselves to lead in this manner.

[paulitics]

03-06-2010 6:05 pm - Ron Paul
Below is my plan for a Freedom President, or: 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.

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.

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

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.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.

If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United States has over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146 countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.


Continue:

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_28650.php

Looks like a mission statement. I agree with it all.

[someperson]

Great stuff; thanks for the link :)

[Condor Bastadon]

I don't think that it necessarily means that he plans on running. But it does set a basic template for any freedom candidate in the future, and explains in a reasonable manner how this plan could be executed to anyone who questions it.

[brandon]

He's absolutely planning on running in 2012. This confirms it.


He's not going to say so publicly for a while though. Gotta wait till the best time.

[KCIndy]

As usual, the good doctor is absolutely 100% on target!!

RON PAUL 2012!!

WHOO HOOO!!! :D

[Austin]

He's absolutely planning on running in 2012. This confirms it.


He's not going to say so publicly for a while though. Gotta wait till the best time.

He's waiting until his replacement gets sworn in the Senate. ;)

[Paulitical Correctness]

The liberty storm's a brewin'.

[DjLoTi]

Does anybody here have any doubts that Ron Paul is going to run in 2012?

I don't.

[KCIndy]

He's absolutely planning on running in 2012. This confirms it.

He's not going to say so publicly for a while though. Gotta wait till the best time.


He should wait until a week or two after this year's election.

Then he should announce in conjunction with some sort of big "Rally for Liberty" style event, and preferably with a pre-planned money bomb to immediately follow.

We ought to start putting feelers out now to see what sort of interest we could generate in a Ron Paul '12 money bomb.

[RCA]

He should wait until a week or two after this year's election.

Then he should announce in conjunction with some sort of big "Rally for Liberty" style event, and preferably with a pre-planned money bomb to immediately follow.

We ought to start putting feelers out now to see what sort of interest we could generate in a Ron Paul '12 money bomb.

You mean on November 5th, 2010? ;-)

[sunghoko]

Original Link (http://www.yaliberty.org/yar/plan-for-a-freedom-president)

[KCIndy]

You mean on November 5th, 2010? ;-)

November 5th would be great!

Election on Tuesday, the 2nd, RP could announce on Wednesday the 3rd or Thursday the 4th, then we pull off a whackin' BIG moneybomb on FRIDAY NOVEMBER 5!

http://www.free-printable-calendars.com/nov10t3tngif.gif

Remember, remember the 5th of November....
:D

[eok321]

Even with the economy in shit- i reckon we could see a $10million/day money bomb when he announces.

Imagine the media reaction to that LOL:p

[Anti Federalist]

You mean on November 5th, 2010? ;-)

16 Dec

[TCE]

Why not 12/16/10? 3-year anniversary.

[Austin]

Exploratory Committee on the 5th.

Presidential Campaign Committee on the 16th.

:cool:

[DjLoTi]

I'm going to be honest, I haven't exactly read all of it. It is really complicated and I feel that Ron Paul is far smarter then me on these issues, and I know that Ron Paul is the best person to become president, so we really need to get him elected.

This is a presidential bump!!!

[bobbyw24]

Sunday morning bump

[KCIndy]

Exploratory Committee on the 5th.

Presidential Campaign Committee on the 16th.

:cool:


Either date sounds good. I'm going to have to start putting back a little extra every week in anticipation for the Big Bomb! :D

[pacelli]

This is an excellent statement, did Ron really write this? If so this displays a clear intent to run in 2012

Ron has a history of using ghostwriters-- not only for his newsletters and facebook account, but also for his book released at the end of the 08 campaign. I believe Thomas Woods was his ghostwriter for that book.

I like the statement, but doubt Ron is writing any of it, even if it is 100% consistent with his beliefs.

[DjLoTi]

Ron Paul for president 2012 BUMP! Lets go Ron! 2012, here we come!!!

[Matthew Zak]

This is an excellent statement, did Ron really write this? If so this displays a clear intent to run in 2012

...OR it declares a clear intent that he'll only support a president with this agenda.

[rp08orbust]

If we're serious about Ron Paul running for president in 2012, then we all have to do all we can to make sure he wins all of the straw polls from here on out. They are tests of his campaign's organizational ability. If Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty can't win the straw polls, then they can't win any caucuses and primaries--it's that simple.

The next straw poll: http://battleofneworleans2010.com/

[NightOwl]

Ron has a history of using ghostwriters-- not only for his newsletters and facebook account, but also for his book released at the end of the 08 campaign. I believe Thomas Woods was his ghostwriter for that book.

I like the statement, but doubt Ron is writing any of it, even if it is 100% consistent with his beliefs.

I don't think any of the Ron/Ronald Paul Facebook accounts even claim to be the real Ron Paul.

[stu2002]

Thanks-Best Post here in weeks

[bobbyw24]

Thanks-Best Post here in weeks

Thanks Stu-you're tight, it is a great piece

[nayjevin]

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.

key

[SovereignMN]

Who needs coffee on a Monday morning? After reading this I'm pumped up!

[bobbyw24]

Who needs coffee on a Monday morning? After reading this I'm pumped up!

Precisely. Hope it gets bumped enough that all members see it

[jmdrake]

So much win in this article it's hard to know where to start...or where to stop!

One test to determine if a vacant job needs to be filled is the “essential employees test.” Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government orders all “non-essential” federal personal to stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day purposes, the country can probably survive if that position is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day!

Permanent snow day! I love it!

A president could also enhance the liberties and security of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those who are being spied on have committed a crime. Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security. He should also order the Transportation Security Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting toddlers on the no-fly list. The way to keep Americans safe is to focus on real threats and ensure that someone whose own father warns U.S. officials he’s a potential terrorist is not allowed to board a Christmas Eve flight to Detroit with a one-way ticket.

Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots. Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes.


Neocons and Obamanots owned in one fell swoop!

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. 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

Ron Paul has too many good ideas to write them down on his hands! :D

[Deborah K]

Bobby, I hope you don't mind, I'm linking a thread I started on brainstorming for the next campaign. This letter gives me so much hope. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=232814

[andrewh817]

If human nature hasn't changed in the past 5000 years, Ron Paul will be assassinated or at the least will have a huge media scandal surrounding him before or once he is elected.