What could a Paul administration realistically accomplish?

[KramerDSP]

This is kind of a long first post, so I'm going to break it up a little bit by adding some quotes in follow-up posts. This has been batted around before, but I'd like to open it up again based on current events. Say Ron Paul announces a run and somehow wins the nomination, leading to debates with Obama. Stretching that further, say he wins the general election, and becomes President in January of 2013.

Would Congress unite in a form of bi-partianship opposing every move the Paul administration makes? What would he actually be able to accomplish in a four year term without the cooperation of Congress? And who's to say that the people holding the economy by strands decide to let it go boom, placing blame on the Paul administration?

Over the years, I've collected memorable comments made on popular online articles about Ron Paui. Here are some comments from '07 to now that I thought were relevant to this topic that I'm quoting below.


Several very obvious reasons.
1.) The election of Ron Paul as president is so unlikely and incredibly out there, it would be a massive statement. It would mean the country is demanding his principles. It would mean other politicians would have to adopt Paul's principles to satisfy the electorate. The country wouldn't just elect Ron Paul while being satisfied with everyone else in congress.
2.) Foreign policy. Ron Paul would have the authority to order the gradual reduction in troops across the world, effectively ending the American empire the world so despises us for. This would also save the country upwards of $1 trillion a year, since we would no longer have to pay for our troops in German, Japan, South Korea, the Middle East, etc, plus we'd stop giving billions of dollars in foreign aid away to countries that don't need it, such as Israel.
3.) Budget power. President Paul can threaten to veto any budget that is not balanced, requiring 2/3rds majority in Congress if they wish to overturn him. And again, they'd look back for overturning him if he was actually elected.
4.) The President has taken a semi-legislative role. For instance, the bailout bill was crafted by Obama and the Treasury. The President does have plenty of influence here and can attempt to push his agenda. Ron Paul might not even do this, but that's an improvement over having liberals pushing theirs.



When Clinton was President and the Republicans controlled congress, we had the smallest deficit we've ever had since WWII (some accounting even shows it as a surplus).

So obviously there is something to be said about political gridlock when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Akairenn




"How many trillions of dollars would he have saved?"

None.

Seriously - a Democrat controlled Congress would not play ball with Ron Paul.

Hell, a Republican controlled Congress would not play ball with Ron Paul.



kkonarik
9 hr 49 min ago
I'm sure he wouldn't have any problem telling the American people what they were doing to destroy this country. He also wouldn't be one sided like Obama he would out people on all sides. Ron Paul serves the people not himself.

[KramerDSP]

Nerys
9 hr 41 min ago
Ron Paul short of bringing home some troops would have gotten NOTHING DONE as president.

tarp would have passed anyway (they would over ride his veto) etc..

this country would be in a shambles right now if ron paul had won

but one thing would be different. He would have a VOICE in the MSM that could not be ignored or intentionally distorted. Because he could always compel another showing to CORRECT the wrong doing's

this is a power he would have as president.

the result as our economy is in tatters and our country in RUIN under a ron paul presidency?

THE PEOPLE WOULD FINALLY BE AWARE OF WHO IS AT FAULT AND WHY ITS NOT BEING FIXED

Because as they faught against him each step of the way he could get on national television and EXPLAIN.

This is what I tried to do. This is what the result would have been and THIS is what your congress chose to do instead and here is how it turned out.

FINALLY in ruins the people would WAKE UP and realize "how things work" right out in the open. (most people KNOW now but hide their head in the sand and play the blame game)

Finally people might wake up enough to begin DEMANDING CHANGE.

THAT is the power of a potential Ron Paul presidency.

What ? you think the powers in place are going to just roll over and say OK we give no more power for us? yeah right.

They will bring this nation to its knee's before they do that. a Ron Paul presidency would finally bring this behaviour into the glaring unwavering eye of the public spotlight.

THAT is the power that could come from a Ron Paul presidency. THEN as it should be the people would "en mass" demand change.

at least thats what I hope. It all depends on how much of the population is sucking the government teet.



herojon
7 hr 30 min ago
Thing is, if the people are to the point of electing RP as President, congress and the senate will likely be filled with many new faces as well. To assume that RP will be held captive by congress and the senate is to assume the people are inconsistent with their votes. Meaning you are assuming they will vote for RP, then turn around and elect the same old crap into the house and senate.



I'm a moderate Democrat, I voted for and still support Obama, but I like Ron Paul. I don't agree with him on many issues, but if every politician was like Ron Paul this country would be in better shape. He answers questions directly. He has views to the right of the right wing and to the left of the left wing, but he doesn't change those views just to get votes. I love his sincerity. If he was elected, not only would the budget be balanced immediately, he would pay off the debt. I'm not sure the country would be ready for the sacrifice that would entail, but he would get it done. Romney is bright, but he is not trustworthy and his flip flops are legendary. Pawlenty has no appeal even to conservatives and Palin is not really a viable or serious candidate.
John, Wyoming, DE (Sent Monday, February 22, 2010 10:06 AM)



geoboy
on 02/21/2010
I see what you mean, but I still don't think it's accurate to call Ron Paul "liberal" in a political sense. Yeah, he's the only presidential candidate I know of who really would have brought actual change to the status quo (aside from Kucinich, perhaps). And he is probably the least authoritarian presidential candidate that has ever run in modern history. If you consider "liberal" to be the opposite of "authoritarian" then I'd see why you call him liberal.


What are your thoughts?

[AuH20]

Also most federal officials are decidedly "liberal" and "authoritarian." I don't think a Ron Paul admin would go over well. He'd have very angry traitors in every department attempting to undercut his administration.

[specsaregood]

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are it would be interesting to see what happened if he told the entire DOJ to focus on government corruption and investigate public officials, lobbyists and the rest of the vermin in D.C.

In fact, that might be a very good plank for a campaign platform.

[AuH20]

My thoughts are it would be interesting to see what happened if he told the entire DOJ to focus on government corruption and investigate public officials, lobbyists and the rest of the vermin in D.C.

That would never happen. I've said it many times. Our only hope is the lower-level military like what happened when Zelaya tried to overstep his power in Honduras. This scum is not going to give up it's power willingly.

[specsaregood]

That would never happen. I've said it many times. Our only hope is the lower-level military like what happened when Zelaya tried to overstep his power in Honduras. This scum is not going to give up it's power willingly.

What won't happen? Him telling them or them following orders?
It's pretty standard for presidents to replace the DOJ attorneys when they come into office. He could replace them with nothing but govt watchdogs or libertarians.

[KramerDSP]

My thoughts are it would be interesting to see what happened if he told the entire DOJ to focus on government corruption and investigate public officials, lobbyists and the rest of the vermin in D.C.

In fact, that might be a very good plank for a campaign platform.

Who would run the Department of Justice? I'm guessing Napolitano would be nominated as the AG.

[Anti Federalist]

He could, within his power, on the first day in office:

1 - End the wars. "We just marched in, we can just come home".

2 - Issue a an Executive Order nullifying all previous EOs.

3 - Veto 99% of the dreck that Congress pukes out of Capitol Hill.

[AuH20]

What won't happen? Him telling them or them following orders?
It's pretty standard for presidents to replace the DOJ attorneys when they come into office. He could replace them with nothing but govt watchdogs or libertarians.

Them following his orders. No shot in hell. Furthermore, Ron Paul would probably be dead within a year for butting heads with the CIA, the other "governing" branch. ;)

[silus]

This argument begins as if Ron Paul could be magically thrust into the presidency. I don't think we're looking at the big picture. Ron Paul alone will not change anything, but if he is elected that would mean millions upon millions of Americans are going to help him.

[low preference guy]

It's pretty standard for presidents to replace the DOJ attorneys when they come into office. He could replace them with nothing but govt watchdogs or libertarians.

I wouldn't mind doing a little "crossing across the aisle" and appointing Glenn Greenwald.

[low preference guy]

Them following his orders. No shot in hell. Furthermore, Ron Paul would probably be dead within a year for butting heads with the CIA, the other "governing" branch. ;)

Ron Paul will do a lot of damage in a week. If they let him be President one year, the damage to their interests will be irreversible.

[libertybrewcity]

The government would be open.
He could issue executive orders.
He could appoint like minded individuals to agencies.
His veto pen would be the most used pen in history.
He would uphold the executive section or the constitution.
He would speak his mind and not hide from the people.
He would have the power to stop federal raids of any kind from raw milk to marijuana.
He could uphold states rights.
He could bring home our troops from all over the world.
He would be an advocate for all things constitutional and educate, educate, educate.
He would finally have a chance to explain his policies to the entire population instead of a group of Republicans.
He might have the chance to appoint a supreme court nominee.
He would end corruption, expose corruption, and let the world know what America has done in the past from foreign policy to civil liberties.
He would protect civil liberties.
He would stop the militarization of our police.
He would be able to endorse the next republican president and hype him or her up as well as many young constitutional leaders.

[KramerDSP]

I wouldn't mind doing a little "crossing across the aisle" and appointing Glenn Greenwald.

That would be a riot. Greenwald certainly has no qualms.

[specsaregood]

I wouldn't mind doing a little "crossing across the aisle" and appointing Glenn Greenwald.

My thoughts exactly. It is possible that some "principled" liberals would do a better job of going after govt corruption than libertarians. Afterall, they believe in a benevolent government, whereas the libertarians would expect govt to be corrupt. Quite simply, corruption by govt officials does more to harm their philosophy/brand than it does ours. I don't have any names to offer though.

[KramerDSP]

He could, within his power, on the first day in office:

1 - End the wars. "We just marched in, we can just come home".

2 - Issue a an Executive Order nullifying all previous EOs.

3 - Veto 99% of the dreck that Congress pukes out of Capitol Hill.

I would think he would order the AG to review all EOs first, and THEN issue an EO nullifying all the power-grabbing ones set by his precedessors.

Can you imagine the HuffPo and Politico sites with headlines like "Dr. Veto!", "Vetoed!", "Vetoed Once Again!"? The venom headed his way from the establishment would be unprecedented.

[specsaregood]

I would think he would order the AG to review all EOs first, and THEN issue an EO nullifying all the power-grabbing ones set by his precedessors.


Well he has said he considers them unconstitutional. I know it might have just been "rhetoric" but I seem to recall him saying that he would only issue one executive order, one that: repealed all previous executive orders and order no other future executive order ever be created.

[AuH20]

I would think he would order the AG to review all EOs first, and THEN issue an EO nullifying all the power-grabbing ones set by his precedessors.

Can you imagine the HuffPo and Politico sites with headlines like "Dr. Veto!", "Vetoed!", "Vetoed Once Again!"? The venom headed his way from the establishment would be unprecedented.

He'd get in the way of trillions of dollars in scams. He'd be dead very quickly. Remember Rumsfield who reported the 2.1 trillion unaccounted for in 2001? And how would the financial cabal react to being put on probation? There are too many unsavory and ruthless parasites pulling the strings in our government. They need to be eliminated, not left to plot future plans. Until then, all our talk is entertainment.

[South Park Fan]

Could he just order that no "law enforcement agency" enforce laws contrary to the Constitution?

[Fredom101]

1. End all the wars and bring all troops home.
2. End the income tax
3. End the Fed

That's a start, but the problem is, American's entire concept of government would have to change for him to get elected, and how likely is that?

[Anti Federalist]

Can you imagine the HuffPo and Politico sites with headlines like "Dr. Veto!", "Vetoed!", "Vetoed Once Again!"? The venom headed his way from the establishment would be unprecedented.

LoLz - :D

I can vividly picture it.

The establishment press organs would come un-freakin-glued.

[low preference guy]

The establishment press organs would come un-freakin-glued.

they will look so insane that they will lose all credibility. ron paul will be able to respond them and smash them any time he wants.

[Matt Collins]

This has already been written here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html)

[libertybrewcity]

This has already been written here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html)

amazing.

[Zippyjuan]

This has already been written here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html)

An interesting read. None of that can be done without the consent of Congress of course.

[libertybrewcity]

I may have a problem with this one:


DAY TWENTY: All federal monuments are sold, in some cases to non-profit groups based on the Mt. Vernon Ladies Association, which owns and runs George Washington's home. The VFW buys the Vietnam memorial. There is much bidding for the Jefferson and Washington monuments. Nobody wants FDR's, so it's torn down and the land sold to a farmer. (With the federal government cut back to its constitutional size, much of Washington reverts to productive uses like agriculture, as in late 18th century.)

[KurtBoyer25L]

Rockwell's Plan seems like a cool Libertarian manifesto, poisoned by two major ills: a strange, overbearing, mystical arrogance and power-lust concerning sexual and marriage issues, and a mega-utopian lack of understanding about the time & processes involved in such a transition.

"Business booms" on day 2. Curiously, it only takes 24 hours for all businesses to boom! And the same poor businesses are apparently not doing much on days 3-30.

"Anti-family" federal sex education is abolished, by which he means anti-traditional family, by which he means anti-heterosexual landowning white Christian Protestant evangelical Man & serf, er, Wife, who have had sex three times, the first two times conceiving children & the third a damn shame.

Pornographers are all out of business, due to the lack of government granting to the National Endowment for the Arts? I was under the impression that this is not from where Sasha Grey receives her checks. In fact, with taxes erased and censorship declared unconstitutional, the sex/porn industry would *really* take off, and not just on Day 2, thus sending Rockwell into a hysterical, permanent insanity. So we'd better save this step for Day 30.

Dr. Paul has often talked about his ideal transitionary period and did so often leading up to the 2008 elections. I would recommend his Google interview, for one.

[low preference guy]

I may have a problem with this one:

Well, you were reading Lew Rockwell's plan.

This is Ron Paul's:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html

[AmericaFyeah92]

If he got whacked, we would have to start such a ruckus that "they" would regret it forever. I'm talking assembling outside the FBI Headquarters in Langley, throwing Molotovs at Capitol Hill, etc.

In fact, his assassination might be the trigger that would start a real Revolution

[Knightskye]

He would be the Commander-in-Chief, and he could take our ships out of the Persian Gulf and order the withdrawal of troops.

That's pretty much all he could do. He votes "no" 99% of the time.

[fj45lvr]

Let's find out

[johngr]

1. Pardon all tax evaders and non-violent drug offenders.

2. Instruct his attorneys to make civil and criminal income tax cases a low priority.

3. Have the attorneys that are freed up from tax cases investigate the IRS and FED under the RICO statutes.

[freshjiva]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but Ron Paul as President would be able to:

1) Appoint an Austrian economist as Fed Chairman (Dr Paul has repeatedly stated that an total dismantle of the Fed would be impossible overnight, so an Austrian Fed Chairman would cease all inflationary money printing, monetizing debt, and make activities at the discount window fully transparent. Bailouts would be a thing of the past.).

2) Hopefully, with the help of Congress and the Supreme Court, cut taxes and overturn unconstitutional regulations (FinReg, Sarbanes Oxley, and others), respectively. This would spur economic growth through production and savings, sucking all the excess liquidity out of the market. This would send gold prices back to around its 30-yr moving average (approx $650/oz).

3) At that point (1-2 years into his Presidency), we could officially return to a pure gold standard. 1 oz of gold nets you $650. Perfect transparency, and market-determined interest rates. $1 today will be worth $1 30 years from now. Unbelievable.



The reform that would happen under President Paul would be just.............uncanny.

[jmdrake]

Some people have brought up some great points of things Ron Paul could do without the consent of congress.

To that I'll add:

1. Immediately stop EPA from regulating CO2 as a greenhouse gas through executive order and appointing a director over EPA that's skeptical of the whole AGW movement.

2. End all warrantless wiretapping programs through executive order. Just because the traitors in congress passed this doesn't mean the executive has to go along with it.

3. Undo all agreements made under SPP (the "official" name of the North American Union).

4. Launch criminal probes of Goldman Sachs, Hank Paulson, Tim Geitner and Ben Bernanke.

5. Reopen investigations into certain matters that are unsettled.

[jmdrake]

An interesting read. None of that can be done without the consent of Congress of course.

Actually that's not true. A lot of that can be done without the consent of congress. It's covered in the article. That said we need to be working to empower ourselves as individuals and to send good people to congress and the state legislatures.

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.

Domestically, the president can use his authority to set policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true. Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state lines.

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.

In fact, none of the measures I have discussed so far involves repealing any written law. They can be accomplished simply by a president exercising his legitimate authority to set priorities for the executive branch. And another important step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive orders issued by his predecessors.

Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.

Only Congress can directly abolish government departments, but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties. 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!

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.

[specsaregood]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but Ron Paul as President would be able to:
1) Appoint an Austrian economist as Fed Chairman (Dr Paul has repeatedly stated that an total dismantle of the Fed would be impossible overnight, so an Austrian Fed Chairman would cease all inflationary money printing, monetizing debt, and make activities at the discount window fully transparent. Bailouts would be a thing of the past.).


Actually he couldn't unless he was allowed to. President's can't just appoint anybody to the fed chairman position. They are only allowed to appoint a candidate from a pool of candidates approved by the Fed Board. So he couldn't appoint an "austrian economist" unless the federal reserve board itself decided that would be ok.

[jmdrake]

Actually he couldn't unless he was allowed to. President's can't just appoint anybody to the fed chairman position. They are only allowed to appoint a candidate from a pool of candidates approved by the Fed Board. So he couldn't appoint an "austrian economist" unless the federal reserve board itself decided that would be ok.

Well he could refuse to appoint anyone who wasn't an "Austrian economist" and call their bluff. Then he could introduce a bill into the congress stripping the Fed Board of this unconstitutional power. There are already polls now showing a majority of Americans turning against the Federal Reserve. They don't want that fight.

[specsaregood]

Well he could refuse to appoint anyone who wasn't an "Austrian economist" and call their bluff. Then he could introduce a bill into the congress stripping the Fed Board of this unconstitutional power. There are already polls now showing a majority of Americans turning against the Federal Reserve. They don't want that fight.

Of course, the bully pulpit would be great in his hands. And at the same time, what you said doesn't dispute what I said. :) And he could certainly appoint an austrian economist in the Treasury secretary position.

[Stary Hickory]

My thoughts are that anyone looking to some old 70 year old white guy for the salvation of their bondage is delusional. Ron Paul could help, he could keep the government at bay while we free ourselves but anyone who actually believes Ron Paul would make us free is not thinking clearly.

Only the people who shackled themselves can release themselves from bondage. That being said if a person like Ron Paul got elected it would say a lot about how the people have changed, that would be some hope. But it is never enough to just put a politician in office. Even someone like Ron Paul.

If he got elected he would need all of us and then some to accomplish liberty in this country.

[johngr]

Only the people who shackled themselves can release themselves from bondage.

That's an inapt characterisation, in a way like blaming a rape victim. I think of it more as groups of men meeting in smoke-filled rooms gradually tightening the screws over hundreds of years. Anyone born in the last 100 and particularly the last 60 years was already born into the bondage, and attempting complete freedom from it most likely at the cost of one's livlihood, family, nominal freedom and posssibly life. There was much outright fraud involved, and occasionally assassinations of people with the power to do something to free the people. Nearly every one of the "straws on the camel's back" was decided in private and sold fraudulently as a necessary response to an engineered crisis.

[t0rnado]

Assuming Ron Paul somehow wins, a large percentage of the country would have to agree with libertarianism. If even 30% of people were on our side and Congress derailed Ron Paul's presidency, there would be violence.

[johnrocks]

Be the three trillion dollar counter weight by vetoing more legislation than any President in history which would require Congressman to record their support of unconstitutional and fiscally irresponsible crap and as Commander in Chief, he would be in a position of changing our foreign policy.

If only those two things occurred, it would be worth it to me.

[acptulsa]

The government would be open.
He could issue executive orders.
He could appoint like minded individuals to agencies.
His veto pen would be the most used pen in history.
He would uphold the executive section or the constitution.
He would speak his mind and not hide from the people.
He would have the power to stop federal raids of any kind from raw milk to marijuana.
He could uphold states rights.
He could bring home our troops from all over the world.
He would be an advocate for all things constitutional and educate, educate, educate.
He would finally have a chance to explain his policies to the entire population instead of a group of Republicans.
He might have the chance to appoint a supreme court nominee.
He would end corruption, expose corruption, and let the world know what America has done in the past from foreign policy to civil liberties.
He would protect civil liberties.
He would stop the militarization of our police.
He would be able to endorse the next republican president and hype him or her up as well as many young constitutional leaders.

Also, he would appoint honest to God Constitutionalists to the Supreme Court (whether they would be confirmed is another question).

He would either get their silliness vetoed or force them to demonstrate their intransigence through overriding his vetos.

He would stand an excellent chance of becoming a martyr for our cause.


No wonder he doesn't really want the job.


That said, if we could win but twenty percent of the House and Senate, it sure would be a boon for us. For, you see, ours could vote with the Republicans when the Democrats try to pass silliness, and they could vote with the Democrats when the neocons try to pass silliness.

As president, Ron Paul could do at least that much good. But, I think that if you were to ask him, he'd consider such Congressional gains more important.

[ravedown]

i would sincerely worry for is safety. this thread is great and puts me in a positive mindset-but the more i read about the complete upending of business as usual- man, talk about enemies in high places.

[isrow]

TPTB would definitely consider killing a President Paul but they can't kill all of us.

[Stary Hickory]

That's an inapt characterisation, in a way like blaming a rape victim. I think of it more as groups of men meeting in smoke-filled rooms gradually tightening the screws over hundreds of years. Anyone born in the last 100 and particularly the last 60 years was already born into the bondage, and attempting complete freedom from it most likely at the cost of one's livlihood, family, nominal freedom and posssibly life. There was much outright fraud involved, and occasionally assassinations of people with the power to do something to free the people. Nearly every one of the "straws on the camel's back" was decided in private and sold fraudulently as a necessary response to an engineered crisis.

Sort of, but we are the very ones who perpetuate it. If we all rejected it, it would instantly disappear. We maintain it and feed it. Obviously people here do not, but we are passive and do not go to any lengths to free ourselves.

As long as the most extreme defenders of liberty can be kept passive then the rest can easily be controlled. I am not advocating craziness here, just saying if we wanted to be free we will have to see much more civil disobedience and a rejection of this corrupt Democratic system which is polluted with demogagues and lawless men.

[Slutter McGee]

I am not seeing much realism or specifics, so here are some things I think he could accomplish in the first year.

1. Start a pullout of Iraq with a specific date to be completely out...say 6 months away, and then actually stand by that.
2. Determine the actual mission of what we are doing in Afghanistan. Privately finish destroying any specific Taliban targets connected with the original reason we are there. Set a date of being out within a year. And then stand by it.
3. Use EO's to repeal old EO's.
4. Position actual business men to the specific departments and instruct them run their departments as they would a business on verge of bankruptcy.
5. In the first budget, present substantial cuts in needless programs.
6. Appoint to the boards of federally owned corporations men and women who will put these corporations on the road to privatization.
7. With a Republican Congress. Lead the way for the repeal of the forced mandate portion of the healthcare bill.
8. Pass a bill for a full Audit of the Federal Reserve.

2nd Year.

1. Encourage relaxing the punishment of Federal Drug laws by threatening blanket amnesty for non-violent drug offenders.
2. Institute a hiring freeze for all Federal Departments not necessary for national security who would only be able to hire for replacements.
3. Push through opt out messures for social security.
4. Repeal the rest of the healthcare bill.
5. Once troops are back from Afghanistan and Iraq start the removal of troops from Western and Eastern Europe and Japan.
6. Extend Bush tax cuts again.
7. Streamline Emergency Response departments such as FEMA.
8. Institute even more cuts in Federal Departments.

3rd Year.

1. Continue hiring freeze and budget cuts in every area possible. Start larger cuts in departments, especially Education, Agriculture, and Energy.
2. Try to push through a balanced budget amendment, rule, or law.
3. Try to push through legislation to allow competing currencies.
4. Major push for repeal of laws such as the PATRIOT ACT.

4th Year.

1. Push through a flat tax or national sales tax but only after the elimination of the current tax code.
2. Push for the complete elimination of departments that have been significantly cut.
3. Massive decreases in Federal Reguation of business. Direct Federal buracracies not to enforce such laws.
4. Eliminate power from most Federal Departments.

Anyway. These are just a few of the things that I think would be much more realistic.

[Stary Hickory]

Well one thing Ron Paul could do is totally wipe the slate of harmful executive orders. Anything that was implemented that way could be undone easily. Also he could make it clear that states can nullify laws and exercise all their powers under the Constitution.

This would create a ripple effect of states making changes, and the PEOPLE would be involved because at least at the state level you have some input, or at least MORE input.

[Zippyjuan]

Actually that's not true. A lot of that can be done without the consent of congress. It's covered in the article. That said we need to be working to empower ourselves as individuals and to send good people to congress and the state legislatures.



Anything done without the support of Congress could be immediately undone by the next president or congress. If he acts without the support of the Congress, it will become impossible for him to get anything done. They write the laws, remember. And they have the power to change them. If, as others have said, Dr Paul does not use Executive Orders to do things (and there are limits as to what you can acomplish with executive orders- the President is not a king or autocrat-, he cannot acomplish a thing without working with Congress.

[Anti Federalist]

Anything done without the support of Congress could be immediately undone by the next president or congress. If he acts without the support of the Congress, it will become impossible for him to get anything done. They write the laws, remember. And they have the power to change them. If, as others have said, Dr Paul does not use Executive Orders to do things (and there are limits as to what you can acomplish with executive orders- the President is not a king or autocrat-, he cannot acomplish a thing without working with Congress.

Not supposed to be anyway.

But the reality is much closer to the opposite, the office of the executive has been acting more and more like a dictatorial autocrat.

Which presents a conundrum for somebody like RP and he has mentioned it before: do you use unconstitutional authority to remove unconstitutional measures?

[Todd]

The first thing that comes to mind is any Supreme court vacancies would get a true staunch constitutionalist.

Secondly any thing that can be done to restore the Executive branch to a reasonable size could be immediately addressed.

[Peace&Freedom]

1) Paul, in addition to all recommended so far, could reverse not only the practice of torture by the feds, but the infrastructure of policy, 'findings,' regulations and court litigation intended to sustain it.

2) Paul could state and write new tax 'code' policy that uneqivocally acknowledges the points tax honesty advocates have made, and streamline procedures for most Americans to easily get the IRS (or whatever tax gestapo that still exists after Paul) to acknowledge they are not subject to tax liability or filing.

3) Paul could also unceremoniously release 95% of government classified files to the public, and create a vastly stricter definition of what "sensitive" information means to govern withholding data from transparent scrutiny by the American people. Just revealing the oceans of government lies, crimes and atrocities in this fashion would by itself stop its further growth and unconstitutional lurching in its tracks.

[Seraphim]

Even with a Congressional majority, so long as the Fed exists and major offshore banking interests control the USA, he would be shot. He wouldn't get much done, not for a lack of trying.

[libertybrewcity]

Even with a Congressional majority, so long as the Fed exists and major offshore banking interests control the USA, he would be shot. He wouldn't get much done, not for a lack of trying.

That is why a good vice president would be so important. If Ron Paul could get enough done to show the world why he might be shot, it could be just enough to deter the assassins.

[Seraphim]

That is why a good vice president would be so important. If Ron Paul could get enough done to show the world why he might be shot, it could be just enough to deter the assassins.

explain?

[djdellisanti4]

I think that in the least, we would see a peaceful and orderly end to the empire. And I feel that the beginning of the end of the fed would occur, as an audit would be passed. Plus he would veto all unbalanced budgets.

I do think that Ron Paul would be a much larger assasination target than any man ever elected since Kennedy. Which is a terrible thought, but probably true.

[kkassam]

I'll agree that Ron Paul could make major changes in the military and would use all sorts of constitutionally available tools to pare down the Federal Government, but here's a very good case against thinking that putting "the right person" in charge of the executive branch could actually reduce the size of government in a significant or sustainable way:

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/01/open-letter-to-ron-paul-supporters-part.html

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-to-actually-defeat-us-government.html

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-to-defeat-us-government-summary.html

[andrewh817]

If Ron Paul became president there would be MASSIVE union strikes when he signed legislation to disband various government programs. Even done in increments, there would be massive opposition from every one on welfare, food stamps, DMV workers, public school teachers, mailmen, politicians, corporate leaders, tax lawyers, etc, this list could be much longer.

Not that the transition out of a statist society would be much smoother if he weren't elected.

[Knightskye]

My thoughts are that anyone looking to some old 70 year old white guy for the salvation of their bondage is delusional. Ron Paul could help, he could keep the government at bay while we free ourselves but anyone who actually believes Ron Paul would make us free is not thinking clearly.

Only the people who shackled themselves can release themselves from bondage. That being said if a person like Ron Paul got elected it would say a lot about how the people have changed, that would be some hope. But it is never enough to just put a politician in office. Even someone like Ron Paul.

If he got elected he would need all of us and then some to accomplish liberty in this country.

George Washington.

Anyway, you're just acting like a troll. We're talking about what a liberty-minded President could accomplish, and the answer is a lot.

[RideTheDirt]

He would need a tanker full of ink for his veto pen.

[Knightskye]

He would need a tanker full of ink for his veto pen.

Ron Paul would sign with a feather. :D

[constituent]

Compromise?

[South Park Fan]

Ron Paul would sign with a feather. :D

The Constitution doesn't give the President the power to use a pen. :D

[TNforPaul45]

I've always imagined that Paul would forgo all of the Inaugural Day hoopla, have the simple swearing in under the Capital Routunda, and would busily get back to the White House and get to work.

He would have to have a massive Congressional majority to do a lot of the stuff that is needed. The government elements that control things now would set off a massive amount of distractionary events that would be an attempt to convince the public that he is crazy.

It would be sheer and utter chaos, not because of him, but because of the fear of those who hold the true power of losing that power.

[Knightskye]

The Constitution doesn't give the President the power to use a pen. :D

Exactly.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Realistically, a Paul administration would resemble Reagan's without the CIA screwing around in other countries.

He's put Austrians in charge of Treasury and the Fed (with a focus to limit it's power).

With a Republican Congress, we'd get drastically lower taxes, lower spending, more privatization of current government programs. Many mandates on business and people would be repealed. Obamacare would either be repealed or nullified. The Department of Education probably would be eliminated, and many current Federal powers would revert to the states. If fully successful, the tax structure in this country would shift from majority Federal tax to majority state tax. Unfettered free trade would happen. We'd have an economic rebirth, similar to the 1950's and 1980's. We MAY go back to some form of "gold" backed currency, but not a full gold standard.

With a Democrat Congress -- gridlock. Not entirely bad, because business knows government can't stick it's hand into their pockets.

Either way 1000 times better than today, but probably not the libertarian paradise dreamed of.