Would POTUS Paul Veto ANY Unbalanced Budget?

[anaconda]

I want to start passing out slim jims and I noticed at the campaign store:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/

there is one slim jim pack called "Restore America's Prosperity" pack. On that card, under where it says: "Real Solutions" it reads "President Ron Paul will:"

"Veto any unbalanced budget Congress sends him."

I don't want to misspeak to people as I try to spread the message, BUT I don't recall hearing this pledge from Ron. I realize that he has probably voted "nay" on every budget he has voted on, but that doesn't change the fact. As POTUS his approach may be somewhat different. President Paul might do like Rand, for example, and agree to a solution that takes perhaps 2 or 3 years to balance. I think I even heard him say several weeks back that he would consider voting for an unbalanced budget under certain limited circumstances. Can anyone confirm that this is a specific campaign pledge of Ron's? Thank you.

[Chester Copperpot]

I dont think so... I think any budget not balanced will be vetoed by a president Paul..

As he says, "The only budget that counts is this years"

[FrankRep]

Would POTUS Paul Veto ANY Unbalanced Budget?

I don't see where Ron Paul says that either.


This is all I can find:


Ron Paul > Political positions of Ron Paul > Lower taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Lower_taxes)

Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!"[92] He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget;


Not the same thing obviously.

[tsai3904]

All 47 Republican Senators support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that requires a balanced budget every year beginning in the fifth year. This allows for a five year transition and by law, after the fifth year, the budget must be balanced.

I wonder if Ron Paul supports that.

[anaconda]

I dont think so... I think any budget not balanced will be vetoed by a president Paul..

As he says, "The only budget that counts is this years"

In this interview Dr. Paul mentions a circumstance where he might vote for a presumably unbalanced budget. See 1:30 - 1:39 in the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJAoP652nw

[Chester Copperpot]

All 47 Republican Senators support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that requires a balanced budget every year beginning in the fifth year. This allows for a five year transition and by law, after the fifth year, the budget must be balanced.

I wonder if Ron Paul supports that.

its a good idea on paper.. but we all know that the 5 year transition period will do nothing to reign in spending and then the 6th year there will be some sort of crisis or emergency where there will be some loophole to allow for MORE spending, more debt, more lies, more bullshit..

enough.

hold the line on spending NOW

anything else is a dodge

[sailingaway]

I want to start passing out slim jims and I noticed at the campaign store:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/

there is one slim jim pack called "Restore America's Prosperity" pack. On that card, under where it says: "Real Solutions" it reads "President Ron Paul will:"

"Veto any unbalanced budget Congress sends him."

I don't want to misspeak to people as I try to spread the message, BUT I don't recall hearing this pledge from Ron. I realize that he has probably voted "nay" on every budget he has voted on, but that doesn't change the fact. As POTUS his approach may be somewhat different. President Paul might do like Rand, for example, and agree to a solution that takes perhaps 2 or 3 years to balance. I think I even heard him say several weeks back that he would consider voting for an unbalanced budget under certain limited circumstances. Can anyone confirm that this is a specific campaign pledge of Ron's? Thank you.


I'd be cautious with that one. He was asked if he would vote for an unbalanced budget and said something about maybe if they cut the deficit in half he might think about it as a step in the right direction, and his piece on what a Constitutional Presidency could achieve gave a nod towards compromise as well, as long as it was significant cuts, not cuts in increase, so I think some staffer may have written that based on his voting record. He never has voted for an unbalanced budget....

but I don't really know it isn't true, it just sounds a little more certain than I think he would be. He wants to save the economy and if it took two bites to get to a balanced budget, I can't see him turning that away.

His statement that the only year's budget that counts is this years was pointing out that the deficit goes UP this year under Ryan's then supposedly it comes down in some future Ron thinks will never materialize, only keeping the deficit going up part. If it cut the deficit by half, he'd have to think about it, he said. Not that he would vote for it, but that he wasn't sure he wouldn't.

Besides what if there were a REAL war? Someone bombed Hawaii again, or whatever....

[Chester Copperpot]

In this interview Dr. Paul mentions a circumstance where he might vote for a presumably unbalanced budget. See 1:30 - 1:39 in the video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJAoP652nw

I think a 50% spending cut would balance the budget wouldnt it?

[Chester Copperpot]

i think its actually a surplus

[tsai3904]

i think its actually a surplus

Only if tax revenues stay the same, which probably won't happen during the first year of a 50% spending cut.

[tsai3904]

its a good idea on paper.. but we all know that the 5 year transition period will do nothing to reign in spending and then the 6th year there will be some sort of crisis or emergency where there will be some loophole to allow for MORE spending, more debt, more lies, more bullshit..

You're right. I looked at the proposal and there's a lot of exceptions to passing a balanced budget.

The following conditions are needed to pass an unbalanced budget:


Requires 2/3 of both Houses for a specific deficit for a fiscal year.
Requires a majority of Congress for a specific deficit for a fiscal year during a declared war.
Requires 3/5 of Congress for a specific deficit for a fiscal year during a military conflict declared to be “an imminent and serious military threat to national security” and the deficit must be limited to “outlays…made necessary by the identified conflict.”

Too many loopholes in that "Balanced Budget Amendment"

[anaconda]

I think a 50% spending cut would balance the budget wouldnt it?

Ah! Point well taken. But my suspicion is that he was talking about a current budget that would eliminate 50% of the deficit. But I could be wrong. My reason for saying this is that I think Dr. Paul would be highly enthusiastic about a budget that cut "50% of the spending!" Why would he even be reluctantly ambivalent here if he meant 50% of the spending? Which would (as you point out) generate an immediate surplus (assuming revenues are unchanged). But perhaps you are correct.

[anaconda]

I'd be cautious with that one. He was asked if he would vote for an unbalanced budget and said something about maybe if they cut the deficit in half he might think about it as a step in the right direction, and his piece on what a Constitutional Presidency could achieve gave a nod towards compromise as well, as long as it was significant cuts, not cuts in increase, so I think some staffer may have written that based on his voting record. He never has voted for an unbalanced budget....

but I don't really know it isn't true, it just sounds a little more certain than I think he would be. He wants to save the economy and if it took two bites to get to a balanced budget, I can't see him turning that away.

His statement that the only year's budget that counts is this years was pointing out that the deficit goes UP this year under Ryan's then supposedly it comes down in some future Ron thinks will never materialize, only keeping the deficit going up part. If it cut the deficit by half, he'd have to think about it, he said. Not that he would vote for it, but that he wasn't sure he wouldn't.

This is the way I was leaning as well. Unfortunately, we cannot contact the campaign because the campaign website has no contact information.

[sailingaway]

This is the way I was leaning as well. Unfortunately, we cannot contact the campaign because the campaign website has no contact information.

You can PM SteveBierfeldt or Debbie Hopper.

[anaconda]

You can PM SteveBierfeldt or Debbie Hopper.

Thanks. Done.

[anaconda]

This post today greatly clarifies my question:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?299606-Ron-Paul-What-I-Will-Veto-as-President

[1836]

I would imagine that with the urging of fellow hardcore conservatives in the House and Senate, President Paul would consider voting for a budget that ran a deficit if there was a balanced budget amendment or perhaps, if the budget created a surplus within two or three years. It would need to be a real, concrete plan however... I doubt he would compromise much or at all, because he is always keen to point out that compromise always leads to the direction of ever bigger government.

[Elwar]

That is a bold faced lie!

Ron Paul would not veto a budget that has more revenue than spending...

At least...I HOPE he wouldn't.