MadViking10
12-14-2007, 03:01 PM
from National Review
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjgxM2E0ZWEyNjRjNWE1Njg4Mjk1NWEyNDRiNjY5NjI=
Friday, December 14, 2007
RON PAUL
Imagining a Ron Paul Presidency
A colleague laid out something of a case for Ron Paul a while back, and it’s been nagging at me…
Imagine, for a moment, Ron Paul becomes president. (Stop laughing. This is an intellectual exercise.)
So a Democratic, or even Republican Congress completes the appropriations process, and sends President Paul the funding bill for, say, the Commerce Department. Ron Paul doesn’t think we should have a Commerce Department, so he vetoes it.
Congress either overrides it, or maybe with enough folks to sustain veto. Suddenly the appropriators of both parties find themselves constantly bumping up against a president who forces them, for the first time in anyone's memory, to justify the existence of this federal department and its attending bureaucracy, much less the size of its budget. In the meantime, Paul may not appoint a Commerce Secretary, since he thinks we don’t need a department. Or any of the undersecretaries. Or Department of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development….
Sooner or later, a fed-up Congress would try to impeach President Paul. And then the real revolution begins! Okay, no, not really.
But if you think Washington is big and bloated and unresponsive and voracious in its appetite for ever-larger, ever-more intrusive government, Ron Paul is the guy who would throw a monkeywrench into the gears. Official Washington would grind to a halt; it’s hard to imagine any big expansion of government with a president who made Tom Coburn look like Robert Byrd. Four to eight years, of a broken record, “No, I’m vetoing it, it’s not in the Constitution… no, I’m vetoing that too, it’s not in the Constitution.”
You think about that scenario, suddenly every other guy in the race looks like the candidate of the status quo.
There are other parts of Paul’s agenda that are absolute dealbreakers for me – but thinking about this vision, well… I can’t deny that it appeals to some dark corner of my fiscal conservative psyche.
:)
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjgxM2E0ZWEyNjRjNWE1Njg4Mjk1NWEyNDRiNjY5NjI=
Friday, December 14, 2007
RON PAUL
Imagining a Ron Paul Presidency
A colleague laid out something of a case for Ron Paul a while back, and it’s been nagging at me…
Imagine, for a moment, Ron Paul becomes president. (Stop laughing. This is an intellectual exercise.)
So a Democratic, or even Republican Congress completes the appropriations process, and sends President Paul the funding bill for, say, the Commerce Department. Ron Paul doesn’t think we should have a Commerce Department, so he vetoes it.
Congress either overrides it, or maybe with enough folks to sustain veto. Suddenly the appropriators of both parties find themselves constantly bumping up against a president who forces them, for the first time in anyone's memory, to justify the existence of this federal department and its attending bureaucracy, much less the size of its budget. In the meantime, Paul may not appoint a Commerce Secretary, since he thinks we don’t need a department. Or any of the undersecretaries. Or Department of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development….
Sooner or later, a fed-up Congress would try to impeach President Paul. And then the real revolution begins! Okay, no, not really.
But if you think Washington is big and bloated and unresponsive and voracious in its appetite for ever-larger, ever-more intrusive government, Ron Paul is the guy who would throw a monkeywrench into the gears. Official Washington would grind to a halt; it’s hard to imagine any big expansion of government with a president who made Tom Coburn look like Robert Byrd. Four to eight years, of a broken record, “No, I’m vetoing it, it’s not in the Constitution… no, I’m vetoing that too, it’s not in the Constitution.”
You think about that scenario, suddenly every other guy in the race looks like the candidate of the status quo.
There are other parts of Paul’s agenda that are absolute dealbreakers for me – but thinking about this vision, well… I can’t deny that it appeals to some dark corner of my fiscal conservative psyche.
:)