9 votes

Ron Paul Issues Budget Statement

http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110620006383/en

LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--Today, 2012 GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement on what his budget priorities will be if elected. See statement below.

“As President, I will not be able to waive a magic wand and solve all of our problems overnight. I will have to work with Congress and build consensus from the American People.

“But, there are several things that I will do right away to strengthen the fight for Constitutional government.

“First, I will veto any spending bills that contribute to an unbalanced budget.

“During these tough times, the American people are tightening their belts and making sacrifices to make ends meet. So should government.

“Second, I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family planning schemes.

“Like millions of Americans, I believe that innocent life deserves protection and I am deeply offended by abortion. It is unconscionable to me that fellow Pro-Life Americans are forced to fund abortion through their tax dollars.

“As a Congressman, I’ve never voted for any budget that includes funding for Planned Parenthood. Instead, I’ve introduced the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act to cut off all taxpayer funding of abortions, so-called “family planning” services and international abortionists.

“Third, I will direct my administration to cease any further implementation of ObamaCare.

“And fourth, I will on day one of my administration begin to repeal by Executive Order unconstitutional and burdensome regulations on American business. I will be the first President to shrink the size of the Federal Register. We must create a favorable regulatory environment for U.S. business. This cannot be stressed enough.”

For more information on Congressman Ron Paul’s Presidential Campaign visit www.RonPaul2012.com

Continue:
http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110620006383/en

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Waive a magic wand? Wave is

Waive a magic wand? Wave is the correct spelling.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

Is war funding not contribute to an unbalanced budget.

Some of you know Paul's record. Nuff said. Do we really have to question this statement from the Paul campaign? It is obvious who this is for and the little nuggets like "balancing the budget" should give everyone the assurance needed on all the other major issues. If anything Rand gave him a few pointers on buildinng a conservative base.

Victory in Iowa is up to us. Remember our audience...

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

I'd like to see HOW he plans

I'd like to see HOW he plans to balance the budget. The question is important, because it isn't an easy solution.

When Rand Paul was "forced" to have a plan, everyone could see how awful it was. It balanced government spending by expecting government tax revenue to double in five years.

I want to see Ron Paul's specific numbers. The statements he has made in the past, cobbled together, don't give me much hope. 400 billion in military spending, 500 billion in discretionary spending, no tax increases or cuts to medicare or social security. Even if he cuts all of medicare that is only 1.2 trillion. He is still 400 billion shy of a balanced budget, and he's cut all of a discretionary budget, some of which is actually needed.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I understand all of Ron's positions

But this really makes me queasy. The abortion thing is going to turn people WAY off (even for me, who is pro-life but thinks it should be legal for safety reasons). I don't think there should be taxpayer funded abortions or planned parenthood, but that is the EASIEST thing to attack someone on.

I'm trying all of the justifications I can and I cannot see why he didn't mention the wars in there. We already know that the "everyday man" Republican is on our side about coming home; we've seen it.

Dthompson's picture

This is very disappointing

This is very disappointing and I couldn't agree with you more.

I can fully understand Ron's personal opinion about abortions, but government has no right to tell me or any women what we can do with our bodies. Period!

If people don't like abortions, they don't have to have one. Abortion should be between a women and her doctor.

Planned parenthood is so much more than abortions. They provide much needed services for low income families. Family planning, gynecological check-ups, STD screenings, etc.

With that being said, abortions should never be taxpayer funded.

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

-Thomas Jefferson

and the baby has no say? Same

and the baby has no say? Same with people who are murdered in cold blood. The victim had no say.

He's right when he says he

He's right when he says he can't wave a wand and repeal everything. People have become accustomed to think the president can do everything; that he can stop floods; teach your children; pay your rent; fight disease, be your spiritual advisor, father, mother, and, at times, friend. This is why presidents always have low approval ratings: how can one man possibly do all the things everyone expects him to do? Not to mention the fact that he shouldn't even be doing most of things he does do. He has written about how he would act as a president, here, for example.

I don't expect Ron to fix everything, since it would be naive and foolish to think otherwise. We didn't get in this mess overnight; hence it will take more than a Ron Paul president to repeal all the mess. However, the wheel towards destruction must stop, and Ron is the person to stop it. We must first stop the madness before we can turn back the wheel.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

"People have become

"People have become accustomed to think the president can do everything; that he can stop floods; teach your children; pay your rent; fight disease, be your spiritual advisor, father, mother, and, at times, friend."

I don't know what America you live in. I think people do expect the government to stop floods (or take steps to lessen the damage of a flood, and in the case of a disaster, aid in fixing the damage) and to EDUCATE (not "teach", but educate academically) your children. But other than arguably fight disease (not directly fight disease, but do scientific research, work to control outbreaks, etc.), do you really think people as a whole expect government to pay their rent, be a spiritual advisor, or a parent?

A friend, I guess, in that they expect government to be on their side. Do they expect government to be an enemy? Do they expect government to be neutral? No, people expect that government is on the side of the people. If that is "expecting government to be a friend", then so be it.

"This is why presidents always have low approval ratings: how can one man possibly do all the things everyone expects him to do"

Presidents don't always have low approval ratings. Didn't Bush have an approval of 91% at one time?

The low approval ratings we've seen in the last 15-20 years, is because of hyper-partisan politics. 40% of this country wouldn't like Obama if he personally rescued them from drowning. Not because of expectations. Politics is so much about identity rather than policy, that policy hardly matters anymore.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Ya American's have a

Ya American's have a conflated view that government should pretty much solve all our problems. But notice here, I didn't say government, I said the president. Even though I believe government shouldn't be involved in any of those things, I specifically said the president, which you, I guess, take to mean the government.

So, I do live in this America, commenting on how undignified people have become, where their self-reliance and voluntary help of neighbors and family, have, at times, been replaced by government oversight. You, on the other hand, seem to take the view that government is looking out for you and your well-being, rather than taking the rational view on trying to get elected by any which way.

You obviously, also, didn't get what I was saying about low-approval ratings. The point I was making was it's simply impossible for one person to do all the things the public expect him to do. Every crisis, every disaster, is accompanied by what should the president do, as if I need to wait for the president's Holy Scripture to tell me when and how to act.

If you doubt my view or think I have embellished, I suggest you read The Cult of the Presidency, Updated: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power. You will find all the details you need.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

"Ya American's have a

"Ya American's have a conflated view that government should pretty much solve all our problems. But notice here, I didn't say government, I said the president. Even though I believe government shouldn't be involved in any of those things, I specifically said the president, which you, I guess, take to mean the government"

I took president to mean government, because people have expectations of all elected officials.

"So, I do live in this America, commenting on how undignified people have become, where their self-reliance and voluntary help of neighbors and family, have, at times, been replaced by government oversight."

This is true, but this is a much milder claim than what you made before.

"You, on the other hand, seem to take the view that government is looking out for you and your well-being, rather than taking the rational view on trying to get elected by any which way."

Not at all what I am saying. I said nothing about my views on government. Just that your portrayal of how Americans view government is hyperbole.

"You obviously, also, didn't get what I was saying about low-approval ratings. The point I was making was it's simply impossible for one person to do all the things the public expect him to do."

The point you are making is a good one. ITs just that the fact you used to make that point is a bad one. Because presdients have had high-approval ratings (very high at times). And its a lot more complex than high expectations causing the recent trend in low-approval ratings.

"The point I was making was it's simply impossible for one person to do all the things the public expect him to do. Every crisis, every disaster, is accompanied by what should the president do, as if I need to wait for the president's Holy Scripture to tell me when and how to act."

I don't think people wait for government to act. They'll act without it or with it. Just in the aftermath, they will complain or (rarely) compliment it.

Your use of the word "expect" isn't right. Because even if the president does not do anything, he is still doing something. His inaction is still an action.

That kind of scrutiny of the President has been present since America's founding. It might have been more about state-leaders than the president before power became centralized, but blaming government is an American, and wordly, tradition. Especially when it comes to crises and disasters. Because at the very least, the government is generally responsible for going after the people who allowed the disaster to happen.

I'm not getting your complaint, especially in regard to disasters. Should people expect the government to just ignore things? When the BP oil spill happened, Obama should have just said, "none of our business"? When hurricanes hit, he should just have said, "they'll take care of themselves"!

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I took president to mean

I took president to mean government, because people have expectations of all elected officials.

And this was my whole point—people view the government as the president, that he is omniscient and omnipresent.

Just that your portrayal of how Americans view government is hyperbole.

I beg to differ. American’s are quick to see the president as the heart and soul of America; that he is some messianic being set to free the world and take care of all our troubles and aches. Look at the last campaign. Huckabee said he needed to run so this “country can see a revival of our national soul.” And he was going give it to us. John McCain said he idolized Teddy Roosevelt because he “nourished the sole of a great nation.” Obama ran on “audacity of hope,” seeing the president has the leading figure to bring that eternal redemption. George Bush, then president, visited Kansas after a tornado with a mission to “lift people’s spirits as best as I possibly can and to hopefully touch somebody’s soul by representing our country…” Forget the job of being the chief magistrate charged with a faithful execution of the laws; he is now our preacher and soul-toucher. Or Bush’s claim that he will “rid the world of evil.” Now he’s superman! For many Americans, the president’s job is to protect us from harm; to grow the economy; to spread democracy around the world; to rid the world of evil; to provide health care, jobs, and school diplomas; and bring a spiritual blessing upon us.

Clinton Rossiter, in his 1956 book The American Presidency, described the president’s role as:

  1. World Leader
  2. Protector of the Peace
  3. Chief Legislator
  4. Manager of Prosperity
  5. Voice of the People

As Gene Healy says, “he’s our guardian angel…America’s shrink and social worker and our national talk-show host…a guide for the perplexed, a friend to the downtrodden—and he’s also the ‘Supreme Warlord of the Earth.’”
Source.

I don't think people wait for government to act. They'll act without it or with it. Just in the aftermath, they will complain or (rarely) compliment it.

Yes, people take care of themselves, their families and their neighbors; we don’t need some centralized bureaucracy or president to interfere. The problem is, the people, at times, expect the president to do something about it, and when the president and his cohorts arrive they interfere in the process. You could make the argument that states could help, fine, but I’m talking about the federal government, especially the president.

Should people expect the government to just ignore things?

Well you said they wouldn’t and now you’re arguing if they should? I’m saying the government, the federal government in general, and the president in particular should stay out and let communities handle their own affairs.

When the BP oil spill happened, Obama should have just said, "none of our business"? When hurricanes hit, he should just have said, "they'll take care of themselves"!

This implies that the people are stupid rubes who would be lost if it wasn’t for the benevolent angels presiding over them. I think people, on their own, can generally handle their own affairs. If there are problems arising because of property violations, like pollution, then torts could be filed. The BP oil spill is not under the purview of the president; maybe states could interfere, but I think people generally could handle their affairs.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

Wrong! Obama should have simply stayed out of the way...

Just like Wilson, Cleveland and all the others for that matter.

An Oil "Disaster" hit a state. Where has this happened before?

The National Guard comes in - With a full vote of the people, as States aren't handicapped "veterans" who are incapable of dealing with their own natural oil spill.....My my what a shock!!

After the National Guard moves in, the State assembly makes the necessary arrangements. Cleans it up. Prosecutes BP as well for that matter & kicks them directly out of their venue. Be nice if they received a big ticker-tape that said "British Petroleum is never allowed to build in our region again, have a nice day."

That's how it ALWAYS would go around national disasters....And we had all the funding we needed....Because we had a self-sustained economy. Trade, Gold, Silver....Never a day where we needed to literally beg for mercy from an outside member of the Mafia.

How in the world can you say that the "PRESIDENT" should take care of natural disasters? Has he ever done a "terrific" job, in any sense....that everyone cheered?

This is for the republicans who think he is not mainstream.

He is a very smart man and has not forgotten about ending the wars and the IRS, etc. He just won the SRCL poll and got no attention because the media pushes his "fringe" positions. Here he is countering that attack with a pure mainstream Republican paper, to show that his ideas are also mainstream, appeal to the broad base of republicans, in order to enhance the straw poll win and give him more street cred with the old Republicans.(old in mentality, not necessarily age.) It is a very smart move and answers the posts here who were screaming, why doesn't the campaign do anything about the attacks. This is in direct response and it is great because it is true. It is a piece of his platform that gets overlooked by the media and the average voter.

LivingTheDream

Yep!

Without the Republicans,It is not going to happen.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

To all the critics below !

Please reread the first two paragraphs again,I cannot believe you all do not understand them.They are pretty descriptive in explanation.There are steps that have to be taken one at a time.We want it all done overnight and it does not work that way.

We cannot forget that the House and Senate can stop his plans,To gain support of the House and Senate he must gain support of the people they represent. This takes a little time.Small things first to prove viability and trust,then move on to the bigger goals with the backing of this trust.

I am trying to figure out what is so hard to understand about this very factual opening statement that applies to the rest of the article?

“As President, I will not be able to waive a magic wand and solve all of our problems overnight. I will have to work with Congress and build consensus from the American People".

So for those that want the wars ended,the fed ended,the 911 investigation reopened,and all the other BIG issues to be accomplished the day he gets in,Please realise it does not happen that fast.To completely turn a country upside down from what we know it is now takes time and steps.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Is this for real?

No mention of ending the IRS...or at a minimum of ending audits.

No mention of stopping or auditing the Fed.

No mention of ending the funding of the wars (stopping the wars).

The 2nd point is good.

What Dr. Paul said isn't much of a budget statement. There's no mention of cuts or elimination of unConstitutional Departments. He has to have said more than just these simple 4 points.

That he'd stop Obamacare isn't that impressive (though it really is nice). From what I've read Obamacare would die by itself as many states are ready to ignore it completely.

Looks like someone from the Romney campaign wrote this "budget" statement and it doesn't seem typical of how Ron Paul speaks.

This isn't written for us. He

This isn't written for us. He is sending a message to the neocons and attempting to sway their support. So if you want to appeal to the neocon republicans and the religious right you don't talk about all the things they don't care about like ending the wars, you talk about the budget and abortion. I think this was smart and Ron Paul is a sly fox.

IRS, FED Audit, war funding

Executive branch has NO power to do these unless Congress passes legislation. NOW: balancing budget is huge implication for IRS; Ron's fiscal policy is huge for reigning in FED; ending war will take care of ending war funding and RP has already enumerated his intentions there.

No need to get upset about it.

You can still go out and kill babies when you get the urge.
You just can't do it with Federal Tax money taken from others.

Fairly new ron paul supporter

and this statement was a turn off .. but by reading some of the comments i was reminded of his stance on liberty etc. He definitely needs to word this more appropriately for people like me who wont understand initially.

"you're a funny dude, but who gives a fuck about that? I don't care about someone's wit, I care about the courage of their heart and the honesty of their mind."

reedr3v's picture

As a long-time supporter, I agree with you.

It is too bare and does not communicate to the majority who do not understand the indivisible package that personal freedom and economic freedom constitute. Plus it does not mention his number one budget saver, ending the wars!

It almost seems like someone else wrote this, perhaps aimed at Republican voters and got it ok'd by a too-busy Dr. Paul. It definitely does not show his usual sensitivity to priorities and the wide range of individual views encompassed in his broad freedom coalition.

What about the wars?

No mention of the Wars? Also, this "press release" isn't on the RonPaul2012 website. Not that much else is.

I agree with everything said, but the wars are a huge part of cutting the deficit and it's something HE CAN DO. WTH?

This was indeed very

This was indeed very strange..VERY strange. I wonder if he does not want to scare neo-cons at this point...?

correct me if im wrong

but isnt this more about stopping the spending and funding on things like this? it doesn't necessarily mean that you will not be able to choose to get an abortion, it is more about you will have to pay for it by yourself if you want it right? He personally doesnt believe in abortion, but thats not his policy i dont think. i think his policy is that others should not have to pay for you to get an abortion, this is pretty much in line with his message of liberty that you should be allowed to make your own choices and take care of yourself.

Yes. I suppose the federal

Yes. I suppose the federal government should not pay for abortions. MOSTLY because they use taxpayer money from people who are against it, period. On the same hand, and imo, no one should give a cent of incentive to unwed mothers. If states want to, they can set up free childcare for them and give them a stipend ONLY if they work 30-40 hours per week for the city doing jobs commensurate with their abilities. If they do not like this low wage they can get a regular job, and upon showing a pay stub will get a 50-75% reduction in the cost of childcare. I bet we would soon have less irresponsibility in this area.

Paul's statement says "several things"...

not the only things. This is meant for Iowa and I wouldn't be surprised if it is emailed to Republican voters in Iowa and to other Republican voters in the Midwest states.

Us former Democrats, antiwar and pro-choice, feel a little bit jaded. But remember how so many of us here wanted things done differently this time around by the campaign staff. Well here is an example of how the campaign staff is trying to gather more votes in Iowa for 2012.

Rand Paul 2016 for Peace

Debbie's picture

Makes sense if this is for Iowa. As far as pro-choice, you can

still be pro-choice, but only on a state level. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the federal gov. to fund this. Ron has clarified this many times.

Debbie

A lot of of us are liberals

A lot of us Ron Paul supporters are liberals who also support abortion rights. I can see this statement somewhat backfiring on the good doctor. But if thats how he feels, then I atleast it's honest and we'll have to make our decisions if we're ok with that.

read it again

the government has no right to fund it, just as they have no right to fund anti-abortion. All he said was cut the government funding.

*May the only ones to touch your junk, be the ones you want to touch your junk.*

Isnt there anyone that is politically savy working for Ron Paul?

These exact same points could have been made FAR differently...

Lets take the one that will harm him the most with people that are NOT zealous evangelicals...

"Second, I will veto any law that provides financial assistance to organizations that render abortion services.

Americans have unalienable rights from the very beginning and if you believe the Declaration of Independance applies to you then it must also apply to all Americans no matter their age. It is illegal to deny inalienable rights to the youngest Americans and so I will not support these activities financially."

Personally I have never had a problem with abortion per se... but his argument that rights are unalienable at any age is what first made me question my thinking on this. I grew up evangelical and never accepted the relgious reasoning against abortion because that seemed to be shoving religious beliefs down other peoples throats... but Ron Pauls argument he made here swayed me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTU6o4X7fF8