164 votes

Ron Paul's plan being announced Monday. Cutting $1 trillion. Cutting his pay to $39,000

Ron Paul is coming out with his detailed plan on Monday. Will be specific on what he will cut.

Ron Paul’s detailed agenda for America will be disclosed next week and a senior official with his campaign tells The Brody File that it includes eliminating five governmental departments, cutting one trillion dollars in spending and Dr. Paul would take a presidential salary of just $39, 336, which is the median salary of the American worker (The President’s base salary is normally $400,000).

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2011/10/14/exclusi...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The 5 departments

are Executive Branch Departments.
This means that are under the complete direection and control of the President. The President may operate or shut down any or all Executive Branch Departments at will. Anytime he wants.

I am willing to admit I might

I am willing to admit I might have misspoke if you can provide a source for this information. According to you, there is a distinction between these 5 departments and the rest.

You call them "executive branch departments"... yet this seems like a meaningless and redundant distinction, since all 15 departments are "executive branch departments", with cabinet-level officers.

All were created by some congressional act at one point or another.

From the Wiki page on Dept. of HHS:

President Harding proposed a Department of Education and Welfare as early as 1923, and similar proposals were also recommended by subsequent presidents, but for various reasons were not implemented.[2] It[clarification needed] was only enacted thirty years later as part of the authority, in which the president was allowed to create or reorganize bureaucracies as long as neither house of Congress passed a legislative veto. This power to create new departments was removed after 1962, and in the early 1980s the Supreme Court declared legislative vetoes unconstitutional.

Furthermore, Paul himself says in the article I linked to that eliminating these would require Congressional approval. Rather, the way he said he would do it (and I think this is a lot more realistic in the short term) is merely to freeze their hiring and reduce active employment to emergency levels. Then he'd let them die by attrition. This amounts to "phasing" out the departments, not eliminating them... but it's at least legal for the president to do.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

You've heard

next to nothing about his plan and you are already acting like you know better than he does what this country needs? Who the heck are you? Why don't you wait until you hear everything he has to say before you start arm chair quarterbacking the man. Don't you think Dr. Paul has a pretty good grasp on what the president has authority to do and what he doesn't? I realize he still needs to learn a lot about the constitution from you but give him a little credit will ya?

You've heard next to nothing

You've heard next to nothing about his plan and you are already acting like you know better than he does what this country needs? Who the heck are you? Why don't you wait until you hear everything he has to say before you start arm chair quarterbacking the man.

Oh, here we go again. Another valiant, "true" RP supporter has stepped up to bat to tell me how out of line I am. This is going to be fruitless, I'm just letting you know that right now, but I'll go through the motions for your benefit.

So where do we begin? How about first with the charge that you're criticizing me for a plan I know nothing about (which I even admitted btw)? So if I get this straight, it's totally cool for you guys to be cheering about how great this plan is when YOU don't know any more than I do about it, but it's wrong for me to voice my concerns? Which is it going to be?

Either you view my opinion just as legitimately as yours or you favor a double standard, where anyone who breaks with the majority circle-jerk here is heavily scorned. So which is it going to be?

The point is, if you're going to be philosophically consistent, you're obligated to tell everyone else here to shut up and wait until Monday as well. But you're obviously not going to do that...

But wait, that's not all. The second half of your reply changes tactics:

Don't you think Dr. Paul has a pretty good grasp on what the president has authority to do and what he doesn't?

So, according to you, the fact that I am criticizing LEAKED details of Paul's plan before it's announced isn't the real issue, it's that I dare not find it perfect in every way? That I don't get all warm and fuzzy and give two hurrahs for Ron Paul?

You're unbelievable. I ask you again, which will it be? Is my opinion discreditable because I haven't seen Paul's plan yet or merely because I'm critical of it? You frankly seem so bothered by the idea that anyone would dare call attention to the campaign's missteps that I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter. But hey, I just want to get this straight.

I realize he still needs to learn a lot about the constitution from you but give him a little credit will ya?

You DO realize that I quoted an actual article written by the man himself right? Not one written ages ago either, but just last year... I mean, you DID read that part right?

You DID see that I even linked to his 2008 economic plan as well, yes?

And where did I say that this was all Paul's fault? Are you just too impatient to actually sit and read or are you so delusional, you'll pull these things out of thin air?

Next thing you know, you'll be saying I blamed him for leaking his plan early... god, what is with your type, honestly?

I'm critical of Paul's campaign, which if you must know, DOES share some overlap with how the man presents himself, but do you honestly think I would be here if I didn't still support him and agree with him?

Would you rather that anyone who thought the campaign was dropping the ball on a few key issues just kept silent, so if the campaign ever went off a cliff, you could all act shocked?

This isn't about "armchair quarterbacking" Paul's campaign or teaching him the constitution or any of your other smears. This is plain common sense.

If you honestly have a problem with my criticism that much, then you might ask yourself how you're better than the neocons who accuse Ron Paul of treason when he criticizes our government's foreign policy.

The point I'm making is that our movement is full of the same hypocrisy as the statists and collectivists. What makes it so damning for us is we are trying to foment a revolution uniquely predicated on STOPPING said hypocrisy. Therefore, what good is it if we DON'T exercise the same principles that Paul does? Chiefly voicing our concerns and holding the campaign accountable?

Most of you walk around with the attitude that your opinion of Paul is the only one that matters. Any attempt to make Paul's message more mainstream or more palatable, quite a few of you pounce on as evidence of some unseen corruption or some sinister inside job...

So, if that's wrong, how is it different than what you accuse me of doing? You tell me that I'm the arrogant one, but you and others like you are the ones who actively undervalue the importance of gaining mainstream support.

Why else do you think they'd make this announcement the day before the Tuesday debate in the first place? Why else come out with an economic plan? HINT: these are all traditional formalities for any political campaign at ANY level. And doing them is key to achieving any kind of mass acceptance.

Surely, you at least agree to this, right? So why do you have a problem speaking out when the campaign doesn't go ALL IN? In other words, what is wrong with pointing out the campaign isn't doing this whole mainstream thing right? I mean, isn't that the whole point?

This is not an economic plan, as bevans already said earlier; it's a spending plan. And even if it turns out that there is far more to Paul's plan, does that invalidate my criticism? NO. Which is why I said it anyway.

The whole point is eliminating departments and cutting $1 trillion is all good, but what MAINSTREAM voters want most is jobs. And even if he mentions regulatory reform and monetary reform, as he did in 2008, he's still doing so in a language that's far too radical for the average voter. You don't have to be some elite political consultant to figure that one out. It's common sense. So stop insinuating that's what I am.

In conclusion, you would do well to thoroughly re-inspect all your previously held assumptions about Ron Paul and what the man stands for, and then decide if you really want him to win. If the answer after all this is still yes, then maybe you should be a bit more skeptical as well.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

no, I'm just tired of people

criticizing Ron Paul for being Ron Paul. One of the biggest reasons I and many other are loyal to the man is his honesty and integrity. He isn't a polished, fancy packaged, politician trying to sell snake oil. This plan is pure Ron Paul, the walk to match the talk. Those that believe in the message of Ron Paul will love it and those that don't won't love it if you paint it with gold. You would rather have him pander and later on after he wins do a turn around? I trust the man. I trust that he knows what is right because he has shown me that I should. Every time people think he shot himself in the foot and were crying about it he showed he knew exactly what he was doing. So even at times I think to myself "he shouldn't have said or done that", he's proven to me that he did exactly what he should have.

no, I'm just tired of people

no, I'm just tired of people criticizing Ron Paul for being Ron Paul. He isn't a polished, fancy packaged, politician trying to sell snake oil. This plan is pure Ron Paul, the walk to match the talk. Those that believe in the message of Ron Paul will love it and those that don't won't love it if you paint it with gold. You would rather have him pander and later on after he wins do a turn around?

Like I asked you before, do you REALLY think I'd be here if I was as shallow as you think my criticisms are?

You said nothing to refute my main point. The people who get Paul, the people who like his authenticity -- and all the eccentricities and raw, unvarnished straight talk that entails -- have all been brought around already. Or if they haven't, that won't change simply because Paul articulates himself in a different way.

Paul's actions over his 30-year career in public life, his ideas about where to take this country... none of that has to change. The mistake you and others here are making is that changing how he presents his message necessarily involves lying or changing the actual message. This is not true at all.

This kind of absolutism is a large reason why the Libertarian Party has been locked in internal squabbles over pragmatic outreach versus principled education... for over 40 years. Can you imagine that? 40 years of this same debate? All because the principled, hardcore supporters of the libertarian message don't realize when they're being too forward.

This is NOT "pandering" and then later pulling a 180 or anything like that. Everyone already knows where Paul stands, everyone knows he would radically shrink government. The issue to them is why he wants to, how he would do so, and also how fast he would do so.

A plan like this does NOT alleviate any of those concerns or answer any of those questions.

And frankly, the only reason Paul is still in this is because, when his campaign DOES stumble, he can always count on US, the already-converted, to pull him through. The media has already treated him like he jumped the shark a long time ago. Comments about wiping out FEMA and most recently, regarding Al-Awlaki and Iran, have only intensified opposition to him from the people we are trying to reach.

Get out of your bubble and realize this. Your opinion of Paul's is not the only one that matters. And if you continue to assume that pragmatically adapting his message is the same thing as "moderating" it or "pandering" to the audience, then I hope you like 40 years of irrelevance, just like the LP.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

You have valid points

A jobs plan is tricky. We'll see how he addresses it on Monday. I agree I hope it's not all just budget cuts, but also serious changes in policy and regulations, and maybe even tax policy, to make it easier for business to grow and hire.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Thanks, and I agree. It IS

Thanks, and I agree. It IS tricky, and it DOES need to be more than just cuts. But since Paul doesn't think the government should be involved in adding jobs anyway, he needs to clearly and simply demonstrate how his cuts will get the economy working again.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

Dude,

I can't say that I read the book that you just wrote, but what I can say is that this is exactly what people want. ACTION. You don't see the strategy here? Really? I think you're in the wrong place if you don't get it. I'm sure Romney would be happy to have another follower of his "creating another puzzle" plan.

Seriously. I don't think you're looking at this the right way. EVERY CANDIDATE talks about how they're fiscally conservative and for "small government", and just like those before them, they've taken no real action.

This plan will open the gates for eliminating taxes. This is what people want. ACTION. It puts Cain to bed, and we haven't even seen the whole thing!!

Relax. The good Doctors got this one, I'm sure.

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies".

I can't say that I read the

I can't say that I read the book that you just wrote, but what I can say is that this is exactly what people want. ACTION. You don't see the strategy here? Really? I think you're in the wrong place if you don't get it.

Okay, first things first. You do not get to tell me what you think I should do until you actually spend the time to READ what I said.. since you know, I actually wrote it. It's not my problem if you don't have the intellectual (and intestinal) fortitude to actually read my criticism in full, but if you're not going to at least extend me that courtesy, then you shall not receive it from me either.

I addressed WHY I thought the strategy was flawed and a whole lot more, but I guess reading and actually understanding that part would have been a lot less fun than ignoring it and saying whatever you wanted to say. Which, to me, is hilarious.

You guys always bash RedState or ThinkProgress or anyone who doesn't understand Ron Paul and tell them "don't be lazy, go read what he's actually written", yet you won't even follow this advice yourselves.

This plan will open the gates for eliminating taxes. This is what people want. ACTION. It puts Cain to bed, and we haven't even seen the whole thing!!

No, we haven't seen the whole thing, but does that invalidate my critiques of the portions we HAVE seen? No, or else I would not be making them. You can't criticize something you haven't seen, obviously. But also, you can't defend something you haven't seen either. The latter is the behavior of mindless fanboys.

The point I'm driving at is if you want to support Paul, you have to have a more nuanced view of things than simply "he's right, everything he does is right". That attitude is as bad as the personality cult that formed around Obama.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

How about TARP #2

Terrified American Relief Plan.

Don't wait for the official announcement

Make the pay-cut announcement by Ron Paul go viral now!!!!!!!

Graphics, videos, flyers, posters, etc...Set the whole internet ablaze! This should pump real steam into the black-this-out money bomb!

90% of my friends are liberal

90% of my friends are liberal or don't care about anything going on around them except sports and american idol, so don't think I can do anything to make it go viral.

I am truly impressed by the

I am truly impressed by the resilience of Dr. Paul and his campaign. Despite a complete media black-out he is determined to restore America to the vision of our founders. Ideal governments only last so long before sociopaths and greed corrupt it. The American revolution began the first liberty-based government and the Ron Paul rEVOLution will mark the second. Dr. Paul is guided by God and he cannot and will not fail. We are fighting an intellectual battle that has so much at stake. I am a 21 year old student who is getting married next year; I will do everything in my power to make sure my future children will get to live a life of liberty and freedom. I am so happy to have found this website where I can hear and speak my mind to like-minded individuals with a high degree of critical thinking. Dr. Paul has cured our apathy - it is up to us to spread his message!

Any other articles about this?

This is amazing!!! He is such a great person and candidate. I really feel like this plan will reach others.

However, I don't like the way he writes as if Ron Paul is still a long shot in the end of this article.

Are there any other articles I could use to send this out?

Brooke Day

just...

...copy & paste it into your e-mails (or wherever) but delete or modify the offending passage at the end.

When I do that, sometimes I give the author credit, sometimes I don't. When I don't, who knows (or cares) if my contacts think it's my writing or not....

A True Statesman

He truly is on par with the Founding Fathers. We are blessed to have such an honest and genuine person who desires the most difficult job. We need to pray for him and his family that the Lord will keep him healthy, faithful, and vibrant. I pray the Lord is going to help restore a sense of morality and dignity to this Country. We definitely need the Bible back in Education.

Being On the Right Side of History: Psalm 46:10

Amen

and Amen! Thumbs up!

Ron Paul is BRILLIANT!

Just wait until the media gets a hold of this announcement! Especially the part where he will accept only 39k in pay as president. If that doesn't scream HONESTY and INTEGRITY I don't know what will! This should be the dagger that destroys the other candidates. Almost every person that is fed up with the govt have been demanding that Congress cut their pay, and with this announcement alone, I'm certain many will change to Paulite!

Forget republican and democratic party, lets start the "Paulite" party!

reedr3v's picture

I'm visualizing a really good graphic designer

creating a chart comparing the streams of income and sources for all of the other candidates and major politicians of both parties, including their gold-plated pensions and health plans and junkets and all other perks.

ALL HE NEEDS NOW IS BRANDING

ALL HE NEEDS NOW IS BRANDING IT.. to rival 999..

lets all suggest some names.. and then we can send it to their campaign

CUTS PlanCut an Unnecessary

CUTS Plan

Cut an Unnecessary Trillion in Spending.

Cut an Unconstitutional Trillion in Spending.

399

3-9-9: since he's only taking $39,000 it's a much better deal than Cain's plan :P

-===CC=-

This. I like the new ads, I

This.

I like the new ads, I like the new logo, I even will accept the slogan "Restore America Now".

But the "Restore America Now plan" is just terrible branding, and Paul's delivery is still much too raw.

These things need a lot of work and time is running out. I really hope the campaign steps it up.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

Hey why don't you Run Yourself

IF you got all the answers. Sounds to me like your king shit and got it all figured out. You like everything but yet it all needs lots of work. If that is not a contradiction then I'm the next president of the USA.

"The more you understand everything, the more you can understand anything."
PDV

Your kind just can't take any

Your kind just can't take any criticism of the campaign can you? It just grinds your gears, doesn't it? That some of us aren't out there happily fapping away over every "major announcement" the campaign has, which turns out to hardly be major or an announcement.

Hey why don't you Run Yourself IF you got all the answers. Sounds to me like your king shit and got it all figured out.

But that's the thing, retard, I don't suggest I have all the answers, and I've openly admitted that several times. I'm not one of the people going around here fantasizing about VP picks like Judge Nap or Rand Paul that will NEVER happen. I'm not one of the people around here who is pretending like RP's win is a sure thing.

I live in the real world, and here we have a saying, "I know it when I'll see it". Ever heard it? I openly admit that I don't have all the facts the campaign does, but so what? I'm not calling Paul or any of his staff liars or idiots, am I? No, I simply said they could do a better job.

Look, you don't have to have all the answers if you know who can get them for you. If you have good political instincts, sometimes that can be all you need. Look at Obama. Look at Palin. FFS, look at Rand Paul.

All three basically came out of nowhere and won their first campaigns at a statewide level not because they had all the answers, but because they built a team with people who did.

Your line of reasoning basically amounts to this: no one can discuss a subject unless they are first an expert on that subject. Oh, but wait? How do you become an expert on that subject in the first place? Do you know how circular -- and therefore bankrupt -- that argument really is?

Did Roger Ebert ever make great movies? No, he actually used to write porn (fun fact), but he's still a highly regarded movie critic. Can Simon Cowell sing? Probably not, but that hasn't stopped him from signing some of the most successful recording artists in the world.

On the flipside, you take a professonal like Michael Jordan, who thought he could be better than Jerry West as a general manager. So he became one... and how did that work for him? Well, most people think he's done a pretty terrible job.

Is any of this getting through to you? Well, here. How about this... if you're so confident that Ron's current strategy is worth emulating, then why don't YOU go run? See where your asinine logic gets us? In circles. So enough of it.

You like everything but yet it all needs lots of work. If that is not a contradiction then I'm the next president of the USA.

Then you're an idiot who doesn't understand what contradictions are. That's not my fault. What is so hard to understand here?

All I said was that I liked the branding they have already done for Paul's media strategy, so why haven't they applied that branding to other aspects of the campaign as well? What is so fucking bad about consistency to you? Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that?

Liking the idea of something doesn't mean you have to like its implementation. You once again make some imaginary association in your own fantasy land where that's the case. But here on earth, it isn't.

RP himself said he liked the idea of banning abortion in all 50 states, but what's wrong with that picture? Oh right... it ignores the implication that this would be implemented by constitutional amendment... or worse, executive order.

Similarly, Paul "likes" the idea of marriage being defined as the union of one man and one woman. Are you going to fault him then because he refuses to ban gay marriage at the federal level?

You're inconsistent, if on the one hand, you can understand Paul's logic here, but disagree with it here. And that is really my overarching point here: I want consistency, I want things to match. Is that really so terrible for you? Does that really warrant your BS ad hominems and straw mans?

If you think so, you might feel more at home with the neocons who use such warped arguments.

Never forget:

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.


- Barry Goldwater

0-0-0

I rather liked an earlier

I rather liked an earlier posting of 007

Ron Paul

has never let me down, and this is no exception.