33 votes

Ron Paul Announces Ambitious ‘Plan to Restore America’

Read Full Plan

Realistic solutions to spending, tax challenges

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign announced the release of Dr. Paul’s “Plan to Restore America,” an ambitious federal government spending, tax and reform blueprint that as President he will implement.

The plan, authored by Paul’s campaign staff at his direction, promises to restore the federal government to its former Constitutionally-limited, smaller-government and less-burdensome place. The plan cuts $1 trillion in federal spending during the first year of a Paul Presidency and delivers a balanced budget in year three of a Paul Presidency.

“Ron Paul’s plan is the only one that seriously addresses the economic and budgetary problems our nation faces. It cuts $1 trillion in one year, and slashes regulations and taxes so our economy can grow and create jobs,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton, a plan co-author.

“It’s the only plan offered by a presidential candidate that actually balances the budget and begins to pay down the debt. And it’s the only plan being offered that tries to reign in the Federal Reserve and get inflation under control.”

Cuts totaling $1 trillion during the first year of a Paul Presidency would be achieved by eliminating five federal cabinet departments – the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. Cuts of this scale will also be accomplished by a Paul Presidency abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.

Read Full Plan

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I like the plan but a red

I like the plan but a red flag imo:

Under the section Miscellaneous Savings

"Sell Federal Lands"

I need more specifics than that. The idea of, say, Yellowstone being sold to the highest bidder and privatized bothers me. I doubt this is what he means, but seeing that the Dept of Interior is among the list of abolished departments, one has to wonder.

'Bout time!

But I think there are to be some strict rules. No large parcels to single entities, nor sales to any foreign persons, corporations, or governments. I can well imagine China or John Malone buying everything up.


...Malone began acquiring land in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. His land grab kicked into overdrive in the summer of 2010 when he purchased New Mexico’s historic 290,100-acre Bell Ranch. In early 2011, he snapped up an additional 1 million acres of timberland in Maine and New Hampshire to become America’s leading land baron...

Why buy now? Malone says he was enticed by two trends: a drop in land prices and a decrease in the cost of borrowing. And though he says he operates his landholdings to break even, he also recognizes that real estate “is a pretty decent hedge on the devaluation of currency.”

Please Take A Look At How Much Land Is Classified BLM?

BLM = Bureau of Land Management, or the Bureaucracy of government.

Millions of acres in the western USA, much of it desert and steep mountains.


tasmlab's picture

Dept of Agriculture?

I thought that might be a target. Isn't that mostly subsidies to farms?

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

LOL fucking Rush, "He stole

LOL fucking Rush, "He stole these ideas from me" yeah right. Ron had ideas of pushing back spending to levels of years past last time he ran in 08. Whatever, at least hes praising the plan so some of the die hard republicans might come around and consider voting for him.

Go Ron Paul 1

This plan should start going viral, worldwide, right about now.


Good plan. Now RP will have to be prepared to defend it

For the Tuesday debate, this new plan will be fair game. Hopefully Dr. Paul will be able to defend this plan in all its details.

The economy is seen as Dr. Paul's strong point, and I think putting forward this plan is what is vaulting him into tier 1, at long last. But it will be attacked, point by point.

Some of the points raised in Dr. No's comments should be anticipated and prepared for, and the plan modified, if need be.

A reality check: Paul says that he wanted the Fed jobs cut by attrition. This is at odds with a 1 year time frame to save the first trillion. Also, the military cuts will lead to job losses, both to the servicemen being brought home who are no longer needed, and to U.S. makers of required support equipment and supplies.

If one looks at a chart of gov't expenses, a high proportion of the cost is people. People who work for the fed gov are convinced that they have a job for life (unless they commit some horrible crime). This attitude, unfortunately, is no longer tenable in the current dire economic straits. You can't get around it. Tax increases (not being proposed) would lead to job losses, and cutting spending would lead to job losses for federal employees and the military. That's just the way it is.

In the long run, as the economy recovers, the jobs would reappear in the private sector, but in the short term it would not be painless for the people who lose their jobs as a result of the cuts.

Somehow, Paul needs to convince the voters that the short term pain is not only worth it, but necessary to "save the patient".

Anyway, if I'm a soldier in Afghanistan, I'd rather return to the USA now and have to look for a job than return in a pine box or maimed for life.



Overall, not a bad plan

Overall, not a bad plan!

Major flaw: Ron Paul says that tax revenue will jump to 3.8 trillion by 2016 (and with his cuts to 3.1 trillion). I think that is a fantasy. Everyone falls for that trap; Obama and Rand did the same thing. It isn't going to happen.

Another flaw: In Rand's budget, he specifically went over WHAT he would cut. If you cut the department of the interior 30%, where does that cut come from? You have to specify it.

Another major flaw: It isn't one trillion in cuts,. Ron Paul double counts on some of the savings. That is why you have to specify cuts. If you cut all employee pay, but then eliminate the DOE, you are double-counting the cut to the DOE and the cut to the pay of the hypothetical DOE workers.

Also, when he repeals Obama's stimulus, he repeals the 200 billion in tax savings that come in the form of credits (other than 18 billion which are tax credits in excess of what someone pays in taxes, the others are incentivized tax credits, health care credits, etc. that are less than one someone pays in taxes. The numbers are hard to crunch but are there). It is actually only about 720 billion in cuts. He could also be double counting them in his revenue cuts (other expiring tax relief) somewhat

Ron Paul has stated he will roll over some things in the eliminated departments elsewhere. However, I don't see that. Where are things like pell grants rolled over? That is going to add some more money on to the budget.

On the cuts: Two I specifically disagree it. Those are food stamps and NIH funding. NIH funding provides tremendous bang for buck. Study after study has shown that money given to the NIH stimulates the economy many, many fold. Food stamps, before the recession (this qualifier is important), was successful in its intent. If you took an arbitrary date, 6 months later, there would be 78% turnover in the recipient population; one year takes you to 95%. After that one year, 88% of those recipients remain out of the program for at least the net five years. I think that shows that it is a very succesful program. It also stimulates the economy with a decent-fold effect, not quite recovering tax revenue but coming very close.

On tax revenue: I generally like his cuts. However, cutting the corporate tax rate isn't smart. Here are the reasons why:

Many of the largest corporations pay no taxes already, yet they still create no jobs. They recieve government subsidies, but still pay no taxes and create no jobs. Cutting the tax rate is going to change nothing.

Federally, businesses in American pay about 5.8% in taxes. I don't know what burden of that is on big companies and what is on small companies. I suspect small businesses and big businesses tend to get the lowest rates, while middle companies (non-billion but multi-million) get the highest rates. That is already a very low tax rate.

If you want to lower their tax burden meaningfully, you have to go to the states. States on average add a tax burden of 15% to businesses, with sales tax + payroll taxes thrown in. Of course, some states have a very low tax burden, but they still have no jobs being created.

On repatriation of corporate money. I think this is a completely wrong line of thinking. Companies and banks have trillions of dollars in cash, in America, and they aren't creating jobs. Futhermore, while putting your money overseas is a good way to protect it from uncle Sam, you know what a better way is? Putting into your business. If you invest your profits into your business, you aren't taxed. Public companies also have the option of giving out dividends at the 15% tax rate.

Also, overall, he's reducing the deficit by about 400 billion. I'd rather raise taxes and wipe out that deficit. That way, we don't have inflation, which targets the poor and middle-class much more than it targets the rich.

Another note: How about cancelling the debt owed to the FED?

On regulation: How about re-instating glass-steagal or eliminating fractional reserve banking altogether?

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

Dr No, can you give us A Better Plan ?

Of course the original plan will be slightly modified eventually, but it's a great start at restoring America to what it once was,,,the most prosperous nation on earth.

Ron Paul 2012 !


Check out the links my the

Check out the links my the footer!

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

A Few Small Problems To Your Plan.

1. Your plan said 2010--2100 and 90 Years exceeds most of our lives, Dr. Paul's plan was for only 4 years, a time span most of us should make.

2. How can you be sure that following generations will try to follow your plan?

3. If Dr. Paul gets elected to President, I have confidence that he will try his very best to carry out his plan.

4. How are you going to get elected to a position where you have enough influence to start to implement your plan?

Good to see you're trying, tho.


The plan is not mine. I would

The plan is not mine.

I would say though that that plan isn't policy, it is just a plan. No one can force someone to hold to it; it is a theoretical plan.

Plan and follow-through are two different things. Follow-through cannot exist without the plan. The author I linked to gives the plan; it is up to someone else (a politician) to go on with the follow-through.

That Ron Paul's plan is a stepping stone is valid. However, there are accounting errors (only 700 billion cut), optimistic growth projections, and in my opinion, the wrong kind of tax restructuring.

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

BMWJIM's picture

Maybe you should know the LOVE for my

fellow man. This is something you evidently don't have or understand.

Ron Paul is trying to give peace to the individual and the powers that be are fighting tooth and nail.

In the end of ALL this, is the PEOPLE will win. No Bullshit, the people will win.

It has already been decided. Look within yourself and you will see the big picture.



1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

You must download the plan and read it thoroughly.

Dr. Paul's budget eliminates the public debt held by the federal reserve banks.

I see the label on the bar

I see the label on the bar graph; I do not see that reflected in the numbers. It is only a few hundred billion less than CBO predictions, not 1.5+ trillion less.

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

Oh Mr Bloomberg, why are you so afraid? Is it a wolf?

You asked the Fed about their secret loans, foreign & domestic. The Fed told you it was $16 Trillion (Freedom of Information Act request). $16 Trillion is larger than our US National debt or GDP. Very brave of you, I might mention.

Why you are now afraid of a doctor's plan? A plan for healthy economy, sound money, responsible government...

Oh, Mr Bloomberg, tell me. Do you have other plans? Is their a wolf at your door?

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

It's a great plan

It will change the direction of the country and it will restore America. In terms of substance it is solid and effective.

A few things:

I would have preferred an income tax reduction rather than the corporate tax reduction to 15%. Although the corporate tax reduction may appeal to Republican voters it will turn off almost all other voters and help Obama with the left and the independents.

A reduction of the income tax would have much broader appeal and would be more in line with Ron Paul's message. I think this is an opportunity missed, however I am sure there are good reasons for this priority although this may be lost on the average voter.

I would have loved to see a reduction of the tax rate for the poor. It would be just as effective at limiting government, it would help businesses as workers would be able to accept lower pay and make the same. And it would appeal to a much broader base and draw new people in to the liberty movement. The "no tax on tips" thing was a great example of this.

Another point is that the plan lacks a gimmick like Nein, Nein, Nein. Not that we should make gimmicks the most important issue but every plan needs to be marketed and sold to the average Joe. Another opportunity missed here, I believe although one could argue that the 1 trillion spending cuts and the $40,000 salary are enough. I still think the plan should have had a catchy easy to remember name.

This is true to Ron Paul though. It is all about substance with no "fluff".

Ending death taxes and tax on

Ending death taxes and tax on savings interest is pretty big. This is a BOLD and workable PLAN..not some tinkering or soundbyte one..


two things missing:
Income tax
and the issue of the war on drugs
all else is awesome.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I agree on the both,

I agree on the both, especially the income tax. I was hoping he could clearly establish himself as the most conservative candidate on taxes, and although we all know in the long run he wants to abolish almost all federal taxes, his plan keeps income taxes (initially) at the current rates. I also agree on the WOD. I think he should have proposed ending the ATF and the DEA.

Income Tax?

I don't see any mention of repealing the Income Tax. Did I miss something?

Jack Wagner

I think

it's fiscally sound and responsible to pay your bills first. I'm sure he'll get to that in due time.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I agree

I would have hoped the income tax would have been cut before the corporate tax reduced. However, I'm more interested in ending the Wars (and Drug War) then the particulars of taxation.

Good to see a plan that actually has the budget laid out, this will do wonders to stand him out against the other candidates. 3-pages, easy to understand and follow, and makes clear cuts/plans.

Well done sir!

Jack Wagner

tasmlab's picture

Does he need to address the year by year thing?

Dr. Paul often explains that a budget is only good for a single year. I understand that he can still present a multi-year plan. Does he need to highlight that it still has to be realized within each year?

And does anyone want to point out adoption of presidential plans vis a vie for example the acceptance of Obama's job plan?

I'm not throwing stones, just mulling the whole story over...

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Thanks for this link to the .pdf

I could not get it to open a couple of browsers.

Ron Paul is My President

tasmlab's picture

US deficit still to rise?

This shows US deficit still to rise for the next 4-5 years, although with a small surplus coming in the third year. Does the deficit still rise due to compounding interest?

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

It's actually the debt that

It's actually the debt that rises, but yes, it's due to compound interest.

tasmlab's picture

"debt" thank you for the correction EOM


Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football