A consistent message. Is now the time?
If the people agreed to a particular understanding of the Constitution, and over the course of intervening years they have performed no official act (such as amending the Constitution in accordance with their evolved ideas) reversing that original understanding, by what right may government unilaterally change the terms of its contract with the people, interpreting its words to mean something very different from what the American people had all along been told they meant?
We have come to consider it normal for nine judges in Washington to decide on social policies that affect every neighborhood, family, and individual in America. One side of the debate hopes the nine will impose one set of values, and the other side favors a different set. The underlying premise—that this kind of monolith is desirable, or that no alternative is possible—is never examined, or at least not nearly as often as it should be. The Founding Fathers did not intend for every American neighborhood to be exactly the same—a totalitarian impulse if there ever was one—or that disputes over competing values should be decided by federal judges. This is the constitutional approach to deciding all issues that are not spelled out explicitly in our founding documents: let neighbors and localities govern themselves.
Repealing the new bureaucracy becomes unthinkable. Mythology about how terrible things were in the old days becomes the conventional wisdom. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy itself, with a vested interest in maintaining itself and increasing its funding, employs all the resources it can to ensuring that it gets a bigger budget next year, regardless of its performance.
The empire game our government has been playing is coming to an end one way or another. This is the fate of all empires: they overextend themselves and then suffer a financial catastrophe, typically involving the destruction of the currency. We are already seeing the pattern emerging in our own case. We can either withdraw gracefully, as I propose, or we can stay in our fantasy world and wait until bankruptcy forces us to scale back our foreign commitments. Again, I know which option I prefer.
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.