Ron Paul: How I’ll Restore Fiscal Discipline

Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement on what his budget priorities will be if elected.

Ron Paul: 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. I will direct my administration to cease any further implementation of ObamaCare.
  4. 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.
  • Daniel L. Burrows

    First off, abortion is not a federal issue, nor is it a state issue; therefore no tax dollars should be spent on the issue whatsoever, by federal or local governments. Abortion is an issue to be dealt with by the parties involved in the pregnancy. In short, abortion is an issue dealing with ones liberty and ones beliefs. Those parties involved can include the impregnated woman, the fertilizing male, and their families, if the impregnated woman chooses; and finally, an appropriate doctor.

    Certainly, as we all know, there are stages of development that the mass within a uterus goes though. These stages define what that mass is called; likewise, these stages define the trends of development within the uterus.

    Beliefs: Most Christian people do not believe in abortion, however, there are a surprisingly large proportion of individuals that have abortions performed that are Christian. There are also a surprisingly large proportion of people who are not Christian who are completely against abortion. Abortion clinics keep their records from the public. An abortions clinics records are very private, even tax dollar supported clinics, so this data is difficult to show quantitatively. In this case, these trends were observed though questions and observation. These previous trends are suggested through qualitative observations.

    Hypothetically, if a pregnant woman, at any stage of development drinks and uses drugs to the point of killing the mass within her uterus, or has an accident of some type, is she to be held for charges? I do not believe she should be. I believe that if she were to be held on charges her liberty would be violated. If another body though, does something to harm that mass within her uterus, then that body should be held on charges. The reason I believe this is because that body that harmed the mass within the pregnant woman’s uterus violated that pregnant woman’s liberty.

    Once a baby is born it is a baby; the baby is a living breathing human being that has liberty. The baby is outside the host’s body and therefore is no longer a part of the pregnant woman’s body. This baby is an American citizen that is to be raised and socialized to the best of the baby’s caregiver’s abilities.

    I think we need to remember just exactly who has the liberty. You must be an American citizen to have American liberty. To have American liberty you must be first born and you must first be an American citizen.

    A mass within a pregnant woman’s uterus has just as much liberty as a mass of cancerous tissue within a body. However, once the mass within a pregnant woman’s body is born, that baby has liberty and is awarded all constitutional rights and liberties.

    I do not believe, however, that removing planned parenthood is a good idea. However, I do not believe it is the job of federal government to provide it. Planned parenthood should be a state and local issue because planning for parent hood is dependent on the LOCAL CULTURE!

    Daniel Burrows
    Sociologist and Libertarian
    Advising everybody to escape from the iron cage of social constraints; and advising everybody to develop the capacity and desire to think things over for themselves.

  • Jeremiah
  • LD

    This guy is just too awesome for words. Which is why he’ll never be nominated, unfortunately.

  • Derek

    No government funding of abortion I can support. However, defunding non-abortion planned parenthood as a fundamental campain pledge is completely unfocused.
    1) If your goal is to cut government spending, you could be holding up real debate by focusing on what amounts to a minor rounding error of expense
    2) If your goal is to decrease abortions, you will fail. The non-abortion activities of Planned Parenthood decrease abortion rates very effectively by preventing dangerous behavior.

    This recent pledge is not in line with your campaign goals, will cut off support from independents you require and has nothing to do with fiscal discipline. I hope you change your stance so I can continue believing in you.

  • Savanna

    I realize that we are in an emergency – however, the Patriot Act and the Bailouts were passed because we were “in an emergency.” I agree that fewer regulations on businesses is certainly needed, and I do believe we are in a financial crisis. However, just because you and I feel this way, doesn’t mean we can just circumvent the constitution. We wouldn’t like it if Obama felt that an executive order to institute some program like cap and trade was necessary because our planet is in a crisis. Ron Paul has said many times that emergency situations are times where we need to cling to the constitution even tighter. Don’t get me wrong, I am an expectant mother and wore my “Future Ron Paul Supporter” maternity shirt today; I love the guy and think that he is the man we need as President. I was just a little taken back by this executive order on the first day thing. Mitt Romney also has executive order plans his first day of office and I was using that as a claim against him for president to all my friends that love him. I’m just a little disappointed is all.

  • Donn

    Although I strongly disagree with executive orders in general, this Nation is in a crisis. We simply do not have the time to reverse many of the most ridiculous and unconstitutional executive orders issued by previous and present POTUS by taking them through the process in Congress.

    If we do not take action quickly, this Nation is going to go into complete and utter bankruptcy and then the point will be moot. We will then be saddled by a dictator like Hitler (do some research).

    We only have one chance to get this right. Get Ron Paul nominated and then elected. We also need to vote out every single incumbent in Washington that has been there over 2 years. We the People must take America back or loose it forever!

  • SoulShift

    Give the man a break! He has decades worth of extremely bad presidential decisions to correct. This 180 degree turn for WE THE PEOPLE won’t happen over night and he will need to use every power that he has to fix US! I hope that
    the rest of world will forgive our government and us for our bad behaviour.

    RON PAUL 2012! if not sooner.

  • John

    Might make more sense if you watch the video in the first link on executive orders. I do believe that he would put an end to them after he reversed Obama’s order.

  • Savanna

    Executive order? Really? I love Ron Paul, and maybe I’m confused about how he stands on executive orders. I thought he was against using executive orders, signing statements, and line item vetoes to legislate as President. This is the first thing I’ve noticed that would make him just like any other recent president. 🙁