My
Plan for a Freedom President How I would
put the Constitution back in the Oval Office
by Ron Paul - March 5, 2010
Since
my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked,
“How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling
the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?”
This is a very important question, because without a clear
road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the
risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various
vested interests that benefit from big government.
Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed
in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days
of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of
the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure
our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human
suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social
safety net overnight because that would harm those who have
grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we
would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the
state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for
providing aide is returned to those organizations best able
to administer compassionate and effective help – churches
and private charities.
Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to
all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem
defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import
Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult
to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin
and Goldman Sachs.
No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes
in government programs would require legislation to be passed
by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist
president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by
a majority of the American public and would probably lead
to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators.
Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become
“born again” constitutionalists out of a sense
of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number
of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda.
Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional
program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain
the necessary support in Congress.
Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could
make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the
negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and
scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation
tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase
in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase.
Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president
serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial
block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations
on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding
the government programs and those who want to eliminate them
outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease
in spending!
While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution
would need the consent of Congress for very large changes
in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments,
he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive
branch and as commander in chief to take several significant
steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern
chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is
in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated
its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing
vague “authorization of force” bills that allow
the president to send any number of troops to almost any part
of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use
its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead,
Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the
president’s requests.
If the president has the power to order U.S. forces into
combat on nothing more than his own say-so, then it stands
to reason he can order troops home. Therefore, on the first
day in office, a constitutionalist can begin the orderly withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. He can also begin
withdrawing troops from other areas of the world. The United
States has over 300,000 troops stationed in more than 146
countries. Most if not all of these deployments bear little
or no relationship to preserving the safety of the American
people. For example, over 20 years after the fall of the Berlin
Wall, the U.S. still maintains troops in Germany.
Domestically, the president can use his authority to set
policies and procedures for the federal bureaucracy to restore
respect for the Constitution and individual liberty. For example,
today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to
prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements
about the health benefits of their products without going
through the costly and time-consuming procedures required
to gain government approval for their claims. A president
can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC
not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear
evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true.
Similarly, the president could order the bureaucracy to stop
prosecuting consumers who wish to sell raw milk across state
lines.
A crucial policy that a president could enact to bring speedy
improvements to government is ordering the bureaucracy to
respect the 10th Amendment and refrain from undermining state
laws. We have already seen a little renewed federalism with
the current administration’s policy of not prosecuting
marijuana users when their use of the drug is consistent with
state medical-marijuana laws. A constitutionalist administration
would also defer to state laws refusing compliance with the
REAL ID act and denying federal authority over interstate
gun transactions. None of these actions repeals a federal
law; they all simply recognize a state’s primary authority,
as protected by the 10th amendment, to set policy in these
areas.
In fact, none of the measures I have discussed so far involves
repealing any written law. They can be accomplished simply
by a president exercising his legitimate authority to set
priorities for the executive branch. And another important
step he can take toward restoring the balance of powers the
Founders intended is repealing unconstitutional executive
orders issued by his predecessors.
Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president,
who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy.
However, in recent years executive orders have been used by
presidents to create new federal laws without the consent
of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala
infamously said, “stroke of the pen, law of the land,
pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,”
and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting
us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by
ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent
executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed
the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular
Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should
work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.
Only Congress can directly abolish government departments,
but the president could use his managerial powers to shrink
the federal bureaucracy by refusing to fill vacancies created
by retirements or resignations. This would dramatically reduce
the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking
our liberties. One test to determine if a vacant job needs
to be filled is the “essential employees test.”
Whenever D.C. has a severe snowstorm, the federal government
orders all “non-essential” federal personal to
stay home. If someone is classified as non-essential for snow-day
purposes, the country can probably survive if that position
is not filled when the jobholder quits or retires. A constitutionalist
president should make every day in D.C. like a snow day!
A president could also enhance the liberties and security
of the American people by ordering federal agencies to stop
snooping on citizens when there is no evidence that those
who are being spied on have committed a crime. Instead, the
president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate
responsibilities of the federal government, such as border
security. He should also order the Transportation Security
Administration to stop strip-searching grandmothers and putting
toddlers on the no-fly list. The way to keep Americans safe
is to focus on real threats and ensure that someone whose
own father warns U.S. officials he’s a potential terrorist
is not allowed to board a Christmas Eve flight to Detroit
with a one-way ticket.
Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to
enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks
that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots. Congress created
provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September
11, 2001. However, the processes for getting a federal firearms
license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result very few
pilots have gotten their licenses. A constitutionalist in
the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to
make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to
carry firearms on their planes.
While the president can do a great deal on his own, to really
restore the Constitution and cut back on the vast unconstitutional
programs that have sunk roots in Washington over 60 years,
he will have to work with Congress. The first step in enacting
a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget
that outlines the priorities of the administration. While
it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for
the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist
president’s budget should do the following:
Reduce overall federal spending
Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the
military
Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending
to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent
on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out
a plan to return responsibility for education to the states
Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system
where all Americans are forced to participate into one where
taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own
provisions for retirement and medical care
If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced
and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist
president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget
risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist
cannot be deterred by cries of “it’s irresponsible
to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply
say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to
gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead
choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America’s
freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare
state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can
afford this bloated government are the extremists.”
Unconstitutional government spending, after all, is doubly
an evil: it not only means picking the taxpayer’s pocket,
it also means subverting the system of limited and divided
government that the Founders created. Just look at how federal
spending has corrupted American education.
Eliminating federal involvement in K–12 education should
be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic
priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal
meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less
suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education.
The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats
in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs
of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating
performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom
has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power
over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left
Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public
schools “accountable.” However, supporters of
the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable
to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating
the problem.
In the years since No Child Left Behind was passed, I don’t
think I have talked to any parent or teacher who is happy
with the law. Therefore, a constitutionalist president looking
for ways to improve the lives of children should demand that
Congress cut the federal education bureaucracy as a down payment
on eventually returning 100 percent of the education dollar
to parents.
Traditionally, the battle to reduce the federal role in education
has been the toughest one faced by limited-government advocates,
as supporters of centralized education have managed to paint
constitutionalists as “anti-education.” But who
is really anti-education? Those who wish to continue to waste
taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want
to restore control over education to the local level? When
the debate is framed this way, I have no doubt the side of
liberty will win. When you think about it, the argument that
the federal government needs to control education is incredibly
insulting to the American people, for it implies that the
people are too stupid or uncaring to educate their children
properly. Contrary to those who believe that only the federal
government can ensure children’s education, I predict
a renaissance in education when parents are put back in charge.
The classroom is not the only place the federal government
does not belong. We also need to reverse the nationalization
of local police. Federal grants have encouraged the militarization
of law enforcement, which has led to great damage to civil
liberties. Like education, law enforcement is inherently a
local function, and ending programs such as the Byrne Grants
is essential not just to reducing federal spending but also
to restoring Americans’ rights.
Obviously, a president concerned with restoring constitutional
government and fiscal responsibility would need to address
the unstable entitlement situation, possibly the one area
of government activity even more difficult to address than
education. Yet it is simply unfair to continue to force young
people to participate in a compulsory retirement program when
they could do a much better job of preparing for their own
retirements. What is more, the government cannot afford the
long-term expenses of entitlements, even if we were to reduce
all other unconstitutional foreign and domestic programs.
As I mentioned in the introduction to this article, it would
be wrong simply to cut these programs and throw those who
are dependent on them “into the streets.” After
all, the current recipients of these programs have come to
rely on them, and many are in a situation where they cannot
provide for themselves without government assistance. The
thought of people losing the ability to obtain necessities
for them because they were misled into depending on a government
safety net that has been yanked away from them should trouble
all of us. However, the simple fact is that if the government
does not stop spending money on welfare and warfare, America
may soon face an economic crisis that could lead to people
being thrown into the street.
Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement
scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president
should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts
in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and
unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring
up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough
money to finance government’s obligations to those who
are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative
provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll
taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to
a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll
taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to
participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to
participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo
any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement.
Some people raise concerns that talk of transitions is an
excuse for indefinitely putting off the end of the welfare
state. I understand those concerns, which is why a transition
plan must lay out a clear timetable for paying down the debt,
eliminating unconstitutional bureaucracies, and setting a
firm date for when young people can at last opt out of the
entitlement programs.
A final area that should be front and center in a constitutionalist’s
agenda is monetary policy. The Founders obviously did not
intend for the president to have much influence over the nation’s
money – in fact, they never intended any part of the
federal government to operate monetary policy as it defined
now. However, today a president could play an important role
in restoring stability to monetary policy and the value of
the dollar. To start, by fighting for serious reductions in
spending, a constitutionalist administration would remove
one of the major justifications for the Federal Reserve’s
inflationary policies, the need to monetize government debt.
There are additional steps a pro-freedom president should
pursue in his first term to restore sound monetary policy.
He should ask Congress to pass two pieces of legislation I
have introduced in the 110th Congress. The first is the Audit
the Fed bill, which would allow the American people to learn
just how the Federal Reserve has been conducting monetary
policy. The other is the Free Competition in Currency Act,
which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and
silver. This would introduce competition in currency and put
a check on the Federal Reserve by ensuring that people have
alternatives to government-produced fiat money.
All
of these measures will take a lot of work – a lot more
than any one person, even the president of the United States,
can accomplish by himself. In order to restore the country
to the kind of government the Founders meant for us to have,
a constitutionalist president would need the support of an
active liberty movement. Freedom activists must be ready to
pressure wavering legislators to stand up to the special interests
and stay the course toward freedom. Thus, when the day comes
when someone who shares our beliefs sits in the Oval Office,
groups like Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty
will still have a vital role to play. No matter how many pro-freedom
politicians we elect to office, the only way to guarantee
constitutional government is through an educated and activist
public devoted to the ideals of the liberty.
For that reason, the work of Young Americans for Liberty
in introducing young people to the freedom philosophy and
getting them involved in the freedom movement is vital to
the future of our country. I thank all the members and supporters
of YAL for their dedication to changing the political debate
in this country, so that in the not-too-distant future we
actually will have a president and a Congress debating the
best ways to shrink the welfare-warfare state and restore
the republic.