by Ron Paul
lewrockwell.com
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. (CONTINUE READING)
