AP's Article on Ron Paul

It was very nice of AP to give my favorite Presidential candidate some coverage today. Here's the article:

AP Says Ron Paul's a Longshot

I found this comment interesting:

---------------------------------------------------------
"Most of the oxygen is being taken up, especially on the Republican side, by those who look like they might have a prayer of winning in a Democratic year," said University of Texas political scientist Bruce Buchanan.
---------------------------------------------------------

What this guy Bruce Buchanan is saying is that the Democrats are already favored to win in 2008. That would make sense given the current Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War and the GOP's base in their continuing support of it despite the fact that most Americans want to bring the troops home. However, he insinuates that Ron Paul wouldn't have a 'prayer' of winning this election.

I disagree.

I believe Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican, capable of defeating the Democrats in 2008 should he get the GOP Nomination. The so-called top-tier Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards offer nothing most Americans really want other than ending the Iraq War. They've also indicated a willingness to continue interventions in places like the Sudan, Pakistan and Iran. Ron Paul, by contrast, wants to return to a friendly, non-interventionist foreign policy as envisioned by the founding fathers of the Country. Not only that, Ron Paul wants to remove the prime mechanisms that cause our currency to inflate, our government to grow and our foreign influence to expand disproportionately - the Federal Reserve and the Income tax. This is the real change many Americans have been looking for and once Ron Paul stands up in contrast to anything the Democrats offer, it will be a no-brainer decision for the American voter.

And then there's this part in the article:
--------------------------------------------
But potential supporters may find some of the 10-term congressman's other views more difficult to accept, including calls for a return to the gold standard and a radically smaller government with no Education Department, Energy Department or Internal Revenue Service.

Paul also is just as likely to turn off as many voters as he turns on with positions that straddle both liberal and conservative camps. He opposes the death penalty and votes against military appropriations. He also opposes abortion and gun control. He's known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No."
--------------------------------------------
This is typical mainstream media oversimplification. I might agree with the writer if all I got my news from was AP or one of the big TV networks. On closer examination Liz Austin Peterson misrepresents Dr. Paul's call for the gold standard. Dr. Paul has stated that he wants to base the monetary currency on hard assets be they gold, silver or other commodities. It also doesn't take into account why Dr. Paul wants to move us away from the current monetary system which is based on debt. Detractors thing the gold standard sounds quaint, yet antiquated and certainly not suited for the rigors of today's economy. I say bullshit. I believe the reason anyone belittles the idea of returning to sound currency is because a) They don't understand it at all or b) It's inconvenient and not pragmatic to those who control the current system.

Is a radically smaller government with no Department of Education, Department of Energy or IRS such a bad thing? One of the misconceptions of Ron Paul's desire to shut down the Department of Education is that it would mean the end of public education or that the federal government doesn't like public education. Public Education in the U.S. is administrated by the state governments. Ending the Department of Education doesn't change that. It just removes of a layer of bureaucracy and policy making from our education systems.

Ending the Department of Energy means removing bureaucracy and regulation from the energy industry at the federal level. State governments can then pick up the slack and deal with these issues locally. In addition, it levels the ground more for smaller, less funded companies and organizations to come up with energy alternatives and make them more affordable.

And finally, ending the IRS. Ron Paul said he would end the income tax. The agency, known as the IRS, began during the Civil War in 1862. It initially carried out the collection of income taxes during the war. The tax was repealed 10 years later. Under a Ron Paul administration the IRS would be severely reduced to performing limited functions and it would certainly not be engaged in enforcing personal income tax collection.

The principle problem with the income tax as, Dr. Paul has stated, is that the presumption is made that the Federal Government owns 100% of a person's income and that person is 'permitted' to keep a portion of it. This contradicts the notion of living in a free society. You work x number of hours for x pay, you should be able to decide what you get to do with that x amount. If you wish to contribute some of that x to the government to help it fund its operations that is your choice. Under the present system that is not the case. The current Income Tax which was enacted under the 16th Amendment of the Constitution in 1913 (the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed), is used to collect money to pay the government's debt service. In other words, We the People pay the debt service on money borrowed by our government.