A government run by Ron Paul would mean the destruction of many important agencies within the country.

When a current presidential candidate raises over $4 million dollars in a single day, you’d think that this candidate is a strong one, able to win the nomination of his party without any trouble at all. You’d be wrong.

For those of you unfamiliar with him, the candidacy of Ron Paul is sort of a strange phenomenon. To many, he represents the balance between both Republican conservativism and Democratic liberalism. To others, the very mention of his name causes an automatic eye roll.

Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas. Known mostly for his stance on Iraq – he was the only Republican in Congress at the time to vote against the measure to grant President Bush the power to invade – Paul is a libertarian-type candidate, meaning he is a strong proponent of liberty and limited government.

Though not a complete isolationist, Paul advocates a policy that would have limited U.S. intervention throughout the world. He is opposed to invasion of Iran, seeing it as very similar to the circumstances that led to the invasion of Iraq.

As far as the market goes, Paul believes in limited influence by the government in economic affairs. He has also gone as far as to say that nonviolent resistance to taxation – that is, purposely not paying taxes as a form of protest against them – is something that he supports.

He seems like the perfect candidate for those who don’t like what is out there currently, for either party. But is Ron Paul a compromise for America?

The answer is a strong ‘no.’ A government run by Ron Paul would mean the destruction of many important agencies within the country.

Paul is a strict conservative when it comes to the size of the government, meaning he favors smaller government that doesn’t interfere with people’s lives. While that is all fine and dandy, and while he is certainly allowed to hold that opinion, in practice it would mean the end of programs like the Department of Education.

He is also a strong advocate of states’ rights. While some states’ rights are needed, and while the government certainly could yield some of its powers to the states, Paul goes even further in believing that the national government should be strongly restricted by the Constitution and that national laws should not be enforced.

I am a big fan of the Constitution; I believe that it is one of the most important documents the world has seen in the last 300 years. I do not, however, believe that the government is restricted by it; it is a document that lays out the framework of the government, not the extent of it.

While many parts of it are meant to restrict government’s power over the people, not all of it was written with the intention of it being the end-all document to govern our lives. The world changes, and as it does so should the laws that help keep our nation safe, secure and prosperous.

A Paul presidency may change that through several reforms intended to limit the size of our government. Some changes may need to be implemented, but what Paul is arguing for is extreme. He would eliminate the income tax in favor of a smaller government run by excise taxes.

To many people, this is a wonderful idea. However, excise taxes – taxes on goods such as alcohol, cigarettes, the lottery and so on – are generally harder-hitting on the poor, and beneficial to the rich. To shift the burden of taxes onto those who have the hardest time just surviving within this country is nothing short of criminal.

Our tax code as it stands today is anything but perfect. Still, to replace it with Paul’s plan would be disastrous for the poor... it would both create an undue burden upon them as well as eliminate much needed programs that help them.

The status quo is not perfect, and Paul does have some interesting ideas worth discussing. However, as far as allowing him to become president of the United States, I do not see it in the best interests of the typical voter to vote for him.

> Comments