Published in The Rebel Yell issue 10/18/2007 (opinion piece)

I am, in no way, shape or form, an expert on politics and/or political theories, but after reading Matt Maxson’s piece bashing Ron Paul and his policies, I decided to do some more research on Paul so that I could deliver concise information and address some of the problems found in Maxson’s article

Paul has never voted to raise taxes, never voted on an unbalanced budget, never voted to raise congressional pay and has never voted to raise the powers of the Executive Branch—all of which speak leaps and bounds of his character in today’s politics. Paul is the most consistent voting, conservative candidate in Congress. His beliefs and opinions have not flip-flopped in the past 10-plus years that he has held a political position, and one thing that I extremely respect is that he does not believe in forcing the U.S. to adopt and/or live by the same values he personally believes in. He is more concerned with what is best for the country and what is stated in the Constitution. In terms of the problems that surfaced in Maxson’s article, this is what I have to say:

Maxson claimed that Ron Paul’s campaign is “far from revolutionary” and “resembles Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign.” I don’t understand this comparison. Mondale was a Democrat running against the incumbent Ronald Reagan. Paul is a conservative Republican not running against an incumbent. The climate for the 1984 election was completely different than that of today. Mondale was viewed as a traditional Democrat who wanted big government and higher taxes. Paul wants neither. He wants to limit money-wasting bureaucracy seen in the likes of the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security and most importantly the Internal Revenue Service. The only comparison mentioned in Maxson’s article is that young people were strongly behind Mondale and today, young people strongly support Paul. Really? By that comparison Barney the purple dinosaur … well lets just say the two campaigns are far from the same.

As for the inflation tax, it’s not as simple as Maxson describes.

Printing more money means there is more in circulation, which devalues the money you own. This doesn’t affect the politicians because they spend the money. In actuality, they thrive on it because the debt that they rack up loses its value through inflation, and at the same time, the money that an average middle-class American has saved loses its purchasing power. Maxson claims that collecting money “floating throughout the world” would be one way to help stop inflation, but Paul does not endorse that idea. He, however, is the only candidate — Republican or Democrat — presenting the issue of inflation during a time of record-breaking deficits. Why anyone would decide to criticize Paul on this is beyond me.

The only counter claim I can make against Maxson’s comparison of Paul’s idea of eliminating the IRS to George H.W. Bush’s “no new taxes” is that tax cuts work when government restricts spending. If we didn’t wage expensive endless wars and succumb to the military industrialized complex we wouldn’t have a problem eliminating the IRS and getting our funding from other sources. If Paul does what he says he will, as his consistent voting track record proves he can, he should have no problem starting a revolution in America.

Like it or not, Ron Paul is a candidate worth looking into. He is making a name for himself, has people around the country showing their support and is standing for changes that are imperative to the well-being of the United States. For more information on Ron Paul’s presidential platform, visit RonPaul2008.com or meetup.com.