I very much like Ron Paul. He seems like an honest man who won't bend over for corporate lobbyists like 90% of the rest of Congress.
He wishes to end the War on Drugs, which will decrease government spending by not having our police forces waste time arresting non-violent drug users and by not having federal funds go towards fighting the drug trade overseas, and which will increase revenue by turning products like marijuana into controllable and taxable commodities.
He wishes to end the War on Terror and American Imperialism. Bringing our troops hope and closing our foreign bases will further cut our spending considerably, and we can then invest part of those funds into projects that will help people here at home instead of those in foreign countries. Our military spending currently outpaces a country like Russia's by a factor of 10. We can cut a considerable amount of that and still be the "best".
However, there are a few things I dislike about the man:
He wishes to cut back the role of government in all areas of life, which is not always a good thing. For example, I think healthcare is a necessary service that should be provided by the government, like defense, law enforcement, fire protection, and roadways. This is obviously something Ron Paul disagrees with. And we are actually the only major western power that does not provide universal healthcare to its citizens. For some reason we choose to spend our money on soldiers and bases instead of doctors and hospitals.
I actually think the government should start funding post-secondary education for its citizens as well. I believe an equal opportunity meritocracy is best for its people, and in our current society healthcare and a college education are necessary to do well in life. Those who can't afford such things are going to be inherently disadvantaged vs those who can. Any two people with equal intellect, physical ability, and work ethic should be able to make it similarly far in life (barring the impact of random chance), regardless of their ability/inability to afford such things. Publically funded post-secondary education, however, is also something he would be against.
He's proud of having never voted to raise taxes. Fuck that, I say. Cut military/drug spending and increase taxes, then spend that money on paying down our debt and heavily improving our infrastructure (healthcare, education, internet access, mass transit). This will provide jobs, improve our economy, and make life better for all Americans.
And lastly, there are his economic policies. His favor of the Austrian school of economics scares me, given the power "too big to fail" corporations have over us already. We should never allow any non-government entity to have that much sway. At least the government is kept somewhat in line through elections. Or revolution, if need be.
Plus, he wants to return us to the gold standard. When will people realize that gold, just like paper money, is only as valuable as we perceive it to be? Anything we might want to use as a universally accepted payment for goods is going to have a relative value, and basing our money on gold doesn't change that.
In the end, the economy is the current most important issue on the table, and I don't think he'll handle that well, as much as I love his other ideas.
I would love to have him get the Republican nomination, however, just so his thoughts on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror can get some national attention. I think if the other candidates start dropping out, he could pull a surprise upset on Super Tuesday, if he pulls in enough support from the people that don't like Romney. And that's a large group of people, looking at the number of candidates that managed to take first in the polls for a few weeks as they became popular with the "Anybody but Romney!" crowd: Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and then Santorum in Iowa.
