Getting Ron Paul Wrong

I usually appreciate the left-liberal Brent Budowsky, but he really has gone off the deep-end as far as Ron is concerned in his latest column. Of course, an admitted default is better than a disguised, inflationary one, accompanied by more and more spending and a deeper depression. Or the Fed's Treasuries could be cancelled. Or spending could be frozen. Or the empire could be cut rather than old people. All are Ron's proposed solutions. However, Republicans love spending as much as Democrats, especially merchant-of-death spending, so he is speaking to the congressional deaf. And the militaristic tea party refuses to consider Pentagon cuts or even a lower rate of increase. But even if BB really does see anything but a constantly growing state as the sun going dark--and the US is already the biggest state in the history of mankind, by many magnitudes--he must know that his claims about Ron's motives are worse than baloney. Does it ever cross any journalist's mind that Ron Paul is vastly knowledgeable in economic theory and history? Or is every journalist's brain just Keynes-occupied territory? (Thanks to Johnny Kramer)