Nice spin job, it would have almost been convincing if I didn't know all the facts. So, I guess we'll start at the top of your argument.
You said he voted to "ban adoption for same-sex couples". I would imagine you are talking about H.AMDT.356 to HR2587: an amendment to PROHIBIT ANY FUNDING for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage. It was the funding he was in opposition to, not the action. He has a consitent voting record against federal funding for anything not covered in the constitution.
Please quote your source concerning same sex marriage, because in July of 2006, he voted no on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. He has come out quite often saying that marriage is a religious issue, not a federal issue, and that if any governmental body wants to take on the issue at all that it is up to the state.
As far as the FDA, I am not sure what to replace it with, but I am in agreement with him that alot of these federal agencies have to go. If you have every had to deal with any of them, you know how unorganized, ineffective, and bureaucratic they are. We can do better for cheaper. Why is it that when companies become ineffective, they have to streamline, yet our government just goes more in debt over them and makes them bigger? Something has to be done, not just at the FDA, but at every government agency. I do not agree on your assessment on why the FDA is ineffective. It is ineffective because it is part of the federal bureacracy, has no competition, and no motivating factor to become effective. Companies streamline and become effective because if they don't, they go out of business.
Exactly what is the function of the Department of Education that you feel we cannot live without? I have several friends and family members who teach at elementary/high school levels, and 4/5 of them say they could be better educators without it. The other one said he wasn't sure, and he would have to think about it. If you get rid of the department of education, the state and local governments then handle the schools. The quality of education at the schools could then be more effectively controlled and would be answering to the population they are serving as far as if they are meeting their education goals or not. This also gets rid of the bureacracy needed to channel money to the federal level, have the feds decide if the schools are meeting the goals they defined, and redistribute the tax dollars; which would lead to more money being used to educate children, and less money used to distrubute money to educate children. I see no downside to this, sorry.
"With almost 80 percent of the population saying they support higher taxes for a government-sponsored healthcare program" - Please list your source, and the exact polling questions asked. Maybe 80% support some kind of a government healthcare program, but the extent of that program and the taxes involved are arguable at that 80% level.
As far as his Katrina vote, please read
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul275.html for his own response.
As far as your conclusion paragraph, it has nothing to do with the rest of the article. You spend the whole article arguing about gay rights, the FDA, Dept. of Education, Katrina. Then you end it saying it's great for big corporations, but never explain anything about his monetary policies or how you came to this conclusion.
So, I guess you get an F for this assignment. Lots of hyperbole, statistics with no sources, and a conclusion that doesn't match the arguement. Please try again soon.
