Well, there you go. That was pretty easy.
A) It's an overwrought screed
It is. There is nothing of substance in this piece, therefore there is no substantial refutation to be made - demanding such is merely a sign of how deeply you have drunk from this particular jug of kool-aid.
Everything in these sorts of articles is essentially of the form "What if...?" - much as the Safire article that Paul so obviously signs on to. Well, here are some other what-if scenarios for you to entertain. What if GWB snaps and declares himself Emperor of North America? What if he starts strangling babies with impunity at political rallies? What if his alien masters cause him to defecate on the White House lawn while setting fire to the Constitution?
Of course, there is no "refutation" of such fantasies - either you believe them to be likely, or you do not, but in either case, there is little point in trying to persuade someone otherwise.
B) The arguer is a lower life form
Why, my dear sir - he is a lower life form, by definition. He is a congressman. I realize that there are still those innocent souls out there who wish to give exalted status to their representatives, and anoint as holy all that oozes forth from their mouths, but I assure you, Rep. Paul is not absolved of the responsibility for making something resembling a cogent argument by the fact that he is one of our favorite members of Congress. Being the most thoughtful Congressman is akin to winning a gold medal at the Special Olympics - you may be at the top of the heap, but it's a pretty low heap.
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
- Mark Twain
C) The General's statement of refutation includes at best, only an attack implying guilt by association, and just plain ignores the point of the original argument.
What point? That the federal government will be larger? It's always gratifying to see an elected representative maintain a firm grasp on the obvious, but you had to hear it from Ron Paul to know that to be true? Or did you mean when he spirals off towards apogee with his citation of Safire's hilariously hyperbolic column?
Let's see. The "point" is either trivially obvious, or ridiculously silly, and yet you demand serious argumentation.
I think not. When the Rt. Hon. Cong. Paul writes something of substance, rest assured that I will prepare substantial counterarguments. But it would be unfair of me to do so here - I'd be the only one making arguments of substance, and that would only make Cong. Paul look even sillier.