Joseph Farrah smearing RP regarding earmarks

I have to admit, I was not entirely impressed with Dr. Paul's response to Russert regarding the earmarks issue. I've seen him explain it a lot better in other interviews, and make no mistake, I believe that how Dr. Paul treats the issue is brilliant and totally consistent with his views.

Please read Farrah's article here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59380

Here is the E-mail I sent to him in response, and I kept it as cordial and polite as possible:

Hello Joseph! In all fairness, I must disclose that I am a Ron Paul supporter, and am in disagreement with your assessment of his personal policy regarding earmarks. I find nothing hypocritical about his approach, and actually find it quite clever and honest.

Earmarks don’t create new taxes, they are added onto spending bills that intend to distribute income already collected through taxes. Dr. Paul doesn’t believe the government should collect the taxes at all. However, since the taxes have already been collected from his Congressional constituents (as it’s been collected from all Americans), he feels they deserve their fair share back, just as much as any other American who has been wrongly (in Paul’s view) taxed.

He votes “No” on the spending bills because he truly believes the federal government has no business having this money to spend in the first place. You are correct in that most of the time, he knows the bill is going to pass anyway. However, this does not negate the fact that he voted against its passage. He is making his principled stand, and clearly defines why he votes this way.

Dr. Paul does not necessarily disapprove of the government returning funds to citizens/ private organizations… he is against the TAXATION that allows it! If the tax has already been paid, he views that he ought to try and get his constituents back their fair share. The primary goal is allowing private citizens/ companies to keep the product of their labor. I don’t see how his submitting earmarks runs contrary to this primary goal.

I would be happy to consider any points you make in response. To summarize, I believe your argument implies that Dr. Paul is against the government returning any money to private citizens/ companies. If this were the case, his earmarks would be hypocritical. However, if you realize that his major gripe is with the taxes being collected and private companies/ citizens being “robbed” of the fruits of their labor, he is not hypocritical in attempting to return some money back to his constituents.

Respectfully yours,

Michael Murphy