Joseph Farrah smearing RP regarding earmarks
Submitted by Mikey da Murph on Thu, 12/27/2007 - 13:17I 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
I stopped visiting WND years ago
What a tool Farah has become. He is a neocon himself. I lost all respect for his so called "consitutional" attitude when he immediately dissed RP.
Watch the film "THX1138" online for a glimpse into the future.
http://www.pyrabang.com/view.php?ref=THX1138&post_id=7484
Farah's reason
I think Joe Farah is covering all his bases so he can run on the Constitution Party ticket.
He has bashed all candidates while not supporting any.
Just a thought.
Good response. I think Ron
Good response.
I think Ron Paul did a great job with his analogy.
Outstanding Explanation
That really clarifies the issue, Michael! I only wish Dr. Paul had done that good a job with Tim Russert.
Me too! I don't really
Me too! I don't really blame Dr. Paul; it must be tiring having to defend each of your positions with a lengthy explanation of the Constitution. Russert was ruthless, he just kept repeating his loaded question: "So you're against taxation and spending bills, but you insert earmarks." He made NO attempt at getting Dr. Paul's view expressed clearly, and every attempt to paint him as hypocritical.
It took me multiple paragraphs without interuptions to fully explain his position... I wish Dr. Paul the best of luck and the utmost of patience in trying to get these entirely valid yet complex points out on short, live clips with annoying interviewers constantly cutting him off.
Joseph Farrah is a closet religious zelot…
… and Huckabee supporter. WorldNetDaily panders to the religious right. He is pro total destruction of the middle east to protect Israel. This guy LOVES war more than his own mother. His site used to really be good. He is now bought and paid for. Now, about the best one can get is revelations by an image of Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich.
His biggest commentators are UpChuck Norris and Pat Boone & Hal Lindsay. That says reams about the site. If you ever follow any of the WND daily polls, you would swear that most of those participating did so with fresh lobotomies.
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Samuel Adams
“Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality”
Here! Here!
Everyone needs to stop visiting WND for their news. I stopped visiting years ago. I wish I had never promoted WND. I did when they use to be somewhat objective and consitutionally minded.
They're a very strange website. They have one guy left that I read on occasion and that is Vox Day. Someone needs to get him on a major news site still dedicatd to the Republic.
Watch the film "THX1138" online for a glimpse into the future.
http://www.pyrabang.com/view.php?ref=THX1138&post_id=7484
You notice
how Mr. Farah doesn't say what he should be doing. I guess he should tell his constituents they do not deserve their own money back. I quit listening to anything Farah says after he wimped out and endorsed Bush a second time, because Michael Peroutka couldn't win and no way could Kerry be President. What a sell-out. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.
I've never read anything by
I've never read anything by him or heard of him before, just stumbled upon the article searching for RP related news. I felt that during the MTP interview, Russert did a horrible job of truthfully getting at the heart of what Dr. Paul was trying to say (ie: he WANTED to show Dr. Paul as a hypocrite) . I think Dr. Paul was telling Russert that he was confused on the issue, which is true, but didn't do a great job himself of forcing the conversation towards his main point.
It annoys me that the press is easily able to spin this story, when I beleive the truth of the matter is that Dr. Paul handles earmarks/ spending bills in the best/ most consistent way possible, given his position that the government should tax much less, and thus, shouldn't have any cash with which to introduce such spending bills. Hence, his "No" votes on spending (a "Yes" vote implies the government is correct to collect the revenues). However, since the taxes have ALREADY been collected, he inserts the earmarks to return some of the "stolen" cash to his district. He wishes that the people aren't taxed in the first place and that, thus, spending bills for projects other than those authorized by the Constitution wouldn't exist. However, since he knows the rst of congress will vote "Yes" on the bills, he will be damned if they all get money back to their district while his is left hanging high and dry!
Seeing that there is a huge banner talking about Zion on his website, I tend to beleive Farrah may be biased in his assesment of our necessity to be in the Middle East militarily. I wanted to hammer home Dr. Paul's rationale in a clear way without attacking him. I wish his site allowed comments so that his readers could be educated on the facts of the matter...
Bump
Bump