[johnwk]

SEE:
TheBlaze,
Feb. 4, 2014

‘A Pattern of Lawlessness’: Ted Cruz Outlines Why Even Democrats Should Be Concerned About Obama Administration’s Actions

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) said there is a “pattern of lawlessness” underway by the Obama administration that is truly “breathtaking,” and it should not only concern Republicans.

“Suppose the next president says, ‘I’m instructing the Treasury Department [to] no longer collect taxes at a higher rate than 25%,” Cruz remarked on Glenn Beck’s radio program Tuesday. “That happens to be policy I agree with. I would love to see moving towards tax reform and lowering the top rates. And yet, that would be an extraordinarily bad outcome from the perspective of the Constitution and the protection of the liberty of the people.”

Until Congress is forbidden to lay and collect any tax calculated from profits, gains and other "incomes", returning us to our Constitution’s original tax plan, productive citizens will not only be singled out and enslaved under this discriminatory and despotic tax, but under the heal of our federal government who use it as a weapon to intimidate those who dare to speak out against, or pose a threat to our Washington Establishment. Does Senator Cruz not realize this? Lowering top rates and keeping this tax alive does absolutely nothing to remove this power of taxation which is used to cause many of our miseries.

Have we not suffered enough under this tax to end experimenting with it and return to the wisdom of our Founder’s original tax plan, especially its rule requiring any general tax laid among the states to be apportioned?

JWK


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41 ___ PENDLETON, during our Constitution’s ratification debates

[johnwk]

For those who are interested in tax reform and the hearing conducted in 1995 before the Committee on Ways and Means for the purpose of replacing the federal income tax, you may be interested in the submission offered by the American Constitutional Research Service which promotes a return to our Constitution's original tax plan, CLICK HERE and scroll down to page 687

In 1996, the following year, a second round hearing was held to replace the federal income tax and the American Constitutional Research Service presented another submission before the Committee on Ways and Means. To view that submission CLICK HERE and scroll down to page 236


Have you ever heard a "conservative" radio talk show host [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] discuss our Constitution's original tax plan as laid out during the above hearings?

And why has Mark Levin, who is embraced by "conservatives", neglected to lay out and promote a return to our Constitution's original tax plan by giving his support to the following resolution? Instead, he promotes keeping alive taxes calculated from incomes with one of his liberty amendments!


House/Senate Joint Resolution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.
___

JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

[OAW]

So basically this boils down to federal taxation being conducted via external duty taxes on imports and internal consumption taxes on luxury goods. Ok. It's an interesting idea worthy of discussion. Here's a couple of thoughts off the top of my head ....

1. Such an approach would generate far less revenue to fund the federal government. The reality is that we live in 2014 ... not 1776. The notion that in a global, interconnected world we will return to the days of people thinking of themselves as "Marylanders", "Pennsylvanians", "Floridians", "Missourians", etc. FIRST ... and then "Americans" second is rather quaint. But it's downright unrealistic. And that was most definitely the reality when the Constitution was written. The center of power was in the States and this was necessary because travel and communication between the States was relatively costly compared to modern times. Even then the States in New England and along the eastern seaboard were in relative proximity to each other compared to today. So the costs of funding a comparatively weak central government were fairly minimal. But today we live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific and is the primary economic engine of a global economy. We wouldn't have an interstate highway system as we know it today if it were up to the States to independently fund and/or construct the component parts. In modern America the States are considered to be political subdivisions of a sovereign Nation ... as opposed to the Nation being thought of as a loose federation of sovereign States.

2. Again, in a world that is more interconnected than ever due to technology, transportation, and communication advances, do we really think it's a good idea for the federal government ... whose prime directive is the national defense ... to have its primary funding mechanism totally dependent on foreign nations choosing to do business with us? I mean seriously .... let that marinate for a moment.

OAW

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So basically this boils down to federal taxation being conducted via external duty taxes on imports and internal consumption taxes on luxury goods. Ok. It's an interesting idea worthy of discussion. Here's a couple of thoughts off the top of my head ....

You forgot the apportioned direct tax. The fact is, our Constitution's original tax plan would allow Congress to raise existing levels of revenue.


JWK

[OAW]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

You forgot the apportioned direct tax. The fact is, our Constitution's original tax plan would allow Congress to raise existing levels of revenue.


JWK

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that a "fallback mechanism" for handling deficits by requiring the States to cover the shortfalls in the proportion to their Congressional representation?

OAW

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that a "fallback mechanism" for handling deficits by requiring the States to cover the shortfalls in the proportion to their Congressional representation?

OAW

You are absolutely correct!

Currently,our Governors and State Legislatures do not give two twits about the irresponsible spending their Congressional Delegation engages in while in Washington, especially when they can bring home the bacon from Washington. Going back to our Constitution’s original tax plan changes all that. Under our Constitution original tax plan, if Congress did not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous taxes on articles of consumption, which are voluntarily paid by the consumer and therefore limited to what consumers are willing to pay, and Congress found it necessary to borrow to meet its expenses, the apportioned tax would then have to be imposed and each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill for its apportioned share to extinguish the deficit created, and hand that bill over to their own State’s Governor and Legislatures who would have to then transfer that money from their own State’s Treasury into the Treasury of the United States or raise taxes within the State and then transfer that money into the Treasury of the United States to extinguish the bill created by Congress' reckless spending and borrowing.


This of course would encourage each State’s Governor and Legislature to keep a jealous eye on their State’s Congressional Delegation while in Washington to avoid the dreaded apportioned tax from being laid ___ they would have a very real incentive to make certain Congress’ expenditures would not exceed revenue brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous taxes on articles of consumption.


Can you picture the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts if their Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit they helped to create while in Washington, and these Governors and Legislatures would have to transfer that money out of their own state treasury and into the United States Treasury? The truth is, our founder’s tax plan is based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time and it creates a very real moment of accountability which would end the irresponsible spending in Washington and encourage each State’s Congressional Delegation to follow sound fiscal policies while in Washington to produce a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn would increase tax revenue brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.

JWK
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41___ PENDLETON during our Constitution's atification debates.

[OAW]

You'll have to forgive me for not being one to bow down at the altar of the "Founding Fathers" considering the fact that many of them kept my ancestors as slaves. IJS

That being said, I fail to see how this fallback mechanism would have the effect you indicate since a State's congressional delegation doesn't answer to the Governor or the State Legislature. If anything, it would encourage smaller states to be more fiscally irresponsible since a larger proportional burden of any deficits would fall on the larger states.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You'll have to forgive me for not being one to bow down at the altar of the "Founding Fathers" considering the fact that many of them kept my ancestors as slaves. IJS

I'd dare say then, there is no "father" or subsequent founding principle in which your allegiance could be well-placed. Hence, your trust in the establishment of today would be pure folly.

That being said, I fail to see how this fallback mechanism would have the effect you indicate since a State's congressional delegation doesn't answer to the Governor or the State Legislature. If anything, it would encourage smaller states to be more fiscally irresponsible since a larger proportional burden of any deficits would fall on the larger states.

OAW

The congressional delegation does not hold the purse strings of the State. While they may not be beholden to the Governor or State Legislature in action, they would certainly be subject to a greater scrutiny of their activities in Washington. i.e. sorry for the tax increase or resultant austerity Joe-voter, but your representative in Washington...

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You'll have to forgive me for not being one to bow down at the altar of the "Founding Fathers" considering the fact that many of them kept my ancestors as slaves. IJS

Your above remark has nothing to do with a valid principle contained in our Constitution.


And just to clear the record, after the Revolutionary War and the working people of America gained their independence from foreign domination [the real culprit of slavery on American soil] the people within a number of the states, exercising their newly found freedom, quickly moved to share the blessings of liberty to all by abolishing slavery! For example, the people of Vermont took this immediate action in its 1777 declaration of rights, which declared "no...person born in this country, or brought here over sea, ought to be holden by law to serve any person as a servant, slave, or apprentice". Likewise, the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 declared that "all men are born free and equal" and was used by the court a few years after its adoption to legally forbid any person to be held as a slave. And, in 1787, the Northwest Ordinance stated "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." By the year 1788 all the states north of Maryland , except New York and New Jersey, had legislated to extinguish slavery, and by 1804 the remaining two northern states [ N.Y. and N.J.] had put slavery to rest!


JWK

[auto_immune]

Editorials & Opinion | The Benefits And Hypocrisy Of Playing The Slavery Card | Seattle Times Newspaper

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd dare say then, there is no "father" or subsequent founding principle in which your allegiance could be well-placed. Hence, your trust in the establishment of today would be pure folly.

Originally Posted by johnwk 

Your above remark has nothing to do with a valid principle contained in our Constitution.

Originally Posted by auto_immune 

Editorials & Opinion | The Benefits And Hypocrisy Of Playing The Slavery Card | Seattle Times Newspaper

My point was that there are those who seem to hold a sort of a priori view regarding the virtuousness of the political ideas of the Founding Fathers. It's very similar to those who have a "Because the Bible said so." mentality. That is, because the Founding Fathers espoused a particular approach it therefore must be the best approach. Even if such an approach is downright impractical in the modern era. All I'm saying is that I am not of that mindset so any sort of argument rooted in an appeal to the "Founding Fathers" is simply not going to hold much sway with me. And neither should it with anyone else IMO ... unless of course, one agrees with the notion that the only people who should have any say in the affairs of the nation are white, male, landowners. Because, that's exactly what their collective wisdom initially produced. IJS

Here are a couple of excerpts from a piece that sum up what I'm saying:

Using the legacy of the founding fathers as a political litmus test not only abandons substantive debate, but it comes dangerously close to a logical fallacy. In some instances, it functions as a red herring. The founding fathers provide a convenient rhetorical distraction from debating the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, for example, on its own merits. Otherwise, the appeal to the founding fathers falls somewhere between an “appeal to authority” and an “appeal to tradition.” Accordingly, “a small government” ideology is preferable to a “big government” not because of facts, reality, or the needs of society and how to best meet them, but because of what the founders intended.

Nobody would question that both Hamilton and Jefferson deserve to be called “founding fathers,” but one must use caution in using that term to refer to this intellectually diverse group of people. To gloss over their deep-seated philosophical differences and superimpose on them legacy of ideological purity and unity displays ignorance of history.

Even if founding fathers had all shared one comprehensive political worldview, it would still not be relevant to a modern policy discussion. Today’s world is too radically different from that of the founding fathers; the sweeping technological and social progress since the 18th century has rendered many of their central concerns obsolete. For instance, a principal point of contention between Hamilton and Jefferson was the issue of keeping a standing army. Hamilton believed that it was a necessity for maintaining order, while Jefferson feared that it would lead America down a slippery slope to tyranny. Contemporary social and political norms are so incredibly unlike those of the founding fathers that Jefferson’s fears of a standing army barely resonate at all to the modern reader. A standing army has become an accepted fact of life and Americans would be hard-pressed to imagine their country without one.

Similarly, the founding fathers governed in a political atmosphere that makes little sense to us. No reasonable Americans today would be so outraged over their taxes that they would stage a revolt. But in 1794, when Washington was forced to raise a federal militia to suppress a western Pennsylvanian uprising over a whiskey tax, rebellion was not so unthinkable. In the modern era, taxes are a hegemonic reality, but in the revolutionary era, they were not seen as such.

Political realities have changed in innumerable ways since the American Revolution, and many of our founders’ ideas are simply incompatible with modern America. Therefore, the fact that this country’s founders subscribed to certain (often conflicting) ideologies does not mean that they should impede political development hundreds of years later. To nevertheless assert that the founding fathers should guide today’s political debates betrays the government’s responsibility to govern in the 21st century, not the 18th.

The Founding Fathers Fallacy | Penn Political Review

So it's not that there is no "founding principle in which your my allegiance could be well-placed". It's that any "principle" should stand on its own merits in the context in which it is applied ... not simply because it's a "founding principle". Follow me?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The congressional delegation does not hold the purse strings of the State. While they may not be beholden to the Governor or State Legislature in action, they would certainly be subject to a greater scrutiny of their activities in Washington. i.e. sorry for the tax increase or resultant austerity Joe-voter, but your representative in Washington...

Agreed. But I must point out that as of yet my fundamental criticism of this "fallback mechanism" for handling federal deficits has not been addressed. So I'll reiterate it.

"If anything, it would encourage smaller states to be more fiscally irresponsible since a larger proportional burden of any deficits would fall on the larger states."

Would not such an approach incentivize states like South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, etc. to be less concerned about federal deficits because states like New York, California, Florida, Texas, etc. would be picking up the lion's share of the tab?

OAW

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Anyone who thinks that congress is going to give up their general "slush" fund without people dying in the streets is naive.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

My point was that there are those who seem to hold a sort of a priori view regarding the virtuousness of the political ideas of the Founding Fathers. It's very similar to those who have a "Because the Bible said so." mentality. That is, because the Founding Fathers espoused a particular approach it therefore must be the best approach. Even if such an approach is downright impractical in the modern era. All I'm saying is that I am not of that mindset so any sort of argument rooted in an appeal to the "Founding Fathers" is simply not going to hold much sway with me. And neither should it with anyone else IMO ... unless of course, one agrees with the notion that the only people who should have any say in the affairs of the nation are white, male, landowners. Because, that's exactly what their collective wisdom initially produced. IJS
Here are a couple of excerpts from a piece that sum up what I'm saying:
The Founding Fathers Fallacy | Penn Political Review

So it's not that there is no "founding principle in which your my allegiance could be well-placed". It's that any "principle" should stand on its own merits in the context in which it is applied ... not simply because it's a "founding principle". Follow me?

You've opened a single statement with the importance of a well-rounded understanding of history and closed it on an entirely myopic angle. I've said this before and it may bear repeating...

When actual forefathers are invoked among tea-party Amrrkns (your shared PPR perspective) in demonstrations or otherwise, a statement of theirs is used to support a tea-party grievance. There is nothing misguided or ignorant or nefarious about it. What the movement is guilty of is actually affecting election outcomes.

Otherwise, the sentiment is expressed as an ideal of the founding, not the founders themselves. In other words, these people had to divine an open enough system that would allow passionate pleas from opposing sides; an opportunity to work through them, but enabling each a strong check against the other's authority. That's it. That's the big difference. No hocus pokus, no perfect people... just some folks that had the resolve to forge something other than what they left behind and they had an educated view of history before them. This open system, this ideal forged from the passionate pleas of opposing forces and ratified through the enumerated States was the most liberal form of governance known to mankind. And that system is closing. That speaks to the very fundamental differences that are as apparent today as they were then. And yet the paper-academics will continue to insist these observant, resolute old white guys couldn't possibly have foreseen human nature. Absolutely nothing has changed. Enter issue ___here___. Nothing. Federalists vs Anti-Federalists, but make no mistake -- they created an open system utilizing a set of checks and balances because they were resolved enough to leave the failed ideals of yesteryear behind them.

In short, I don't need to see the shit-stains in their drawers to know they created an open system that is now closing. One side is moving in on the other. It's as simple as that. Less checks, less balance.

Agreed. But I must point out that as of yet my fundamental criticism of this "fallback mechanism" for handling federal deficits has not been addressed. So I'll reiterate it.

"If anything, it would encourage smaller states to be more fiscally irresponsible since a larger proportional burden of any deficits would fall on the larger states."

Would not such an approach incentivize states like South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, etc. to be less concerned about federal deficits because states like New York, California, Florida, Texas, etc. would be picking up the lion's share of the tab?

OAW

How so? From johnwk's post, I saw; ... and Congress found it necessary to borrow to meet its expenses, the apportioned tax would then have to be imposed and each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill for its apportioned share to extinguish the deficit created...

Apportion doesn't necessarily mean simply, divide. Apportion is often dictated by share of contribution. In other words, Ron Paul gets umpteen million for river valleys in TX and TX is charged umpteen million of $17 trillion of the debt. He may argue that his expenditure produced x_million in Federal revenue and then TX is responsible for TX spending from that. In theory, the debt wouldn't get to $17 trillion because if TX doesn't have it, there's no reason to assume Washington DC does, particularly when the Feds have been triggered into action on a deficit in revenue to outlays. This was a way for the Feds to essentially kick the ball back to the States unlike at present where the States are increasingly beholden to the Federal government; complete dependents. I'm sure many could argue that what we have today is in effect, already lopsided apportionment among the States.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by OAW 

My point was

With all due respect, your point has nothing to do with the subject of the thread nor a valid principle of taxation written into our Constitution by our founding fathers.


JWK

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The congressional delegation does not hold the purse strings of the State. While they may not be beholden to the Governor or State Legislature in action, they would certainly be subject to a greater scrutiny of their activities in Washington. i.e. sorry for the tax increase or resultant austerity Joe-voter, but your representative in Washington...

Exactly! And if the various State's Congressional Delegations while in Washington could not fund federal expenditures from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes and engaged in reckless spending which in turn would require them to arrive home with a bill that would deplete their own state’s treasury, I sort of think they would receive their JUST REWARDS and would be held accountable for their reckless spending and borrowing.

One must ask why the apportioned tax has not been used since the “Civil War”?

JWK

[OAW]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

With all due respect, your point has nothing to do with the subject of the thread nor a valid principle of taxation written into our Constitution by our founding fathers.


JWK

I think the part highlighted epitomizes the point. Given that and your continued failure to address the actual criticism I raised of this method of taxation on its own merits ... never mind.

OAW

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Originally Posted by johnwk
With all due respect, your point has nothing to do with the subject of the thread nor a valid principle of taxation written into our Constitution by our founding fathers.


JWK

I think the part highlighted epitomizes the point. Given that and your continued failure to address the actual criticism I raised of this method of taxation on its own merits ... never mind.

OAW

And just what criticism was that? Please quote the "criticism" you are referring to.


JWK

[OAW]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

And just what criticism was that? Please quote the "criticism" you are referring to.


JWK

For the third time ...

Originally Posted by OAW

"If anything, it would encourage smaller states to be more fiscally irresponsible since a larger proportional burden of any deficits would fall on the larger states."

Would not such an approach incentivize states like South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, etc. to be less concerned about federal deficits because states like New York, California, Florida, Texas, etc. would be picking up the lion's share of the tab?

OAW

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by OAW 

For the third time ...



OAW

And you continue to ignore when the apportioned tax is levied to extinguish a deficit, the Congressional Delegations of the States you mention will have to bring home a bill for their State's Governor and Legislature to pay, and they will have to transfer that money out of their own State Treasury into the Treasury of the United States, or raise additional taxes within their state and then transfer that money into the Treasury of the United States.


Can you picture the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts if their Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit they helped to create while in Washington, and these Governors and Legislatures would have to transfer that money out of their own state treasury and into the United States Treasury? The truth is, our founder’s tax plan is based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time and it creates a very real moment of accountability which would end the irresponsible spending in Washington and encourage each State’s Congressional Delegation to follow sound fiscal policies while in Washington to produce a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn would increase tax revenue brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.

JWK
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41___ PENDLETON during our Constitution's ratification debates.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

And you continue to ignore when the apportioned tax is levied to extinguish a deficit, the Congressional Delegations of the States you mention will have to bring home a bill for their State's Governor and Legislature to pay, and they will have to transfer that money out of their own State Treasury into the Treasury of the United States, or raise additional taxes within their state and then transfer that money into the Treasury of the United States.


Can you picture the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts if their Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit they helped to create while in Washington, and these Governors and Legislatures would have to transfer that money out of their own state treasury and into the United States Treasury?

And you continue to argue a point that is not in dispute. What I'm saying is that while the TAXATION is apportioned amongst the States with such an approach ... that isn't necessarily the case with the BENEFITS of the federal legislation. Say for instance a "Farm Bill" that disproportionally benefits rural and less populous States. Would not such an approach incentive the Congressional delegations of such States to be less concerned about their smaller apportionment of the taxes to pay for it ... because they will be receiving the lion's share of the benefits primarily on the dime of the urban and more populous States?

OAW

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
And you continue to ignore when the apportioned tax is levied to extinguish a deficit, the Congressional Delegations of the States you mention will have to bring home a bill for their State's Governor and Legislature to pay, and they will have to transfer that money out of their own State Treasury into the Treasury of the United States, or raise additional taxes within their state and then transfer that money into the Treasury of the United States.


Can you picture the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California’s, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts if their Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit they helped to create while in Washington, and these Governors and Legislatures would have to transfer that money out of their own state treasury and into the United States Treasury?

Originally Posted by OAW 

And you continue to argue a point that is not in dispute. What I'm saying is that while the TAXATION is apportioned amongst the States with such an approach ... that isn't necessarily the case with the BENEFITS of the federal legislation. Say for instance a "Farm Bill" that disproportionally benefits rural and less populous States. Would not such an approach incentive the Congressional delegations of such States to be less concerned about their smaller apportionment of the taxes to pay for it ... because they will be receiving the lion's share of the benefits primarily on the dime of the urban and more populous States?

OAW

Your argument against the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation was "If anything, it would encourage smaller states to be more fiscally irresponsible since a larger proportional burden of any deficits would fall on the larger states."

And now you are bringing up something entirely different ___ the spending of federal revenue and "benefits" such as the Farm Bill.

If we followed our Constitution and its legislative intent, there would be no "Farm Bill". Additionally, you are not taking into consideration that under the rule of apportionment, as intended by our founding fathers, all revenue from the states to the federal government or from the federal government to the states is to be determined by the rule of apportionment! For example see the Act of Congress in June of 1836in which all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.


JWK

[OAW]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

Your argument against the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation was "If anything, it would encourage smaller states to be more fiscally irresponsible since a larger proportional burden of any deficits would fall on the larger states."

And now you are bringing up something entirely different ___ the spending of federal revenue and "benefits" such as the Farm Bill.

1. Would you agree that federal deficits are the result of federal revenue not being adequate to cover federal spending?

2. Would you agree that federal spending has "benefits" for one constituency or another?

3. Would you agree that the federal government unnecessarily spending beyond its means is "fiscally irresponsible"?

I contend that one would be hard pressed to answer "No" to any of those questions with any shred of intellectual honesty. So with that being said, I fail to see why you think I'm saying something "entirely different" since all of these things are intertwined.

Originally Posted by johnwk

If we followed our Constitution and its legislative intent, there would be no "Farm Bill". Additionally, you are not taking into consideration that under the rule of apportionment, as intended by our founding fathers, all revenue from the states to the federal government or from the federal government to the states is to be determined by the rule of apportionment! For example see the Act of Congress in June of 1836in which all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

The example you cite is dealing with the distribution of surplus revenue. That's an entirely different issue than the distribution of the "benefits" of federal spending. So I stand by my earlier criticism and the example I cited.

OAW

[johnwk]

If you have a point to make, make the point.

JWK

[OAW]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

If you have a point to make, make the point.

JWK

The point has been made. Repeatedly. If by now it still has not registered enough for you to even offer a relevant counter-argument instead of an unwarranted dismissal ... then I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain it again.

OAW

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The point has been made. Repeatedly. If by now it still has not registered enough for you to even offer a relevant counter-argument instead of an unwarranted dismissal ... then I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain it again.

OAW

Instead of asking questions which are designed to engage in speculative pontifications and avoid the subject of the thread which is tax reform, make your point and I will gladly respond to your "point" as I did in my post dated Feb 13, 2014, 12:20 AM.

JWK



Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.

[Shaddim]

Good luck with that.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by johnwk 

Instead of asking questions which are designed to engage in speculative pontifications and avoid the subject of the thread which is tax reform, make your point and I will gladly respond to your "point" as I did in my post dated Feb 13, 2014, 12:20 AM.

The subject of the thread is "tax reform" and you advocated a return to the original taxation mechanism outlined in the Constitution. I submitted a potential downside to that approach which was not only on topic but also explained WHY this approach would hardly be some kind of panacea for fiscal irresponsibility. I did so repeatedly. And as I've already said I'm not inclined to explain it again. Perhaps you are more interested in the thread simply being a conservative echo chamber? If so I am more than happy to oblige.

OAW

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Good luck with that.

Yup! Guess you are right!


JWK