The Fallacies of the Tax "Cut" Arguments

A couple of thoughts.

A lot of the talk about whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts includes words like "will cost $700 billion over 10 years" and "will increase the deficit by n dollars", and "are not paid for".

All of these lines of thought must be based on a premise that the money is the government's to start with, so rather than a perspective of allowing people to keep more of what they earn, they like to paint this as a "cost" to the government. By that logic, any tax rate less than 100% represents a "cost" to the government, and increases the deficit by the amount that is not being confiscated by the government. This is a very, very dangerous way to view taxes.

It is also true that talking about extending the Bush tax cuts as tax cuts at all, trying to portray the extension of the current rates as "the Obama tax cuts", for instance, is the same as claiming that not raising your taxes to 100% represents a tax 'cut' by the amount of the difference between your current rate and 100%.

Many Democrats do not view the money you earn by working as 'yours'. They view it as theirs, except for the portion they graciously allow you to keep (and they view whatever they allow you to keep as a 'cost' to them), and they believe they should be able to 'adjust' that portion you are allowed to keep at any time, and in any amount according to their perception of 'fairness'.

Our founding fathers would have viewed the current tax scheme as theft of private property - because the sweat of your brow, the money you earn, is YOUR private property, which is protected by the Constitution. But many Democrats do not give the Constitution more than a passing thought, and if they do at all, the thought is along the lines of "Does it matter? Nah, it doesn't."

The Abomination of the "National Popular Vote" movement

This is almost beyond my ability to believe, but 6 states have so far adopted the "National Popular Vote" bill.

The intent of this bill is do effectively do away with the Electoral College system by negating it. The provision is that every state that adopts this bill agrees to give up its sovereignty in presidential elections as soon as enough states to equal 270 electoral college votes have adopted the measure.

The bill actually provides that, upon activation, all of the adopting state's electoral college votes will be awarded to the presidential candidate who gets the most total votes across the country. This means that a state's population could well have given the majority of their votes to one candidate, but have their votes rendered null and void because a different candidate won the popular, nationwide vote, causing all of that state's electoral college votes to be given to that other candidate. Taken to an extreme, even if 100% of the citizens of a state voted for candidate A, the state could be required to support candidate B and put him/her in office over the objections of every voter in the state.

How anybody of good faith could support this bill is quite beyond my ability to comprehend. But, maybe, that is the issue, and the people who have put this in place in Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Washington are NOT people of good faith, but something else entirely.

Let us hope that the expected Republican landslide in governorships and state legislatures will roll this back in many of these places, perhaps enshrining opposition to anything like this in their state constitutions so simple majorities in the state legislatures will not be enough to strip the citizens of the state of their right to decide, as a state, who should be president of the United States.

Restoring States' Rightful Place in the Balance of Power

The federal government was created by the states. It took ratification of the Constitution by the states. The states, therefore, should be the masters of the federal government, not the other way around. The federal government should only by able to govern with the consent of the states. The states, on the other hand, answer to the people of the state, and should only be able to govern with the consent of the people of the state.

Things have gotten very turned around, with the federal government exerting power never delegated to it by the states. The courts have proven that they are not adequate protectors of the states.

A couple of changes would fix this. One is to repeal the 17th Amendment, and restore the selection of Senators to the state legislatures. The original design was that the House of Representatives would represent the people directly, by being subject to election by those people, and that the Senate would represent the states, by being subject to selection by the state legislature. This would return us to the smarter original design and intent where both the people and the states would have representation in the federal government.

The other would be to give the states, collectively, effective veto power over federal legislation by allowing a majority of the state legislatures to vote to overturn any federal legislation. This would require a constitutional amendment, but it would put ultimate power back into the hands of the entities who originally created the federal government and gave it all of its delegated powers.

Progressives and statists will hate both of these provisions, which makes them all the more important. (It is interesting to watch political ads in Colorado against Republican Senate nominee Ken Buck proclaiming that he wants to "rewrite the Constitution" and "take away your right to vote" by repealing the 17th Amendment and restoring representation to the states. If only people knew their history, they would see this for what it is. What he really wants to do is un-rewrite the Constitution and restore the original wisdom of the founders.)

A Lesson to Learn for the 2012 Elections

For me, the 2010 elections are about one thing, and one thing only: stop the train by replacing as many Ds with Rs as possible. I don't care about the qualifications of the Rs this time. This is about stopping the bleeding with whatever is handy.

For 2012, we will have the opportunity to get more picky. And I hope we all remember to be very, very picky. No longer should it be acceptable for a candidate to paint his promises with such broad strokes that everybody can read into them what they wish. We must nail candidates down to specifics, we must look at everything - their record, their experience, their associations. And we must force them to tell us exactly where they stand on the issues that will matter most to us. No waffling. No room to later spin their words to have meant something else entirely. We really must hold them accountable, and not just hope they are what we want.

A Prediction Regarding the Democratic Party

Pretty much everybody is aware of and acknowledging the likely direction of the November elections, if not the magnitude of the shift that is coming. The Democrats have proceeded blithely into the craw of the American people and are about to be chewed up and spit out, as they rightly deserve.

There has been talk of the potential for a dying grasp at power by way of a lame duck session of Congress. It is about that potentiality that I have a prediction to record. IF the Democrats, following a resounding thrashing at the polls, exhibit the audacity to even try to push any of their unpopular policy items (e.g. Card Check or Cap and Trade) during a lame duck session, I herewith predict that 1) their attempts will fail and their efforts will be thwarted and 2) the very attempt may spell the death knoll of the Democratic party as a viable major player in American politics for a generation, if not more. I think the ramifications of such a brazen attempt to wrest America from the people would be a new 2-party landscape consisting of the Republican party on the "new left", and the Tea party on the "new right".

And wouldn't it be wonderful being able to choose between two parties which are both to the right of today's center, which are competing with each other over the right to restore respect for our Constitution, the principles of limited government, and respect for our founding principles? I look forward to the day.

Restore Check and Balance to the Supreme Court

The check on the Supreme Court of the United States was supposed to be the congressional power to impeach and remove from office, but the one time a justice was almost impeached, for good cause, the effort failed and hasn't been tried again, giving the justices a feeling of invulnerability and freedom.

I have heard two good ideas in the last few weeks for a constitutional amendment to provide another check on the Supreme Court, one less severe and permanent than impeachment and removal from office, which makes it the nuclear option and historically unlikely to be of practical use.

The one I think I like the best would restore the states to a position of superiority by allowing a majority of the Attorneys General of the states vote to overturn any Supreme Court decision.

The other option would be to empower the Congress to overturn any Supreme Court decision with a 2/3 majority vote in both the House and the Senate.

Either way, it would take the current ultimate authority without recourse out of the hands of the 9 unelected and unaccountable to the people.

2010 Prognostications

I'm going to go out on a limb and say what I think about the 2010 elections. If I turn out to be wrong, no great surprise. If I turn out to be right, well, that might be interesting.

My sense of things is that November, 2010 is going to be a huge surprise to almost everyone. I think a lot of real, plain, simple Americans are quietly shocked and dismayed and not about to forget by November. More than the polls show. More than the pundits predict. I think people are going to want to make an unmistakable statement. One that cannot be spun, as Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were spun to mean what they did not mean.

I think the Republicans could actually gain 80-90 seats in the House, and 12-15 seats in the Senate.

My biggest fear for 2012 is that Obama will read the tea leaves correctly and initiate a grand "adventure" (read war) to distract attention from what he is and draw on the deep well of patriotism (which I do not believe he shares) to convince people that we just cannot 'switch horses mid-stream'. I hope he doesn't, and I have at least some optimism that people will see through it and react accordingly when that time comes. But I don't see him wasting this tactic on the mid-terms, so a lot can change before this becomes a serious concern.

There. I've said it. Now we'll see.

Why Not Romney?

Former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney won the 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate straw poll at the SRLC last week. I think it would be a mistake for the GOP to nominate Romney, because he will have to spend a great deal of time defending RomneyCare (or Mass. Care if you will), and I think the mere fact that he signed that bill into law in Massachusetts will cost him votes. GOP votes, Tea Party votes, and independent votes. Too many people will not accept his explanations as to why this forerunner of Obamacare was right for Massachusetts then and now, and why Obamacare is wrong. I think it would weaken the movement to make him the candidate.

What did the 16th Amendment really do?

A lot of prominent people profess to be of the opinion that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution authorized the imposition of a Federal Income Tax on most forms of income, for most or all people. The words seem to be clear enough:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

It doesn't appear to leave much doubt or wriggle room. However, the following excerpts of various Supreme Court decisions tell a very different story:


“We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”
...
“[Taxation of "income" is] in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it” 
United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . ."
United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...”
United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

The Revised Statutes of the United States and the Statutes at Large of the United States are the sources of the law codified. The Revised Statutes cover the period ended December 1, 1873. The Statutes at Large codified cover the period following December 1, 1873, and are published in the 35 volumes numbered 18 to 52, inclusive. The separate enactments carried into the internal revenue title, wholly or in part, from the Statutes at Large are 143 in number, exclusive of 93 statutes involving express amendment, reenactment, or repeal. The 277 Revised Statutes sections codified were derived from 21 basic statutes. The whole body of internal revenue law in effect on January 2, 1939, therefore, has its ultimate origin in 164 separate enactments of Congress. The earliest of these was approved July 1, 1862; the latest, June 16, 1938."
Preamble to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above.  Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity."
Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, Report No. 80-19A, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”, page CRS-5 (1979)

"[T]he amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax."
F. Morse Hubbard, legislative draftsman for the United States Treasury Department, testifying before Congress on March 27, 1943

"The legislative history merely shows... ...that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 -18 (1916)."
United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)

To learn more about the truth of what this means to you, I encourage you to become acquainted with a remarkable site: http://www.losthorizons.com.

Democrats - the best hope for minorities?

Have you long believed that the Democratic party is the party of civil rights and equality? If so, I challenge you to watch the two videos at the bottom of http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/.

Repeal, Replace, and Amend

I submit that the fix needs to go farther than just a new Pres and a conservative majority in both houses. Once those elements are in place, what is needed is some amendments to the Constitution to close some of the most egregiously-abused loopholes the Supreme Court has been able to 'find' (invent) with clearer language that restores things to the way they were intended to be.

Stop the abuse of the Commerce Clause to mean all things based on any rationale at all, and the 'promote the general welfare' clause to be infinitely expansive, among other things. The Supreme Court cannot claim a Constitutional Amendment is unconstitutional. We just have to remove the wriggle room.

 As comforting as that may feel, now is not the time to give up and tune out. The assault is not over. It will continue until we have achieved a conservative majority in at least one house of Congress. And the abuses may get worse. We must be vigilant and active, because there is still much more that can be lost in what may turn out to be a very long and grueling 7 months.

The Power to Choose Members of SCOTUS is Important

What do you think is the single most enduring impact our choice for president can have on our country?


I mean as a general principle, what is the most far-reaching thing a president is empowered to do?

I have believed for awhile that it is his (or her) authority to select federal court judges, and supreme court justices. I was shocked to learn just how quickly the judiciary started taking this country down the wrong path, and how persistent it has been on that path as an institution, worshiping at the altar of "precedent".



The authority to appoint judges and justices "for life", with no recourse for their bad decisions and attacks on the constitution they swore to defend except impeachment, which has been used way too little anyway, has led to disastrous consequences that have far outlived the presidents who made the appointments, or even the judges/justices who made the decisions.

I have begun to think this is the single most important thing to consider when choosing a president.

His policy leanings can be largely checked by a resistant Congress (hopefully starting in January for this case). But if he puts in place a judiciary, from which there is no appeal except by amending the constitution, a judiciary that will turn its head and refuse to defend the constitution, that can change things for generations.

A new congress can repeal Obamacare (the purported "benefits" of which won't even begin to take effect until 2014) and replace it with something reasonable. If Obama won't sign that, then his replacement can in 2013, if we choose wisely. A really strong opposition congress can even begin to refuse to allocate the money for it sooner than that, even if it means shutting down the federal government to call his bluff - (and maybe save some $ along the way???).

My greatest fear right now is whether, and how many, federal judiciary appointments, and particularly how many Supreme Court appointments, Obama may have the opportunity to fill in the remainder of his lame duck presidency.

To learn more about what an out-of-control judiciary, which is not effectively 'checked and balanced' by either of the other two branches of government, can mean, I commend to you another book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution".

Glenn Beck at CPAC

Glenn Beck's keynote speech at the CPAC this afternoon was amazing. Even though I had heard some of it before on his regular show on Fox News, the fact that he was willing to stand and deliver this no-holds-barred message to CPAC was inspiring, as was how it was received by the audience. He pandered to no person, no political party, no special interest. He just told it like it is. Just Glenn and his chalkboard and some infrequently consulted notes, and a refreshing absence of teleprompters.

The transcript does not really do it justice, so if you are interested in the delivery, you can see it here: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36618/.

Recommended Reading: The PIG to American History

I've been reading an interesting book - "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History". I recommend it to anybody who thinks they know American history. My guess is that you don't. Not really. I keep hearing how the textbooks have been changed over the years, to hide or even pervert the truth about our history, but I figured it wasn't happening when I was in JHS, and that I probably had been taught the truth.

Turns out, even back then, I was not. If you have the intellectual honesty to face it, I recommend this read. If you are up to have some of your long-held beliefs challenged, give it a go. It kept me up until 2am this morning. If you have kids studying history, I think you should get them to read this. It isn't all good, but it is the truth.

The Civil War wasn't about what you probably think it was about. Andrew Johnson, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were probably much better presidents, in terms of being good for the country, than they get credit for, and FDR and Woodrow Wilson were probably much worse than they get credit for. It was actually Abraham Lincoln who put us on the course of bigger, more controlling and invasive centralized government that our founders tried so hard to prevent. Stuff like that, and much more. A lot of what has happened to our country in the last 100 years is exactly what was discussed and feared by our founding fathers. It ain't all pretty by a long shot, but it is better to know the truth than a sanitized and twisted version of the truth. This isn't from the book, but it is my growing opinion that the most powerful people in America should probably be the 50 governors and their respective state legislatures, and not the President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, or even the U.S. Congress.

Ray Steven's Video - We The People

Neat, catchy video by one of the funniest songwriters ever, Ray Stevens: We the People http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyLUo.