Sarah Palin, America is cheering for you! Please defend our Founders on tax reform, deficits and honest money!
Unlike those who today run for political office and spend millions of dollars in the process for the opportunity to attract the spotlight and then use it to inform us of things we already knew, such as the financial miseries we experience which are traceable to despotic legislation and judicial tyranny , our founding fathers focused upon the causes and cures of despotic government! And this becomes only too obvious when studying, e.g., the
Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, as reported by James Madison and the rules our founders laid down in our Constitution to circumvent despotic government and insure honest money and honest taxation, two of the primary vehicles now used to inflict economic misery and plunder what America’s businesses and labor have produced.
On the one hand with regard to honest money, our founders forbid Congress to emit bills on the credit of the united States, nor make notes of any kind a “legal tender“. If Congress were not forbidden to make notes a legal tender, our founders knew the temptation would exist for Congress to declare a particular note to be our nation’s legal tender, thereby creating a paper money monopoly which would ultimately force businesses and individuals to accept worthless script in payment of debt, while those in charge of issuing the script would be free to sap the real material wealth created by America’s businesses and labor using worthless paper that had been declared a “legal tender for all debts public and private”.
To prevent the mischief of paper money and its historical use as a vehicle to swindle what labor and business has produced, our wise founding fathers left the market place free to determine what “notes”, if any be in circulation, were “safe and proper” by forbidding Congress to declare any particular note [such as our existing Federal Reserve Notes] to be a “legal tender” for all debts public and private. SEE The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16
Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.
Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.
______ cut ______
On the motion for striking out ["and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-]
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.
And with regard to taxation and allowing Congress to raise its own revenue in a manner which discouraged the very sufferings now inflicted upon the American People and America’s domestic businesses by Congress, especially its regulatory chokehold and confiscatory taxation, our Founders relied upon principles which are as valid today as when our Constitution went into effect. For example, our Founders intended Congress to tax at our water’s edge [imposts and duties] as a first means to fill our national treasury which not only had foreigners filling our national treasury for the privilege of doing business on American soil __ just as one pays for a ticket to set up a booth at a flea market to sell one’s goods and wares __ but taxing consumption as our Founders intended allows the market place to determine an allowable limit of tax on each article selected for taxation. Taxing any particular article too high or at a confiscatory level results a lowering of its consumption, thereby lessening the flow of revenue into our federal Treasury.
The same principles apply to internal “excise” taxes imposed upon articles of consumption which our founders intended to be used as an additional, but second means to fill the national treasury. In the end our founders rightfully chose taxing consumption as Congress’ primary means to fill the federal treasury and intended the market place to limit the amount of tax on each article selected. Hamilton explains taxing consumption in the following manner, they:
may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”___ Federalist No 21
Having summarized our Founder’s method to raise a federal revenue from taxing consumption, the question arises as to what is to happen if an emergency arose, such as war, and “Duties, Imposts and Excise” on consumption were found insufficient to meet federal exigencies? Our wise founding fathers solved this problem by allowing Congress an additional power of taxation __ the power to lay a general tax among the States to raise a specific sum of money. But in this case the amount to be raised was to be “apportioned among the several States” so each State’s share of the tax was proportionately equal to its representation in Congress.
In addition to the rule of apportionment, this special tax created a very real movement of accountability if taxing consumption was found insufficient to fund Congress‘ expenditures, because under this tax each State’s Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with to extinguish the deficit created by Congress. And, upon receiving its bill from a State’s Congressional Delegation the Governor and State’s Legislature were then required to transfer the State’s apportioned share from the State’s treasury into the national treasury or raise additional taxes within the State and then transfer that money into the federal treasury to extinguish the deficit created by Congress.
Surely the undesirable threat of having to bring home a bill and deplete their own State’s Treasury encouraged each State’s Congressional Delegation to spend less rather than more while in Washington to avoid the required apportioned tax among the States. And it is also important to note that the rule of apportionment precludes the immoral use of class warfare when imposing the general tax among the states because each State’s share of the burden is determine by a fixed formula, while each state was intended to be free to raise its share in it is own chosen way in a time period set by Congress. The formula for this special tax to raise a specific sum to extinguish a deficit ties representation and taxation by the same standard. Each state‘s population size, and its burden turns out to be an equal per capita tax if it were laid directly upon the people:
FOUNDER’S FAIR SHARE FORMULA
---------------- X SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE
Unfortunately, instead of working to re-establish our constitution’s original tax plan and its honest money system, both of which are essential in a free market system and paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world when it was followed, those who now run for political office prefer to incite partisan politics to get elected while the leadership of both political parties work in concert to further corrupt our Founder’s plan in order to confiscate what America’s businesses and labor has produced, and they craftily do so using a dishonest money system and dishonest taxation, both of which were specifically rejected by our founding fathers and did so based upon principles to avoid the very calamities we now experience as a nation.
So why is it that not one of our political pundits will compare our founder’s constitutionally mandated honest money and honest system of taxation to what is currently legislated by the Washington Establishment? Who among the following list has taken the time to discuss our Constitution’s original plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, …. WHO? But isn’t it interesting to note how the above are very adept at fanning the flames of political partisanship which causes a distraction from any meaningful focus and discussion to withdraw the legislative powers now used to cause our miseries?
And who among those who are running for office advocate real reform by demanding a return to honest money and our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as each was intended to operate by our founders, and were specifically designed to preclude our existing miseries and the plundering of America’s wealth now engaged in by our folks in Washington?
Bottom line is, until Congress’ hands are rebound by our Constitution’s honest money system and honest taxation, the American People will continue to be the slaves of a government they created to be their servant.
Hopefully Sarah Palin will be the one who rises above our beloved talking heads and will articulate the necessity to withdraw from Congress’ power the tools now used to cause our misery and re-establish our Founder’s original plan.
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.
 The most recent act of judicial tyranny being the Kelo decision in which our Supreme Court gave new meaning to the phrase “public use”, a meaning far different than that understood by our founders when framing our Constitution. The new meaning now allowing private property to be taken by folks in government and transferred to a privileged class for their private use . . . the privileged class being well connected with folks in government.
Labels: Sarah Palin