Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Glenn Beck, balancing the federal budget and the Republican Party Leadership

I see Glenn Beck is now promoting the balanced budget amendment, but what section of the proposed balanced budget amendment actually requires Congress to balance the annual budget when Congress borrows during the course of a fiscal year to meet its expenses? Answer: nothing in the proposal (H.J.RES.1 or S.J.RES.5) requires Congress to “balance the budget” when Congress borrows during the course of a fiscal year to meet its expenses.

But our Republican Party Leadership is very clever! Label a piece of legislation a “balanced budget amendment” and concerned Americans, even Tea Party Activists, will assume the Republican Party Leadership has come to America’s rescue and is determined to compel Congress to balance the annual budget.

Unfortunately, the actual text of the legislation is cleverly designed to allow Congress to not only continue its reckless spending and borrowing, but the proposal would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget! But do remember its title is a “balanced budget amendment”, and as such, who would be against a “balanced budget amendment” other than our big spending and borrowing “liberals“! And so, if one dares to utter a disapproval of the “balanced budget amendment”, our “concerned Americans” especially the Republican Party Leadership, is quick to smear such an utterance as being “left wing nonsense”.

And that is how the beast in Washington survives and flourishes! It divides the people by using the old good-cop bad-cop routine. And in this particular discussion concerning a “balanced budget amendment“, our Republican Party Leadership must be the good cops because they promote a “balanced budget amendment”. Of course, our beast in Washington is quite confident the people, even Tea Party Activists, will neglect to read the amendment word for word, much less use critical thinking in judging its specific sections, and in all likelihood will simply align themselves with the good cop’s talking points, even though the words spin a tale very different than what the “balanced budget amendment‘s” text declares and is really designed to accomplish.

And this is exactly what Glenn Beck seems to have done. He has avoided all critical thinking and discussion concerning the various sections of the “balanced budget amendment” and simply jumped on board because of an objective title, a “balanced budget amendment”, and he then has gone on to invite the ringleaders behind the proposal on his show who then influence his listening audience without being pressed into a critical analysis of the amendment’s specific sections.

Let me also note that Glenn Beck has been derelict in reviewing our founding fathers clear intentions regarding deficits. And yet he constantly asserts his respect for our nation’s founding fathers. So, let us take a look at our founder’s expressed intentions regarding deficits.

See, Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 and keep in mind the same basic idea is expressed in several of the State Ratification documents giving life to our Constitution:

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-


When Congress borrows to fund expenditures because incoming revenues are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies, an apportioned tax is to then be laid among the States using the following constitutionally authorized fair share formula:

States’ population

---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population



And what did our founders say about the rule of apportionment during the ratification debates?

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“__ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

Also see: “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot`s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

And, Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot‘s, 255

And then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil being corrected!:

“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 [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41


Finally, for an example of the rule of apportionment being applied see: Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which each State’s apportioned share was figured out and each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s apportioned share to extinguish a deficit.

Also see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.




Bottom line is, our founding fathers’ were not stupid nor negligent in providing a procedure to deal with deficits. And if applied, the founder’s no-nonsense apportioned tax would create a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for the deficit they helped to create, and suffer the consequences, which is far different from the fraudulent balanced budget amendment cooked up by the Beast Washington which is nothing more then a clever scheme to allow the Washington Establishment to continue its reckless borrowing and plundering what America’s businesses and labor have produced. Unlike the fake balanced budget amendment, our founders method did in fact “balance the budget”, created a very real moment of accountability, and, precluded the class warfare game with a fixed rule requiring any general tax to be apportioned among the States.

Now, for those who are concerned about annual federal deficits and would like to support a real “balanced budget amendment”, I have prepared the one below which is based on our founding fathers expressed intentions which I have documented for you.



The “Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment”

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and 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

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, these words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates what Mary and Joe Sixpack earn when selling the property each has in their labor. In addition, the words would also end the class warfare game which the Beast in Washington uses to divide the people.

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.

"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 2 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised as agreeable to the Census fixed in the Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

NOTE: the fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X DEFICT = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population


This is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.

"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have approved it.
___________

JWK

Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

Sunday, July 03, 2011

The big myth: the Sixteenth Amendment repealed apportionment of direct taxes

Do a little research on the internet with regard to our Constitution’s rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned among the States and you will find countless sources spreading a myth that the Sixteenth Amendment repealed that requirement! Many of those who offer tax reform proposals, especially those who would circumvent the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted, constantly misinform the public about the rule of apportionment in addition to perpetrating the myth that the Sixteenth Amendment repealed the rule requiring any general tax laid among the States would have to be laid by the rule of apportionment.

I once believed this myth but after a very extensive research project at the University of Maryland, I learned I had been lied to! Now, let us look at some facts concerning this myth.

The 16th Amendment does not mention “direct” taxes, and, there is no language in the 16th Amendment repealing Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 which states: ” No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”


Prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment our Supreme Court repeatedly held that Congress had power to lay and collect a tax calculated from “income’ without having to apportion such a tax. See, for example, Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 502, (1880) involving a challenge that the tax calculated from income laid during the war between the States was a direct tax, and therefore required an apportionment, in which the Court upheld the tax as not being direct! Also see FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), which upheld a tax calculated from profits and gains without apportionment.

And so, from the historical evidence (the above S.C. opinions) it seems quite clear that the 16th amendment merely confirmed Congress always had power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without having to apportion the tax, and that power was found in Congress’ power to lay and collect excise taxes, and the 16th Amendment granted no new power of taxation. This line of reasoning seems to be supported by what the SC stated in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916):

"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."

As to direct taxes, see BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) in which the Supreme Court states in crystal clear language “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”

In addition see: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920) , in which the Court had already pointed out:

“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

And so, we learn that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned.

And now, let us explore the stated intentions of our founding fathers regarding the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation?

Our founding fathers intended that Congress raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and if need be, internal “excise” taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption. But if these sources were found insufficient for the "Public Exigencies", and a deficit arose, then, and only then was a general tax to be laid among the states for a specific sum of revenue and then the rule of apportionment was intended to guarantee to the people of those States who paid the lion’s share of the tax, a proportionate representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution! But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak!

See: Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 Similar language is contained in several of the other State Ratification documents.

"Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, until Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-


And Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:


With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

Also see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot’s, 243 ,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any question as to our founding fathers specifically intending the rule of apportionment being adopted to insure those States who pay the lion’s share under a general tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON explains in very clear language:

“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, [under the Articles of Confederaltion] she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot’s 41


And just what is the founder's formula for a general tax among the States?


States’ Pop.

-----------------  X   SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

U.S. Pop.



One of the reasons our Washington Establishment hates the rule of apportionment for any general tax laid among the States is that it removes the class warfare game from Congress' hands which is used as a distraction to divide and conquer while Congress plunders what America’s businesses and labor have produced.

Regards,
JWK


Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay income taxes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get___ Our Washington Establishment’s Republican/Democrat Marxist game plan