Thinking Can Be Taxing

I just concluded a discussion (debate) with a friend regarding the question of the federal income tax. He was whooped but refused to admit it. The question was on the fairness/constitutionality of the ‘progressive’ federal income tax where the more income one makes the higher percentage tax is paid on it. My point is that the 16th Amendment authorizing the federal income tax does not speak to tax brackets or percentages. Given that, the next place to look for instruction is the 14th Amendment which guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally under the law. Anyone with passing knowledge of logical deduction would conclude that within those constraints all citizens taxed on their income would be taxed at the same percentage rate. Right? But, he replied if you make more you should pay more! Eureka, he just discovered the mother-lode. Egad, how many times have I heard that tired bromide? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need…ooops, wrong country wrong constitution. I desperately tried to explain the scenario that 10% of a million dollars is substantially more than 10% of fifty-thousand dollars. Not enough, he snapped. Says who, says I? Well, the Congress. So is 20% of a million enough, compared with 10% of fifty-thousand I ask? Maybe. Again I remind him of the 14th Amendment and the equal protection concept. He is not moved to enlightenment. So rather than obey the actual letter of the Constitution we should let the Congress arbitrarily set the tax brackets based upon the prevailing political winds of the day. And change them constantly. How’s that for equal treatment? Now the 10th Amendment becomes relevant. If the Constitution does not specifically empower the Congress, it cannot act; but rather must defer to the States acting as agents of the People. So, in carrying out its 16th Amendment power to levy income taxes on the citizens, the Congress must also be guided by the equal protection concepts of the 14th Amendment. To do otherwise would be acting extra-constitutionally or even un-constitutionally. Passing legislation to set progressive tax rates does not and cannot amend the Constitution. Gotcha, I cry! He is unfazed. Ah well, pearls before swine.
The rub is that he really knows that I am technically correct, but that to admit so would begin unraveling a huge quilt leading to the undoing of 50 years of progressive chinks (chunks) in the Constitution. The result would be a federal government about 10% of its current size and power. The States’ power would thus grow proportionally. And it’s much easier to control one capital than it is fifty. Also, under this scenario the importance of Presidential, Congressional and Senatorial races would be greatly diminished. The importance of which party controls the federal government is likewise less critical. There would be very little mischief for them to meddle in and much less damage that they could do to our pocketbooks and our freedoms.
What we are rapidly approaching is a return to simple democratic majority rule, which is of course tyranny of the majority over the minority. Since we have strayed so far from the actual text of the Constitution it has become almost meaningless to many politicians. Why not just take out a lighter and finish the job? Without our constitutional moorings the federal government is free to do anything it pleases without repercussion. That is why it does matter so much these days which party is in power and why these national elections matter so much. Conservatives tend to meddle less than liberals in our pocketbooks and freedoms, but it would be far better to remove the ability and temptation altogether.
Let’s return to the actual Constitution as it is written. And at the same time return to the constitutionally required flat-tax rate for all citizens equally under the law; or just pass a Constitutional amendment to institute a national sales tax (not a V.A.T.).

Barack Hussein Obama/Biden

Barack Hussein Obama, the candidate formerly known for change.

Boss, I Demand a Raise!

With so many tasks beyond Obama'a pay-grade it's no wonder that the Democrats are always trying to increase the minimum wage.

Obama Bumper Snickers

Obama-nation=abomination

Monk for McCain
No Change, Never

OCD’s Against Obama:
Because Change is Just Too Scary
Because Change is, Well, Change
Anything but Change
Because Change is Too Unpredictable
Why Would Anyone Ever Change?
Because Change Changes Things
Change is Just Too Much to Bear

The Stated Case for the States

I have asked many times in this forum how the people can reign in a rogue federal government. The answer of course is that the state legislatures are the true reservoirs of that power. Consider, the states existed before the federal government, they created the federal government and their constitutions existed before they wrote the federal constitution. So why won't the states exert their power and bring the feds back within their limited boundaries? Just follow the money trail. The federal government has diverted the tax flow away from state capitols and instead to D.C. That money is then doled back out to the states as subsidies and federal projects based upon state compliance with federal mandates. Naturally, the federal bureaucratic machine extracts its pound of flesh first, thereby diminishing the return to the states. How clever. It would be much more efficient and responsive to the local needs of the people if the states took responsibility for these tax dollars and projects. The level of government closest to the people (and typically the smallest) that can deal with an issue is usually the best. Think about it, there really are very few problems that demand federal solutions. Maybe a dozen, if that many. So let those of us who yearn for a return to a small, constitutional republic ponder how we can convince the various states to flex their muscles and bring sanity back to the federal monster.

Krispy Kreme Krusade

Governor Arnold, a ban on trans-fats? Good grief. There is not a scintilla of evidence that trans-fats harm or kill anyone. However, yesterday people died in California because of alcohol and tobacco, they will die today and they will die tomorrow. Where is the ban on alcohol and tobacco?? I thought not. There is too much money and power politics involved with those. So pick on wimpy trans-fats. They have no lobbyists. Boy this takes courage. Why don't you grow some gonads (destroyed by steroids?) and do the right thing? This is just more of the nanny state run by you girlie men. You are nothing more than a cowardly neo-communist. If I ever come back to your pathetic excuse for a state I am going to bring in tons of trans-fats and walk down the street eating donuts. You gonna' arrest me sheriff? You frauds are eroding our personal freedoms and liberties one by one. But mark my words, you and your ilk's day of reckoning is coming. The people are going to take our country back from the likes of you.