Skip to comments.Vanity: Rush Limbaugh sleeps while Herman Cain attacks free market and federalism
Posted on 10/23/2011 4:57:25 PM PDT by JOHN W K
In November of 2010 in Don’t be VAT stupid Herman Cain writes:
``A national retail sales tax on top of all the confusing and unfair taxes we have today is insane! It gives the out-of-control bureaucrats and politicians in denial one more tool to lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country.``
The fact is, Herman is now proposing a new tax, a national retail sales tax, in addition to taxing corporate profits and incomes, and also would tax the wages working people earn. Herman Cain essentially admitted in the above mentioned article his existing plan is ``insane!`` So, why do so many “conservatives” support this Washington Establishment Hobson’s Choice candidate whose mission is to give another taxing power to Congress with which to ``lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country``?
And why is it that our ``conservative`` talk show hosts give this former federal reserve bank chairman, a Washington Establishment insider, a pass on his ``opportunity zones`` which attack our free market system? Why do they not object to Mr. Cain proposing to give preferential treatment under law that would relieve residents living in his designated “opportunity zones” a duty to contribute an equal tax burden as those not within his designated zones? Is this proposed preference of commerce not in defiance of our founder’s intentions when they added the following words to our Constitution? “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.”
Why is it that our “conservative” talk show hosts are silent in connection with Herman Cain’s proposed assumption of power to enter the various united States to enforce unequal law and meddle in each State’s internal commerce when such activity defies the very words of our founder‘s intentions which are summarized as follows? “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”.
Has FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Doc Thompson, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, or any talk show questioned Herman Cain’s proposed assumption of powers which is very similar to that of Obama’s Solyndra type “green deals” which were hatched to plunder the American Taxpayer’s federal treasury and loot it of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS?
And why is it than none of the above “conservative” media personalities are concerned that a power to “designate” geographical areas within each of the various united States to be an “opportunity zone” invites political partisanship of the most dangerous kind in that a democrat president, as exhibited by the Obama Administration, will use such power to reward friends and punish political enemies? I thought Rush Limbaugh was the fountain of all political knowledge and would see through this Washington Establishment’s cooked up scheme to enlarge its blackmailing powers over the States [e.g., federal highway funds and the Establishment’s No Child Left Behind Act] and further enslave the defenders of a free market system. And these complaints do not even take into account how Herman Cain’s proposal feeds the class warfare game which our folks in Washington have learned to play to perfection with their good-cop bad-cop routine which is engaged in by the leadership of both political parties, and done so in concert!
And finally, where is Mark Levin who continually informs us of the virtues of federalism who seems to have closed his eyes to a wolf in sheep’s clothing whose mission is admittedly designed to further erode the defined and limited powers of our federal government as summarized by our very own Supreme Court shortly after our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment was adopted to preserve and protect the virtues of federalism?
“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law, 1858.
Polybius, is that you?
(I thought you got banned.)
I was about ready to flame you until I read the article. Herman is not clear about the difference between a flat or a retail sales tax at the national level and the fair tax. The article is a legitimate point to the confusion around the sales tax options.
Juan Who Knows? How sacrilegious.
You’re gonna sound just like Roseanne Roseannadanna after you catch up on the facts of Cain’s tax plan.
The vanity poster thinks he knows more about the Constitution and federalism than Levin and Rush. What he is proving is that he knows less about the 999 plan than even David Gregory - which is to say, he doesn’t understand sh-t about it....
That should read VAT not flat. My voice transcriber did not transcribe that correctly.
The fact is, Herman is now proposing a new tax, a national retail sales tax, in addition to taxing corporate profits and incomes, and also would tax the wages working people earn... So, why do so many "conservatives" support this Washington Establishment Hobson's Choice candidate whose mission is to give another taxing power to Congress... And why is it that our "conservative" talk show hosts give this former federal reserve bank chairman, a Washington Establishment insider, a pass on his "opportunity zones" which attack our free market system? ...a wolf in sheep's clothing whose mission is admittedly designed to further erode the defined and limited powers of our federal government...
You have no understanding of his plan. First step(though done at the same time) throw out the present tax code, replace with 9-9-9. Economy will then boom and even if it starts at the same level it is now the plan is revenue neutral. If Economy goes booming then it will bring in more! Allowing us after a few years, like 2 years, to go to the fair tax! Also do you think the present monstrosity or any of the plans that simply mess around the edges agree with our founding fathers?!?
A VAT is product oriented and is a process tax.
I support the 32 word plan which would return us to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as our founders intended it to operate:
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
So, which of our Republican presidential hopefuls will take up the cause and defend our founding father’s original tax plan, and work to put an end to the class warfare game which is proposed to continue under Herman's plan?
“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ Madison, during the creation of our Nation`s First Revenue Raising Act
>> Herman is not clear about the difference between a flat or a retail sales tax at the national level and the fair tax. The article is a legitimate point to the confusion around the sales tax options. >>
He is if you understand the context of that article and the time in which it was written and what tax was being discussed at the time. Context people, context. It matters.
In defense of the poster, did you read the article? It appears that in fact Herman is not clear in his article about the difference between a VAT, the Fair tax, and a national sales tax. What Herman appears to be suggesting in one of the nines in the 999 plan is in fact a national retail tax which he seems to deride in the article, despite it being part of the fair tax.
Wow, you wrote a whole article an managed to not get a single fact correct.
Congratulations! You win the stupidest post EVER award!
So I ask, is it evil to have a national sales tax or not? Herman appears to have said that it was just 12 months ago.
In that article he makes it very clear the difference between the fair tax and a VAT tax.
I guess you missed the fact Empowerment Zones were in Reagan’s tax plan.
>> So I ask, is it evil to have a national sales tax or not? Herman appears to have said that it was just 12 months ago. >>
Come on, are you that shallow? Cain was talking about the commission’s plan to levy a national sales tax ON TOP OF THE EXISTING TAX CODE WE HAVE NOW. I REPEAT, ON TOP OF THE EXISTING TAX CODE WE HAVE NOW. ONE MORE TIME IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: HE SAID IT WAS WRONG TO LEVY A NATIONAL SALES TAX - OR A VAT TAX - ON TOP OF THE ONE MILLION WORD MONSTROSITY WE HAVE NOW.
That is totally 180 degrees away from what he proposes with either the FAIR TAX or with the 999 - which is - wait for it - I’ll write slowly - DESIGNED
The fair tax is a national sales tax in place of the income tax. Herman is not getting rid of the income tax with his 999 plan. It would seem that he is signing on to what he thought was wrong just 12 months ago. The thread poster seems to have hit on a legitimate point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.