Posted on 07/07/2010 7:17:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Most of the current problems facing America stem directly from the failure of our elected representatives to follow the Constitution. Much of what the Tea Party activists are demanding, often without explicitly saying so, is a return to the principles and procedures found in the Constitution. Many of those running for office are venting about excessive spending, deficits, taxation, regulation and so forth, but are struggling to say what they are for and what they would actually work to accomplish once they are elected.
To deal with this problem, candidates for office should state that, if elected, they will have a "Contract with the Constitution," much like the Contract with America that Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey developed for the Republicans in 1994.
Congress is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on programs and agencies for which there is no constitutional authority. The Constitution is clear about what things the government can and cannot spend money on. For instance, it explicitly states that Congress may fund a "militia," army, navy, post offices and roads, but there is no provision for massive transfer payments (note: the individual states may have such powers under the 10th Amendment).
In part to get at this problem, Rep. John Shadegg, Arizona Republican, has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, which "requires that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being created." Most people can readily understand what this means, and the more thoughtful citizens will support it. This proposed act should be part of a candidate's "Contract with the Constitution."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
According to the author, this is How the IRS oversteps its bounds :
* The IRS taxes the portion of a capital gain that is solely a result of inflation (which actually is caused by the government). When goods and services rise in price solely as a result of inflation, one’s purchasing power is not increased, and hence there has been no “income” - in either the common or economic sense of the word
* There are provisions in the corporate tax code that also result in taxation of imaginary income (inadequate depreciation allowances, etc.). The new health care bill will tax people - as they will find out next year - on health insurance they neither own, control or may not want, with the claim that it is income. Taxing people on imaginary income is nothing more than fraud; and if a private party tried to do a similar thing, he or she would probably be sent to prison for good reason. Given that there is no provision in the Constitution that allows the government to tax imaginary income, candidates would be on solid ground with their constituents if they promised not to vote for any Treasury/IRS appropriation bills that did so.
* The IRS ordinary people to incriminate themselves and to prove their innocence, rather than the IRS having to prove them guilty, and by engaging in unreasonable search and seizure. Judges have often refused to rein in this unconstitutional behavior, perhaps because they have a conflict of interest, as they are dependent upon Congress for their salaries and dependent on the IRS to collect the taxes to pay them, whether by fair or foul.
Author’s Proposals to remedy this situation :
* The Constitution was designed to protect the people from the state. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” After 230 years of Congress piling on one law after another and the regulatory agencies producing thousands of new regulations each year, all Americans are subject to laws and regulations they cannot possibly know about or understand. Many of these laws and regulations defy common sense, and as a result, Americans increasingly fear their government. The answer is to require each new law and regulation be enacted for a defined period, such as 20 years, but be subject to renewal by an explicit act of Congress. All existing laws and regulations should also be subject to a “sunset” after a reasonable number of years, again subject to explicit renewal by the Congress.
Such a provision would stop the endless piling on of laws and regulations that eat away at the people’s liberties, and again make the Constitution a protector of citizens’ liberties, rather than an instrument of state oppression.
* Under the First Amendment, the people have the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In the modern world, that may mean sending an e-mail to elected representatives - yet many members of Congress refuse to divulge their e-mail addresses (or even that of staff members). A candidate who promises to fulfill the constitutional mandate by publishing his or her e-mail address would gain points against those officeholders who refuse to do so.
Buy a phone. You would never pay 600.00 for a phone so they give it to you for 29.99 with a two year service but, the tax is on the 600.00 you would never pay.
You’re kidding, right ?
The Feds are a gang of wolves, sharks, and snakes. How do you expect them to behave? Like human beings? Yeah, right!
There is a reason why I call Washington, D.C. the District of Criminals.
I don't remember seeing that the last time I bought a subsidized cell phone about 5 years ago. Maybe Ohio doesn't do that because it charges a sales tax on the phone bill, thus you are paying the tax on the phone when you pay the over priced phone bill used to subsidize the hardware.
Would you or anyone be amenable to a FLAT TAX without all the deductions the government gives you for this or that item if only to get the IRS off your back ?
Nope, every Verizon phone I buy out here in CA I have to pay the tax on the retail price.
The government uses the constant upward march of prices (sometimes called inflation) for its own benefit. When prices go up, congress gives itself a raise.
When you sell a house for more dollars than you paid for it, the government says that you have had a capital gain, when in reality all you have is the same purchasing power as before.
When your savings accounts get a ridiculously low interest payment that does not keep up with inflation, the government says that you have to pay taxes on the interest.
When the purchasing power of your savings account dwindles down to almost nothing due to inflation, the government is happy, because it has destroyed your accumulated wealth that you put aside after years of hard work so that you wouldn’t become dependent on government. The government has made you poor and miserable and dependent on government.
In an inflationary cycle, there are winners and losers. The winners are those who have debt (like the government) as they pay back their debt with depreciated dollars. The losers are the savers, who either accept low interest with low risk, losing to inflation, or higher interest with higher risk.
Amen, Brother!
Regards,
>>There is a reason why I call Washington, D.C. the District of Criminals.<<
I prefer Versailles on the Potomac. They act like royalty and pay attention to us as well as did King Louis XVI.
Finally, under the First Amendment, the people have the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Does the citizen have access to the courts when there are “grievances”? Apparently not when citizens have “no standing”.
I think, Matthew Spalding explains this best and essentially also explains why the progressives are so bent on thousands of pages of legislation,
The result is that many of the actual decisions of lawmaking and public policy—decisions previously the constitutional responsibility of elected legislators—are delegated to unaccountable bureaucrats in administrative agencies. While these agencies call their laws “rules,” there is no doubt that they have the full force and effect of law as if they were passed by Congress. Today, when Congress writes legislation, it uses very broad language that essentially turns legislative power over to agencies, which are also given the authority of executing and adjudicating violations of their regulations in particular cases. In sum, while seemingly advocating more democracy, in practice progressive liberalism wants the opposite: more centralized government authority exercised by government bureaucrats.
A max flat tax of 10% by the Feds and 10% by the States and cities with a total tax burden of not more than 20% on any individual or business.
For the first year or so, absolutely.
But from here on out it's Mordor-on-the-Potomac.
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.