johnwk
11-15-2008, 01:55 PM
If there is any lesson of importance for freedom loving people to learn from the election of Barack Obama, that lesson ought to be a frightening awareness of the predatory and destructive force which a factious voting majority, having a self interest which conflicts with the rights of a minority, has played in the election.
Who can deny that Obama’s successful campaign is found in a calculated strategy of class warfare in which he incessantly made an appeal to a popular sort of government by promising to cut federal taxes for 95 percent of America’s population, while the remaining 5 percent - - - implicitly asserted by Obama to be evil and selfish wealthy people who he intended to sacrifice right from the very start of his campaign for his personal achievement --- would have their taxes increased to make up the shortfall, and be compelled to pay their “fair share” of taxes?
Is this type of government, a popular one in which a faction made up of a majority, capable of using its vote [political force] to impose an unequal financial burden upon those who may be outvoted, the kind of government our founding fathers handed to us and is one which freedom loving people should embrace and welcome with open arms? To put this another way, is this the kind of “change we need”?
Indeed, our founding fathers were well acquainted with the suicidal nature of popular governments when framing our federal Constitution, and our founders ultimate aim as elaborated upon in Federalist No. 10 was “to break and control the violence of faction” as applied to the federal government they were creating. And they did so with a written constitution which, if followed, slammed the door shut on countless factious groups by limiting the powers assigned to the federal government, and likewise precluded class warfare being conducted under the powers of federal taxation by thoughtfully placing specific restrictions upon the types of taxes Congress may lay and the manner in which Congress was authorized to lay and collect those taxes.
As to limiting faction at the federal head by limiting the assigned powers delegated to Congress - - - a system identified as federalism --- Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 45, summarizes this dual system of government 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 ……..
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.
So why is our federal government now involved in almost every aspect of the people’s private lives in every state in the union, and countless factious groups swarm to Washington seeking to subjugate our dual system of government and have federal power exercised over an array of subject matter which the people within the various states intentionally retained control over by the crystal clear language of our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment? And why does the leadership of our two popular political parties, who are sworn to defend our written Constitution, entertaining these countless factious groups when our federal Constitution was intentionally designed “to break and control the violence of faction” at the federal level by limiting Congress‘s powers?
Is it not plain enough for freedom loving people to see the leadership of both political parties are in rebellion against our written Constitution; that their thirst for dictatorial power over the people’s lives, their liberties and rights involved with property ownership has taken a priority over a sworn duty to protect the inalienable right of the people of the United States to be free to pursue their own happiness as they see fit within each state in our union?
And with regard to class warfare under Obama’s promise to manipulate taxes to reduce taxes for 95 percent of America‘s population and have the remaining evil 5 percent of America’s population make up the difference, this deceitful class warfare strategy would not be available to a self serving politician which Obama surely is if our founding father’s carefully constructed original tax plan were put back into practice which never intended to allow a federal tax upon the wages of labor! But as it goes, when instigating a class warfare strategy to win an election, one needs to be able to point a finger at one group in order to charge the emotions of another group which is then carefully courted to accomplish an end. Madison touches upon this in Federalist No 10 as follows:
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
As stated above, if working people were not taxed on their earned wages, Obama’s class warfare strategy to win an election by taxing one group of Americans to provide a tax cut to another group of Americas would not have existed. So, how would revenue be raised if there were no federal tax upon working people’s earned wages?
The lost revenue could very easily be made up by a federal luxury tax, laying a specific amount of tax upon specifically chosen articles of luxury just as our founding fathers intended, and was successfully used until Congress tried to increase these taxes beyond reasonable levels which led to a drop in sales and a reduced level of revenue for Congress. But this just happens to be the beauty of such a tax. This type of tax is self regulating and allows the market place to determine the appropriate amount of tax on each selected article --- tax the article too high and the flow of revenue into the federal treasury is diminished as pointed out in Federalist 21. For a recent application of this tax see The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.5835:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c101:4:./temp/~c101exSUxe) click on 4. “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.5835.ENR]”, after which you may scroll down to TITLE XI--REVENUE PROVISIONS, and then click on :
PART III--TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS
`SEC. 4001. PASSENGER VEHICLES.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $30,000.
`SEC. 4002. BOATS.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any boat a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $100,000.
`SEC. 4003. AIRCRAFT.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any aircraft a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $250,000.
`SEC. 4006. JEWELRY.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any jewelry a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000.
`SEC. 4007. FURS.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of the following articles a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000:
Note that the outrageous 10 percent imposed upon certain specific articles because of Congress’s greed caused diminishes sales of those consumer articles and adversely affected Maryland’s luxury boat building industry which in turn immediately prompted Congress to repeal the tax in 1991 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263)
Had the tax on luxury boats only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance. But, the tax was an outrageous 10 percent and the market place responded to limit Congress‘s greedy desire for revenue. As documented in Federalist No. 21, our founding fathers carefully devised a tax plan allowing the market place to prevent an “extension of the revenue” and avoided class warfare now engaged in under a tax laid upon the wages of labor.
It seems self evident that the existing leadership of both political parties would dread a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan [Duties, Imposts, and miscellaneous internal Excise taxes on consumption, with the additional power to lay and collect a direct apportioned tax among the states to make up any shortfall] which would not only limit Congress’s greed and make Congress fiscally accountable, the founder’s tax plan would also end Congress’s ability to manipulate the private lives of America’s working middle class and preclude class warfare which Obama engaged in to win an election.
Hopefully a new leadership will emerge from the ashes of our existing Republican Party, a leadership which will support and defend federalism, our Constitution’s big tent system which was designed to allow the people within each state to determine their own destiny within the framework of their State’s written constitution, while agreeing to join together in defense of America should America be attacked from abroad.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Who can deny that Obama’s successful campaign is found in a calculated strategy of class warfare in which he incessantly made an appeal to a popular sort of government by promising to cut federal taxes for 95 percent of America’s population, while the remaining 5 percent - - - implicitly asserted by Obama to be evil and selfish wealthy people who he intended to sacrifice right from the very start of his campaign for his personal achievement --- would have their taxes increased to make up the shortfall, and be compelled to pay their “fair share” of taxes?
Is this type of government, a popular one in which a faction made up of a majority, capable of using its vote [political force] to impose an unequal financial burden upon those who may be outvoted, the kind of government our founding fathers handed to us and is one which freedom loving people should embrace and welcome with open arms? To put this another way, is this the kind of “change we need”?
Indeed, our founding fathers were well acquainted with the suicidal nature of popular governments when framing our federal Constitution, and our founders ultimate aim as elaborated upon in Federalist No. 10 was “to break and control the violence of faction” as applied to the federal government they were creating. And they did so with a written constitution which, if followed, slammed the door shut on countless factious groups by limiting the powers assigned to the federal government, and likewise precluded class warfare being conducted under the powers of federal taxation by thoughtfully placing specific restrictions upon the types of taxes Congress may lay and the manner in which Congress was authorized to lay and collect those taxes.
As to limiting faction at the federal head by limiting the assigned powers delegated to Congress - - - a system identified as federalism --- Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 45, summarizes this dual system of government 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 ……..
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.
So why is our federal government now involved in almost every aspect of the people’s private lives in every state in the union, and countless factious groups swarm to Washington seeking to subjugate our dual system of government and have federal power exercised over an array of subject matter which the people within the various states intentionally retained control over by the crystal clear language of our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment? And why does the leadership of our two popular political parties, who are sworn to defend our written Constitution, entertaining these countless factious groups when our federal Constitution was intentionally designed “to break and control the violence of faction” at the federal level by limiting Congress‘s powers?
Is it not plain enough for freedom loving people to see the leadership of both political parties are in rebellion against our written Constitution; that their thirst for dictatorial power over the people’s lives, their liberties and rights involved with property ownership has taken a priority over a sworn duty to protect the inalienable right of the people of the United States to be free to pursue their own happiness as they see fit within each state in our union?
And with regard to class warfare under Obama’s promise to manipulate taxes to reduce taxes for 95 percent of America‘s population and have the remaining evil 5 percent of America’s population make up the difference, this deceitful class warfare strategy would not be available to a self serving politician which Obama surely is if our founding father’s carefully constructed original tax plan were put back into practice which never intended to allow a federal tax upon the wages of labor! But as it goes, when instigating a class warfare strategy to win an election, one needs to be able to point a finger at one group in order to charge the emotions of another group which is then carefully courted to accomplish an end. Madison touches upon this in Federalist No 10 as follows:
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
As stated above, if working people were not taxed on their earned wages, Obama’s class warfare strategy to win an election by taxing one group of Americans to provide a tax cut to another group of Americas would not have existed. So, how would revenue be raised if there were no federal tax upon working people’s earned wages?
The lost revenue could very easily be made up by a federal luxury tax, laying a specific amount of tax upon specifically chosen articles of luxury just as our founding fathers intended, and was successfully used until Congress tried to increase these taxes beyond reasonable levels which led to a drop in sales and a reduced level of revenue for Congress. But this just happens to be the beauty of such a tax. This type of tax is self regulating and allows the market place to determine the appropriate amount of tax on each selected article --- tax the article too high and the flow of revenue into the federal treasury is diminished as pointed out in Federalist 21. For a recent application of this tax see The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.5835:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c101:4:./temp/~c101exSUxe) click on 4. “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.5835.ENR]”, after which you may scroll down to TITLE XI--REVENUE PROVISIONS, and then click on :
PART III--TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS
`SEC. 4001. PASSENGER VEHICLES.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $30,000.
`SEC. 4002. BOATS.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any boat a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $100,000.
`SEC. 4003. AIRCRAFT.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any aircraft a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $250,000.
`SEC. 4006. JEWELRY.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any jewelry a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000.
`SEC. 4007. FURS.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of the following articles a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000:
Note that the outrageous 10 percent imposed upon certain specific articles because of Congress’s greed caused diminishes sales of those consumer articles and adversely affected Maryland’s luxury boat building industry which in turn immediately prompted Congress to repeal the tax in 1991 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263)
Had the tax on luxury boats only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance. But, the tax was an outrageous 10 percent and the market place responded to limit Congress‘s greedy desire for revenue. As documented in Federalist No. 21, our founding fathers carefully devised a tax plan allowing the market place to prevent an “extension of the revenue” and avoided class warfare now engaged in under a tax laid upon the wages of labor.
It seems self evident that the existing leadership of both political parties would dread a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan [Duties, Imposts, and miscellaneous internal Excise taxes on consumption, with the additional power to lay and collect a direct apportioned tax among the states to make up any shortfall] which would not only limit Congress’s greed and make Congress fiscally accountable, the founder’s tax plan would also end Congress’s ability to manipulate the private lives of America’s working middle class and preclude class warfare which Obama engaged in to win an election.
Hopefully a new leadership will emerge from the ashes of our existing Republican Party, a leadership which will support and defend federalism, our Constitution’s big tent system which was designed to allow the people within each state to determine their own destiny within the framework of their State’s written constitution, while agreeing to join together in defense of America should America be attacked from abroad.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.