Glenn Beck gets it wrong, wants to rewrite our Constitution!

[johnwk]

I was very disappointed yesterday evening (12/28/10), when Glenn Beck on his evening tv show announced he doesn’t like to meddle with the Constitution, but he wants a balanced budget amendment added to our federal Constitution to deal with Congress’ deficit spending. The problem is, Glenn’s thinking presumes our Founding Fathers were incompetent and did not provide a specific method in our Constitution to balance the federal budget. Had Glenn done his homework he would have learned our founding fathers were not incompetent and did in fact provide a specific course of action if Congress’ incoming revenue were found insufficient to meet the Publick Exigencies!

Those who have read our Constitution will probably recall that direct taxation is referred to two times in the document. But has Glenn ever mentioned to his listening audience that direct taxation is specifically linked to dealing with deficits, and if enforced, would make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable to their Governor and State’s Legislature whenever Congress creates deficit? The answer is no! Glenn has not informed his listening audience how our founder’s intended deficits to be dealt with and the part which direct taxation is intended to play.

So, exactly what were the founder’s intentions with regard to direct taxation? Those intentions are found in several of the State ratification documents, e.g., see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)

``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-``

If Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes to fund “the Publick Exigencies”, our founders intended Congress to then call upon the States to “pay their respective proportions” of a direct tax, and this requisition upon the States shall be agreeable to the Census fixed in the said Constitution.

And, just what does the Census fix in our Constitution? It establishes a fair share formula under which each state is to contribute into the federal treasury to extinguish a deficit when imposts duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes are found insufficient to meet “the Publick Exigencies”

Considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, the fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit created by Congress would be:



States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population


In summary, our founders intended the laying of imposts and duties at our water’s edge as Congress’ first means of raising a federal revenue ___ an example would be a nondiscriminatory tonnage tax on imported articles which eventually filters down to those who purchase the imports. In addition, and as a second means to raise a federal revenue our founding fathers also provided the power to lay inland excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption. Finally, if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government and a shortfall was experienced and Congress borrowed to meet its expenses, then a “direct tax” was to be laid among the States equal to the shortfall and each State’s share was to be apportioned, just as each state’s number of representatives are now apportioned.

After computing each State`s apportioned share of the tax, each State’s Congressional Delegation was to return home with a bill in hand and place this burden in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with this unwanted financial responsibility. Upon receiving their bill the Governor and State’s Legislature were to then transfer the State’s apportioned share from their state treasury into the treasury of the United States or raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to meet the state’s obligation. In the event a state did not meet its obligation in a time period set by Congress, the federal government was then to enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due.

Unlike the worthless lip service remedies and fake balanced budget amendments offered by the Republican Party leadership to end Congress’ irresponsible spending and borrowing, our founder’s solution provides a very real moment of accountability and would encourage members of Congress to live within the means provided from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes, (indirect taxes), to avoid the apportioned tax and being tarred and feathered when bringing home a bill to their state to help extinguish a deficit they created with their reckless spending and borrowing.

Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if New York should receive a bill from Sen. Chuck Schumer for its apportioned share of the 2010 federal deficit which Schumer helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he alleges the American Taxpayer does not care about! I suspect those Taxpayers would meet him at the border of N.Y with a tar and feather party as they rightfully should, and put an end to Schumer‘s reckless spending and borrowing!


Finally, were the above stated intentions of the founders for balancing the budget ever put into practice which would confirm the founders really meant what they said? see: An Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) which uses the Founder’s rule of apportionment and shows each state’s share of the tax.

Also see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time!

And for a more thorough documentation concerning the rule of apportionment being applied to extinguish a deficit, CLICK HERE (http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf)

Bottom line is, our Constitution already contains an intended and specific method to deal with deficits using an apportioned tax among the States which would make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State‘s Governor and Legislature should they engage in deficit spending and thereby have to bring home the bill. Unfortunately, it appears that Glenn Beck prefers to re-write our Constitution rather than promote what our founders intended.

JWK

“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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink), “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot‘s244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink) ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

[darin]

DebatePolicy.com feels like a cheap whore now...you've spread this seed in many other places.

http://thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1295415

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=280045

http://www.xmfan.com/viewtopic.php?p=1812272

http://forum.gainesville.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8194&p=37695

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?155-Glenn-Beck-gets-it-wrong-and-wants-to-rewrite-our-Constitution!

And parts from here: http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/rand-paul-promoting-rino%E2%80%99s-phony-balanced-budget-amendment

[Missileman]

I was very disappointed yesterday evening (12/28/10), when Glenn Beck on his evening tv show announced he doesn’t like to meddle with the Constitution, but he wants a balanced budget amendment added to our federal Constitution to deal with Congress’ deficit spending. The problem is, Glenn’s thinking presumes our Founding Fathers were incompetent and did not provide a specific method in our Constitution to balance the federal budget. Had Glenn done his homework he would have learned our founding fathers were not incompetent and did in fact provide a specific course of action if Congress’ incoming revenue were found insufficient to meet the Publick Exigencies!

Those who have read our Constitution will probably recall that direct taxation is referred to two times in the document. But has Glenn ever mentioned to his listening audience that direct taxation is specifically linked to dealing with deficits, and if enforced, would make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable to their Governor and State’s Legislature whenever Congress creates deficit? The answer is no! Glenn has not informed his listening audience how our founder’s intended deficits to be dealt with and the part which direct taxation is intended to play.

So, exactly what were the founder’s intentions with regard to direct taxation? Those intentions are found in several of the State ratification documents, e.g., see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)

``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-``

If Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes to fund “the Publick Exigencies”, our founders intended Congress to then call upon the States to “pay their respective proportions” of a direct tax, and this requisition upon the States shall be agreeable to the Census fixed in the said Constitution.

And, just what does the Census fix in our Constitution? It establishes a fair share formula under which each state is to contribute into the federal treasury to extinguish a deficit when imposts duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes are found insufficient to meet “the Publick Exigencies”

Considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, the fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit created by Congress would be:



States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population


In summary, our founders intended the laying of imposts and duties at our water’s edge as Congress’ first means of raising a federal revenue ___ an example would be a nondiscriminatory tonnage tax on imported articles which eventually filters down to those who purchase the imports. In addition, and as a second means to raise a federal revenue our founding fathers also provided the power to lay inland excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption. Finally, if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government and a shortfall was experienced and Congress borrowed to meet its expenses, then a “direct tax” was to be laid among the States equal to the shortfall and each State’s share was to be apportioned, just as each state’s number of representatives are now apportioned.

After computing each State`s apportioned share of the tax, each State’s Congressional Delegation was to return home with a bill in hand and place this burden in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with this unwanted financial responsibility. Upon receiving their bill the Governor and State’s Legislature were to then transfer the State’s apportioned share from their state treasury into the treasury of the United States or raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to meet the state’s obligation. In the event a state did not meet its obligation in a time period set by Congress, the federal government was then to enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due.

Unlike the worthless lip service remedies and fake balanced budget amendments offered by the Republican Party leadership to end Congress’ irresponsible spending and borrowing, our founder’s solution provides a very real moment of accountability and would encourage members of Congress to live within the means provided from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes, (indirect taxes), to avoid the apportioned tax and being tarred and feathered when bringing home a bill to their state to help extinguish a deficit they created with their reckless spending and borrowing.

Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if New York should receive a bill from Sen. Chuck Schumer for its apportioned share of the 2010 federal deficit which Schumer helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he alleges the American Taxpayer does not care about! I suspect those Taxpayers would meet him at the border of N.Y with a tar and feather party as they rightfully should, and put an end to Schumer‘s reckless spending and borrowing!


Finally, were the above stated intentions of the founders for balancing the budget ever put into practice which would confirm the founders really meant what they said? see: An Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) which uses the Founder’s rule of apportionment and shows each state’s share of the tax.

Also see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time!

And for a more thorough documentation concerning the rule of apportionment being applied to extinguish a deficit, CLICK HERE (http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf)

Bottom line is, our Constitution already contains an intended and specific method to deal with deficits using an apportioned tax among the States which would make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State‘s Governor and Legislature should they engage in deficit spending and thereby have to bring home the bill. Unfortunately, it appears that Glenn Beck prefers to re-write our Constitution rather than promote what our founders intended.

JWK

“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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink), “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot‘s244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink) ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

The direct tax is a fix if the congress spends too much money. A balanced budget amendment would be a way to keep them from needing to assess the direct tax.

[johnwk]

The direct tax is a fix if the congress spends too much money. A balanced budget amendment would be a way to keep them from needing to assess the direct tax.

You are 100% correct!


Sen DeMint, [SC] introduced the following proposal on 2/4/2010 which has 16 co-sponsors:

Sen Burr, Richard [NC]
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA]
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
Sen Cornyn, John [TX]
Sen Crapo, Mike
Sen Ensign, John [NV]
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA]
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]
Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL]
Sen McCain, John [AZ]
Sen Risch, James E. [ID]
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL]
Sen Vitter, David [LA]

S.J.RES.27 -- Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.J.RES.27:..)

(my editorial comments are in bold)

`Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

NOTE: Under Section 1, the amendment immediately states how it may be overruled by a three-fifths vote.

`Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.


NOTE: Under Section 2, the very intentions for the amendment [putting an end to increasing the national debt] can be subverted by allowing Congress to increase the national debt without providing specific taxes equaling the increase in the national debt.


`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.


NOTE: Section 3 is absolutely meaningless and an illusion to portray fiscal responsibility. Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposal debate how [I]projected figures can be manipulated by our Executive to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?


`Section 4. A bill to increase the internal revenue shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number of that House by rollcall vote.


NOTE: While Section 4 discourages taxes to be increased by requiring a two-thirds vote in each House, the amendment encourages Congress to simply increase the national debt by a three fifths vote in both Houses.



`Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.


NOTE: The flimflamery under Section 5 is most remarkable. In addition to setting the amendment aside as stated in Section 1, a simple majority vote in each House may ignore the requirement to balance the budget by simply declaring an existing military conflict has caused an “imminent and serious military threat to national security“. Have we not just seen how this “crisis” scare tactic mentality has been used to plunder our federal treasury under TARP; how it has been used to bail out auto companies which have blood sucking unions, and used to increase the national debt beyond human comprehension?


`Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.


NOTE: And here, under Section 6, we find the proposal‘s crown jewel! It is proposed to be etched in stone [our Constitution] that the entire balanced budget act heretofore is to be based upon “estimates”. How sweet of the amendment’s supporters to be so confident in, e.g., the Office of Budget and Management, which has just opened the door to Obamacare with its fuzzy math ‘estimates” which are now known, beyond the shadow of doubt, to be nothing more than mathematical alchemy to allow additional unsustainable spending and borrowing.


`Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.


NOTE: And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?


`Section 8. The provisions of this article respecting the internal revenue shall take effect upon the date of ratification of this article. The remaining provisions of this article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2015.'.


Bottom line is, Senator DeMint and his 16 co-sponsors are perpetrating a fraud which is titled “a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States“. The truth is, the proposal neither compels an annual balanced budget, nor requires equal taxes to finance increases in the national debt.

I’ll stick with our founder`s method, the apportioned tax which makes every member of Congress immediately accountable to their Governor and State Legislatures who will have to transfer money from the State Treasury into the federal treasury when deficits occur.


JWK

[johnwk]

DebatePolicy.com feels like a cheap whore now...you've spread this seed in many other places.

http://thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1295415

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=280045

http://www.xmfan.com/viewtopic.php?p=1812272

http://forum.gainesville.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8194&p=37695

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?155-Glenn-Beck-gets-it-wrong-and-wants-to-rewrite-our-Constitution!

And parts from here: http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/rand-paul-promoting-rino%E2%80%99s-phony-balanced-budget-amendment

And what do you say about your pinko syndicated news columnists who spread their propaganda in almost every major newspaper? Eh?

And tell me, why did you take the time to find out where I post? Eh?

I get the feeling you and others have a problem with my views and not where I post or that I post often and in various forums.

And, BTW, you forgot to express your views on what I posted. Hmmmmmmmm.


JWK

[CAPTDASH]

And what do you say about your pinko syndicated news columnists who spread their propaganda in almost every major newspaper? Eh?

And tell me, why did you take the time to find out where I post? Eh?

I get the feeling you and others have a problem with my views and not where I post or that I post often and in various forums.

And, BTW, you forgot to express your views on what I posted. Hmmmmmmmm.


JWK

JWK, when people like yourself, ignore the rest of the Constitution, why do you bring up one tiny little section aqs if it will be used or imposed as our founding fathers intended. You don't honor 1st,2nd,3rd,4th A Rights and so, so why would you snag this info out of the Constitution and expect it to be used as intended?

BTW, I personally think Glenn Beck is an idiot. I used to like him, but not anymore. It is more theatrical than anything. I am conservative, but I don't like slanting things one way or the other as ALL the morons in the media do. Just call them as they are and leave it at that.

[BoogyMan]

The whole idea that we should CUT SPENDING is completely left out of this discussion.

The direct tax makes sense if Americans wishes are taken into account by the congress and the spending is necessary. The spending we have seen under Obama is NOT necessary and the wishes of Americans have NOT been taken into account by congress.

Cut the freakin' spending!

[johnwk]

JWK, when people like yourself, ignore the rest of the Constitution....

And how have you arrived at the above unsubstantiated accusation? Do you just make it up as you post?


JWK

[johnwk]

The whole idea that we should CUT SPENDING is completely left out of this discussion.

The direct tax makes sense if Americans wishes are taken into account by the congress and the spending is necessary. The spending we have seen under Obama is NOT necessary and the wishes of Americans have NOT been taken into account by congress.

Cut the freakin' spending!

Actually, spending is not left out of the discussion. I wrote: Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if New York should receive a bill from Sen. Chuck Schumer for its apportioned share of the 2010 federal deficit which Schumer helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he alleges the American Taxpayer does not care about! I suspect those Taxpayers would meet him at the border of N.Y with a tar and feather party as they rightfully should, and put an end to Schumer‘s reckless spending and borrowing!

Aside from that, let us do a little analyzing. Let us pretend that the American People adopted the following 32 words into our Constitution:

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

These words in fact would bring us back to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate. In effect, Congress would be required to raise its necessary revenue by taxing at our water’s edge, and may also lay a specific amount of tax on specifically selected articles of consumption.

Let us further pretend that if our new Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes and borrows to meet its expenses, it is then required to lay the apportioned tax at the end of the fiscal year to extinguish the deficit Congress created.


Now, with this in mind, Congress is essentially restricted to raising its revenue from taxes on consumption. But if any article is taxed too high, it reduces the sale of the article and thus reduces the amount of revenue Congress receives. In other words, under this plan, which is our founding father’s idea, our marketplace determines and regulates the amount of revenue Congress receives. And so, Congress is encouraged to remove those obstacles which interfere with a thriving economy because a thriving economy leads to higher consumption, and a robust consumption leads to higher revenue for Congress! Hamilton explains this self regulating taxing system as follows:

“There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.” ___Federalist No 21

In fact our founding father’s system of taxation worked so well in creating a thriving economy that by the year 1835 America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery, and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=005/llsl005.db&recNum=92) all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

The irrefutable fact is, our founding father’s tax plan ___ compelling Congress to raise its revenue as outlined above by taxing consumption ___ encouraged Congress to adopt an America first policy at our water’s edge, spend cautiously, and also keep taxes low on specific articles of consumption which were taxed internally!

And what kept Congress from irresponsible deficit spending? The threat of having to impose the direct tax among the States, and each Congressional Delegation having to return home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to pay which would deplete their State Treasury!

I don’t know how to explain our founding father’s tax plan any clearer. I do know it worked, and it paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world when it was followed. But that is only because it encouraged Congress to help create a thriving economy, and also created a very real moment of accountability should Congress spend more than what was brought in from taxes on consumption.

And the remaining question is: What do you think would happen if New York’s big spending and deficit creating Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for the 2010 deficit they helped to create? I suspect that tea parties would turn into TAR AND FEATHER PARTIES (http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd) and New York, along with other States, would immediately remove from Congress its irresponsible big spenders.

JWK

“…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 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)

[CAPTDASH]

And how have you arrived at the above unsubstantiated accusation? Do you just make it up as you post?


JWK

Yeah that sounds about right. :boohoo:

[johnwk]

And how have you arrived at the above unsubstantiated accusation? Do you just make it up as you post?


JWKYeah that sounds about right. :boohoo:

Just as I thought...all wind and no sail.

JWK

[BoogyMan]

John, do you subscribe to the idea that the more words you use, the better your argument looks?

[johnwk]

John, do you subscribe to the idea that the more words you use, the better your argument looks?

You confuse documentation and facts which are posted with an "argument".

JWK