johnwk
11-04-2010, 09:52 AM
If tea party participants are serious about holding members of Congress accountable, especially when it comes to reckless spending which leads to annual deficits --- and it appears tea party participants are not only serious in doing so but have just exhibited a welcomed, refreshing and encouraging muscle during this mid-term election --- then perhaps it’s time for tea party participants to move forward and carefully study our founding father’s no nonsense and common sense method for extinguishing annual deficits, and then form a consensus as to whether or not to advocate its enforcement.
But first, let us examine what our establishment members of Congress concocted in the 1990s to “balance the budget”, which was eventually exposed for the fraud that it was. If added to our Constitution then, it would have allowed the very mischief we now see year after year ___ reckless spending and borrowing leading to a never ending train of annual deficits.
The following is what was offered in the 1990’s by the Washington Establishment:
S.J. RES.1 -- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget
`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.
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.
And here, 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.
This is an illusion to portray fiscal responsibility. Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposal debate how projected figures can be manipulated by our Executive to magically 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.
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.
And this 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 learned how a “crisis” scare tactic 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; has been used to pass “health care reform” which enslaves the people and will 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.
And here we find the proposal‘s crown jewel ___ the fox is put in charge of the hen house! It is proposed to be etched in stone [our Constitution] that the entire balanced budget act heretofore mentioned is to be based upon “estimates”. How sweet of the amendment’s architects to be so confident in, “estimates”, especially when Congress relies upon the Office of Budget and Management for their “estimates“, and which recently swung the door opened for Obamacare with its fuzzy math ‘estimates”, now known beyond the shadow of any doubt to have been nothing more than mathematical alchemy to allow the Washington Establishment to continue on its merry way of 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.
And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?
`Section 8.
This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later’
Bottom line is, the Establishment’s proposal neither compels Congress to balance the budget nor makes members of Congress immediately accountable when Congress creates and annual deficit.
Now, let us take a look at our founding father’s no nonsense and common sense method to balance the budget by dealing with deficits.
Our founding fathers intentions are expressed in several of our Constitution’s state ratification documents as to what is to be done if Congress finds its normal means of raising revenue insufficient to meet its expenditures, 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-
Putting this in easy to understand language, our founders intended for Congress to finance its expenditures from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes (indirect taxes). But if these taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures, and a deficit was created, then, and only then was a “direct tax” to be levied among the States equal to the shortfall, and the revenue so raised was to be used to extinguish the said deficit. As you can see the founder’s intended method to deal with a deficit is straight forward with no loopholes. In addition, each State’s share of this “direct tax” is predetermined and proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, which boils down to representation with proportionate obligation. Those states with the largest voting strength in Congress when creating a deficit are later held financially responsible in proportion to their larger vote in Congress!
Our Constitution’s fair share formula which determines each state’s share of the tax to extinguish a deficit, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be expressed as follows:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
And keep in mind that each state’s representation in Congress is likewise determined by population size, the formula being:
State`s Population
_______________ X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.
Finally, our founders also intended that each state would be notified of its apportioned share of the direct tax and be left at liberty to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress.
For historical documentation concerning the rule of apportionment as related to taxation CLICK HERE (http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf).
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!
JWK
But first, let us examine what our establishment members of Congress concocted in the 1990s to “balance the budget”, which was eventually exposed for the fraud that it was. If added to our Constitution then, it would have allowed the very mischief we now see year after year ___ reckless spending and borrowing leading to a never ending train of annual deficits.
The following is what was offered in the 1990’s by the Washington Establishment:
S.J. RES.1 -- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget
`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.
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.
And here, 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.
This is an illusion to portray fiscal responsibility. Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposal debate how projected figures can be manipulated by our Executive to magically 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.
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.
And this 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 learned how a “crisis” scare tactic 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; has been used to pass “health care reform” which enslaves the people and will 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.
And here we find the proposal‘s crown jewel ___ the fox is put in charge of the hen house! It is proposed to be etched in stone [our Constitution] that the entire balanced budget act heretofore mentioned is to be based upon “estimates”. How sweet of the amendment’s architects to be so confident in, “estimates”, especially when Congress relies upon the Office of Budget and Management for their “estimates“, and which recently swung the door opened for Obamacare with its fuzzy math ‘estimates”, now known beyond the shadow of any doubt to have been nothing more than mathematical alchemy to allow the Washington Establishment to continue on its merry way of 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.
And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?
`Section 8.
This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later’
Bottom line is, the Establishment’s proposal neither compels Congress to balance the budget nor makes members of Congress immediately accountable when Congress creates and annual deficit.
Now, let us take a look at our founding father’s no nonsense and common sense method to balance the budget by dealing with deficits.
Our founding fathers intentions are expressed in several of our Constitution’s state ratification documents as to what is to be done if Congress finds its normal means of raising revenue insufficient to meet its expenditures, 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-
Putting this in easy to understand language, our founders intended for Congress to finance its expenditures from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes (indirect taxes). But if these taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures, and a deficit was created, then, and only then was a “direct tax” to be levied among the States equal to the shortfall, and the revenue so raised was to be used to extinguish the said deficit. As you can see the founder’s intended method to deal with a deficit is straight forward with no loopholes. In addition, each State’s share of this “direct tax” is predetermined and proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, which boils down to representation with proportionate obligation. Those states with the largest voting strength in Congress when creating a deficit are later held financially responsible in proportion to their larger vote in Congress!
Our Constitution’s fair share formula which determines each state’s share of the tax to extinguish a deficit, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be expressed as follows:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
And keep in mind that each state’s representation in Congress is likewise determined by population size, the formula being:
State`s Population
_______________ X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.
Finally, our founders also intended that each state would be notified of its apportioned share of the direct tax and be left at liberty to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress.
For historical documentation concerning the rule of apportionment as related to taxation CLICK HERE (http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf).
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!
JWK