johnwk
11-23-2010, 05:08 PM
After listening to Rand Paul who was on Mike Huckabee’s show this weekend [Nov. 14th, 2010], I was shocked to hear him promoting the phony balanced budget amendment cooked up by RINOs in the 1980s and 90s, which they wanted to use to repeal our Constitution‘s apportioned tax method for extinguishing deficits. This RINO crowd of the 80s and 90s were even trying to convene a Constitutional Convention under the guise of adopting their fraudulent amendment, which would have put our entire Constitution up for grabs and be savaged by every snake and special interest group.
I fear Rand Paul has already been conned by these slithering snakes who cooked up the following fake and worthless balanced budget amendment, cleverly designed to supercede our founder’s method to deal with deficits, and which Rand Paul now supports:
`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: The amendment can be immediately overrule 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: The very intentions of the amendment can be subverted by allowing Congress to borrow without providing specific taxes at the same time to extinguish the specific amount being borrowed.
`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: This is a feel good provision. It sounds great and technical but is it? Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposals, how projected figures can be manipulated by our friends in government to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?
`Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote
NOTE: Well, isn’t this just dandy? Taxes may be increased by a simple majority vote in each House to keep the budget balanced. How sweet of Congress to be so thoughtful to reduce their pain in raising taxes to keep the budget balanced, while making it more difficult, a three-fifths vote, to reduce spending which is really needed to balance the budget.
`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 here is most remarkable. A simple majority of 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 exists. So, the fox gets to say when the chickens are in peril.
`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 it is etched in stone! The entire amendment is based upon “estimates” and nothing is stated what shall be done when those estimates do not pan out and expenditures have exceeded total outlays for the year. And when was the last time a government conjured budget “estimate” was found to be correct?
`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 here when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?
`Section 8. 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, 2014.'.
_________
Now, how did our founding fathers intend to deal with deficits should they occur?
The founder’s intended Congress to lay imposts and duties at our water’s edge as a first means to raise a federal revenue. In addition, our founding fathers also provided the power to lay inland “excise” taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. 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 had to borrow to meet its expenses, then an apportioned tax was to be laid among the States equal to the shortfall and used to extinguish the deficit.
Our founding father’s fair share formula for dealing with deficits considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be expressed as follows:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED (the deficit) = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
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 bill in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with the responsibility of paying the bill. 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 to then enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due with interest thereon!
If Rand Paul and Senator DeMint, who also supports the phony BBA are not aware of our Constitution’s method to extinguish deficits, they ought to fire someone on their staff and hire someone familiar with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted!
For historical documentation concerning the apportioned tax CLICK HERE (http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf).
The unavoidable truth is, our founder’s tax plan provides a specific method to deal with deficits and it does so by creating a very real moment of accountability if members of Congress should have to bring home a bill because of their profligate spending habits, and this would encourage members of Congress to drastically cut spending in order to live within the means provided from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned tax.
Keep in mind, the apportioned tax also encourages every state Legislature and Governor to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of its Congressional Delegation to avoid having to deplete the State’s treasury.
Question is, has Rand Paul already sold out, or has he been co-opted by snakes like Newt Gingrich?
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’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink)
I fear Rand Paul has already been conned by these slithering snakes who cooked up the following fake and worthless balanced budget amendment, cleverly designed to supercede our founder’s method to deal with deficits, and which Rand Paul now supports:
`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: The amendment can be immediately overrule 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: The very intentions of the amendment can be subverted by allowing Congress to borrow without providing specific taxes at the same time to extinguish the specific amount being borrowed.
`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: This is a feel good provision. It sounds great and technical but is it? Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposals, how projected figures can be manipulated by our friends in government to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?
`Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote
NOTE: Well, isn’t this just dandy? Taxes may be increased by a simple majority vote in each House to keep the budget balanced. How sweet of Congress to be so thoughtful to reduce their pain in raising taxes to keep the budget balanced, while making it more difficult, a three-fifths vote, to reduce spending which is really needed to balance the budget.
`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 here is most remarkable. A simple majority of 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 exists. So, the fox gets to say when the chickens are in peril.
`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 it is etched in stone! The entire amendment is based upon “estimates” and nothing is stated what shall be done when those estimates do not pan out and expenditures have exceeded total outlays for the year. And when was the last time a government conjured budget “estimate” was found to be correct?
`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 here when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?
`Section 8. 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, 2014.'.
_________
Now, how did our founding fathers intend to deal with deficits should they occur?
The founder’s intended Congress to lay imposts and duties at our water’s edge as a first means to raise a federal revenue. In addition, our founding fathers also provided the power to lay inland “excise” taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury. 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 had to borrow to meet its expenses, then an apportioned tax was to be laid among the States equal to the shortfall and used to extinguish the deficit.
Our founding father’s fair share formula for dealing with deficits considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be expressed as follows:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED (the deficit) = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. Population
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 bill in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with the responsibility of paying the bill. 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 to then enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due with interest thereon!
If Rand Paul and Senator DeMint, who also supports the phony BBA are not aware of our Constitution’s method to extinguish deficits, they ought to fire someone on their staff and hire someone familiar with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted!
For historical documentation concerning the apportioned tax CLICK HERE (http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf).
The unavoidable truth is, our founder’s tax plan provides a specific method to deal with deficits and it does so by creating a very real moment of accountability if members of Congress should have to bring home a bill because of their profligate spending habits, and this would encourage members of Congress to drastically cut spending in order to live within the means provided from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned tax.
Keep in mind, the apportioned tax also encourages every state Legislature and Governor to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of its Congressional Delegation to avoid having to deplete the State’s treasury.
Question is, has Rand Paul already sold out, or has he been co-opted by snakes like Newt Gingrich?
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’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink)