johnwk
12-29-2010, 06:20 AM
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.
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.