GOP RINOs set vote for phony balanced budget amendment (H.J.RES.2)!

[johnwk]

.

SEE: House GOP sets vote on balanced-budget amendment (http://www.kirotv.com/news/ap/us/house-gop-sets-vote-on-balanced-budget-amendment/nFZxj/)

“House GOP leaders have scheduled a vote next week on a constitutional amendment that would require a balanced federal budget.”


Now, let us take a look at what the GOP offers to restrain our Congress which has brought our nation to the brink of financial suicide and a national debt of over $15 TRILLION which represents our nation‘s entire gross domestic product for one year!.


SEE H.J.RES.2, THE GOP BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.J.RES.2:..) and particularly note alleged “conservatives” who have put their name to this fraud!


`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.


Translation: Congress may override the amendment whenever it so desires when a mere 261 House members and 60 Senators agree to continue down its path of destroying America from within.


`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.


Another provision to break the chains requiring a balanced budget, and one which cleverly omits a requirement for specific increases in taxes to equal any proposed 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 provision is totally meaningless and mere window dressing to confuse the people, especially when figures can be made to mean whatever our folks in government want them to project as we have learned with Obamacare


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.


Well, I guess we call all relax under this provision as a mere 217 votes in the House and 51 in the Senate is all that is needed by Congress to squeeze more blood out of the America People and continue down a path to financial suicide. This particular provision makes one wonder why “conservatives” have put their name on this supposed “balanced budget amendment”


`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.


After the words “declaration of war is in effect” the weasel wording which follows would be laughable if America’s national debt were not so grave, not to mention a mere majority vote is needed to give the finger to balancing the budget.. The flimflamery under this section is disgusting. 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? Has been used to send BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars to foreign banks (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/federal-reserve-documents-reveal-massive-foreign-b), and used to increase the national debt beyond human comprehension? Why have “conservatives“ put their name to this crap?!


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


Estimates of outlays and receipts? This is an in-your-face, screw the America People, we do what we want and what we want is to use mathematical illusions to enforce balancing the budget!


`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 the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.'.


Now, let us take a look at our founding father’s no-nonsense method to balancing the annual budget


The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


“SECTION 1. 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


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!


"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:


States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population


This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after its ratification.


Now, why is it that our “conservative” talk show hosts [Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Doc Thompson, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, etc.,] give thumbs up to GOP RINO talk about a balanced budget amendment and neglect to ever mention our founding father's intended method to deal with deficits which is already part of our Constitution and simply being ignored?



JWK


"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson

[johnwk]

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Mark Levin, on his Friday show, express his rejection of the phony balanced budget amendment and giving his support to the four Republicans who voted against it. My only disappointment with Mark on this issue is his failure to associate our founder’s expressed intentions to have the rule of apportionment applied when dealing with deficits should they occur, and how the rule of apportionment would make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable if Congress spent more than is brought in from its normal means of raising a federal revenue, which would trigger the apportioned tax among the States to extinguish the shortfall:


States’ population

---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S OBLIGATION
Total U.S. Population



This rule of apportionment for any general tax among the States was intended to cure an evil of democracy under which 51 percent of a nation’s population use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. It was also intended to create a very real moment of accountability if Congress spent more than was brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.


It would be music to my ears and every “constitutional conservative” to hear Mark Levin use his God given verbal skills to articulate the threat and consequences each State’s Congressional Delegation would be working under while in Washington, D.C., and spending federal revenue, if the rule of apportionment were once again applied ___ especially the threat of each State’s very own Treasury hanging in the balance and would be depleted whenever a State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill to extinguish an annual deficit.

And I’m sure Mark Levin would be able to articulate far better than I can how States with large pinko Congressional Delegations such as California, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey who now pretty much control spending from the federal treasury and are quite happy to vote for every progressive giveaway program because there are no consequences in the process, would suddenly have their Congressional Delegation returning home with a bill in hand for their State’s Legislature to pay an apportioned share of the pork their Congressional Delegation purchased while in Washington.

I would also love to hear Mark Levin use his God given gift to articulate the consequences if a State’s Legislature refused to pay their State‘s apportioned fair share to extinguish a deficit or were delinquent in paying it on time, under which circumstances Congress would be required to enter the State and collect the amount due with (for example) a direct tax upon the real and personal property within the State. And if the owners of said property did not pay the tax due, then their property would be put up for a tax sale and the good news is, our California limousine riding, tofu-eating liberals will quickly come to their senses!

Put this rule of apportionment back into operation and the evil of democracy under which our nation now suffers (representation without proportional financial obligation) will be corrected, and Congress will once again be the servants of the people and not their masters which is what our founding fathers intended!

Mark Levin, please don’t let us down! Rise to the occasion and use your God given talent, and defend the clear thinking of our founding fathers!


JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

[Lucille]

That's exactly how it would go, johnwk.

We Don't Need No Stinking Amendment (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/carroll-m1.1.1.html)


But when we look a little closer, we realize that a balanced budget amendment is not only unnecessary, but dangerous, for several reasons.

First, the issue is not whether any given federal budget is balanced, but whether it is constitutional. When the President, Senators and Representatives are sworn into office, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, which severely limits the scope of the federal government. No reference is made in the balanced budget amendment regarding the constitutionality of the budget items. It will simply legalize what is now unconstitutional as long as they stay within certain financial limits.

Second, a balanced budget will simply mean Washington raises taxes/prints money to offset unconstitutional expenditures. As mentioned above, it nowhere addresses the issue of the limitations the founders placed on the federal government via the Constitution. Nor does it address the more important issues of fiat money, the Fed or the IRS. While the balanced budget amendment supposedly limits the amount of money the Congress can spend, it also gives them the authority to waive those limits.

It's All the Republicans' Fault (http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory225.html)


Consider the substance of this scheme. We are to believe that some petty cuts and "enforceable" caps on future spending, combined with a Balanced Budget Amendment, are going to stop a catastrophe that has been in the making for decades, one that doesn't even touch on the many trillions in unfunded liabilities that will come to the forefront in future generations. Meanwhile, the bloated and growing military budget won't be touched at all.

A Balanced Budget Amendment is actually a bad idea. It is a potential excuse to raise taxes, despite any requirement of supermajorities needed to do it, and something that can't be passed without support from three-fourths of the state legislatures anyway. How can something contingent upon such a major process be a bargaining demand for a debt ceiling that has to be raised in the next couple weeks? This is all a smokescreen.

[Zippyjuan]

I would like to challenge them to submit a balanced budget. The Republicans control the House of Representatives which is responsible for writing all spending bills. No, I won't be holding my breath to see if they do or not. They proposed it knowing it won't be passed and they won't have to adhere to it. They can claim to be more "fiscally responsible" (whatever that means- both parties like to spend money they don't have) and say that Democrats are against balancing the budget. Political move.

[johnwk]

I would like to challenge them to submit a balanced budget. The Republicans control the House of Representatives which is responsible for writing all spending bills. No, I won't be holding my breath to see if they do or not. They proposed it knowing it won't be passed and they won't have to adhere to it. They can claim to be more "fiscally responsible" (whatever that means- both parties like to spend money they don't have) and say that Democrats are against balancing the budget. Political move.



Seems quite clear our federal government acting through the Leadership of both political parties have been quite busy trashing our Constitution, assuming powers not granted, and then blackmailing the States into submission using money taxed away from the States, e.g. federal highway funds. And if one does not think the leadership of both political parties have been behind a despotic assumption of powers and trashing our Constitution, all one has to do is recall how the leadership of both political parties joined hands in passing the despotic No Child Left Behind Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act) which is now used to blackmail the States. Hey, isn’t that our current Republican Speaker of the House in the picture with a big fat grin on his face?

JWK




Solyndra is not “crony capitalism“! It was a swindle and plundering of our federal treasury from the very beginning.

[Brett85]

I guess Ron and Rand are both "phonies" for supporting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Really, any Republican who votes against a balanced budget amendment should be primaried.

Edit: Never mind. I didn't realize that this amendment only required 50% of lawmakers to raise taxes rather than 2/3rds. If it wasn't for that, it would be a great amendment.

[anaconda]

How bout just a "pay-as-you-go amendment?

[anaconda]

`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?




If I am reading this Section 7 correctly, there would be nothing to spend the borrowing on so there would be no reason to borrow. Since "outlays" can't be more than "receipts" they would be unable to deficit finance. Again, "receipts" cannot include borrowing, and "outlays" cannot be bigger than receipts. This part sounds very good to me.

[johnwk]

SEE: Mark Levin on the phony balanced budget amendment (http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2337819&spid=32345):


``On Friday's Mark Levin Show: Mark says that he's happy the balanced budget amendment didn't pass the House because it was a fraud. If you actually read the bill, it didn't do what many phony Republicans said it would do - and it would only increase spending and further put us into debt. Speaker Boehner has abandoned his pledge to cut, cap and balance. And because of this, the American people will continue to suffer. Also, some politicians believe that they have the power to seize whatever funds they want from you to fund it's insatiable appetite. Finally, Rick Santorum calls in and talks about his Republican presidential bid.``


And let us not forget that Boehner was all in favor of, and at the singing of, the unconstitutional No Child Left Behind Act, the funding of which is now used by the federal government to blackmail the States into submission! Take a look at John, cry-baby-face Boehner with a BIG FAT GRIN ON HIS FACE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act) when he joined hands with progressives and RINOs in the adoption of this usurpation of power.


JWK




Solyndra is not “crony capitalism“! It was a planned swindle and plundering of our federal treasury from the very start!

[willwash]

The only way we'll ever get a balanced budget amendment is if 2/3 of states pass a resolution calling for constitutional amendment. It will never come out of Congress. Same thing for term limits.

[Zippyjuan]

Bear in mind that if we had term limits, Ron Paul would have been out of office long ago too.

For there to be a Balanced Budget Amendment, not only would it have to pass both houses with a 2/3rds majority and the president sign it, it would then have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states as well before it could take effect. But as I mentioned, they are free to submit a balanced budget any time they want to- they just don't want to do it because it would be unpopular with voters to have "their" programs cut.

[johnwk]

I wonder if we could get Ron Paul to introduce the following Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which reflects our founding fathers very intentions.


“SECTION 1. 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


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360) as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!


"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:


States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population


This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional obligation!


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after its ratification.


And why is it that not one of our “conservative” talk show hosts [Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Doc Thompson, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, etc.,] will ever mention how our founding fathers intended deficits to be dealt with?

JWK



Solyndra is not “crony capitalism“! It was a planned swindle and plundering of our federal treasury from the very start!

[johnwk]

Why is it that not one “Republican” in Congress supports our founding father’s intended method to deal with annual deficits using the apportioned tax among the States?


Picture for a moment California’s pinko Congressional Delegation returning home with a bill to pay for all the pork it purchased while in Washington and handing it to the governor and legislature to pay from the State‘s Treasury. And then imagine when the State of California refuses to pay its apportioned share and then an across the board tax is laid upon the people’s real and personal property in the State and all the California limousine riding, tofu-eating liberals are assessed and taxed on their accumulated real and personal property and they finally get to pay for all the “progressive social federal programs ” they say they are in favor of.


I suspect there would be millions of “fiscal conservatives” born overnight in California, and the occupation in Washington D.C. by “progressives“ would come to an abrupt end, especial progressives in Congress who now masquerade as Republicans and dominate the Republican Party Leadership!


Too bad we cannot find one loyal and patriotic member in Congress to introduce the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment as a proposed amendment to our Constitution.


And, why is it that our “conservative” talk show hosts [Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Doc Thompson, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, etc.,] neglect to ever mention our founding father's intended method to deal with deficits which is already part of our Constitution and simply being ignored?



JWK


"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson

[Zippyjuan]

I know your example was hypythetical but the State of California receives $0.78 in the form of government spending in the state for each $1.00 their taxpayers send to Washington DC. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

[johnwk]

I know your example was hypythetical but the State of California receives $0.78 in the form of government spending in the state for each $1.00 their taxpayers send to Washington DC. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html


ZIPPY,

A lot of people have told me that. But I can assure you there is no defect in our founding father’s thinking. Remember, this is not about political partisanship! It’s about extinguishing an annual deficit when Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.

Additionally, I don’t know how accurate the tax foundation figures are, but if they are accurate, then California ought to be tickled pink to have the apportioned tax used to extinguish annual deficits. But let me remind you when California gets its bill, because of its larger population and representation in Congress, it will be far greater than a less populated state such as Idaho. The founder’s fair share formula puts an end to the class warfare game and provides a no-nonsense method to extinguish an annual deficit which also provides a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation must return home with a bill in hand for their State’s Legislature to pay for the pork their Congressional Delegation bought while in Washington, D.C.


JWK

[Zippyjuan]

Changing it to apportionment only changes the way taxes get collected. The state acts as a middleman for the Federal Government and only adds cost without impacting the "spending too much" problem. People would file their returns to their states which would have to then forward the money to the Federal Government.

[johnwk]

Changing it to apportionment only changes the way taxes get collected. The state acts as a middleman for the Federal Government and only adds cost without impacting the "spending too much" problem. People would file their returns to their states which would have to then forward the money to the Federal Government.

Zippy,

I think you are missing an important point. When the apportioned tax is used, the annual budget gets balanced which is its objective! Is it not our objective to balanced the annual budget?

You also seem to suggest the various State Legislatures will joyfully deplete their State Treasury to pay for the pork their Congressional Delegation buys while in Washington. For some reason, which I can’t seem to put my finger on, I think the State Legislatures would not take kindly to having to transfer money from their State Treasury to the scumbags in Washington, and then have to raise additional taxes in the State to replenish that money to fund State functions.

The threat of the apportioned tax to be laid when a deficit occurs encourages each State’s Congressional Delegation to live within the revenue brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.


Finally, using the apportioned tax’s fair share formula for any general tax laid among the States does far more than changing the way taxes get collected. The apportioned tax determines each State’s share of a total sum being collected and precludes the class warfare game which the Washington Establishment now uses to divide and distract the people. In addition, the rule of apportionment corrects one of the evils of democracy under which 51 percent of a nation’s population is free to tax the property away from the remaining 49 percent of the population.

In fact the rule of apportionment was to insure that whenever Congress decided to lay any general tax among the States, those states paying the lion’s share of the tax would be guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution when spending from the federal treasury. The fair share formula being:


State`s Pop
. _________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF BURDEN
U.S. pop.


But don’t take my word for the founder’s intentions, let them speak for themselves:


Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :


“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)


And see:
“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) ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)


And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)


Also 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) in which the rule of apportionment is applied.


And then see Section 7 of 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.


JWK




Solyndra is not “crony capitalism“! It was a planned swindle and plundering of our federal treasury from the very start!