PDA

View Full Version : Senator Flake copncerned about the annual deficit and tax reform




johnwk
11-17-2017, 07:08 PM
.
See 4 Republican Senators in Private Talks That Could Kill Current Tax Reform Bill (http://time.com/5027964/gop-tax-reform-bill-reactions/)

”Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford are among the four — enough to stop a bill that can only spare two Republican defections — who have concerns about a tax reform bill that was estimated to hike the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The other two senators have not publicly confirmed their concerns.”

Sen. Flake continued: “I’ve been concerned for a long time on our debt and deficit — that’s what animates me,” “There are a couple other people who are concerned as well. We can do tax reform in ways that will grow the economy but we can’t just ignore the debt and deficit.”

If Senator Jeff Flake were sincerely concerned that the House Bill may raise the deficit by $1.5 Trillion over a ten year period, he would offer an amendment to the tax reform bill dealing with the alleged concern. In fact, he could offer an amendment that would require Congress to immediately extinguish year-end deficits, should they occur, as is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


"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 an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

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

Total U.S. Population


The above 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 financial obligation!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"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 the required number of States have ratified it.


The bottom line is, Jeff Flake’s alleged concern can easily be addressed with a proposed amendment similar to the above wording which would deal with possible deficits on a yearly basis. And the proposed amendment would make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable should deficits occur by requiring them to bring home a bill to their own State’s Legislature and Governor who would be stuck with paying the Bill and depleting their own state treasury, or raising additional taxes within the state which then would have to be transferred into the United States Treasury. This method of dealing with deficits would certainly create a very real moment of accountability for every State’s Congressional Delegation, and would encourage each State’s Legislature and Governor to keep a jealous eye on their own State Delegations’ spending habits to avoid the apportioned direct tax.

JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

spudea
11-17-2017, 08:42 PM
FLAKE Caught on HOT MIC Today - Bashes Trump & Moore - Encouraged By Republican Mayor to be the “Foil” to the “Idiot” President.


https://youtu.be/BKDXxZMRhmk

euphemia
11-17-2017, 09:05 PM
They have not done squat about their spending. Concerned, not so much.

johnwk
11-20-2017, 06:01 AM
They have not done squat about their spending. Concerned, not so much.



I can't recall one member of Congress in my lifetime promoting the use of the apportioned tax to extinguish an annual deficit, which our Founders intended to be used on such occasions. On the other hand, there have been a very large number of Congress Critters who promote a fraudulent "balanced budget amendment" which would actually make it constitutional to not extinguish annual deficits.


JWK


There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions, including recent abled bodied immigrants, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

dean.engelhardt
11-20-2017, 09:18 AM
[QUOTE]I can't recall one member of Congress in my lifetime promoting the use of the apportioned tax to extinguish an annual deficit, which our Founders intended to be used on such occasions. On the other hand, there have been a very large number of Congress Critters who promote a fraudulent "balanced budget amendment" which would actually make it constitutional to not extinguish annual deficits.

What is fraudulent about a balanced budget?

IMO tax reductions that result in increased debt is not a reduction, but a delay. The only certain way to reduce the burden to the taxpayer is to reduce federal spending first.

johnwk
11-20-2017, 11:22 AM
I can't recall one member of Congress in my lifetime promoting the use of the apportioned tax to extinguish an annual deficit, which our Founders intended to be used on such occasions. On the other hand, there have been a very large number of Congress Critters who promote a fraudulent "balanced budget amendment" which would actually make it constitutional to not extinguish annual deficits.

What is fraudulent about a balanced budget?


There is nothing fraudulent about a balanced budget amendment which actually compels Congress to balance the budget on an annual basis. Having said that, every one of the so-called balanced budget amendments cooked up by our Washington Swamp Creatures would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the budget on an annual basis. On the other hand, the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment does require the federal budget to be balanced on an annual basis!


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
11-20-2017, 12:54 PM
What is fraudulent about a balanced budget?

IMO tax reductions that result in increased debt is not a reduction, but a delay. The only certain way to reduce the burden to the taxpayer is to reduce federal spending first.


Voters like tax cuts- not spending cuts. If you want to get re-elected, support the former, don't even suggest the latter (except in the broadest terms- people do like the IDEA of spending cuts- until you list the specific programs you want to reduce-then they get upset). If Republicans favor a balanced budget or reduced deficit, they are welcome to submit a budget which is balanced even without a Constitutional amendment. They won't. They say they favor one- but don't really. They talk about an amendment -"if only we had an amendment- then we could balance the budget!"- they know that just like an actual balanced budget, they will never pass one (a balanced budget amendment) and will never face the difficult choices of creating one (a balanced budget).

johnwk
11-20-2017, 04:05 PM
Voters like tax cuts- .


You have misquoted me in your post. Please correct it.

JWK

Zippyjuan
11-20-2017, 04:07 PM
You have misquoted me in your post. Please correct it.

JWK

I did a copy-paste from Dean's post. What is the error in what you are quoted as saying?

johnwk
11-20-2017, 05:00 PM
I did a copy-paste from Dean's post. What is the error in what you are quoted as saying?

I never said "IMO tax reductions that result in increased debt is not a reduction, but a delay. The only certain way to reduce the burden to the taxpayer is to reduce federal spending first."

Zippyjuan
11-20-2017, 05:10 PM
I never said "IMO tax reductions that result in increased debt is not a reduction, but a delay. The only certain way to reduce the burden to the taxpayer is to reduce federal spending first."

Sorry- that should have been in his quote portion. It has been corrected.

johnwk
11-20-2017, 06:26 PM
Sorry- that should have been in his quote portion. It has been corrected.

Thank you!

JWK