Todays word on the state of our state, our nation, and the world.
Alexander’s Column By Mark Alexander · Apr. 15, 2015
“The people of the U.S. owe their Independence and their liberty, to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprised in the precedent.” —James Madison (1823)
It is no small irony that in the same week we observe Patriots’ Day — the opening salvos at Lexington and Concord to establish American Liberty — working Americans also endure the April 15th deadline to forcibly surrender a growing portion of our earned income to a gravely bloated central government, which redistributes much of that income to ensure public support for its malignant growth.
Excessive and unjust taxation led to the first American Revolution, and our government today appears heedless of that history as it seizes income for purposes clearly not authorized by our Constitution. Much of that income is redistributed to Democrat constituents in return for their political allegiance that, in turn, drives more growth and redistribution. This cycle is perilous to Liberty.
This year, American Patriots had to work, on average, the first 114 days of 2015 to cover their federal, state and local tax burdens. Of course, that doesn’t include the additional days of work required to pay the hidden regulatory tax — the cost of regulations built into consumer products and services — which adds about another 30 days of labor.
To put the redistribution of your income in perspective, let’s review the history of income taxes, the control government drives from the power to tax, and the resulting contest between free enterprise and socialism.
On December 16th, 1773, “rebels” from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. This iconic event, in protest of oppressive taxation and tyrannical rule, is immortalized as “The Boston Tea Party.”
Resistance to the British Crown had been mounting over other taxes — the 1764 Sugar Act, 1765 Stamp Act and 1767 Townshend Act — which led to the Boston Massacre and gave rise to the slogan, “No taxation without representation.”
But it was the 1773 Tea Act, under which the Crown collected a three-pence tax on each pound of tea imported to the Colonies, that instigated the first Tea Party protest and seeded the American Revolution. The Tea Party uprising galvanized the Colonial movement opposing British parliamentary acts, as such were a violation of the natural, charter and constitutional rights of the British colonists.
Oppressive taxation was the catalyst for our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the American Revolution.
The first alliance between the states was the Articles of Confederation in 1781.
That alliance and enshrinement of Liberty were then more functionally codified with the full ratification of our Constitution in 1789 and the appending of Ten Articles, known collectively as The Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1791. (I should note here, though the Bill of Rights is commonly referred to as “the first ten amendments,” it is important to distinguish articles from amendments. The former are an integral part of our Constitution, while the latter modify parts of our Constitution. The addition of the Bill of Rights was the source of hotly contested debates among our Founders. Many objected to listing the innate Rights of Man, which are “"Endowed by our Creator”, because such listing might convey that those indigenous rights are somehow subject to amendment by man.)
Our Founders were uniformly concerned about government power to lay and collect taxes, most notably direct taxation of income, and, accordingly, they enumerated specific limitations on taxing and spending.
James Madison, the author of the Constitution, addressed the issue of unlimited spending, and he warned that misconstruction of “the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States” would result in “an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.”
To ensure that federal taxation would be limited to these constraints, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of our Constitution (the “Taxing and Spending Clause”), as duly ratified in 1789, defined the “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” but Section 8 required that such “Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” This, in effect, limited the power of Congress to impose direct taxes on individuals, as further outlined in Section 9: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
That constitutional limitation survived until 1861, when the first income tax was imposed to defray Union costs of the War Between the States. That 3 percent tax on incomes over $800 was sold as an emergency war measure. In 1894, congressional Democrats tested the Constitution again, passing a peacetime tax of two percent on income above $4,000. A year later, that tariff was overturned by the Supreme Court as not complying with the limitations set forth in Article 1.
However, the most devastating insult to economic Liberty was dealt by the father of American socialism, Woodrow Wilson, who was elected due to his mastery of classist rhetoric as outlined by Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto in 1848. Wilson used that rhetoric to gain rapid passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, which specified, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
“From whatever source derived” indeed.
The top tax rate levied under the new Amendment was 7 percent on incomes above $500,000 (about $13 million in 2014 dollars), but today, almost every individual with an income of $25,000 or more (less than $1,000 in 1914 dollars) is taxed. If Wilson had attempted to impose his tax on incomes of $1,000, a second American Revolution would have commenced immediately. But, like most usurpations of Liberty, the income tax levy has avoided insurrection by incremental imposition on ever-broader income groups over the last century.
As Madison warned, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
The Sixteenth Amendment has been used to enact unequal and discriminatory taxation of targeted groups of income classes — “progressive” taxation as it is known, which resulted in classism and the bulwark of all socialist movements, “class warfare.” It opened the floodgates for populist executives and legislators to enact taxes for expenditures not expressly authorized by our Constitution, and thus brought about the end of limited government under Rule of Law in favor of the rule of men.
The most notable of those populists was Franklin D. Roosevelt, a wealthy aristocrat. At the onset of the Great Depression, he instituted a plethora of policies that further challenged constitutional limits on our government, the cost of which would, today, threaten our nation’s economic solvency.
FDR’s economic and social solutions were shaped by his upbringing as an “inheritance welfare liberal” (those raised dependent on inheritance rather than self-reliance). He used the Great Depression as cover to redefine and expand the role of central government via countless extra-constitutional decrees, and he expanded Wilson’s program for redistribution of wealth in order to fund such folly.
Roosevelt proclaimed, “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”
If that language sounds somehow familiar, it is because that “American principle” is essentially a paraphrase of Karl Marx’s communist maxim, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Roosevelt’s “principle” had no basis in Rule of Law or the principles of free enterprise, and consequently, his New Deal policies and programs set the standard for extra-constitutional government expansion funded by wealth redistribution under what is the central government’s most oppressive weapon: The U.S. Tax Code.
As Chief Justice John Marshall put it in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”
Nearly a century later under Wilson, government began to nibble around the edges. Today, it gobbles wholesale.
The net effect of this expansion was and remains the abject violation of our Constitution’s Article Ten: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The resulting corruption of constitutional Rule of Law by the rule of men has propagated a persistent and perilous assault on Liberty.
The ability to impose direct taxes to support a welfare state was anathema to our Founders and the Essential Liberty they fought so hard to secure for their posterity.
Of government welfare programs, Madison wrote, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. … Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
Neither Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution nor its Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress the authority to collect taxes for bailing out banks, mortgage institutions, or automakers, or to subsidize production or service sectors like health care, or to fund education and welfare, or to issue tens of thousands of earmarks for special interest “pork” projects.
Nor is Congress authorized to institute countless conditions for the redistribution of wealth in its nearly 75,000 pages and four million words of tax code alone, or to impose millions of regulations on everything from carbon emissions to toilet water volume.
Madison’s wisdom notwithstanding, at the dawn of the 21st century, more than 70 percent of the federal budget would be allocated for “objects of benevolence” for which there is no original constitutional authority.
By 2010, taxes on the top 50 percent of income earners totaled almost 97 percent of government revenue, while some 40 percent of Americans bore virtually none of the cost of government. Much more ominous is the fact that almost 35 percent of Americans are now utterly dependent upon government largess. Thus, they are predisposed to vote for the redistribution of others’ incomes rather than work for their own. Indeed, in the words of socialist playwright George Bernard Shaw, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
Despite its massive and unauthorized confiscation of our wealth, the federal government can’t seem to get enough. When George W. Bush took office in January 2001, our national debt was $5.8 trillion. Today, under Barack Hussein Obama, it is $18.1 trillion and skyrocketing. What is most unconscionable, however, is that we are obligating future generations for the repayment.
Of such debt, Jefferson concluded, “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
This year, working Americans will pay almost $5 TRILLION in taxes to federal and state governments. But the federal government still runs a regular deficit, and the national debt per taxpayer amounts to $155,000. To put that in perspective, if the average family budgeted like the government, they would spend more than $60,000 on income of $52,000, even though they are already almost $310,000 in debt. There is not a government revenue problem. There is a government spending problem.
Under siege of such oppressive taxation and debt accumulation, can the Republic survive? Can Liberty endure?
In answer to that question, Benjamin Franklin said, “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
This tax and debt burden most assuredly will, in the end, break the back of free enterprise and replace it with the statist policies of Democratic Socialism. The only way to sustain Liberty and prosperity, and thwart the “fundamental transformation” of our nation into economic decline, rests on the ability of conservatives to offer articulate rebuttal to the Left’s “tax fairness” rhetoric.
And not a minute too soon…
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Grassroots Commentary By William Stoecker · Apr. 16, 2015
For most of its history, the United States had no income tax and no IRS. In 1852 President Lincoln signed a tax law to fund the Civil War, but it was allowed to expire in 1872. Then, in 1913, the same year that the Federal Reserve was created (more on that later) Woodrow Wilson presided over a Constitutional amendment and a law that gave us our present system. From small beginnings and a very low tax, the system has expanded into a bloated bureaucracy and a tax that heavily impacts most middle class Americans. The IRS has its own armed and uniformed goon squad, and abuses are common, with the armed thugs breaking unannounced into homes and businesses, holding children and low level employees at gunpoint, seizing records, and closing businesses down, often when the victims (or the IRS itself) had simply made a mistake. And mistakes are hard to avoid with a tax code requiring about 7,500 standard-sized pages; even IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman on 1/10/10 admitted that he had to pay a tax preparer to do his own return. And, under Clinton and Obama, the IRS has harassed people and organizations who criticize the regime.
No wonder that there have been numerous calls for reform and simplification. No wonder that many now call for a flat tax, a simplified tax with fewer deductions and the same rate for all, or a fair tax — a national sales tax. The fair tax would do away with the goons and the surveillance and control of ordinary citizens, and the stress and expense of doing tax returns every year. In addition, by taxing spending rather than earning, it would encourage savings and investment. But there may be an even better alternative. To understand it, we need to investigate money itself.
Money is a convenient means of exchange that has largely replaced direct barter. Commodity money makes use of valuable commodities, like silver or gold coins. Representative money is paper money that the issuing bank or government has promised to exchange upon demand for a fixed amount of silver or gold. And then there is fiat money. Fiat money is based on nothing except the claim by the issuing agency that it has value. Typically it is paper money (or numbers in a computer) that is not tied to anything. The Chinese, centuries ago, issued paper money, and the Romans turned their commodity money (gold coins) into fiat money by gradually reducing the amount of gold in each coin, which devalued the currency. In fact, fiat money systems almost always lead to inflation, although they can work quite well for a time. In modern times, central banks create fiat money out of thin air, and, through various incredibly complex (and deliberately confusing) methods, loan it to governments and to smaller banks. Often these smaller banks then profit from fractional reserve banking. Most people imagine that this means that a bank has, say, 100 units of depositors’ money, for which the bank pays, say, two percent interest, or two units. They might keep a reserve on hand in case of a run on the bank, say 20 units, and then loan out 80 units at, for example, four percent, grossing them 3.2 units — a net of 1.2 units. Such a system would work quite well, and would allow banks to make a reasonable profit — but that’s not how it works. In reality, banks may have, say, 100 units deposited by people with accounts — and loan out 1000 units. Needless to say, this inflates the currency, causes a great risk of bank failures, and makes obscene profits for a favored few, who can then use the money to take over more and more of the economy and gain control of the media and the political parties. In other words, it leads to the kind of crony capitalism we have in the US today.
There were attempts in early US history to establish a central bank; the idea was even favored by Alexander Hamilton. None of these banks lasted. In 1907 there was a bank panic (possibly engineered), which led to the famous meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, in 1910. Travelling under assumed names, Senator Nelson Aldrich (his clan and the Rockefellers intermarried), Arthur Shelton, Jr., Dr. A. Pratt Andrew, Henry P. Davidson (a J.P. Morgan and Company partner), Frank A. Vanderlip (President of National City Bank), and Paul Warburg (of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company) met at J. Pierpoint Morgan’s Jekyll Island Club. Here they planned a national bank, ostensibly to prevent future bank panics and depressions.
So in 1913 the same President Woodrow Wilson who gave us the income tax (and direct election of US senators, undermining state sovereignty) secured passage of the Federal Reserve Act. The result was a quasi-governmental monstrosity that is really a consortium of private banks. This began a long, slow devaluation of our currency, a continuing inflation that is like a hidden tax on all of us. The Federal Reserve sets interest rates and controls the money supply; anyone who believes that the people at the top do not use their foreknowledge for their own benefit and that of their cronies is not merely naïve, but childishly, pathetically naïve. It is noteworthy that the worst depression in US history came after the Federal Reserve was in place — supposedly to prevent depressions.
On 4/5/1953 FDR forced all Americans to sell their gold to the Federal Reserve at $20.67 per ounce — and then raised the price in 1934 to $35 per ounce. On 8/15/71 President Nixon decreed that dollars would no longer be redeemable on gold. The US dollar was now entirely a fiat system.
But is the concept of fiat money inherently evil? Not necessarily. If the Federal Reserve and the IRS were both abolished, the Treasury Department could issue fiat money openly and publicly, subject to strict controls. The government could then pay its expenses with this money, causing a permanent, fixed inflation (not an ever-increasing inflation) that would, in effect, be a sales tax on everyone, but without the trouble and expense of administering a sales tax. The government would never borrow, and any increase in spending would immediately be noticeable, as prices would rise. Of course, this would take away the profits of the billionaire banksters. The states, cities, and counties could finance themselves with sales taxes, as many of them do today, and I would further suggest abolishing property taxes, at least on homes, for how can people truly be said to own their own homes if they have to, in effect, pay rent to the government?
But like any other meaningful reforms, none of this can happen under our present leadership.
"[H]ere’s an argument against the tax that isn’t well understood. It hardly raises any money."