|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: July 29, 2011, 10:29:24 AM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post - What Power to Tax and Spend?
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
What Power to Tax and Spend?
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, July 28, 2011
The Question Americans Should Be Asking
"The Constitution, which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington
Barack Hussein Obama's refusal to send a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the states as condition of House Speaker John Boehner's support for raising the national debt ceiling has pushed federal funding negotiations to the precipice of the Treasury Department's 2 August default deadline. Boehner has retreated on the House's "cut, cap and balance1" plan and its BBA provision is no longer a stipulation in negotiations. He has also reduced the "cuts" in the House plan, and may acquiesce to the larger debt ceiling increase the Democrats2 want in order to avoid another debt ceiling battle prior to the 2012 elections.
Notably, most House conservatives, including the Tea Party freshmen, are standing with Boehner, choosing a pragmatic approach until 2012, when they hope to strengthen their numbers in the House and Senate, and retake the presidency.
The current budget debate was the first serious consideration of a BBA since it was advocated by President Ronald Reagan3 in the 1980s and later passed by the House as part of the Republican Contract with America in 1995. (At that time, it received 300 votes, including 72 Democrats.)
Now, as then, Leftist Democrats4 in the Senate have created a formidable gauntlet to its passage because it would severely undermine their power to redistribute wealth, power that is the only assurance of their perpetual re-election5. A BBA would sunset their dynasty.
So, where to from here, and what question should conservatives be asking? First, let me offer a brief review of the current budget/debt crisis.
The current legal limit (ceiling) on outstanding U.S. debt is $14.29 trillion. The federal government currently spends about $10 billion every day, and about $4 billion of that is borrowed with guarantees that future generations of Americans will repay the principal and interest.
The House budget plan, as of today, allows a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling, but includes cuts of approximately that amount over 10 years, which is to say it is not a "net-net" plan to balance the budget now, and does not reverse debt accumulation.
Obama's 2012 budget is $3.7 trillion. Conservative estimates are that his "budget plan" will add more than $12 trillion in debt over the next decade. The only way the U.S. can remain solvent under those circumstances would require colossal tax increases and fiscal policies that inflate the economy -- both of which will break the back of free enterprise6 and ultimately lead to more taxes and inflation until the whole charade collapses.
This debt bomb7 poses the most significant threat to Essential Liberty8 in our nation's history. Our editorial team outlined this mounting national security threat9 back in 2004.
Across the nation, 49 of 50 states have some form of balanced budget requirement. The federal government, however, recognizes no such limitations and for three decades has been spending far more than it takes in.
Not only must the debt accumulation be stopped, it must be reversed.
To accomplish this reversal, the most pressing question in the current debate is not "which budget plan is better?" Rather, it is "By what authority does the central government collect taxes, and on what items is it authorized to spend those combined taxes and accumulated national debt?"
Tell me what you think10
To answer that question, let's review the limitations on taxing and spending our Constitution11 imposed upon Congress before the courts twisted Rule of Law into the so-called "living constitution12," which is subject to the rule of men. Under the latter, Congress has unlawfully assumed the authority not only to collect and spend taxes on any objects it desires (in order to perpetuate re-election), but to regulate everything else13. (For the record, the cost of that regulation is estimated at $1.75 trillion annually -- more than twice the total income taxes collected in 2010.)
This unlawful spending and regulation is in abject violation of our elected officials' oaths to "support and defend14" our Constitution, and a breach of trust in their contract with the American people, which has created a perilous national security crisis15. But on the question of their constitutional authority, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi infamously claimed, "Nobody questions that16."
To get a sense of how enormous the outlaw-spending crisis has grown, I quote Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's efforts to shock Republicans into submission this week: "Just remember, this is the United States of America. We write 80 million checks a month. There are millions and millions of Americans that depend on those checks coming on time. ... We cannot put those payments at risk and we do not have the ability to limit the damage on them if Congress fails to act in time."
By what authority is the central government taxing and borrowing to distribute 80 million checks a month?
The "General Welfare Clause" in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution provides, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
During the constitutional ratification debates, our Founder's made clear that taxation in support of expenditure for the "general welfare17" of the nation was subject to severe limits.
Alexander Hamilton, our nation's first Treasury secretary, argued for a somewhat more expansive interpretation of "general welfare," while James Madison, our Constitution's author, reiterated that the enumerated powers contained therein strictly limited the context of "general welfare."
Madison's view prevailed. As president, Madison vetoed a federal highway bill in 1817 because such expenditures were not authorized by our Constitution and, moreover, were clearly the responsibility of the states, as specified in the Tenth Amendment18.
According to Madison, "It has been urged and echoed, that 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,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare." |
