A BILL TO SLOW TAX INCREASES

Every once in a while we notice a bill in Congress that is both Constitutional and a good idea. In this case, we have some good company, too, because Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is recommending that its members write Congress in support of the bill. (1)

The bill is H.J. Res. 41, a proposal for a Constitutional amendment. It failed passing in the House last year, but is still available for yet another try.

The Constitutional amendment would require that "any bill, resolution, or other legislative measure changing the internal revenue laws shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members of that House voting and present, unless the bill is determined at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner prescribed by law, not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount."

According to CAGW, H. J. Res. 41 will not stop the possibility of future tax increases. What it will do is make it harder to raise them. Too often when Washington is faced with the decision to raise taxes or reduce spending, more often than not taxes are raised and American families end up with less money to spend on things they need and want.

Furthermore, as CAGW also points out: If H. J. Res. 41 had been in place 20 years ago, the large tax increases that were passed in 1982, 1987, 1990 and 1993 would have failed to obtained a 2/3 super majority and would not have become law. As a result, the government would not be as big as it is today and there would be less wasteful spending.

What's not to like here? The bill already has 151 cosponsors. Perhaps we can get it a few more.

The two sections of the resolution are short and straightforward. Therefore, they are appended below. Also, on their web site, CAGW has a quick and easy way to send a message to Congress in support of this resolution.

SECTION 1. Any bill, resolution, or other legislative measure changing the internal revenue laws shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members of that House voting and present, unless that bill, resolution, or other legislative measure is determined at the time of adoption, in a reasonable manner prescribed by law, not to increase the internal revenue by more than a de minimis amount. For the purposes of determining any increase in the internal revenue under this section, there shall be excluded any increase resulting from the lowering of an effective rate of any tax. On any vote for which the concurrence of two-thirds is required under this article, the yeas and nays of the Members of either House shall be entered on the Journal of that House.

SECTION 2. The Congress may waive the requirements of this article when a declaration of war is in effect. The Congress may also waive this article when the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 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. Any increase in the internal revenue enacted under such a waiver shall be effective for not longer than two years.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) supports H.J.Res 41. According to CAGW, H. J. Res. 41 will not stop the possibility of future tax increases. What it will do is make it harder to raise them. Too often when Washington is faced with the decision to raise taxes or reduce spending, more often than not taxes are raised and American families end up with less money to spend on things they need and want.

Perhaps the bill could pass in an election year.

"Every once in a while we notice a bill in Congress that
is both Constitutional and a good idea."

What's so "Constitutional" about it? The only cure for
our ills is the unambiguous repeal of the 16th amend-
ment. Not "reform" but repeal.

"According to CAGW, H. J. Res. 41 will not stop the
possibility of future tax increases. What it will do is
make it harder to raise them."

And harder to lower them too. What's de minimis?
It sounds like an arbitrary term to me.

From Section 2:

"The Congress may also waive this article when the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 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."

The "war on terrorism" would certainly seem to qualify as a "military conflict which causes an imminent and serious threat to national security." Anybody see an end to that? Ever?

That is a huge hole in this proposed amendment. And the judiciary has historically been very deferential to Congressional action in just these areas. If this amendment is adopted, it would be a huge mistake to rely upon the Supreme Court for its enforcement.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.