Billionaire Hillary Clinton Backer Wants a New Tax That Funnels Middle Class Money to Wall Street

“I find the whole thing astonishing and what’s remarkable is the amount of anger whether it’s on the Republican side or the Democratic side,” the Wall Street mogul said at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “Bernie Sanders, to me, is almost more stunning than some of what’s going on in the Republican side. How is that happening, why is that happening?”

David Sirota just penned a very important and interesting article zeroing in on how Wall Street is maneuvering to propose and implement a new retirement tax on Americans under a Hillary Clinton Administration.

Leading the charge is billionaire financial oligarch Tony James, who is COO of private equity giant Blackstone. Mr. James is a generous contributor to Hillary Clinton’s Presidential run, and is listed as a “Hillblazer” by her campaign for having raised at least $100,000 toward her candidacy.

While many Americans already know that much, most of you will be totally unaware of his aggressive plan to force a 3% payroll tax on the public which will be immediately funneled to Wall Street management firms, including “alternative managers” such as hedge funds and private equity. It seems like a very bizarre time to initiate such a proposal considering many public pension funds are actively ditching alternative managers after realizing they’ve been paying extraordinarily high fees for pitiful performance. In other words, they’ve been ripped off.

For example, recall what we learned in April’s post, “Let Them Sell Their Summer Homes” – NYC’s Largest Public Pension to Ditch Hedge Funds:

Most willingly invest some of their 401K or other pension vehicle’s money in stock funds at present. The Ryan proposal would allow this to be done with your own Social Security contributions. Yes, Wall Street benefits, but wherever you put your money for investment, an institution is going to benefit even if you keep it with your local bank-and earn nothing on it.

The proposal by James would be an actual tax - not voluntary. The gubmint slaps a tax on us and funnels some of the money directly to Wall Street (you know the gubmint would keep most of it for “administrative purposes”. What could be more insidious than that?

For decades, big gubmint liberals have been proposing schemes to divest people of their retirement funds. Most of them have been aimed at getting to the money after it’s already been salted away. This one aims to take it before you have a chance to salt it away and use it to buy backing and influence. Sick.

Thank you for referencing that article Lorianne. As usual, please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

Regarding a so-called federal retirement tax, patriots are reminded that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, basically any issue, such as retirement, that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional, Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

The reason that there are unconstitutional federal social spending programs like Social Security and Medicare is the following imo. Taking Social Security for example, FDR’s state-sovereignty ignoring justices wrongly accepted Congress’s claim that the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause (1.8.1) gave Congress the specific power to establish social spending programs like Social Security as evidenced by the Court’s decision in Helvering v. Davis.

But the major constitutional problem with regarding the General Welfare Clause as a specific delegation of power is the following. Noting that James Madison is generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, FDR’s activist justices wrongly ignored President James Madison’s official clarification that the General Welfare Clause was not intended as an express delegation of power, but meant to be understood only as an introductory clause for the clauses that followed it in Section 8 which are delegations of specific power.

”To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” —James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, 1817

Remember in November !

Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs as evidenced by FDR’s unconstitutional “New Deal” spending programs.

Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

I agree with you about the origins and lack of Constitutionality of SS and Medicare.

Basically anything can be justified under the General Welfare clause. For example everyone could be given a swimming pool, tennis court or basketball court at their home because exercise is a general good. They way they interpret the General Welfare clause, that would be an easy case to make.

But, since the money was taken involuntarily by Federal decree, does not make it right to then turn it over to Wall Street by Federal decree.

Intellectually, logically and legally, you are correct that Amendment 10 prohibits federal programs like Social Security and Medicare. That would also apply to HUD, to all envirowhacko programs, to BATF (Oh, Happy Day!), the Labor Department, the Commerce Department, foreign aid and many nuisances too numerous to list here. In fact you or I, red pencil in hand, could probably eliminate 70% or more of the fedbudget without working up a sweat for violation of Amendment 10 and the requirement that fed programs and expenditures be specifically authorized by Article I, Section 8.

We should not stop there. Then we could eliminate unnecessary and undesirable but constitutional programs. However, can we admit that, as right as we are, this is a fantasy that will NEVER OCCUR?

Suppose that Republicans are more sympathetic to our program than are Demonrats (this is NOT to be taken for granted but just suppose). Suppose that we start with just the two programs you mentioned. Suppose that there are 435 Republican candidates for 435 full Congressional seats and each and every one makes a "contract with America" just to eliminate Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid for that matter). Each makes his/her position quite public. After the votes are counted, not 3 of these candidates would be elected.

If you disagree, tell us what you think to back your position and make the election of many candidates a credible possibility. Convince me.

Our constitution's written provisions have been intentionally (liberal intentions) eroded since at least Lincoln and probably earlier than him.

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.