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

Liberty Blitzkrieg ^ | 19 October 2016 | Michael Krieger

[Amendment10]

”… just to eliminate Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid for that matter).

If I understand you correctly, I respectfully disagree that “government” social spending programs should be eliminated.

More specifically, except for inexcusable ignorance of the 10th Amendment, there has never been anything stopping the states from establishing their own social spending programs, depending on what the legal majority of a state’s voting citizens want.

And after seeing the mess that corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification, state sovereignty-ignoring federal lawmakers can make out of any social spending program, I’m inclined to think that the citizens of a given state will be able to police the integrity of state programs much better than they can keep on eye on federal programs.

Thomas Jefferson had put it this way.

"The States should be left to do whatever acts they can do as well as the General Government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Harvie, 1790.

The bottom line is that the states need to get rid of the unconstitutional middleman, the federal government, with respect to managing their revenues.

[YogicCowboy]

Redistribution the crony communist way.

[BlackElk]

I can't win with you even when I try.

I said nothing whatsoever about the power of the individul states to create social spending programs. Their right to do so is clerly allowed by Amendment 10. Actually, however, the states would not approve by majority of their voters but by a majority of their utterly corruptible state legislators with the approval of the equally or more so corruptible governors or by overriding their vetoes.

Which, of course, brings us to another example of the constant expression of a desire by you and some here to eliminate popular election of US Senators in favor of an auction of the votes of corrupt state legislators with explicit payoffs coming from big business interests and the wealthy. That's who would be represented and not anything so ill-defined as the interests of the states. There are a cornucopia of reasons why inherently corrupt state legislative election of US Senators was abolished by popular demand and disgust in favor of the citizens themselves choosing their own US Senators. Those reasons have not disappeared but have become, if anything, far more intensely true as "the interests" have become ever more brutally efficient against us and about as trustworthy as Obozo or the Arkansas Medusa.

The corrupt imbeciles in our state legislators would not know what the public wants because they are too busy, in their relative obscurity, collecting payoffs for votes from "the interests." You may want to live in a nation of, by and for the corrupt commercial interests who increasingly see mere human beings as obsolete. I don't. I would far sooner apply a firing squad to Wall Street, K Street and to the US Chambers of Crony "Commerce" than allow any or all of them to choose the Senate voting with their cash.

As far as the states "managing" their revenues (really the tax dollars extorted from US the TAXPAYERS to feed and serve their big business cronies), see California, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey as just a few examples. Public employee pensions run amok, skyrocketing taxes, generally on "the little people," shrinking public service meant to "serve" "the little people." The people are very poorly organized, if at all. The "interests" are a well-oiled machine that mows down the public in state government every time. The kid who flips burgers at Mickey D's gets NOTHING and pays the taxes on his meager income that SHOULD have been paid by the "interests" whose returns reflect bought and paid for oceans of special exemptions and special deductions for "special" people. That is also true in the fedtaxcode.

Whether or not you want state programs to replace the admittedly unconstitutional federal Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid legislation, you would presumably call for their abolition as violative of Amendment 10. How much blood do you admit will flow as red rivers into the sewers if and when a serious effort is made to eliminate these unconstitutional programs from federal control.

Then you will have the problem of a race to the bottom in which states will compete in stinginess that would shame Scrooge even BEFORE the ghosts showed up. Got budget problems? All states do. Eliminate the programs that have supported for many decades the elderly and the disabled and take care of their admittedly expensive medical care encouraging them to move to more generous states (see SCOTUS decision by Mr. Injustice William Brennan in the late 1960s or early 1970s in Shapiro vs. Thompson which established a federal "right" of welfare recipients to move from state to state and collect immediately the new state's welfare check and benefits with no waiting period). Predictably Thompson was moving FROM parsimonious Mississippi TO spendthrift Connecticut.

Strict or even increased enforcement of Amendment 10 is a surefire Rx for revolution and civil war. What are your practical and specific plans for enforcing the amendment without triggering revolution and civil war?