Proposal to Amend the US Constitution: The 28th Amendment.

Fair assessment. But constraining the federal government in paramount. I would like to see this declaration of catastrophe limited to voting on for each state. In other words, if there is another Katrina disaster. then Congress will have to vote on each state getting this special treatment - no blanket, unlimited authorization.

I could see a Dem controlled congress giving special tratment to a Dem state such as Maine or Hawaii. Call me paranoid.

Slowhand,

The new system is not a matter of being infinitely hopeful that Congressional representatives will do the right thing and refuse buy offs. This is about the simple math that there will never be enough money to buy them off with. Deficit spending is based on huge amounts of money the Fed Gov does not have. Unlike now, under the 28th Amendment they have to take this money out of State treasuries. If as a Senator from the same State you say “Look Governor at the great pork deal our Sate is getting in return!” The Governor says, “Yeah, and look at how much money our State has to payout to fund all the other States’ pork projects. It’s a huge net loser, Senator. I’m not going for it. And if you dare for it, I’ll make damn sure the voting citizens of our State know you severely hurt the State’s interests to the tune of several billion dollars.” - Do you not see how the deficit spending scheme is strikingly revealed under this tax system? You will not be able to buy the Governor of any State off because they will clearly see that their Senators are trying to bribe them with their State’s money. This does not rely on the good sweet heart of the Governor. It relies on him not wanting to lose State power.

Now you mentioned that it would only take the “last few” Federal level politicians like “Landrieu, [and] Nelson” to get the wasteful budget bill over the hump in both chambers in Congress. Okay, just explain to me how many of these Federal level politicians are going to be willing to throw away their cushy careers and be one termers. Because there will be no escaping their constituencies knowing that they voted DIRECTLY against their States’ interests. Please just answer that.

It was not meant that the people pay 90%. It was meant that states would pay 90%. A state that collected no tax would pay nothing.

A 90% tax on the wealthy was accepted because the “little guy” thought he was getting some of it. A 90% tax on states would be accepted for the same reason.

If they want a percentage of the deficit, the more they take from the people, the more they get back from the feds. The deficit inflates the currency and states with low taxes see net outflows of wealth to high-tax states in inflation.

UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide,

I agree with you that the billions do not go up in smoke. They go to fund pork projects in _other_ States. Any money that comes back to a State from the Federal Government in the form of any sort of benefits must by MATHEMATICAL NECESSITY be less than what the State paid out in taxes. Otherwise there would not be TRILLIONS of dollars of nightmare national debt. Obviously, all those trillions must eventually be paid for by taxpayers. But under the 28th Amendment, the State governments and their financial interests are directly taxed to pay for the trillions in bad promises and wasted pork projects. Every time a State looks at a proposed Federal budget and adds up all the pork projects of the other States COMBINED and does the simple calculation to determine what its portion of the bill to fund those projects will be; that State will then look at the value of the pork project for its State and say, “No fuckin’ wonder the national debt reaches into heaven!” And that’s when the bribery with our future taxpayers’ money (our children’s money) comes to an end. Because State governments will feel the blood blistering pinch immediately.

You have backward. The federal debt comes from spending more in the 50 states than it takes in. They don’t spend it all in Guam. This is why there are military bases in every state - and contractors too. They pay SS and other welfare benefits in every state. It all comes back and then some and the recipients are happy and sufficient in enough states. “And then some” is the federal deficit.

There is no such thing as a State that collects no taxes. There never has been one. And there never will be one. The State has the basic services it must provide to its citizenry in order to function as a State. With exclusive access to the tax pasture in its borders it’s going to bring lots more revenue into its coffers - because that’s the nature of government. But as said, State governments are far more sensitive to its voters because it is easier for the voters to quickly effect change at the State level than at the Federal level. (-Way less anonymity of responsibility for taxing & spending at the State level - which is why State income tax is always strikingly lower than Federal income taxes.) But the State will obviously know that it will have to pay some amount of taxes to the Federal Government just like all the other States. So it will adjust its tax policies to this reality.

Now notice how much easier it is for the Fed Gov to tag a 90% tax rate onto wealthy individuals under the current system than it is to tag it onto a State under the proposed 28th. The Fed Gov is not just taxing the rich in that State; it’s taxing the whole damn State. - And because of the equal protection clause it can’t target just one State. Any more than it can target just one rich man under the current system. The Fed Gov has to tax ALL of the States based solely on their accrued revenues.

It should be OBVIOUS how much harder it would be to raise taxes to 90% on States than on to a category of high income individuals. Do you really not see it?

I am trying to understand if you really think that State pork projects distributed from the Fed Gov are funded based on balanced budgeting?

So let me just ask it plain: Do you think that most States in the Union receive more in Federal pork favors than they pay out in taxes to fund the Federal pork favors in other States?

Actually - far from backwards - that is exactly the point I have been emphatically making for post after post: that the Fed spends a huge amount of money on the States that it does not have. (Otherwise known as “money it is not taking in.”)

Now that you see this point, do you understand that this money the Fed Gov does not have must eventually come from somewhere? - Like maybe future taxpayers?

What I see is the federal government takes $1 in and pays (now) $1.40 out. For a 40% return guaranteed, I could see states begging the feds to take 100%.

Yes, you can argue that equal protection means the tax rate must be the same. But it still doesn’t mean it has to SPEND THE SAME in each state.

So a high-tax state plays ball and gets the road projects, the big education dollars and the military personnel and materiel contracts. Low-tax states get a big sucking sound from the Federal Reserve inflating the currency and that’s about it. The Feds can play one state against the other for spending all day long. So the tax rate means nothing.

The Articles of Confederation specifically DENIED the Congress the power of taxation. Congress could only “request” money from State governments.

Therefore, you must not have understood the second sentence in the proposed Amendment. It explicitly gives the Congress the POWER to tax State revenues.

I see.... and how is the Federal Government going to compel compliance? Suppose a state runs a budget deficit ... what then? Are the taxes apportioned equally among states? What portion of the state budget would be exempt from Federal taxation? Who's gonna pay for all the lawsuits?

It won't work, FRiend.

No, it comes from you today in decreased purchasing power, i.e. inflation, or in unemployment if the Fed keeps churning it instead of monetizing it. They can only juggle the current number of dollars for so long, especially if foreigners won’t sit on more and more of it.

This debt will never BE paid because it has been paid in T-Bills they can’t spend because we have nothing to sell.

Now maybe we’re getting somewhere.

You admit that under the equal protection clause Congress will have to impose the same tax rates on States. And if Congress has never had the political will to raise the tax rates on all earners to 90%, we can be certain it will never have the will to raise the tax rate on all States to 90%. So, as is now obvious, it will be much harder to raise the tax rate on States.

But now you make the argument that just because States pay the Fed Gov the same rates in taxes, the Fed Gov does not have to spend the same on States.

Here’s the lynch pin. How can members of Congress survive politically if they vote for budget spending(that obviously must be paid for by taxes collect from ALL the States) that only benefits a few States? That is, if you are not one of the few Congressional members from one of the few lucky States getting all that fat Federal money, why on earth would you vote for the bill? There’s nothing in it for you! What, the vast majority of Congressional representatives in both chambers of Congress are going to vote to pass a bill to make a few States fat and sassy with Federal wealth? Of course not.

These are reasonable questions. Let me try to answer.

As stated in the proposed 28th Amendment, the revenue-tax levied by the Congress will be based _solely_ on the State’s accrued revenue. So, no, the Congress will not be levying any taxes that require apportionment among or within the States.
Similarly, the revenue-tax is not based on a State’s budget - but only on its accrued revenue. Though other political realities garnered by the proposed 28th Amendment make it very unlikely, a State could still run severe deficits just as California does today. However, the US Treasury will already received the taxes it is owed via wire transfer. Any time a State accrues revenue, just like every State it owes a percentage of that revenue in Federal taxes. There is no reason not to pay this money immediately because the money is immediately available in accrual; and the 28th Amendment gives the Congress the power to collect that money in the form of taxes. So while a State may still find a way to mismanage itself, it will never be behind on its taxes. And don’t forget: ALL tax pasture within the borders of a State are now the exclusive province of that State. So the State will have direct and immediate access to all those tax dollars that the Federal Government was getting before. That’s HUGE money that stays in the State. All tax dollars must first come into the possession of the State government before the Fed can get its bite.

The same people will pay for the lawsuits as always pay for them: the filers and the defenders. But who’s gonna sue? And what for?

By the math that you and I have already established and agreed upon (-and we worked hard on that) it MUST be not more than a few. If any.

You and I have already established that the Fed pays out WAY more to States than it takes in. We both know that is the very definition of deficit spending.

When each and every Governor looks at what the Federal Government “pays out” for the sum total of pork projects for ALL the States, they will do the simple division necessary to come up with a huge number per State to fund all of the pork. (You don’t need to be concerned with the foreign aid of Guam and the like here. Just the pork projects.) Each Governor will then look at the dollar value the Federal Government will be spending in the Governor’s State. [Now please tell me in your next post if you do not understand or agree with what I write next.] That value that each Governor’s State will receive in Federal pork will be starkly eclipsed by what it must ultimately pay to fund the pork in other States.

This mathematical reality should be obvious enough from the fact that the Fed Gov is engaged in monstrous deficit spending. Yes, some of it goes to Guam. But do you believe that there is any Federal pork given to any State that is based on balanced budgeting?

If not, there is obviously no 55% of the States eating the other 45% of the States.

Rather there is obviously 100% of the States paying way too much for Federal waste and inefficiency that 100% of the States are going to have to pay for in higher taxes to the Federal Government. State Governors don’t want to lose even a smidgen of their State’s power on that dumb scheme. It does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for them as Governors. There is no motivation for them to support it. And every motivation for them to rail against it.

Like I said in #72, the feds take their thick percentage off the top. (This is sounding more and more like STAR TREK “A Piece of the Action”.)

So the feds take 90% and return 110% to states with a 50% tax rate on the people. Big boon to that state.

The feds take 90% and return 40% to a state that taxes the people 10%. Big sucking sound. And that state has to work on 1% that it kept plus 4% that comes back (including direct payment to individuals.) That state is going to have to raise taxes $10 to keep $1 and play ball. Maybe the feds give them 110% when their taxes are in line.

When you say “the Feds” will do this and the “the Feds” will do that, we should come to an agreement that “the Feds” are members of Congress with cushy jobs that have to stand for re-election. And the this and that in percentages that you’re saying these officeholders will send to the States in the form of taxes and benefits, we should come to an agreement that these are specific public bills that must be voted on by the members. “The feds” don’t just return “40%” to some of the States. Whatever the members will return to a State in the way of pork has to take the form of a pork bill.

Assume you are a normal US Senator hoping for re-election to your cushy, prestigious seat in Washington. It’s budget proposal time and being the crafty politician you are, you have managed to tuck a sweet piece of pork into the bill for your State. Boy, will you ever be popular for bringing home the bacon that funds the $200 million dollar bridge to nowhere in your State. It’s even going to be named after you.

But a week before you vote on the bill, every major newspaper in your State runs the splash headline that the bill is going to cost your State billions of dollars to fund the collective pork of all the other States - in exchange for a $200 million dollar bridge. The Governor calls you personally and tells you this is a major detriment for the State. He calmly explains that he and the entire State legislature plus will be endorsing your election challenger if you vote yes on the bill.

So, UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide, please answer the simple question: which way would you vote?

UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide:

Let’s face it. You can’t answer that last question in post #79. Because the answer TOTALLY COLLAPSES your argument.

The only plausible answer is that as a sitting US Senator hoping for re-election that there is no way in hell you’re going to vote for a bill that demonstrably harms the financially interests of your State. You wouldn’t even survive the primary.

And you’ll not that I intentionally did not name the State you hypothetically represent in this scenario. – Because it doesn’t matter. This scenario would play out identically in every State where it is announced by the local press and the Governor that the bill was a billion dollar detriment to the State.

This makes it clear that under the proposed 28th Amendment, the members of Congress (“the Feds” as you term them) will have ZERO political will to pass pork laden bills.

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.