Posted on 02/16/2014 6:09:45 PM PST by JOHN W K
In 2012 Mark Levin took the time to explain the Electoral College to his audience. But in doing so, he omitted a vital piece of information that ties the size of each State’s number of Electoral College votes to taxation, which is no longer enforced and actually encouraged California to elect a socialist/progressive president!
CLICK HERE to listen to Mark explain the Electoral College, omitting how taxation is tied to the size of each State’s Electoral College vote, which in turn omits the importance of why our founders tied taxation and representation by the rule of apportionment.
Just for the record and regarding the importance of the rule of apportionment, let’s get down to some upsetting facts regarding California‘s 55 electoral college votes. According to recent nimbers, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the State of California has an overwhelming 55 Electoral College votes compared to any of these states!
For example, and according to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be a $9,036.74 tax per capita. And Wyoming, under the rule of apportionment is allotted 3 Electoral College votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 tax per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 Electoral College votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why should this upset the people of Wyoming and 17 other States? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:
State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.
State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
U.S. Pop
In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 Electoral College votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California in spite of the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution which requires an equal per capita tax.
In 2007, if the rule of apportionment were applied to taxation and representation as intended by our Founders, and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. Although California’s total share of the tax under the rule of apportionment would be far greater than that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated by its larger Electoral College vote in the last election which is also part of the rule of apportionment and gives them a greater say when spending federal revenue!
As things are California got to exercise 55 Electoral College votes in our last presidential election, but did not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive Electoral College vote as our Constitution requires. This is a direct assault upon the very purposes for which the rule of apportionment was adopted.
In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”
And during the ratification debated, the following comments are made with regard to the rule of apportionment:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And see:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41
Now, picture for a moment if California had to pay an apportioned share of Obama’s 2013 federal deficit based upon its 55 Electoral College votes. Do you really think California would remain a blue State and vote to re-elect another socialist/progressive like Obama? It seems only too obvious that the people of California would not be too happy to have to deplete their own pocket to fund Washington’s profligate spending and borrowing, and would quickly realize there is no such thing as a free cheese wagon which Obama would have us all believe there is.
But the tragedy is, that part of our Constitution’s rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned, which has never been repealed, is totally ignored! And it is ignored by not only our Republican Party Leadership, but also by Mark Levin along with every other “conservative” radio talk show host I know and includes Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Herman Cain, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley … etc. But they will discuss every form of tax reform [a national sales tax, value added tax, the “fairtax”, a flat tax, etc.,] all of which keep the iron fist of government around the necks of the American people, but never our founder’s original tax plan which was based upon principles which do not change with the passage of time, especially the brilliance of its rule of apportionment.
JWK
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
“taxation is tied to the size of each State’s Electoral College vote”
Can you be more clear where this is in the Constitution?
Thats only $446.56 difference between CA and WY.
Why the hit piece on Mark? He’s one of the good guys.
Very insightful. You should call in and question him on it.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
All the commentary above regarding apportionment of the Electoral College according to per capita taxation is utterly ignorant rubbish.
Do the figures cited include income taxes collected under authority of the 16th Amendment?
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
You might want to check with someone who understands this a bit more than you.
You are way off base.
Yes, it would be great if you were correct, but you are not.
The Controlling Language is found in the Amendment which authorizes an Income Tax.
That negates the language you refer to.
You might want to check with someone who understands this a bit more than you.
You are way off base.
Yes, it would be great if you were correct, but you are not.
The Controlling Language is found in the Amendment which authorizes an Income Tax.
That negates the language you refer to.
The author forgets why the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1913. It was to provide for a federal income tax not bound to the rule on capitation.
Thus, the reason Mr. Levin did not say anything about this in his explanation of the workings of the Electoral College is for the simple reason that it is not in the text of the constitution.
That’s per tax payer. And it’s not a hit piece.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
Since the census was authorized for both representation and direct taxes, and since the same census representation is the basis for the Electoral College distributions, it is implied that direct taxes is the reason for the Electoral College?
-PJ
other than the fact you are incorrect and have totally ignored passage of the 16th amendment, what’s your point.
Pretty funny when a hack tries to call out ‘the great one’. You aren’t even in the same league
JWK
JWK
try reading the 16th amendment please
Yes indeed it did.
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Other than the fact you do not understand constitutional law, I guess you can claim to be spot on
JWK
Simple. Quote it to me, if you can. But you cannot.
I read out for you the clear and concise language that determines apportionment to the Electoral College. What do you have? Answer: Crap.
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.