They explicitly believed in limiting the power of government as much as possible, consistent with their belief that it was necessary for maintaining the peace.
I note that you have stated that your intent is to remove key elements of that Constititution...
Forest. Trees. You're rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic: the Constitution is already dead, yet you're pretending to defend it. If you want to do something, instead of blowing hot air, then do something about the unconstitutional spending that takes place, rather than continuing the rape using a new method.
All entitlement programs, including social security, medicare and medicaid, are unconstitutional. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated yearly savings: $1 trillion.
All regulatory agencies are unconstitutional: they are departments of the executive branch given legislative powers; the legislature has no authority to delegate legislative power to anyone. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated yearly savings: $30 billion in the federal budget; another $800 billion in indirect costs such as compliance costs.
All economic subsidies, including but not limited to farm and other food price supports, Amtrak, and the Import/Export bank, are unconstitutional. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated annual savings: $650 billion.
All foreign aid is unconstitutional. Eliminate all of it. Now. Estimated annual savings: $25 billion.
If the Constitution were followed, the US budget would be less than $700 billion, instead of about $2.4 trillion. Naturally, taxes would be reduced commensurately. Then we could talk about the best form of tax. What you're doing is supporting about $1.7 trillion in unconstitutional spending, while blathering as if you're defending the Constitution.
Like I said: rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
All entitlement programs, including social security, medicare and medicaid, are unconstitutional. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated yearly savings: $1 trillion.
Fine go ahead, I don't see your plan for accomplishing it. The FairTax legislation takes the initial first steps toward achieving that by assuring the entire electorate perceives the financial burden such programs impose through a common tax system that all participate in rather than the mechanisms in place that remove large sectors from even the perception of paying the bill for largess.
All regulatory agencies are unconstitutional: they are departments of the executive branch given legislative powers; the legislature has no authority to delegate legislative power to anyone.
Congress does not have the power to delegate legislative power to agencies. However agencies are the implementation of executive power authorized by legislative authority of Congress through implementation of law. And Congress without doubt has been given authority to enact laws that implement there authority to regulate interstate and international commerce, as well as several other areas under the enumerated powers of Article II Section 8.
Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated yearly savings: $30 billion in the federal budget; another $800 billion in indirect costs such as compliance costs.
With your magic wand to make this happen? LOL.
All economic subsidies, including but not limited to farm and other food price supports, Amtrak, and the Import/Export bank, are unconstitutional. Eliminate them all. Now. Estimated annual savings: $650 billion.
Sounds good, but once again you lack the magic wand to make it happen. Without the electorate perceiving a personal cost to them as a result of such subsidies, (e.g. consumption tax that all perceive the participate in) same old pattern will continue. FairTax legislation implements the first and necessary step toward electorate involvement in the political process of getting government back under control.
Walter Williams puts the essential problem before us and hints at its resolution very simply:
It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
- Walter Williams
Without the feed back of the costs of largess to the electorate, guess what government does what it does best pander to those who figure their getting a free lunch, and assure they don't wake up to reality by hiding the costs from their view.
Bush touts relief as tax day looms
Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.
That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, figuring someone else foots the bill.
All foreign aid is unconstitutional. Eliminate all of it. Now. Estimated annual savings: $25 billion.
Fine, why haven't you done it, what your plan that gets us from where we are today to where we should be. What's your first step in the process.
If the Constitution were followed, the US budget would be less than $700 billion, instead of about $2.4 trillion. Naturally, taxes would be reduced commensurately. Then we could talk about the best form of tax. What you're doing is supporting about $1.7 trillion in unconstitutional spending, while blathering as if you're defending the Constitution.
No change with out the involvement of the electorate. Where's your plan to bring them on board. The FairTax retail sales tax involves all persons directly in the process of paying for the largess. Until people perceive the cost in their lives of the largess they demand, guess what they will continue to demand more govenment.
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
APRIL 5, 2001
- "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government.
Like I said: rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Throwing out cliches doesn't make what you say a viable plan for change. Nor does what you say, have much to do with the reality of implementing the changes that must occur from the ground up to get where we would like to be from where we are today.
Changing the tax system to one that is transparent and perceived by entire electorate is but a first step in a long process of restoring government to the bounds envisioned by the founders of our Constiutional republic.
Your anarchy is not an answer nor a process with defined goals it is merely the institution of choas which begs for tyranny to step in.
The argument is not whether various spending programs and whether or not the are copnstitutional. It would probably surp[rise you to know that many who support the FairTax also believe that spending is out of control and must be reduced.
Bringing the FairTax into play as our tax system is just a start.
But you still haven't identified who your "pay no taxes" guru might be. John Kotmair perhaps??? Bob Schulz??