PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO FREE REPUBLIC TODAY OR BECOMING A MONTHLY DONOR
CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE TO DONATE
Posted on 10/23/2011 4:57:25 PM PDT by JOHN W K
In November of 2010 in Don’t be VAT stupid Herman Cain writes:
``A national retail sales tax on top of all the confusing and unfair taxes we have today is insane! It gives the out-of-control bureaucrats and politicians in denial one more tool to lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country.``
The fact is, Herman is now proposing a new tax, a national retail sales tax, in addition to taxing corporate profits and incomes, and also would tax the wages working people earn. Herman Cain essentially admitted in the above mentioned article his existing plan is ``insane!`` So, why do so many “conservatives” support this Washington Establishment Hobson’s Choice candidate whose mission is to give another taxing power to Congress with which to ``lie, deceive, manipulate and destroy this country``?
And why is it that our ``conservative`` talk show hosts give this former federal reserve bank chairman, a Washington Establishment insider, a pass on his ``opportunity zones`` which attack our free market system? Why do they not object to Mr. Cain proposing to give preferential treatment under law that would relieve residents living in his designated “opportunity zones” a duty to contribute an equal tax burden as those not within his designated zones? Is this proposed preference of commerce not in defiance of our founder’s intentions when they added the following words to our Constitution? “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.”
Why is it that our “conservative” talk show hosts are silent in connection with Herman Cain’s proposed assumption of power to enter the various united States to enforce unequal law and meddle in each State’s internal commerce when such activity defies the very words of our founder‘s intentions which are summarized as follows? “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”.
Has FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Doc Thompson, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, or any talk show questioned Herman Cain’s proposed assumption of powers which is very similar to that of Obama’s Solyndra type “green deals” which were hatched to plunder the American Taxpayer’s federal treasury and loot it of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS?
And why is it than none of the above “conservative” media personalities are concerned that a power to “designate” geographical areas within each of the various united States to be an “opportunity zone” invites political partisanship of the most dangerous kind in that a democrat president, as exhibited by the Obama Administration, will use such power to reward friends and punish political enemies? I thought Rush Limbaugh was the fountain of all political knowledge and would see through this Washington Establishment’s cooked up scheme to enlarge its blackmailing powers over the States [e.g., federal highway funds and the Establishment’s No Child Left Behind Act] and further enslave the defenders of a free market system. And these complaints do not even take into account how Herman Cain’s proposal feeds the class warfare game which our folks in Washington have learned to play to perfection with their good-cop bad-cop routine which is engaged in by the leadership of both political parties, and done so in concert!
And finally, where is Mark Levin who continually informs us of the virtues of federalism who seems to have closed his eyes to a wolf in sheep’s clothing whose mission is admittedly designed to further erode the defined and limited powers of our federal government as summarized by our very own Supreme Court shortly after our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment was adopted to preserve and protect the virtues of federalism?
“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law, 1858.
I’m sorry but your claim to know what the Founder intended based on nothing but your own opinions is absurd.
>> In defense of the poster, did you read the article? It appears that in fact Herman is not clear in his article about the difference between a VAT, the Fair tax, and a national sales tax. >>
I did read the article, and I’ve read the VAT tax he was opposing in the article, and I’ve read the FAIR TAX book. If you had read any or all of that, you would have understood it too.
I find it odd how the critics of Empowerment zones always overlook the fact they were created by Reagan.
I agree.
Ho hum. So, I wonder who you support? How is a flat tax an attack? Seems to me we have the “entitlement class” paying nothing at one end (the occupy crowd), and the GE and Berkshire Hathaway crony capitalism at the other. Cain is the ONLY person who would make BOTH groups PAY their fair share.
Fair share? Our founding fathers wrote the fair share formula in our Constitution for any general tax laid among the States! Our founders understood a suicidal evil of democracy under which 51 percent of a nation’s population is free to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. And to protect against such evil they adopted the rule of apportionment to be strictly enforced if imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and internal taxes on “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures, in which case a general tax was then to be laid among the States, but only in compliance with the rule of apportionment which predetermines each State’s fair share of a total sum being raised, and prevents the class warfare game. The formula being:
State`s Pop
. _________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN
U.S. pop.
But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves and explain the rule of apportionment!
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:
“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
Also 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” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
And, 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‘s, 255
And then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil being corrected!:
“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 [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41
Our founding fathers understood the importance of tying both representation and taxation by the same standard and they commanded by our Constitution, representation with proportional obligation, or, one vote one dollar. And it is this part of the rule of apportionment (one vote one dollar) which pinko progressives disdain because it discourages the Congressional Delegations of those states with large pinko populations such as New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc., from using their large representation in Congress to recklessly spend money from the federal treasury, and it does this by requiring them to return home with a bill for their State to pay an apportioned share of the federal tab proportionately equal to their voting strength in Congress whenever a general tax is laid among the States. Progressives just love their one man one vote part of the Constitution, but when it comes time for that one vote one dollar part of our Constitution to be implemented they run and hide and pretend our Constitution does not mean what our founders intended it to mean.
Regards,
JWK
So are you knowingly misleading here or do you simply have no clue what you are talking about?
The Constitution was amended as it was designed to be to allow for an income tax. I can see an argument for the same to happen for a national sales tax, but if you’re suggesting that we go back to a pre-1913 tax system, you’re dreaming.
It will NEVER happen.
Thank you for spelling out Cain’s actual intention, to REPLACE the existing tax code with his 999 plan.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen Freepers screaming about “adding” new taxes on top of the taxes we already have.
>> Herman is not getting rid of the income tax with his 999 plan. >>
I hate to be snippy, but you are simply factually ignorant in every post you’ve made in this thread. Cain gets rid of a 70 thousand word code in his 999 plan and replaces it with a simple flat income tax piece. Are you being obtuse on purpose or is this really that complicated for you?
That’s a serious question, because your vapid assumptions are stunting any serious debate on the issue because kindergarten mistakes have to be corrected before we can even get to the philosophical issues.
PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO FREE REPUBLIC TODAY OR BECOMING A MONTHLY DONOR
CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE TO DONATE
Yep, jut like you Marty, the author of this article is another lying opportunist knowingly misrepresenting what Cain actually said.
Try reading the Cain articles for a change, don't just lie about them.
Think what you will of a national sales tax, but it's not "another" or even a new power. You pay a national sales tax every time you buy a gallon of gasoline or a tire (just to name two). The federal government has imposed excise taxes on goods and services for virtually our entire history.
You can certainly disapprove of the power, but you can't call it new.
Probably all the talk show hosts know more than you on the subject....maybe you should reconsider your stand and maybe your the one that is wrong...Unless you see yourself as being smarter than all of them put together...(but I doubt that you are)
>> Thank you for spelling out Cain’s actual intention, to REPLACE the existing tax code with his 999 plan.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen Freepers screaming about “adding” new taxes on top of the taxes we already have. >>
You and Ken21 are going to have to take it from here on this thread - I can’t risk losing IQ points by continuing to debate a few of the folks involved here. It is giving me a headache.
Those carve outs are a legitimate concern with the plan. So is transition and a few other issues. What kills me are the ignorant misconceptions that so many keep repeating - which adds nothing to the discussion.
I would say 99.9% of the complaints about 999 are based in ignorance. I’d like to get to some real issues with it.
Are you just too stupid to comprehend what Cain said RIGHT in your 1st line?
9-9-9 REPLACES, it does not ADD to the Tax code.
Are you really this completely stupid?
Second in stupidity to “But 9-9-9 can become 25-25-25!” like all other tax systems are immune from rate increases. FUD is alive and well on FR, and it’s pathetic.
Friend, you've done an admirable job of rebutting the fallacious statements about Cain's tax proposal on this thread. None of us can do more than reiterate what you've already said.
Well done (and I'm outta here, too).
Are you unable comprehend what Cain said RIGHT in the very 1st line of your ignorant rant?
9-9-9 REPLACES, it does not ADD to the Tax code.
Are you really this completely stupid?
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.
