Thumbs up to Mark Levin on phony balanced budget amendment!

11-19-11 | JOHN W K

[JOHN W K]

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Mark Levin, on his Friday show, express his rejection of the phony balanced budget amendment and giving his support to the four Republicans who voted against it. My only disappointment with Mark on this issue is his failure to associate our founder’s expressed intentions to have the rule of apportionment applied when dealing with deficits should they occur, and how the rule of apportionment would make each State’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable if Congress spent more than is brought in from its normal means of raising a federal revenue, which would trigger the apportioned tax among the States to extinguish the shortfall:

States’ population

---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S OBLIGATION

Total U.S. Population

This rule of apportionment for any general tax among the States was intended to cure an evil of democracy under which 51 percent of a nation’s population use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. It was also intended to create a very real moment of accountability if Congress spent more than was brought in from imposts, duties and excise taxes.

It would be music to my ears and every “constitutional conservative” to hear Mark Levin use his God given verbal skills to articulate the threat and consequences each State’s Congressional Delegation would be working under while in Washington, D.C., and spending federal revenue, if the rule of apportionment were once again applied ___ especially the threat of each State’s very own Treasury hanging in the balance which would be depleted whenever a State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit.

And I’m sure Mark Levin would be able to articulate far better than I can how States with large pinko Congressional Delegations such as California, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey who now pretty much control spending from the federal treasury and are quite happy to vote for every progressive giveaway program because there are no consequences in the process, would suddenly have their Congressional Delegation returning home with a bill in hand for their State’s Legislature to pay an apportioned share of the pork their Congressional Delegation purchased while in Washington!

I would also love to hear Mark Levin use his God given gift to articulate the consequences if a State’s Legislature refused to pay their State‘s apportioned fair share to extinguish a deficit or were delinquent in paying it on time, under which circumstances Congress would be required to then enter the State and collect the amount due with (for example) a direct tax upon the real and personal property within the State. And if the owners of said property did not pay the tax due, then their property would be put up for a tax sale and the good news is, our California limousine riding, tofu-eating liberals would quickly come to their senses regarding big government spending!

Put this rule of apportionment back into operation, and the evil of democracy under which our nation now suffers (representation without proportional financial obligation) will be corrected, and Congress will once again be the servants of the people and not their masters which is what our founding fathers intended!

Mark Levin, please don’t let us down! Rise to the occasion and use your God given talent, and defend the clear thinking of our founding fathers!

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

[JOHN W K]

And how does all that apply to what I wrote?

Answer: It doesn`t

JWK

[JOHN W K]

The 16th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with “direct taxation”. Direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the States. The most recent confirmation being the Obamacare ruling in which Justice Roberts admits direct taxes are still required to be apportioned!

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)