Posted on 09/25/2003 8:29:28 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
It is easy to point out the flaws in this welfare state known as America. But while this nation has become a mere shadow of the constitutional republic it once was, people are starting to fight back.
In my last column I praised the people of Alabama for voting down a tax increase that had been proposed by Republican Governor Bob Riley. The reactions I received from readers were overwhelmingly positive, and I could not help but feel encouraged.
Michael, of Owens Cross Roads, had this to say:As an Alabamian, it constantly amazes me how we as a nation seem to always equate government with benevolence. One of my main points in the whole tax debate was that taxes should be lowered, not raised, since that would give me more opportunities to be generous--not only to my own family, but to others. I just see raising taxes as creating more inefficiencies in government, not increased benevolence.
From Wetumpka, Ala., John wrote:As one of the 68% that voted "NO" on Sept. 9th, I'm happy that "Billion Dollar Bob's" tax increase did not pass...Why give more money to the same politicians that got us in this financial mess in the first place? The legislature should be good stewards of the money they receive now, not weep and wail for more money and promise to be accountable if they get more money. These people lose touch with reality when they are elected.
Those readers who e-mailed me from all across the South shared this attitude; readers like Julie Ann:I sincerely hope that our Beloved Southland will wake up to what centralized government really does to a nation. If people would just wake up to see the knife at our throat from a run-amok government, then maybe we could stem the tide!
Others shared my belief that what we are seeing in Alabama may only be a glimpse of what's to come. Carlton wrote:There is a movement starting to build in the South that will sweep the nation over the next decade or two that is going to reestablish the Republic that our founders intended. Keep the faith, and never give up that goal, for as sure as there's a God in heaven, it's coming.
Pris from Devine, Tex., agreed--and reminded me why I've always had a soft spot in my heart for spirited Southern belles:Why, darlin', this article is so exactly right it's amazing! All us poor, unlettered, gap-toothed Southerners are indeed getting mad as hell. Alabama is just taking the lead--watch out for Mississippi and Georgia.
Cary, a transplanted Southerner living in Norman, Okla., understands that tax increases only serve to perpetuate the welfare state, and that personal responsibility is the key:I am middle-aged, and was laid off from my job last year...I've been living off of money which I was smart enough to save when I had a better job.
Alabama has the right to make such decisions as taxes on their own without the advice or consent of any other governing body or organization or individual in this country. You are right: socialism is not the answer.
Steven, a Texan from Corpus Christi, echoed the same sentiment:As you pointed out, some people just don't get it. More taxes are not needed; better use of the taxes we have is what is needed.
Some Southerners, like Sean, took a more hard-line approach:We need to leave the Union again. I wish I could set here and list all the reasons why, but that will take all day, and I need to go to work and have half of my money taken from me.
As long as there are voters out there who understand the nature of leviathan, there is hope. Just remember that as we begin to starve the beast, it will grow more and more desperate. Things may get worse before they get better, but rest assured that this is a winnable war. If these responses are any indication, the tide has already begun to turn in our favor.
Indeed.
Tide turning against big government? HA! Thats the laugh of the year.
Tide turning against big government? HA! Thats the laugh of the year.
I would never expect it to occur in the Northeast or in California.
A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time. Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic
SOCIALISTS R U.S.
I s the constitution inconvenient? That's what the Nevada supreme court thinks. In a 6-1 decision handed down Thursday, the Court held that the state legislature may disregard a constitutional provision requiring a 2/3 majority to increase taxes. The Court declared that "when a procedural requirement that is general in nature prevents funding for a basic, substantive right," such as public education, "the procedure must yield."
The case arose when Governor Kenny Guinn sued the legislature for failing to pass a budget which increased spending by $1.6 billion dollars, and increased taxes by more than $860 million. Guinn first convened two special legislative sessions to consider his budget, but limited their discussion in an important way. Since Nevada had already spent almost all its projected income, any more spending would force lawmakers either to cut spending elsewhere, or raise taxes. But the governor's order prohibited them from even discussing spending cuts.
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.