Replies

Beardsly Ruml is not the expounder of the Constitution, he is merely another minion expressing an opinion of socialist intrusion into this nation's politics.

Beardsley may not be an expounder on the Constitution (who is really), but he certainly is not just another minion. He was chairman of the NY FED and architect of the withholding we all suffer from our paychecks today. Hardly your everyday dude. You are good to debate all this stuff, with the likes of me and Buckaroo. There are way more than just two of us that suspect something is wrong out there. We are told over and over that this is a constitutional republic, but it doesnt feel like it, especially on taxes. So I am a TP, but not a resistor. Just got my Klipingers 'Tax Cut' software, but like you I'm not filing till the last minute. Heck with em.

You maintain that the constitution is relevant to tax policy, and it is merely the clamoring for freebies. or representation without taxation thats wrong. A uniform sales tax would be better you say. At least the freeloaders would have less incentive to demand goodies from the most inefficient of sources, the government.

Beardsley paints a very different picture,and it seems more like our present reality. He says:

"All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue."

He goes on at some length telling how this contituency or that is controlled by taxation, and all of it is for implementation of public policy. The problem of raising revenue was solved he say by making the dollar nonconvertable. We can just print the money we need now he says.

Ruml is reporting on the world we live in. He is not proposing some wild socialistic scheme. How does the "Fairtax" implement public policy? How does it stabilize the fiat dollar, how does it limit individual wealth accumulation, how does it subsidize favored industries, and how does it visibly place a price tag on certain national benefits? That was public policy in 1946. Its not far different from public policy now I suspect.

He [Beardly Ruml] goes on at some length telling ... print the money we need now he says.

So? Are you one of those worshipers of Beardsly Ruml's alter?

How does the "Fairtax" implement public policy?

The Constitution sets enumerated limits of the powers of Congress, to set public policy through its enactments of "public law", not to fullfill, the aspirations of Ruml's or any socialist's desires.

The Fair tax merely implements the Constitutional mandate of taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

For it is the Constitution that set the boundries of public policy.

How does it stabilize the fiat dollar,

The Fair Tax doesn't only fiscal responsibility under the powers of Congress can do that under the Constitution.

how does it limit individual wealth accumulation,

The FairTax doesn't nor should any appropriate tax system limit individual wealt accumulation.

how does it subsidize favored industries,

It doesn't it a economically neutral tax, not should it under the express purposes of taxes under the Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

and how does it visibly place a price tag on certain national benefits?

It doesn't as that is not the function of a Constitutional tax under Article 8 Section 1 of the Constitution. It does however expose the impact of the federal burden on the individual citizen through the required printing of the tax for each product/service purchased. Which is a proper function of an appropriate tax that the American people may perceive the cost and exercise the proper "eternal vigilance" that is necessary to defending our liberties.

Beardsly Ruml does not establish the purposes of the Constitution. His writings have been used to justify the corruption of a Consitutional tax system into a tool of political and social control.

The fundamental purpose of taxation under the Constitution is "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,"

Not to provide the wish list of Beardsly Ruml. The Constitution to not prevent Congress from abusing power or commiting indescretions making injurious statutes, so long as Congress is exercising its powers within the bounds of the enumerate powers of the Constitution.

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

"'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

It is up to the people to restrain their representatives.