John, I understand the founders intent, but as a practical matter, there would be no way now for the States and the Fed to agree on the “sum to be raised”.
As a matter of interest, when Washington sat down at the first cabinet meeting, there were five persons there in addition to George and his VP. (War, State, Treasury, postmaster, and attorney general.) When Obama sat down, there were fifteen cabinet members plus a whole slew of independent agency heads, I guess.
Until the size and scope of the Federal government is reduced, no way can excise taxes and a State levy fund the darn thing. By the way, there is a Tennessee guy promoting “My share” a plan similar to the founders plan, except that the formula is the amount to be raised divided by the total population. He assumes that the cost of the federal government might be reduced to $600 billion, so the cost per person would be $2,000 annually. How to get the cost down to $600B is the sticky wicket!
I raised the constitutional issue simply to point out an issue no Fairtax advocate seems to want to talk about. Assisted by a couple of Yale constitutional scholars, my focus was on the long held Supreme Court doctrine of “intergovernmental tax immunity”, which has guided the court decisions for a couple of hundred years. I have no clue what the present Court might decide should the Fairtax ever get a hearing, but I am sure the Founders would turn over in their graves at the idea of their creation taxing the creators.
I understand the founders intent, but as a practical matter, there would be no way now for the States and the Fed to agree on the “sum to be raised”.
Hbvg3
I’m a bit puzzled by your post since the States, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, are not authorized to agree on the “sum to be raised” by Congress. Our Constitution’s original tax plan grants power to Congress to raise existing levels of revenue without the State's approval! Keep in mind that if imposts and duties do not provide sufficient revenue, Congress also has the authority to lay internal excise taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption. And if these taxes are insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures, e.g., if an emergency such as war developed and a shortfall is created by Congress borrowing, then and only then is the apportioned tax to be laid to extinguish the deficit created by Congress‘ borrowing. But the apportioned tax, as you must fully be aware of, creates a very real moment of accountability for each States’ Congressional Delegation who must then return home with a bill in hand for their Governor and State’s Legislature to deal with. And it is this movement of accountability which, if practiced today, would encourage Congress while in Washington to shrink the size of the federal government and live within the means brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes to avoid the apportioned tax!
Bottom line is, our founding fathers original tax plan creates a very real incentive for Congress to shrink the size of the federal government, which you and I seem to be in agreement on.
In regard to your argument that “… the Fairtax creates a fatal confrontation between the Federal and State/Local governments over the proposed unconstitutional taxation by the federal government of State/Local government consumption.” I understand your argument and the constitutional conflict which the alleged fairtax would create. The Court in the Pollock decision put it this way, and with regard to apportionment:
The founders anticipated that the expenditures of the states, their counties, cities, and towns, would chiefly be met by direct taxation on accumulated property, while they expected that those of the federal government would be for the most part met by indirect taxes. And in order that the power of direct taxation by the general government should not be exercised except on necessity, and, when the necessity arose, should be so exercised as to leave the states at liberty to discharge their respective obligations, and should not be so exercised unfairly and discriminatingly, as to particular states or otherwise, by a mere majority vote, possibly of those whose constituents were intentionally not subjected to any part of the burden, the qualified grant was made. ___ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601
Since the tax described in H.R. 25 is essentially an across the board tax upon “property” both real and personal, it does create the constitutional conflict you mention and infringes upon the States’ resources under which to raise their revenue.
Unfortunately, Taxman approaches this issue in a manner that rejects productive criticism and truth and facts take a back seat to promoting the alleged fair tax.
Regards,
JWK
Are we really to believe the founder of fairtax.org., Leo E. Linbeck Jr., who was a former ringleader of the federal reserve banking cartel which plunders our national treasury?