Posted on 04/14/2002 2:17:00 PM PDT by PsyOp
Reprinted from political ad in the Western Australian Sunday Times, December 3, 1995
In 1944, Democratic U.S. Congressman Samuel Pettengill warned America that socialists would endeavor to have the U.S. spend itself into bankruptcy, with a view to making citizens totally dependent on a centralized government.
Pettengill detailed TEN POINTS of the socialist manifesto that would destroy free government. Almost 50 years later, down under in Australia, it is disturbing to reflect on Pettengill's 10 points.
1) People must be made to feel their utter helplessness and their inability to solve their own problems. While in this state of mind, there is held up before them a benign and all-wise leader to whom they MUST look to the cure for all their ills.
2) The principle of local self-government must be WIPED OUT, so that this leader or group in control can have all the political power readily at hand.
3) Constitutional guarantees must be swept aside. This accomplished in part by RIDICULING them as outmoded and an obstruction to progress.
4) Public faith in the legal profession and respect for the courts must be undermined. The law making body must be intimidated and from time to time rebuked, so as to prevent the development of public confidence in it.
5) Economically, the people must be ground down by high taxes, which under one pretext or another they are called upon to pay. Thus they are brought to a common level and all income above a meager living is taken from them. In this manner, economic independence is kept to a minimum.
6) A great public debt must be built so the citizens can never escape its burden, making government the virtual receiver for the entire nation.
7) A general distrust of private business and industry must be kept alive so the public may not begin to rely on its own resources.
8) Government bureaus are set up to control practically every phase of the citizen's lives.
9) The education of the youth of the nation is taken under CONTROL so that all may be indoctrinated at an early age with a spirit of submission to the system.
10) To supplement and fortify all the foregoing, there is kept up a steady stream of GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA designed to extol all who bow the knee and to vilify those who dare raise a voice of dissent.
Samuel Barret Pettengill U. S. Congressman 1886-1974 Reprinted from an article in Ken Hamblin 'Talks with America' News letter Feb. 19. 1996 P.O.. Box 562 Castle Rock, CO 80104
PETTENGILL, Samuel Barrett, (nephew of William Horace Clagett), a Representative from Indiana; born in Portland, Oreg., January 19, 1886; in 1892 moved to Vermont with his father, who settled on a farm in Grafton, Windham County; attended the common schools; was graduated from Vermont Academy at Saxtons River in 1904, from Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt., in 1908, and from the law department of Yale University in 1911; was admitted to the bar in 1912 and commenced practice in South Bend, Ind.; member of the board of education of South Bend, 1926-1928; elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-second and to the three succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1931-January 3, 1939); was not a candidate for renomination in 1938 to the Seventy-sixth Congress; resumed the practice of law; newspaper columist 1939-1948; vice president and general counsel of the Transportation Association of America, 1943-1945; national radio commentator, 1946-1948; attorney for the Pure Oil Co., Chicago, Ill., 1949-1956; consultant, the Coe Foundation, 1956-1965; resided at his boyhood farm near Grafton, Vt.; died in Springfield, Vt., March 20, 1974; interment in Grafton Village Cemetery, Grafton, Vt.
If the figures he cited are correct, I would have to assume they were not for adjusted gross income, or included other than just personal income taxes. Anyone seen this report and can comment on why the difference?
By contrast, the Tax Foundation numbers are nothing more or less than a compilation and tabulation of RAW IRS DATA. That report involves NO projections, assumptions or hypothesis. That data table does not attempt to interpret the numbers, nor make allowances. As Sgt. Joe Friday would say, "Just the facts." Anyone with a calculator and a FOI Act Request Form could easily come up with the same numbers and, in fact, would be hard pressed to come up with different numbers.
Also, take a look at the funding of both organizations. The Brookings Institution is funded almost entirely by large grants and endowments from people and organizations that stand to benefit from high taxes and control of wealth. The Tax Foundation, though it does receive significant funds from endowments, is funded largely by small donation from the general public. The Board of Trustees of the Brookings Institution is loaded with many names of people who stand to benefit from high taxation and financial control, including several bright red flags, like the past and current Presidents of the World Bank. The Policy Council of the Tax Foundation contains the names of many powerful people - mostly corporate tax executives - but contains none of the red flags, such as those found sprinkled liberally among the Brookings Trustees. (Note: some of those red flags would not be red flags if we were not talking about taxes. But, you can't convince me that people like James D. Wolfensohn, President of The World Bank and Robert L. Johnson, founder and Chairman of BET Holdings, Inc., including Black Entertainment Network, are not in favor of high taxes and government control of wealth.)
I think that I would put my faith in the Tax Foundation tabulations long before I would consider giving any credence to the Brookings Institution interpretations and projections. Besides, you know what they say about people who have spent time in an institution. :-)
"We don't have inflation because the people are living too well. We have inflation because the government is living too well." — Ronald Reagan.
Remember, "Only two things are for certain, death and taxes."
"Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of 'from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs'. That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him." — T. Coleman Andrews.
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy." — Justice John Marshall.
"What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector? The taxidermist takes only your skin." — Mark Twain.
"The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf." — Will Rogers.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." — Ronald Reagan.
"[I]f Congress fails to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, we'll actually suffer large tax increases... [T]he economy would shed more than 1 million jobs each year between 2011 and 2014. We'd lose more than $100 billion in economic output per year and suffer slower wage and salary growth and slower savings growth. America simply can't afford that." — Ed Feulner. 2006.
"Like it or not, the pressure to raise your taxes will be enormous in coming years no matter who controls Congress. The amount of money government spends, borrows, and prints simply cannot be sustained." — Ron Paul. 2006.
"Memo to the GOP in Congress, the White House and the Statehouse: We (the United States) didn't cut taxes, we didn't cut tax revenues, we didn't pass tax relief for the rich; we lowered the tax rate on labor and capital, and that is why the economy and revenues have surged since 2003." — Jack Kemp. 2006.
"The American people long for Congress to reaffirm our commitment to fiscal discipline and reform and House conservatives are ready to stand with our leadership to do just that." — Rep. Mike Pence. 2006.
"Ever since the late 1960s, the tax code has included alternative minimum tax provisions theoretically designed to prevent the 'rich' from using loopholes to avoid paying any federal income tax at all... Three things are now pulling middle-class families into the maws of this tax. First, unlike the normal income tax, the AMT was never indexed for inflation. As wages have crept up with prices, workers making relatively less-affluent incomes have crept closer and closer to the threshold that will subject them to the AMT. Secondly—and ironically—the cuts in the income-tax rates secured by President Bush are causing more middle-class families to have lower tax bills under the ordinary tax, thus exposing them to a potential AMT liability that would essentially seize the income that the Bush tax cuts would let them keep. Thirdly, the AMT does not allow deductions for dependent children, state income taxes or property taxes. Under AMT, more children means more federal taxes, and a more valuable house means more federal taxes... Why won't an all-Republican government push to simply abolish the AMT? Because it has already made plans to spend every penny of revenue the AMT will bring in to the federal coffers from its expanded taxation of middle-class families." — Terence Jeffrey, April 2006.
"The Democratic economic policy is higher taxes, more spending and bigger government. Republicans aren't much better. Their policy is lower taxes, more spending and bigger government. That's an echo, not a choice." — Cal Thomas, May 2006.
"Does anybody find it rude that on the day that Sen. Robert C. Byrd became the longest-serving senator in U.S. history he was named 'Porker of the Month' by Citizens Against Government Waste? We didn't think so. The West Virginia Democrat has sat on the Appropriations Committee since 1959, his first year in the Senate. He has been chairman and now is ranking member. In 1991, CAGW began tracking federal pork, and in those 15 years, West Virginia has received $2.95 billion in pork—ranked in the top four per capita for five years running. Not surprisingly, 33 projects in West Virginia bear Byrd's name, including the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope, the Robert C. Byrd Highway and the Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technologies Center. 'West Virginia has always had four friends: God Almighty, Sears Roebuck, Carter's liver pills and Robert C. Byrd,' or so the senator once boasted." —John McCaslin, "Patriot Post".
"Clearly, the greatest threat, the greatest threat to our country is the war on terror. But we also have another threat, and that is out-of-control federal spending. If we are going to buy the guns, we had better get a little lean on the butter, and we had better quit wrapping the butter in the American flag." — Rep. Jeb Hensarling, May 2006.
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry... has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who... have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson.
“The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. The wise and correct course to follow in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success, but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful.” — Calvin Coolidge.
“Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So we cut the people’s tax rates and the people produced more than ever before.” — Ronald Reagan.
“Are you entitled to the fruits of your own labor or does government have some presumptive right to spend and spend and spend?” — Ronald Reagan.
“The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution.” — Ronald Reagan.
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” — Ronald Reagan.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but Democrats believe every day is April 15.” — Ronald Reagan.
“Liberals are at it again. Just three months into their majority, Democrats are once again proposing the biggest tax increase in history... If it is passed, [the Democrats’ 2008 proposed] budget will impose the largest tax increase in history on American taxpayers—totaling nearly $400 billion over five years. Families with children, low-income families, and small businesses all would be hit with hundreds if not thousands of dollars in increased taxes. Just what taxes will be raised? Here are some of the specifics of the liberal proposal: The 10% Tax Bracket Will Become 15%: More than five million families and individuals who previously owed no taxes will become subject to taxation. Marriage Penalty Relief Will Be Eliminated: 23 million Americans will owe an average of $466 in additional taxes in 2011. The Child Tax Credit Will Be Cut in Half: 31 million Americans will pay an average of $859 more in taxes in 2011... You’re a family of four earning $60,000 a year: Your income-tax bill will rise 61% in 2011, from $3,030 to $4,893... You’re an elderly couple earning $40,000 a year: Your taxes will go up by 156% in 2011, from $583 to $1,489... You’re a woman: You could be one of the 83 million American women who could see their taxes rise by an average of $2,068... You’re married: You could be one of the 48 million married couples who will pay an average of $2,899 more under the liberal tax increase... You have kids: 42 million families with children will pay an average of $2,181 more in taxes.” — Newt Gingrich. April 2007.
“[One] ruse is the Democratic-media chorus that the Bush tax cuts must be repealed because they’ve left the Treasury high and dry...[T]ax receipts did plunge earlier this decade from their late-1990s heights, reaching a trough in fiscal 2004 of 16.3% of GDP. The economy was still recovering from the collapse of business investment and the stock market bubble, and no doubt the lower Bush rates played a role in reducing revenue for a time. But the lower rates also provided a spur to incentives that led to a rebound in investment, stock prices and ultimately in economic growth, individual incomes and corporate profits. This produced, in turn, a very sharp rebound in federal tax receipts—to 17.6% of GDP in fiscal 2005 and 18.4% in 2006. The Congressional Budget Office—now run by Democrats—predicts it will reach 18.6% in fiscal 2007. This is slightly above the 40-year historical average of 18.3%... Despite the Bush tax cuts—or we should say because of them—federal revenues are above where they’ve been for most of the last half century. The government is far from starved for cash. What Democrats really don’t want you to know is what will happen to receipts after 2010 if the tax cuts expire... A tax increase of that magnitude could well lead to a recession and a plunge in receipts...[T]he tax increase fuse has now been lit. Do nothing and taxes will rise as much as they have at any one time since World War II. Democrats have made the decision to obscure this burning fuse, and the press corps is ignoring it. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the country has to play along.” — The Wall Street Journal. April 2007.
“Liberals and journalists are fond of telling us that raising taxes is the only way out of scary budget deficits that will be handed down to our children and grandchildren. But Americans don’t buy that argument. In a February 2007 PSRA/Pew Research Center poll, people were asked what they thought was the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit. Only 9 percent said tax increases were the best way. A combined 69 percent said they’d rather see government reduce spending. They probably noticed the amazing economic growth this country has seen since the tax cuts went into effect...Americans support tax reform—if only legislators would be honest about their tax reform plans... Americans may not know what all those politicians are talking about—who does?—but they know the tax code is crazy and that they should get to keep more of their own money. A majority are familiar with at least one ‘reform’ proposition. More than half the respondents in a March 2007 Harris/Tax Foundation poll said they’d prefer a flat-rate tax or a national sales tax (like the FairTax) over the current graduated income tax system. I agree with those people who think all the doubletalk about ‘reform’ is too confusing. Besides, whenever the Democrats talk about taxes, they are talking about raising them. Americans don’t want higher taxes. What we need is a simple system where everyone can plainly see—and choose for themselves—how much tax they are paying. The only plan that even comes close to achieving that is the FairTax. Well, I don’t think we should talk about tax reform any more. No more tax reform; it’s time for replacement.” — Herman Cain. April 2007.
“[A]s a first step toward real tax reform, I would like to show, in very simple terms, how individual income taxes could painlessly be eliminated: reduce federal spending to the level it was at the beginning of the previous administration...[T]he total revenue of the federal government during its most recently completely fiscal year was $2.406 trillion and... individual income taxes collected during this period were $1.043 trillion. This means that if you subtract the income taxes collected from total revenue you end up with $1.363 trillion for the federal government to spend. That is just a little less than the government spent during the fiscal year in which [Bill] Clinton began his first term. Are income taxes evil? Yes. Should they be eliminated? Yes. Would it be a terrible thing if the federal government still spent over $1 trillion? Yes. But it is a start. It is real tax reform. With no income tax, there will be no capital gains tax, no withholding tax, no EITC welfare program, and no refundable child credit welfare program... All of this, of course, depends on Congress. Although it is true that the president submits a budget to Congress, it is Congress that ultimately decides on the amount of federal spending. It is only because we have a monstrous welfare/warfare state that the government ‘needs’ to collect an income tax. The beginning of Clinton’s presidency was not that long ago. The income tax can be abolished. It can be done quickly; it can be done painlessly—and it can be done for the benefit of the American taxpayer instead of the federal leviathan. Now that is real tax reform.” — Laurence Vance. April 2007.
“Americans are natural procrastinators when it comes to unpleasant tasks, so it should be no surprise that surveys show half of all tax filers wait until this last week before the April 16 deadline to do their taxes. No wonder: This year there are a record 66,000 pages of mostly incomprehensible tax laws to comply with, and for those with really complicated returns, 526 separate forms that may need to be filled out. In 2005 an astonishing six out of every 10 taxpayers needed the help of a trained professional to complete their returns. Tax preparation is now one of America’s fastest growth industries...[T]o make sense of their taxes American workers and businesses devote 6.4 billion hours a year, about 45 hours per return. There are now 16 separate tax breaks for college education and several dozen for energy conservation, including write-offs for such things as purchasing electricity-saving refrigerators... In 1914 the total income-tax collections were $10 billion (in today’s dollars). Now the income tax gathers in roughly $1 trillion, and gathering that stash requires a massive collection machine. The original IRS enforcement office had 4,000 employees. Now the IRS has 100,000 tax agents, more employees than the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Food and Drug Administration combined. Yet Congressional Democrats want to hire thousands more tax agents to audit more Americans and close the $300 billion ‘tax gap.’ Before hiring more tax snoops, we might want to heed the warning of historian Charles Adams, who notes in his book ‘For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization’: ‘From the earliest records of civilization, tax laws have taken away liberty more often than foreign invaders’.” — Stephen Moore. April 2007.
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.