On Repealing the 16th Amendment

The Constitution originally required that any direct tax levied by the federal government had to be levied proportionally to the population of the several states.  Essentially, any direct federal tax was to be a truly flat dollar amount per person.  So, if you think about the “flat tax” which so many are calling for (i.e. taxing income at some flat percentage rate), even that flat tax is a progressive tax in that, the higher your income, the more tax you would pay.  Having a tiered income tax is actually a hyper-progressive tax.  (If you’ll allow me a self-indulgent aside, I am amused by the hypocrisy of unions on the issue of a progressive tax code; hypocrisy…because most, if not all of them, charge a flat percentage on their dues, not a “hyper-progressive rate”.)

The 16th Amendment reads thusly:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect
    taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,
    without apportionment among the several States,
    and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The 16th Amendment was intended to allow, for the first time, a direct federal tax on individual income and is almost surely more subversive of Constitutional principles than most people realize.  Can we, now, even imagine a United States in which there was no direct taxation of the people or where any direct taxation of a family was on a per capita basis (i.e. some set amount per family member)?  But… The income tax, itself, may not even be the most harmful aspect of the Amendment.

The second half of that Amendment (“…without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration”) essentially gutted Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 4 of the Constitution, which says:  “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”  It is the 16th Amendment which has become an insidious tool for social engineering and which has empowered our federal government to pick winners and losers in the consumer market as well as punish success in the labor market.

To establish a little background… There was a time when much of the federal budget was paid through duties or tariffs on imports (…and it could be once again).  I, for one, believe in America!  I believe that we are completely capable of being a self-sustaining nation without any importing or exporting.  This is NOT to say that we SHOULD become so isolated from the economies of the world.  What it says, instead, is that “…doing business in America is a privilege and foreign businesses need us more than we need them.”

Despite the cries of “protectionism”, one impact of a revenue system based more heavily duties/tariffs is that it levels the playing field somewhat for American workers who may have to compete against what could essentially be called a foreign “slave labor” market.  But the real motivation for duties/tariffs is more fundamental…  Why should we tax the American worker at all when we could be taxing others for the privilege of doing business with us?  By allowing Congress the power to tax our own workers, our own corporations, or our own economy, we are, in fact, assuring that foreign labor markets have an enormous advantage over our own people.  Also, understand that every consumer dollar we spend on foreign merchandise is another dollar drained from our own economy.

All of these unhealthy economic conditions inexorably stem back to our form of taxation and ultimately, therefore, to the 16th Amendment.  A lot of people hate the IRS and hate income taxes and would like to repeal the 16th Amendment for those reasons alone, but even those are not the primary reason for such a repeal…

When the 16th Amendment was passed, the whole taxation dynamic was changed.  Congress was basically given the power to tax without considering fairness in any way.  Congress was given the power to socially engineer through taxation!  We would like to think that “it could never happen”, but there is nothing to prevent Congress from taxing any income above, say, $20,000 at a 100% rate, then giving back to us some small portion of those funds…as Congress sees fit.  I’ve often complained (as Congress has raised taxes and fees back through the years) that they wouldn’t be happy until they are taxing us at 100%…and where do you go from there?  Flatly, the 16th Amendment needs to be repealed.

Then, what should our tax plan look like?  While I really like Herman Cain, I hate the 9-9-9 tax plan.  The Ryman tax plan is much better!  It is the 0-0-0 tax plan!  “Makes no sense!  Where would we get our revenue?”  The Ryman tax plan would be revenue neutral and yet no individual or corporation would pay any direct federal tax.  Intrigued?  For more info on the best tax plan you’ve never heard anything about, I would encourage you to read my “de-centralized tax plan” blog in: “On Taxation…”

On Taxation...

The debate rages on over the most “fair” way to tax America.  Some suggest a flat tax, eliminating all loopholes.  Many others think that the Fair Tax plan is the way to go.  One Presidential hopeful (whom I like) proposes the “9-9-9 plan”…not realizing the way Washington works (…meaning that it would soon become the 12-12-12 plan, then 20-20-20 plan).  A few political-dinosaurs want only minor changes (up and/or down) to the tax rates on individuals and/or corporations.  Some good ideas… Some bad… But all wrong…

Which plan is the best?  Answer:  None of the above!  Nowhere have I heard what I believe to be the best plan…the FOuRTH Party plan!  Instead of having the federal government dictate the best plan for all of America, we believe that the best plan would be to:

1)  Repeal the 16^th Amendment and specifically remove the power of the federal government to directly tax any individual or corporation.  (Constitutionally deny Congress the ability to pick winners and losers in the business world; constitutionally deny Congress the ability to socially engineer the American tax system.)  Then…

2)  Have the federal government equally tax each of the states on a per capita basis, allowing each state the freedom to decide the best plan for their own state in meeting the state’s federal obligation.

The economies of our various states are not the same.  Some states might find it advantageous to use property taxes, others income taxes or sales taxes, and still others might tax their tourism industry more heavily.  Personally, I would like to see most states double their sales tax, then give sales tax exemptions for all American-made (or State-made) products.  But…  Such decisions should reside with the states.

Under such a “de-centralized” tax plan, each state could experiment and follow its own convictions.  More importantly, it would further exploit the value of competition which already has some impact through just state taxes.  Under a de-centralized tax plan, citizens and industries, alike, would be free to “vote with their feet” as to which states truly used the most fair tax system!  It wouldn’t be long before it became abundantly clear which states had the more sound fiscal policy and the best method of taxation…which makes THIS de-centralized tax plan the best tax plan.

On Education...

Education is a classic example of where the Federal government has usurped the powers of the States.  Constitutionally, the Feds have no authority over the education of our children.  The Feds do not have the power to regulate it, nor even demand it.  They do not have the authority to tax us in order to fund it (at any level).  They do not have the power to dictate what must be included in the curriculum, nor what cannot be included in the curriculum.  ALL of these powers are reserved, Constitutionally, to the States.

Reagan, who was generally considered by others to be a Conservative, actually let us down in this area.  After campaigning on the promise to abolish the Department of Education, he failed to do so.  The power of that department has, instead, been extended drastically to the point that the Department of Education reportedly now has its own armed enforcement division.

Even the Federal court system has no jurisdiction in these areas, beyond infringements upon the Constitutional rights of citizens on other various issues.  One such example would be the right to “equal protection under the law” as was infringed by having a supposedly “separate but equal” education system for black Americans, something challenged successfully during the civil rights era.

“But why…” one might ask, “Why is federal involvement a bad thing?  We all want a good educational system for our kids, right?”  Okay, the first and most obvious rebuttal would be, “Is that what we have?”  A centralized bureaucracy is seldom the best way to handle ANYthing, much less something so personal as the influence over the minds of our children.

The true irony is that we think of those who support increased federal funding for education as being “pro-education”…when exactly the opposite is true.  Federal funds for education come from…where?  From you!  But… The State is already taking tax money from you to pay for education, as is the local school district in most cases.  And… With each new level of bureaucracy, there are more expenses.  One of the few legitimate reasons for having even that state layer of involvement in funding is to equalize opportunities for poor school districts.  But… The more money we get from the Feds for education, the less money that actually gets spent on education.  Let’s do the math…

Let’s say, for example, that you send (through your taxes) $100 to the school district and they use $10 for administrative costs; $90 would actually go toward the educating of your child.  If you send $100 to the state, they might have $10 in administrative costs, so they would send $90 back to your school district which would have another $10 in costs, leaving $80 to educate your child.  When you send $100 to the Feds, they will take $10 for costs (or $20) and send $90 to the state, which will send $80 to the school district, which will take its part and spend the remaining $70 on educating your child.  The more money we get from the Feds, the more money they siphon off from the local area through taxes that never make their way back.

Now, how ridiculous is this practice!  Why would anyone be in favor of such a silly scheme?  The reason is simple:  control!  The money we send to Washington comes back with strings and mandates.  It is the Feds way of dictating every aspect of our educational process, despite the fact that education is not within the Constitutional powers of the federal government.

“So what!  Why is a federally-controlled educational system a bad thing?”  Apart from the fact that it is clearly unconstitutional, you mean?  There were schools (mostly religious schools) when our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution and yet they chose to leave control over education with the states, closer to home, closer to the direct control of the parents whose children were being taught.

The more insidious problem is that the power to control education is the power to control the minds of all future voters.  That presents a horrific conflict of interest for any government, but especially the federal government!  Indeed, communist nations have a very centralized form of education; it is an important part of indoctrinating their societies into accepting their form of government.  But in a free society, our educational system must also be free!  To whatever degree that education is controlled by the Feds, to that degree it will be distorted to embrace the federalist view of its masters.  (For a little enlightenment, search YouTube for “school children praise Obama” like the following:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp-ot_vChlU)

And there is a still more-important factor to consider.  Much to the disdain of liberals, progressives, socialists or whatever you choose to call those who seek control over the minds of our children, the education of our children is a basic parental right.  Education simply cannot be disconnected from our worldview, and the right of a parent to raise their child in the traditions of their own faith is a Constitutional right, under the freedom of religion (if no other).

What does religion have to do with education?  Quite a lot, actually…  Even now, it is the squeals of atheists and religious bigots that you are hearing in the background as they chant their mantra, “Dark ages… Dark ages… Dark ages…”  The dark ages were not caused by religion, per se’, but by power…with those in power (many of whom were religious leaders of the time), wishing to stay in power, denying what science had proven to be fact.  It is not “religious” leaders who are in power today, but rather…it is tenured professors and politicians who are more than eager to deny fact in order to maintain a godless educational system.

The problem today is the declaration of things to be “fact” that simply are not proven as such (…global warming, evolution, big bang, etc.).  “Why, every respectable scientist believes…whatever…”  In the days of Columbus, every respectable captain feared they might sail off the edge of a flat earth, but that one very religious man felt led of God to prove them wrong.  Many of us who are both spiritual and intellectual consider the teaching of evolution, big bang, global warming, and other theories as “fact” to be false science.  It is just intellectually dishonest to call any “theory” a “fact”.  It is a theory, nothing more…and, often, one of any number of competing theories.

We also consider detestable the theft of innocence and the raping of our elementary school children’s minds through sex education (or worse), especially in light of public school’s apparent inability to teach the fundamentals like Math or Reading or accurate history.  We who are of faith recognize that religion played a major role in the settling and founding of this nation, a fact of history which is increasingly stripped from our schools’ versions of history, as demanded by the atheists who are apparently threatened by that reality.  Again, the dark ages resulted from the denial of reality, not from religion.

If “separation of church and state” is such an issue for some, then perhaps they should insist instead that the state get out of the education business which, frankly, has historically been a function of the church.  And…go figure…the church is STILL doing a far better job of educating our children than the state, and with a fraction of the resources.  Private/religious schools have given us a model of excellence to follow.  Why impose federal mediocrity upon successful  educational models?  Can it be for any reason other than control…and control to what end?

On Abortion...

Perhaps, more than any other topic in the past 50 years, abortion has been a seminal issue on the stage of American politics.  Though it has been pushed aside to some extent by the horrendous economy, abortion raises the level of emotions in religious circles and in non-religious circles, alike.  It evokes strong, heart-felt responses on all sides, so much so that we start to forget the real issue.

The pro-choice argument has been flawed in that it relies primarily on emotional hyperbole.  Unfortunately, the pro-life argument has been equally as flawed, often relying on religious justifications.  In a land where we acknowledge genuine freedom of religion, an argument based upon one’s religious beliefs simply cannot stand.  Likewise, emotional clichés are hardly a rationale for legislation either.  So, I thought we might be well served to examine the issue from a more scientific perspective.

There is only one major ethical/moral reason why abortion could be considered “wrong”.  If abortion is the taking of a human life, then it has to be considered wrong.  If abortion is not the taking of a human life, then it is nobody’s business but the mother and the doctor.

So, is abortion tantamount to murder? …or is that emotional hyperbole from the pro-life side?  To investigate this from a scientific viewpoint, we should agree upon some semblance of a definition… Murder is to kill (or end the life of) an innocent living human being.  If any of those four elements (innocent, living, human, being) is not applicable to the unborn child, then we cannot rightly consider abortion to be murder.

Is the unborn child living?  Well, the unborn child, in its earliest stages may not have a heartbeat; it may not be breathing or thinking, but there is certainly biological function, of a sort.  There is growth.  There is cell division taking place.  If we found those properties in some something on Mars, we would certainly contend that we had found “life” on Mars.  So, I think the “scientific” answer would have to be that it is at least “living tissue”, but…living tissue of what nature?

Is the unborn child human?  Well, again…from a purely scientific angle, the cells have genes that would clearly distinguish it as homo sapiens.  That argument is pretty straightforward, but…

Is the unborn child a “being”?  Is it an organism separate and distinct unto itself, or is it a part of the mother’s body?  Again, going back to the genetics, the unborn child has a genetic make-up entirely different from that of its mother.  Certainly, at this stage in its development, the unborn child is “parasitic” in form, but that does not make it “a part of the mother’s body”.  If that same mother had another parasite, say, a tapeworm, would we not recognize that the tapeworm was a separate living organism, though parasitic in form?

Likewise, the fact that the unborn child is not yet in its final form does not disqualify it as an “organism”.  Would we say that a caterpillar is not an organism because it is not yet a butterfly?  Ridiculous…

Finally…  Is the unborn child innocent?  Certainly, there is an absence of any guilt for the child who has not yet been born.  Even if the pregnancy was the result of a rape or incest, the child, itself, is innocent, and no civilized people can justly execute the innocent for the crimes of the father.  If we want to execute the father, then we can talk.

It is evidence of the upside-down world in which we live and the twisted minds of the pro-choice movement that they would see the death penalty as some kind of moral equivalent to abortion and call pro-life supporters hypocrites for supporting the death penalty.  The pro-choice crowd ignores the critical factor of “guilt” in proclaiming the capital punishment to be “murder” by the state.  They would have us kill the innocent and let the guilty live.  Plainly, it is “evil”…pure evil.

Still, the unfortunate fact is that even many pro-life proponents are not really pro-life.  If one thinks of (or treats) the unborn child any differently than they would, say, a 4-year old child, then they are hypocrites.  The unborn child is either a living human being or it is not.

So, if a mother discovered that her 4-year old child was actually the spawn of a rapist, would she be justified in killing the 4-year old?  What if it were the result of incest?  Could we, in good conscience, kill that 4-year old?  Oh, but…now it is the so-called pro-lifers that resort to the emotional arguments.  Sorry, but no…  Abortion is either wrong because it is the taking of an innocent human life or there is nothing wrong with it in any case.  Period.

Even in a situation where the life of the mother is involved, we have to consider the fact that we have two patients.  Might we have to harm one in order to save the life of the other?  Possibly.  Doctors run into similar ethical questions in dealing with Siamese twins, occasionally.  This situation is no different.  If both lives can be saved, then every effort must be made to spare both lives.  If they cannot both be saved, then they can’t.  Still, it is a matter of mind-set…  Do we even consider that we have two patients?

At the very least, those who hold a legitimate moral stance against abortion should not be compelled through their tax dollars to pay for abortion.  This, in and of itself, is morally and ethically wrong.  Our government should not ask this of tax payers any more than they should compel drafted soldiers to kill or be killed when they have a conscientious objection to killing.  No federal funding should go to any organization which performs or promotes abortion.