Taxing Our Patience

The editorial in the Sun Journal April 15 was entitled, "Tax trivia to chew on today."  I am commenting on several of the items in the list.

"The median family…pays more than $5,000 in income taxes, or more than 14 percent of its income…For the median family, taxes are a larger expense than housing, food and clothing combined." This is a shameful fact. Think about it when Congress proposes new taxes (which it will do soon, I predict).

"According to the Tax Foundation, it costs us $200 billion a year to comply with the tax code." So every year, to file our income tax returns, it costs us an amount roughly equal to the Obama Administration's bailout of the automobile companies or the major banks.

"Today's bottom tax rate--10 percent--is nearly double the rate paid by the rich in 1913." [That's when the federal income tax was imposed as a result of ratification of the 16the amendment] Correlate that with the increase in federal spending, the root of the exhorbitant taxes we pay. Note that most of that spending is for programs and actions that are not constitutionally within the enumerated powers of the federal government.

"The IRS has 114,000 employees…It is twice as big as the CIA and five times the size of the FBI." What part of our tax burden goes to pay for the operations of the IRS? How interesting that Americans are irate over defense spending, but not over spending just to collect federal income taxes?

"Today, the tax code has 17,000 pages, along with hundreds of thousands of pages of court decisions." How can anyone even understand, much less comply, with a tax code like that? Ah, but perhaps that's the point, is it not?

"The 1986 tax act was aimed at simplification. It ended up amending 2,000 sections of the code and creating more than 100 new forms." When Congress or the executive branch undertakes to "simplify" the tax code--or anything else--hold on to your wallets.

Evident in all these tidbits is that the federal government just spends too much, and it does so unconstitutionally, because it assumes powers not enumerated in the Constitution. Some say it's time for a tax revolt.

I think the root of the problem is the federal government's failure to operate within its constitutional limits. Maybe it's time for a revolt, period. Americans need to force the federal government to comply with the Constitution. If we do that, the federal government will spend only for programs within its legal powers, resulting in a drastic reduction in the federal budget.

And while we're at it, let's abolish the federal government's ability to spend money it doesn't have, and make sure that it can't get it by overtaxing us. Maybe government spending should be limited to a certain percentage of the GDP, and the income tax abolished in favor of a more equitable form of taxation.

My suggestion is that only states be given the power to tax (and then, only within well-defined limits), and that they then allocate a certain portion of tax revenues for the operation of the federal government. After the federal government receives tax payments from the states, then Congress can pass a budget limited to what the states give it.

We made a mistake allowing US senators to be elected directly. When chosen by the state legislatures, senators represented the states, as envisioned originally by the founders. This meant that the states could exercise more control over the federal government. So it's time to return to what worked better.

Taxes, abhorrent as they are, are only symptomatic of a federal government out of control and hell-bent on making the United States a totalitarian socialist state. Let's demand a return to a republican form of government with the true federalism spelled out in the Constitution.

Give Me Liberty--Not Obamanomics!

From the Los Angeles Times, 12/29/08:

"Reporting from Washington -- President-elect Barack Obama's top advisors said Sunday that they wouldn't back away from a promise to cut taxes on the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest Americans, as they made the case for a massive new stimulus package geared toward reviving the slumping economy.

"Speaking on Sunday talk shows and in a newspaper opinion piece, Obama aides stepped up a drive to build a broad political consensus behind Obama's core economic proposals: a two-year spending package that could exceed $775 billion, coupled with tax policies weighted in favor of the middle class."

It's pretty obvious that Obama has sense enough to know that raising taxes for the wealthiest (as now defined) Americans only will not come close to making up tax revenues lost by cutting taxes for the middle class (as now defined); and that to cut tax revenues in the face of a major recession is crazy, particularly when he is proposing a $775-billion-plus spending package that some say will end up being $3.5 trillion (yes, trillion).

So what does he have up his sleeve? He simply will redefine "wealthy" to mean anyone who has an income, and "middle class" to mean those who do not pay taxes. Thus, taxes will be increased for everyone in the U.S. who is productive, and taxes will be "cut" (meaning government payouts) for those who are not productive.

Of course, it will not be so stated; but through complex legislation added to our arcane tax code, it will be easy to accomplish such a redefinition of income classes. Implementing such a scheme will amount to a major redistribution of wealth, slyly and cynically accomplished while claiming to help the middle class. The effect will be the final nail in the coffin of the American Republic, and the culmination of what Democrats have been trying to do since LBJ, building on FDR's unconstitutional New Deal measures: Transform the U.S. into a socialist state.

Look for this to take place at the beginning of Obama's second term, for there still is a remote chance that Americans would resist the plan and not elect Obama to a second term should it be proposed during the first term. But we'll see signs of preparation beginning Jan. 20.

Can it be stopped? Yes, if Americans will wake up, learn something about the constitution, read the Austrian-School economists, listen to Ron Paul, and demand liberty from the government that is supposed to guarantee it to us. Patrick Henry said it best: "…as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Libertarian Blog

I just read a very well-written and politically refreshing blog, Pro Libertate, by William N. Grigg of Payette, Idaho, USA. Read it. You'll find it to be first rate. Here is a tantalizing clip from the blog:

While it cares little for customary piety, our ruling Nomenklatura displays the intolerant fervor of Paradise-bound Jihadis in defending the sanctity of the Almighty State and its avatars. In that pantheon there is none holier than the martyred founder of the Second (or People's) American Republic -- Abraham the Almighty, whose sacred likeness sits in stoic majesty in the Imperial Capital's most celebrated pagan cathedral.

Here is the link:

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/12/lincoln-gambit.html

Stop Verbing Your Nouns!

Why do folks have to create new verbs from nouns, when there are perfectly good verbs available? There are nouns that have corresponding verb forms, like toast, made from toasting bread, and dog, as in "dog one's footsteps." But it's becoming increasingly popular to create verbs from nouns. One that I particularly dislike is, "He gifted us salvation." Why not "He saved us?" or "He gave us the gift of salvation?" I suppose an alternate way to say that is "He salvationed us." Doesn't one give a gift? Or does one now gift a gift? Yes, English is a dynamic language that changes, which is it's strength. But is all change good? I'll thought about that.

Another thing: Why do so many restaurants serve "fry chicken," rather than fried chicken, "bake potatos," rather than baked potatos, "slice tomatoes," rather than sliced tomatoes, and "ice tea," rather than iced tea? Me, I like devil crabs.

Cure Congress, Part I: Democrats

I have believed for a long time, and still do, that the two-party system in the United States is the best system. Consider: Many European democracies have multi-party systems (Italy is a good example) in which so many parties are represented in the national legislatures that it is difficult to build coalitions in order to pass legislation. That type of system makes life difficult for European citizens.

In the U.S., with two major political parties, choices are pretty clear-cut. If one thinks that the Democratic Party's policies are more in tune with one's political beliefs, one votes Democratic; or if the Republican Party's policies are more in line with one's political philosophy, one votes Republican. But what if neither represents an individual's views?

Well, that's happened for me. Let's look first at the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party and its leaders and candidates for national office typically pander to racial, cultural and ethnic minorities and other special interests. Democratic Party leaders exhibits attitudes of smug superiority and arrogant paternalism. They think that they alone know what's best for people, and they want to impose their beliefs on people.

It is the party not just of big government, but of government, period. It wants to increase taxes to grow the government bureaucracy (those bureaucrats will, of course, vote Democratic) so that all sorts of useless government programs can throw government largesse at party cronies and officials. And it wants to penalize people for making money (e.g., inheritance tax), for God's sake. And that's another thing: God forbid that we should exercise our religion freely, as the founding fathers intended; if Christians in particular exercise their religion, they may offend someone of a different faith, or of no faith, so in the holy name of political correctness, we should practice our religion only in the confines of our homes and religious buildings (can't say "churches" without also saying "synagogues," "mosques," and references to other types of religious buildings).

If we look through the rose-colored glasses that Democrats want us to wear, we see coming a government-run health system that they insist will afford equal access to health care to all citizens, but really will make the rich poor and the poor more dependent on the Democratic Party. Democrats hold up the Canadian and British health systems as models, but they don't mention the long waits for medical procedures, and the low quality of care in comparison to the American health system.

Democrats want to protect the rights of those in this country illegally. As an illegal alien (pardon me: undocumented worker), one has a right to free healthcare and social benefits at the expense of American citizens, but--and this is the important thing--one is obligated to vote for Democrats (yes, vote: Democrats see no reason why illegal aliens should be prevented from having all the privileges of citizenship). A citizen doesn't have the same scope of rights as non-citizens, particularly ones who are here illegally, because they have the right to steal from us by using tax revenue, and we can't deport them. Democrats even make some of our major cities sanctuaries for illegal aliens in order to protect them from the agencies that are trying to enforce the law by deporting them.

If Democrats gain a solid majority in both houses of Congress and a Democrat is elected president, there will be no more problems with terrorists. Fundamental Muslim terrorists (can I say that, or does it violate Big Brother Political Correctness) will no longer want to attack the U.S. because George Bush will no longer be president (although he never was anyway, because Al Gore really won the 2000 election, in case you didn't know). In January, 2009, the world will become hunky-dory again: A Democratic president and a Democratic Congress will "talk" to world leaders again and "work" with them again, and promise them that we'll be good, we really will.

I could go on . To summarize, the Democratic Party philosophy seems to be that government is good, individual freedom is bad, religion is worse, that sexual, cultural and ethnic diversity must be promoted above all, and that only the Democratic Party can execute constructive foreign policy.

So, thank God (oops, I said it again), in the next four years we won't have to worry about a Middle East meltdown, terrorist attacks in U.S. territory, Iran getting the bomb, or those nasty Europeans not liking us. We'll be able to go to the doctor and not be treated, and we won't have to worry about saying something politically incorrect because confiscatory taxes and high fuel prices will keep us at home all the time anyway.

Living at the River

There is very little better than walking out my front door on a cool morning with a cup of coffee in my hand and traveling the 50 feet to the edge of the Neuse River. Often I'll see dolphins traveling up or down the river, but always there are the lonely cries of the gulls, the splash of mullet jumping, and the silent flight of pelicans skimming inches above the water. We have a blue heron who lives in the cypress swamp to the east--my family named it "Paul"--and who likes to sit on one of the posts just offshore, if they are not occupied by pelicans.

In warm weather (and in eastern North Carolina it's almost always warm) my walk out to the river usually is preceded by watching one of the chameleons--collectively named "Andrew"--sunning on the front porch. These lizards occasionally get into the house, requiring us to chase and catch them in a coffee can for delivery back outside.

It's unusual to get all the way to the river without our dogs--Smut, Mischief, Black Dog and Abbey (although, strictly speaking, Abbey is my daughter's dog), all black labs, and our orange dog, Luce (Latin for "in the light," although as a Southerner I think of her as Lou Kay)--spotting me and joining in a loud, cacophanous canine chorus.

As nice as all that is, there is one thing better: Sitting on the deck by the river on a hot afternoon with a cooler of cold beer by my side, and an open one in my hand. It's enough to make me forget about the terrible trio, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the presidential campaign, Paris Hilton, and the like. At least until I go inside to watch the news.

Is America a Nation of Laws?

The ongoing debate over what to do about illegal aliens in the United States got me thinking about what it means to be a "nation of law, not of man."

I've heard and read the opinions of many who think that border laws should not be enforced and that those who illegally enter the United States in violation of its laws should suffer no consequenses for that illegal act.

Setting aside the question of what is compassionate, if we choose to ignore certain laws because they are uncompassionate, does that not send a message that other laws as well can be ignored if enough people think they are not acceptable for whatever reason? I don't think we can pick and choose what laws must be obeyed and enforced; rather, all laws must be enforced if we are to remain a nation of law.

If a law is onerous, the majority can force a change or repeal through the appropriate legislative bodies. Meanwhile, it must be enforced. To do otherwise is to invite people to violate other laws. Those who advocate ignoring or violating laws, or not punishing those who break laws, should consider this: The result ultimately will be a legal system in which lawbreakers can rightfully argue that if some laws can be ignored, then all could be ignored.

Certainly it is true that many who enter this country illegally want only to find a better life, and it is unfortunate that they must be deported. But there are those, citizens or not, who rob and steal only because they want a better life. What if they are allowed to break laws with impunity?

When that happens, I want to be among those who decide which laws will be enforced and on what grounds, because then the United States will be ruled not by law, but by man.