Disgruntledpatriot's Blog

April 8, 2010

Thomas Jefferson says VAT tax is unconstitutional

Filed under: Sick and Tired — Trever Bierschbach @ 6:12 am
Tags: , , ,

I am guessing most of you have heard that the government is thinking of imposing a Value Added Tax on us right?  If you don’t know what that is, it’s a tax on everything.  The government needs to pay down the deficit and their best idea is this job crushing, economy killing idea.  Why is it job crushing and economy killing?  Think about it, what do people do when things cost more?  They buy less things.  This will hurt businesses, families, and our country.  Sure the government will take in a little more on the things we must buy, but what about the money that people won’t be spending into an already fragile system?  I am really starting to think this all is intentional.  What better way to get the chance to rebuild America’s economy than to destroy it?  If they tried to rebuild it now people would have fits, but if the economy fails they will have to do it anyway.  They can build some fair, touchy feely, everyone gets the same for unequal work, kind of economy that those progressives want.

As if you didn’t expect it, President Obama will also break probably his last campaign promise with this new tax.  How many times did he say that no one making under $250 thousand would see a tax hike?  Well on top of the tax hikes in the health care bill, there is this VAT.  Check that one off the list, I think this president has successfully broken every single campaign promise in his first two years.

Oh, on the headline:

“For example. If the system be established on basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
You might notice that this refers to any kind of tax on goods and before you say ‘well what about sales tax’, that’s a state thing.  Rights not stated in the constitution and given to the federal government are reserved for the states.  It’s why every Democrat argument in support of the Health Care bill fell short.  They kept saying ‘well this state does that already’.  Reason we have states, if you don’t like the laws in one, move to another.  Essentially Jefferson is saying that a national tax on goods is unconstitutional because it would not be a fair or equal levy, which the constitution requires taxes to be.  Now, that hasn’t stopped them before.  Our progressive tax system is unconstitutional as well.  On this one however we have a chance to stop it.  Jefferson says it’s unconstitutional because you will be taxing things people need as well as what they want.  Not everyone will be paying the same amount because not everyone will buy the same things, and also the fact that it is double taxed.  He may have felt differently if he weren’t talking about income tax and national sales tax.  He might have liked a flat tax in lieu of an income tax.
I myself like a flat tax in lieu of an income tax.  It has the potential to be the fairest tax system, and actually bring in revenue.  Eliminate the IRS, hours of paperwork, and eliminate an entire criminal industry.  Tax fraud won’t happen, you can’t defraud a flat tax system.  The rich would still pay more, so the liberals can still keep to their class warfare, punish the rich, ideology.  Those who are frugal or want to save their money will be able to actually save their money, not save what the government lets them keep.

October 30, 2009

Freedom of Speech and Press Under Attack, Oh and Your Internet Too!

Sorry I have been slacking of late.  Illness, getting ready for the yearly Samhain bash, and issues with the child and his schoolwork have kept me swamped.  I would promise to do better, but I know Me so I will just say, I will try.  Now on to the fantastic world of ‘progressive media’ and ‘network neutrality’.

Alright, let’s start by saying, right now there is nothing currently in congress that I know of that will take away your right to freedom of speech or free press.  What we do have though, is more and more people in and around the administration that openly believe that free speech is too free, free press is too free, and internet isn’t free enough.  Let’s start with the first two, because they are interconnected.

From Mark Lloyd, FCC diversity czar…

It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

Now, we have talked about his views on the fairness doctrine, and how ‘it isn’t enough’ so I won’t revisit.  Bottom line, when ANYONE in government, or a government agency says that ANY right is an exaggeration we should be leary.  Will some creative people abuse a right, or misuse the constitution to their own ends?  Yes.  That is beside the point though, these rights protect vastly more Americans than those that take advantage of them.

How bout from Cass Sunstein?

“A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”
–Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, 1995, p. 92

“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views. The First Amendment should not stand as an obstacle to democratic efforts to accomplish these goals. A New Deal for speech would draw on Justice Brandeis’ insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship. It would reject Justice Holmes’ “marketplace” conception of free speech, a conception that disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”
–Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, 1995, p. 119

“Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and television broadcasters: …[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.”
–Cass R. Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, 1995, p. xi

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”
–Cass Sunstein, arguing for a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet in his book, Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), p.137

Heard enough?  Yeah me too.  What don’t these people understand?  Have they read the constitution?  It is pretty clear…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

What is so hard to understand about that sentence?  Do they need clarification?

“Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” -Benjamin Franklin, writing as Silence Dogood, No. 8, July 9, 1722

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and cannot be limited without being lost.” -Thomas Jefferson

Pretty simple if you ask me.  Now the last thing I mentioned was Network Neutrality.  If you don’t know what that is check out Free Press and their site.  When you do you need to ask yourself a few things.  You see, they want the government to take control of the internet and make it free to everyone.  They think that content should be ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ (have we heard this before?  Oh yeah, the fairness doctrine).  Free Press believes in another welfare handout for everyone, the internet.  Now ask yourself, has any amenity that is offered free to everyone, ever been any good?  How do they think that the internet, and network technology has advanced as rapidly as it has?  It is because there is profit to be made.  Yeah I know, some people would like you to believe that profit is bad, and those who seek it are evil, but profit is also what drives innovation.  Does anyone really think that faster internet was developed out of the kindness of someone’s heard?  Does anyone believe that the personal computer was developed because a couple of geeks wanted to give everyone in the world a free computer?  If Network Neutrality is realized the government will have control over the internet.  This may give them the power to control what you see, what you can read, what you can post.  It will also put telecom companies out of business, and no matter how much we hate paying those bills, those bills are the reason that we have faster and faster internet.  One sure way to make internet a shining symbol of mediocrity is to make it free, and give control to our government.

Keep your eyes open, the more control we allow government to take, the more liberty we throw away.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.