What Happens When Congress Gets In A Hurry

There has been a lot of rushing around in Congress lately, as if there is no time to evaluate what laws are being passed.

The economic stimulus bill was rushed through as an absolute necessity. $787 billion was allocated for spending and agreed to in just a few days. And yet, the results are just the opposite of what was expected – unemployment continues to rise far beyond what we were told it would be if we would support the stimulus package. There have been no firm connections made between the stimulus bill and an economic turnaround. Things have become decidedly worse in our economy.

Now, healthcare is being rushed through Congress, even though such a bill has far-reaching and long-lasting effects. Revamping healthcare could have serious consequences – life and death consequences – if not properly done. And yet, thousands of pages are being written, Congress is voting on it without reading it, and our leaders are breaking their promises to allow it to be posted on-line for 72 hours before taking a vote. We are rushing toward something – but what?

The most recent penalty for a hurried attitude came recently when the Internal Revenue Service announced that they had erred in the release of the tax tables in 2009 – a result of President Obama’s signature tax credit offered as part of the stimulus package. The credits were designed to give individuals as much as $400 in “money back” and couples as much as $800. Because of an oversight, the tax tables for many couples were posted incorrectly, allowing them to claim more credit on their 2008 return than they were allowed. It is estimated that as many as 15 million people will now owe the government $250 or more – some as much as $400. Most of those affected are working couples, but the error also spills over onto single students and Social Security recipients (another error in which the government overlooked the possibility that someone might claim a new Social Security bonus and the above-mentioned tax credit – they are eligible for only one of these credits). Affected people in any category will have to make the correction, either through more tax liability for 2009, or in a reduced return. One thing is for sure – the government will get “its money”, even if they were the ones who made the error.

It feels to me that we are rushing to our own economic destruction. The tax credit was given to Americans with the instructions to “spend the refund in order to stimulate the economy”. How long can that tactic work? Is such a design sustainable? Isn’t there another route we can take – namely, to require the government to spend less, resulting in a lower tax burden, and allowing each individual to keep more of their own money to invest and use as they see fit? Imagine the economic strength of a nation where everyone was free from the worry of debt, and could concentrate on superior products and innovative ideas.

What is lost in nearly every news article that I read is that the tax money started out as ours. We work hard for our paychecks and we make many decisions about how to spend and save. And yet, the assumption made by so many is that the government has a right to take it from us at their whim. True – per the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Congress can collect taxes at will. What may have been forgotten is that before 1913, they did not have the right to collect taxes from our incomes (see a previous article here). They continue to abuse this law, taking more and more of our money to fund their own unread and poorly crafted laws. And we continue to send them cash with every pay stub.

I came across this interesting quote recently, from Herbert Hoover:

“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. ... And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.”

The “emergency” has certainly been declared again, and we are falling for it just as surely as economic ruin awaits us if we continue on this course. What should we do? It’s time to get involved – write a Congressman, elect leaders who understand this principle, or work to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Without our income tax to spend, Congress just might get downsized. Would that be a bad thing?

What If I Tell Them I Refuse To Pay Abortion Taxes?

During the recent passage of the House healthcare bill, there was a lot of uproar over whether or not public funds would go toward financing abortion on demand (the debate now swings to the Senate). Some more conservative House leaders introduced the Stupak amendment – a measure which limited (but did not completely eliminate) healthcare funds from being used for abortion. As I read the news, a thought occurred to me - what would I have done if the government had placed an abortion free-for-all in the bill, effectively being paid for with my taxes?

Is there a time when we say, “Enough! I refuse to pay for that!” Is there ever a time when we would be justified in NOT paying our taxes?

The Bible tells us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and also that God puts government officials in their place at his bidding. Jesus told us in Matthew 22 that it was right to pay taxes to Caesar. But it makes me wonder - what were taxes used for by the Roman government two thousand years ago? Did they spend tax money on the same things that our government spends it on today?

In ancient Rome, the tax rate varied between 1% and 5%, with a 1% sales tax being the norm (the higher rates up to 5% were levied on one-time events, such as inheritance taxes). And where did this tax money get spent? I can only find reference to the tax money being used to fund the Roman legions – the military used by the emperors to provide national security and preserve order. The Roman government, the one we hear about as being controlling and oppressive, did not use tax money for public healthcare, arts endowment…or to fund abortion.

Is there a difference today? If Roman taxes were being used to fund abortions, would Jesus’ answer have been different when asked about paying taxes? The point that Jesus was making in Matthew seems to be more about the concern of individuals and their love of money. This event was also a simple ploy that the Pharisees were using to try to trap Jesus into being arrested. Would he have given the same answer if the subject was about what the tax money was being spent on? Would Jesus have felt outrage and decry the payment of taxes if the Roman government had been funding abortions?

It angers me to the point of tears that some of my tax money – right now – goes to fund abortions in instances of rape, incest, or “the health of the mother”. Money that I work hard for is collected by a government which legalizes and even promotes the murder of our nation’s children. To this I say, “Enough!”

I wonder what would happen if I sent in my taxes next year with this note:

Dear U.S. Government,

I have calculated my taxes for last year to be $20,000. I have also calculated that $1,200 of this money will be allocated, proportionally, to the funding of abortions. You should be made aware that the practice of abortion is morally reprehensible to me. I cannot in good conscience allow you to spend my tax money on this procedure. I believe it is tantamount to murder. Please accept this short-payment of my tax debt with the understanding of why I am refusing to pay the full amount. To assist you in any budget shortfall, I will be doing everything in my power over the next few years to help reduce the number of abortions taking place – through discussions, volunteer work, or political activism. I hope that this more than makes up for the amount of my money that you would have spent on abortion had I not been working diligently to teach people about the outrage of this practice. I encourage you to get out of the abortion business and look to God for forgiveness and direction.

Well, I would probably be risking some jail time. I’ve probably guaranteed myself an audit just by posting this.

Pray for our nation.
***********************
Previous posts on abortion - here, here, and here.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Origin and Curse of the Federal Income Tax (Part 4)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

For anyone who has ever received a paycheck, it may seem hard to imagine a time when there was no such thing as a federal income tax. One-hundred short years ago, there was no federal income tax in place. Today, we take it for granted that a large part – a very large part – of our paycheck will never be deposited in our bank account. We live in a time where the federal government continues to grow bigger and more bloated than ever before. The number of programs funded by our government is vast. Is this practice constitutional?

The original Constitution did not provide for broad powers of taxation at the federal level. Taxes were outlined in Article 1, Section 8, which says, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”. Disregarding for the moment the “general welfare” clause (which we’ll cover in Part 8), this does not give Congress a lot of things on which to spend money. I certainly don’t see Social Security, payments to illegal immigrants, or the funding of non-US, overseas abortion clinics in those words. In fact, the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the US Constitution and which give us insight into the mind of the founders, gave the federal government no ability to tax whatsoever. The founding fathers’ ideas on federal taxation may best be summed up in the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, “…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”.

In principle, the very purpose of government was simply to protect the freedom of the individual and their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – nothing more. Our government is well beyond that today, in large part due to the Sixteenth Amendment. This amendment was proposed by the administration of Woodrow Wilson in 1913, and was ratified by the states in 1916. It is one of the briefest amendments, and simply says, “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.” Before this Amendment, the federal government had a shaky claim to taxing any of our income. Now, your Congressmen and President have free reign.

The very first round of federal income taxes actually occurred before this date. Under the Abraham Lincoln administration, in 1862, a federal income tax was collected, to help pay for the Civil War. At that time, anyone earning less than $10,000 per year was taxed at a 3% rate; anyone earning more than $10,000 per year was taxed at a rate of 5%. Compare that to what you pay in federal tax today! However, people couldn’t long accept this burden, and the federal income tax was abolished in 1872. It didn’t come back until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1916.

We spoke of state’s rights in Part 2 of this series. Does the adoption of the federal income tax affect the power of states in any way? Yes, it does. Consider the fact that a great deal of federally-collected money is returned to the states each year. This money is not required to be given back in proportion to the size of the state or the number of its population. So, each state fights for its’ share of the federal money, giving much more power to the elected officials at the national level. State legislatures scrap for every last dollar, whether the cause is noble or even necessary, because someone else will get the money if they don’t. States are often coerced to “toe the line” with regards to federal government wishes, because the feds can threaten to withhold money from the state if the state doesn’t comply with what they want in Washington. An example is the virtual blackmail that occurs whenever a state decides they want to raise the interstate speed limit above the federal recommendation. If they threaten to raise it, the federal government returns the threat by withholding certain funds originally slated for road improvements. Doesn’t it make more sense for the state to both set their speed limit and fix their own roads? Imagine the differences that would ensue! No two states would be alike, and we could glory in their uniqueness! Alas, this is one area where "diversity" is discouraged by the federal government.

Frank Chodorov said it best, in his 1954 paper The Income Tax: Root of All Evil:

“For the Sixteenth Amendment corroded the American concept of natural rights; ultimately reduced the American citizen to a status of subject, so much so that he is not aware of it; enhanced Executive power to the point of reducing Congress to innocuity; and enabled the central government to bribe the states, once independent units, into subservience. No kingship in the history of the world ever exercised more power than our Presidency, or had more of the people’s wealth at its disposal.”

It should be clear that the federal income tax, while both legal and constitutional, exceeds the boundaries envisioned by the founders, in part because of the corruption it creates and the undesirable consolidation of federal power to which it leads. Do you want to fight it? Good luck, because the federal government will use your own tax money to fight you in court and build your prison cell if you refuse to pay…

Next article: What are the concepts of secession and nullification about? And was Abraham Lincoln really a good president? Back to the main index article.