I have two or three posts that I am going to try and complete tonight if I can. This one is going out first and will eventually be under the others anyway, but here we go.
I have several stories that I had saved up to put together in one post, but one came to my attention that makes the rest of them somewhat superfluous (I always liked using that word).
The original topic of interest was the coming health care mess. There was the stories about how the “taxes” that weren’t taxes according to the people who voted for this thing are really taxes after all (yes that means more taxes).
National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who operates inside the IRS, highlighted the agency’s new mission in her annual report to Congress last week. Look out below. She notes that the IRS is already “greatly taxed”—pun intended?—”by the additional role it is playing in delivering social benefits and programs to the American public,” like tax credits for first-time homebuyers or purchasing electric cars. Yet with ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for “the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history.” And without “sufficient funding” it won’t be able to discharge these new duties.
The IRS says it needs more people, so it will need more money, so it will be able to collect more revenue and “disperse” more benefits. And this comes from passing a “health care bill.” The reason they will need extra hands on deck is because of provisions like this one:
Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.
As a person who files a schedule C already and who used to use a 1099 to pay contractors, let me parse this out for you. In the old days, you were required to give a 1099 MISC to anyone who worked for you that earned more than $600 in a given year for federal reporting purposes. They would then have to claim that income and pay taxes on it. Now the government is going to require businesses to self-report any entity with which they spend more than $600 in a year and keep track of that with more forms as well. This is just another potential paperwork nightmare for anyone who wishes to try and be honest on a small scale and a definite headache for any businesses that do operate on a larger scale.
There is word that a repeal might happen, but it is far too little, far too late for where we have gone as a country already.
Also, a little over a week ago was a story that had the homosexual community cheering I suppose, but that cheering is shortsighted indeed. A federal judge struck down the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed during Clinton’s White House occupancy. Those who are getting their dander up over this or who are celebrating it as a great victory for the homosexual marriage issue are failing to notice an amazing caveat in this ruling. If the federal judge is arguing that the Federal government has no power over the states in this matter, as he seems to be in this statement:
The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.
This means that states that refuse to recognize homosexual marriages cannot therefore be compelled by Federal means to recognize homosexual marriages from other states. It is a double-edged sword if you will and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
But, as I said earlier, these revelations are small potatoes with an article that came to my attention today. The American Spectator has put together an interesting piece that helps to demonstrate how and why we have most likely brought this country to a state from which it may never recover back to its original form, short of a revolution of some sort. The real problem is the fact that these problems didn’t appear overnight. The seeds for much of the disaster and chaos that we are fighting even now were laid very long ago and have taken decades to be realized at this fullest measure.
In Congressional Government (1885) Woodrow Wilson left no doubt: the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from meeting the country’s needs by enumerating rights that the government may not infringe. (“Congress shall make no law…” says the First Amendment, typically.) Our electoral system, based on single member districts, empowers individual voters at the expense of “responsible parties.” Hence the ruling class’s perpetual agenda has been to diminish the role of the citizenry’s elected representatives, enhancing that of party leaders as well as of groups willing to partner in the government’s plans, and to craft a “living” Constitution in which restrictions on government give way to “positive rights” — meaning charters of government power.
Consider representation. Following Wilson, American Progressives have always wanted to turn the U.S. Congress from the role defined by James Madison’s Federalist #10, “refine and enlarge the public’s view,” to something like the British Parliament, which ratifies government actions. Although Britain’s electoral system — like ours, single members elected in historic districts by plurality vote — had made members of Parliament responsive to their constituents in ancient times, by Wilson’s time the growing importance of parties made MPs beholden to party leaders. Hence whoever controls the majority party controls both Parliament and the government.
. . .
Disregard for the text of laws — for the dictionary meaning of words and the intentions of those who wrote them — in favor of the decider’s discretion has permeated our ruling class from the Supreme Court to the lowest local agency. Ever since Oliver Wendell Holmes argued in 1920 (Missouri v. Holland) that presidents, Congresses, and judges could not be bound by the U.S. Constitution regarding matters that the people who wrote and ratified it could not have foreseen, it has become conventional wisdom among our ruling class that they may transcend the Constitution while pretending allegiance to it. They began by stretching such constitutional terms as “interstate commerce” and “due process,” then transmuting others, e.g., “search and seizure,” into “privacy.” Thus in 1973 the Supreme Court endowed its invention of “privacy” with a “penumbra” that it deemed “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The court gave no other constitutional reasoning, period. Perfunctory to the point of mockery, this constitutional talk was to reassure the American people that the ruling class was acting within the Constitution’s limitations. By the 1990s federal courts were invalidating amendments to state constitutions passed by referenda to secure the “positive rights” they invent, because these expressions of popular will were inconsistent with the constitution they themselves were construing.
We are no longer a nation of laws and those who are in office do not consider obedience to the laws (even the Constitution) a serious thing. Note that congressmen who have tried to pass a law requiring Congress to specify the Constitutional basis for new bills introduced to the the legislature have been unsuccessful in getting anywhere. And lest you think that the problem is solely the responsibility or purview of one party in Washington, please take note of this:
America’s best and brightest believe themselves qualified and duty bound to direct the lives not only of Americans but of foreigners as well. George W. Bush’s 2005 inaugural statement that America cannot be free until the whole world is free and hence that America must push and prod mankind to freedom was but an extrapolation of the sentiments of America’s Progressive class, first articulated by such as Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson and Columbia’s Nicholas Murray Butler.
America’s Founding Fathers weren’t trying to create a beacon with which to “free the world,” or anything of the sort. There intentions were to create a nation where freedom could flourish. Remember these words?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We are pretty far gone, but revolution is a painful thing. Our founders understood that better than any of us, because they were in fact, revolutionaries themselves. This is why Jefferson wrote these words(emphasis mine in bold):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Let’s look at a couple of Jefferson’s given reasons just for fun for a moment.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
I think we covered this already, but our current government’s willful disregard for established laws is rather glaring in the face of this statement.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
I wonder what the people of Arizona would say about this one right about now? There are other instances that could be sighted for this as well.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
This is in the American Spectator article during a discussion about gerrymandering. A process that has been going on for nigh unto 50 years now and has contributed to the current state of affairs.
I figure that is enough for now. I am going to turn my attention to weightier matters that transcend this current age and go into the coming age.