Letter to Washington Post on Mediscare and Federalist 41

Chicago AM Monday 9 May 2011 Editors, The Washington Post Gentlepeople: The Washington Post editorial “On Medicare....” of Sunday 8 May says of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget “it doesn’t acknowledge the need for more revenue.” For the first 6 years of its term the Bush administration, assisted by a Republican Congress, ran an average monthly deficit of $20 billion. In its last two years, assisted by a Democrat Congress the monthly average deficit was increased to $35 billion. For the first 26 months of the Obama administration the average monthly deficit has been $121 billion. And you claim we just “need more revenue?” But the largest problem here is the fact that nowhere in the United States Constitution us there any justification for medicare. If you think the General Welfare clause handles it, read James Madison's clear explanation of what the founders meant by the clause in Federalist Number 41: “Some [Constitution doubters]... have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged... that the power "… to provide for the general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the... general welfare.... “Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it.... but what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? “ And following that semicolon is a list of 17 Congressional powers, from 'borrow money on the credit of the United States' thru 'make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers' ..... but not a sign of health care, enviromental protection, education housing etc. Of course, the current fad to get around this is the ever nubile Commerce clause. But if Congress can justify whatever it wants with this manipulation, why do we even have a Constitution? Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago 773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com

ReplyReply All

Move...InboxAEIAetnaAmazonamewbournAnnAnnCoulterAppleATTuniCardATTwirellessBevCBobKirsammerBobLinningBobMolloyBOTWBOTWhitsBOTWsentbriefcaseCardwellBillCardwellsCarmenWinonaChaseChrisChuckBrownCrazyPoliticsDaveBarryDCCCDerbDickMorrisEHSFaceBookFAugustiniFloodJohnGrainpaHGMCHPIDOTIreneNJanFishJanJessupJimmieAndYvetteJimSnyderJoeTrendlJohnBatchelorJohnDerbyshireJohnReddyJokesKellyALarryLymanLauraIngrahamLindaMcCLindaMcCSentToLouIVMailReturnedMarilynLittMarkKrigorianMarylynAMeMesserFrankMusicMatchMyLuckyDayNationalReviewNYTimesOdddBallsOldiesPayPalPCMagPCMagInsidePCMagTipsRefDeskRichJohnsRitaWintersRomayneAndJimRushRushEmailRushSentToSargeSBCSpecialStuttaffordSveaValSwedesTDW statementTeriObrienTonyAltelTownHallTownHallMeetupTrip2008TZandAHNUncleLoadyWendyHawkesYeahSureYvette

Go to

Letter to Washington Post on Federal spending

Chicago AM Monday 9 May 2011

Editors, The Washington Post

Gentlepeople:

The Washington Post editorial “On Medicare....” of Sunday 8 May says of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget “it doesn’t acknowledge the need for more revenue.”

For the first 6 years of its term the Bush administration, assisted by a Republican Congress, ran an average monthly deficit of $20 billion. In its last two years, assisted by a Democrat Congress the monthly average deficit was increased to $35 billion. For the first 26 months of the Obama administration the average monthly deficit has been $121 billion.

And you claim we just “need more revenue?”

But the largest problem here is the fact that nowhere in the United States Constitution us there any justification for medicare.

If you think the General Welfare clause handles it, read James Madison's clear explanation of what the founders meant by the clause in Federalist Number 41:

“Some [Constitution doubters]... have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged... that the power "… to provide for the general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the... general welfare....

“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it.... but what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? “

And following that semicolon is a list of 17 Congressional powers, from 'borrow money on the credit of the United States' thru 'make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers' ..... but not a sign of health care, enviromental protection, education housing etc.

Of course, the current fad to get around this is the ever nubile Commerce clause. But if Congress can justify whatever it wants with this manipulation, why do we even have a Constitution?

Arnold H Nelson

Note to Chris Chocola/Club 4 Growth on BBA

Chris, thanks so much for your note of Friday 6 May on the proposed Balanced Budget amendment.

We have a super serious federal spending problem, and a BBA sounds like a reasonable way to solve it. But sometimes a look upstream at why we have the problem can show us better ways to solve it.

We should not have the problem if voters are electing the right people to Congress. But the current Tax payment act of 1943, demolished that link by moving the actual sending of money to Washington from the voter to the employer. If the employer does not send in the check, he goes to jail, never the voter/employee.

Employers aren't happy with this, but in contrast to individuals, employers have no competitive advantage to do anything other than add all those tax dollars to their prices, converting the income tax to a silent, apparently painless, national sales tax.

The results of this political parlor trick are clearly visible in the 2011 Statistical Abstract of the United States table 478 showing 37% of the total 2009 federal income of $2.345 trillion coming from employer bank accounts, not voter's.

At the other end of this monstrosity is an army of voters with fistfuls of pay stubs saying “you earned and your employer paid” demanding that they earned an old age pension, and life time health care.

These tow problems could be solved by getting a majority of the House of reps, 60 Senators, and a President with backbone enough to change paragraph 3402 of USC Title 26 — 'Internal Revenue Code' Subtitle C 'Employment taxes' Chapter 24 'Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages'... from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...." The employer would still calculate the tax, including a note: "Here is how much the feds are expecting you personally to send in within 30 days"

Requiring voters to send in a check for 20% of their take home pay every month would quickly suggest to them who they should elect to Federal office.

This could not be done overnite, but randomly choosing a single letter every quarter, and requiring all voters with names beginning with that letter to submit to the new pay as you go tax system, would get the whole thing done in 9 years. This period would include two Presidential elections, 4 house elections, and a complete rebuild of the Senate.

But there are some Constitution strengthening amendments that would be mighty useful:

An amendment to clarify the meaning of the Commerce clause similar to how James Madison explained the meaning of the general welfare clause in the last three paragraphs of his Federalist Number 41.

Another to clarify the 16th amendment, such as eliminating double taxation, penalizing citizens for using their first amendment right to 'peaceably assembling' by forming profit making corporations

And we should abolish the 17th amendment, that converted the glory of the US Senate to nothing but a second House of reps, with longer terms, higher salaries, and more expensive suits.

Arnold H Nelson

Fax to OK Senator Tom Coburn

Fax to Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK) at 202-xxx-yyyy

Senator Coburn, you recently made a fine speech to the Senate describing a proposed bill, stating how much $ each of 22 sections of the bill would require, questioning the value of the proposed objective.. You opened you wanted to “...make sure the American people know what is in this bill... once they know what is in this bill, they would reject it out of hand.”

'Rejection' should consist of voters electing representatives who would realize how laughable the objectives and costs of the various items in the bill are. Unfortunately that link was broken with the Current Tax Payment act of 1943, removing the responsibility of actually sending in real money to the feds from the voters to their employers. Employers weren't happy with this, but in contrast to individuals, employers have no competitive advantage to do anything other than add all those dollars to their prices, converting the income tax to a silent, apparently painless, national sales tax.

The results of this political parlor trick are clearly visible in the 2011 Statistical Abstract of the United States table 478 showing 37% of the total 2009 federal income of $2.345 trillion coming from employer bank accounts, not voter's.

You concluded 
hoping “... somebody is listening who will treat the pneumonia we are faced with today, which is the housing and mortgage markets. It doesn't matter how much money we spend in this bill. It is doomed to failure unless we fix that problem first.”

Returning the responsibility of sending in actual money to the feds needs only a majority of the House of reps, 60 Senators, and a President with backbone enough to change the US Tax code from "every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax..." to "every employer making payment of wages shall pay all of those wages to the employee...."

Employers could still calculate the tax, replacing the “you earned and your employer paid” cliché with a clear “Here is how much the feds are expecting you to send in this month.”

Requiring voters to send in a check for 20% of their take home pay every month would quickly suggest to them who they should elect to Federal office.

Arnold H Nelson