Why does Mark Levin perpetuate FDR’s slavish Victory Tax with a Liberty Amendment?

[johnwk]

Mark Levin proposed to continue taxing profits, gains and other incomes with one of his "Liberty Amendments", which is anything but promoting liberty.

If one wants to judge the motives and character of those who advocate changes to our Constitution, there are two specific issues which give us a clue: (a) the manner in which Congress fills our national treasury; and (b), what our nation uses for “legal tender”. In other words, “its all about the Benjamins”. So, let us take a look at issue (a) and ask ourselves why does Mark Levin offer to perpetuate taxes calculated from profits, gains and incomes which is a tool of despotic governments and particularly embraced by our progressive domestic enemies?

To fully understand this issue one must first be informed about the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, a movement which was, among other things, intentionally designed by its leadership to enslave the working class person, not to mention seizing an iron fisted regulatory control over America’s businesses and industries.

In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [that’s your ordinary working person] to get behind the 16th Amendment. It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their “fair share” in taxes.

During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording “unearned wealth“ as distinguished from earned wages.

And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor: As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.” 44 Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).

But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal government’s manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working people’s earned wages from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff has ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which the imposition of the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942, not letting a crisis go to waste!

Roosevelt’s class warfare tax expanded the “income tax” upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent “temporary” tax upon working people’s earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax “unearned income”, the temporary tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelt’s class warfare tax, which robs the bread which poor working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence, an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive voting block!

Now, with this in mind the question is, does Mark Levin’s proposed Liberty Amendment to reform taxation offer real change, or is it a “fan dance” to keep alive the source of power which is now used to create an iron fisted control over America’s businesses, industries and working class people? Why does Mark Leven avoid getting to the root cause of our miseries and could be ended by adding the following 32 words were to our Constitution?
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the evil power Congress now exercises which has socialized America‘s once free enterprise system. The words would also help to end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which America’s businesses and labor have produced.

JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[johnwk]

Mark Levin’s proposed "Liberty Amendments" came as a shock to me because they seem to contradict his very criticisms of our tyrannical Washington Establishment.

Why on earth does Mark Levin propose to perpetuate taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes which is a source of power used by progressives in Washington to steal and plunder the wealth which America’s businesses, industries and labor have created?

Why on earth does Mark Levin propose an amendment which would constitutionally recognize and keep alive the current federal reserve money system when our founding fathers specifically forbid notes of any kind, which would include Federal Reserve Notes, from being made a legal tender?

Why does Mark Levin propose an amendment which would make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget when our founding fathers intended deficits ought to be extinguished with an apportioned tax among the States?



JWK


“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

 

[johnwk]

Last night I heard Mark Levin quite upset over a tax on wealth, and yet, he promotes keeping alive taxing wealth. And, I still haven’t heard Mark talk about what has often been referred to as the “Great Compromise” of the Convention of 1787. Surely Mark Levin must know that the Convention of 1787 almost came to a standstill early in July but was saved by an important suggestion which tied taxation and representation by the same standard.

During the framing of our existing Constitution the question of how each State would be represented in Congress became a matter of heated debate and deciding upon rules which fixed each State’s representation created an impasse during the Convention. On July 2nd of the Convention Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something” The Convention did not sit for the next couple of days to allow an appointed committee to hopefully come up with a workable plan for how the States would be represented in Congress. Then, on THURSDAY July 5th 1787, IN CONVENTION, Madision’s Notes records the following:

Mr. GERRY delivered in from the Committee appointed on Monday last the following Report.
"The Committee to whom was referred the 8th. Resol. of the Report from the Committee of the whole House, and so much of the 7th. as has not been decided on, submit the following Report: That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the Convention on condition that both shall be generally adopted. 1. That in the 1st. branch of the Legislature each of the States now in the Union shall be allowed 1 member for every 40,000 inhabitants of the description reported in the 7th. Resolution of the Come. of the whole House: that each State not containing that number shall be allowed 1 member: that all bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the Salaries of the officers of the Governt. of the U. States shall originate in the 1st. branch of the Legislature, and shall not be altered or amended by the 2d. branch: and that no money shall be drawn from the public Treasury. but in pursuance of appropriations to be orginated in the 1st. branch" II. That in the 2d. branch each State shall have an equal vote."

This proposal sparked some of the most important debates of the Convention regarding representation and the manner in which the federal treasury would be filled. All those who now complain of our federal government’s excesses and unjust taxation, ought to read these debates which eventually led to the great compromise of the Convention under which taxation and representation were thoughtfully tied by the same standard ___ each to be apportioned by the various State population sizes!

On July 12 of the Convention, and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."


Eventually this compromise became Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our existing Constitution “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention agreed upon with these words--- contrary to the myth advanced by our progressive sympathizing news media and government operated schools, that our Constitution made Black’s 3/5ths of a person --- the real intention for these words was the creation of two rules: one was intended to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress; and a second rule for filling the national treasury was agreed upon if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures, and Congress found it necessary to resort to a general tax among the States which fell directly upon the people and their property.

The two rules, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be represented as follows and applies to any general tax among the States which reaches the people or their property, and the other rule applies to each state’s number of allotted representatives in Congress.


State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps
population of U.S.



State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population


Mr. Levin makes no attempt to resurrect the brilliance of our Founders ingenious tax plan which was intended to protect the American people from the evil nature of direct taxation.

In speaking of direct taxes, and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose them, our founders were fully cognizant of the destructive nature of this tax which was noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes January 18th, 1797:


"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

And to correct the oppressive and destructive nature of direct taxation, our founders intentionally agreed that direct “taxation shall be in proportion to Representation" and they went on to command that ”No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”


In reference to the rule of apportionment and direct taxation, here is what some of our founding fathers had to say:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state contribute a share of this tax directly in proportion to their voting strength in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON points out:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


And so, Mr. Levin’s proposed tax amendment totally ignores the wisdom and legislative intent of our Constitution, and would keep alive the source of power used by our despotic federal government to inflict economic tyranny upon America’s businesses, industries and productive members of society. Why does he ignore the vital protection which the rule of apportionment was intended to provide?

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides,that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story