We, The People, Define Government Budget Balance

“Balance” appears to mean one thing to President Obama as he makes Bill Ayers’ dreams of Obama’s Father come true: Socialist Redistribution Of Wealth. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/03/27/bill-ayers-admits-second-time-he-wrote-obamas-dreams-my-father)

America agrees, since its inception, that people who work hard can earn the benefits of the sweat of their brow.  Only in Socialism, and its Communist eventuality, is one’s labor subjugated by those who wish to barter its value on their terms and not the laborer’s (i.e. “The State.”).

Capitalism has long worked on the idea of each of us being able to name the price, name the value we deem necessary to receive for the job we’d like to do.  We negotiate and live with the terms of our agreement as a matter of moral principle.

Businesses today often forget this principle and want to re-negotiate their contracts with each worker due to changes in the economy or their product/service meeting obsolescence early, as well as advances in technology affecting business all the way around.  It’s up to the worker to do what is right by their value and future, basing their decision also on what they know about the product or service provided.  Often a company is beating a dead horse, such as GM’s Volt that may only become a regular purchase with $8, even $10 a gallon gasoline.

The reality to all of this is self-responsibility, that it is We, The People, whose Individual Liberty provides for the equal opportunity of negotiation in business, whether we’re the owner or the laborer.  Certain it is that some businesses see their role as one of dominance, as well as some unions see their role as dominant, while the Individual, entrepreneur and worker, remains the predominant sole source of day-to-day domestic economic activity.

And it is in this 90% of the American population that the vested certainty of our Unalienable Rights persists, and it is also that these rights dictate in no uncertain terms that it is We, The People, who determine what is “balanced” in relation to government.  No matter how many academics and economists President Obama wishes to parade, both as people and their reports, before the American People, the fact remains it is We, not the government, who decides what is balanced, for one simple reason:  We, and our Unalienable Rights, are the “Principle” in this equation.  We are both the money and the most important at the same time, “the principle of the thing” as our government carries out Our Will at our expense, not their own – The U.S. Treasury belongs to us!

We are the source of all government revenues according to the prevailing wisdom of Our Founders as articulated by James Madison without objection from any quarter:

It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.

These rights cannot well be separated. The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right.”-- Emphasis mine, [UPDATED LINK FOLLOWS]Page 537, where James Madison rises to speak, Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829-1830, pdf download available here, http://books.google.com/ notable that property and the Right of Suffrage are interrelated along with slavery at the time.

So much for Social Justice...

It is we to whom all justification of cost must be made, solely because we are the source of government revenues (i.e. The money government spends).  And it is in this simple fact, historically for over 200 years, that establishes that only we, as the “Principle,” have any authority whatsoever to determine balance.  We are the ones burdened by the expense government seeks, to be subject to taxation, to levy, even to imprisonment if we fail to pay what government wants from us.

Patriotic duty? Certainly, so long as government is operating according to Our Written Constitution which assures our best interest, protecting our Individual Liberty, securing our person and property, is followed to the letter of its authorship, of its purpose and intention in existence as Our Written Constitution so ratified.

But, when government is seeking to secure from the people, annual deficit spending – spending beyond our means – built on the backs of industrial expansion, meaning: job creation, industry, invention, savings and the denial of Individual Pride that derives from being a government dependent, at that point government is seeking our acquiescence to the liquidation of our private property rights.  For the result is a further granting of government to cause the means of converting our private property into their opportunity to pay off debts they alone sought to have for political self-interest.

It is time we took a stand.  This is “taxation without representation” in that, there is no representation of the Principal in the money being taxed, no exchange with government for anything but an increase cost for what government thinks is best for us.  Representation requires a justification for the increase in revenues by government, and, as my previous paper covered, there is no justification for many current expenses, and thus, this is merely a means for government to control private property, to decide winners and losers amongst individuals based on a criteria that has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with political maneuvers for votes.  Taxation of one to take the money to give to another and purchase their vote, is not representation of the tax for the benefit of the payor, of the “Principle” in any way.

Note the patronage opportunity for the wealthy in the top 2% paying 40% of the tax burden, that even Annenberg's factcheck.org got this one right, citing the tax policy center, from the 2008 election:

“For simplicity, we'll just focus on the over-$250,000 group. Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the Tax Policy Center figures. Under either Obama or Clinton, they might pay even more.”-- http://factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_the_us_population_makes.html

National Public Radio (NPR) shows this actuality of the wealthy paying more than anyone else, even at incomes of $100,000 is accurate for 2009:

“SIEGEL: And if we looked at, say, the top 20 percent, the top fifth of all incomes in the U.S., who would that be and how much do they pay?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The top fifth starts a little bit above $100,000. That group makes about 56 percent of all income and pay about 70 percent of all taxes.” -- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125997180

Note that this statistic obviously would not include General Electric (GE) who owned MSNBC until December of 2009, and was a rabid cheerleader for then Senator Obama and recently has no tax burden on around 5 billion dollars in profits from 14 billion dollars in revenues:

“For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.” -- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558

As I said earlier there will always be businesses who are dishonorable, who want to renegotiate the contract.  GE apparently negotiated by supporting President Obama's Presidential bid to receive special treatment.

Compare all of this minutiae I've just mentioned with the James Madison quote above regarding our rights in our own property once acquired.

Redistribution of wealth that assures GE has to amend its tax return for 2010 will never happen.  Instead we'll attempt to take the upper income individuals, who make 100k or more, and ask them to pay another 4% on top of the 70% they already pay.  The sole argument, “because they can afford it” and ignoring that these people can afford to hire others and assure we all have equal opportunity to have our own private property, and rights in property, to be protected by the government we instituted for that purpose.

This my friends is why Madison calls private property ownership by our own sweat a “social right,” because it is a natural right and justifies the purpose to instituting government to assure and protect both the property and the right, not hinder and scheme to violate that right for political self-interest.  Obama's proposal to raise taxes, and return uncertainty to our nation's employing wealthy, is a typical Progressive renegotiation after-the-fact-stunt.  Clearly there is no trusting President Obama when he makes a deal as we all thought he did in January to not have the taxes on upper incomes go up for 2 years.

In auto mechanics and electronics it is said “parts is parts” let's remove and replace those who seek to ignore their legitimate authority to be a government, and instead, see us as “marks” to be duped by the next government emotional appeal – be it hate, anger, frustration, jealousy – or whatever will make us act-without-thinking.  It's time we have servants who accept, appreciate, and honor Our Written Constitution, and recognize the “Principle,” We, The People, who pay the bills, are their only special interest.  No one tells us “its a 3-legged stool” as a ploy to justify picking our pocket and gets away with it anymore!

We, The People, know government's problem is spending, that this is the intentionally excessive center pole of the Progressive Cloward & Piven barstool.  It has been entirely abused, and “the Faith and Credit” of the United States, government taxing power thereafter exploited against the people as per usual, to afford legacies left behind by those who do not have to live with the consequences of them, at least that's how it works until we're so broke our nation doesn't survive.


Thank you for reading,


Toddy Littman


P.S. Please see http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.101 to see how saving money expands the economy and http://changingwind.org/index/news.php?extend.160.2 to understand the “general Welfare” clause expands nothing beyond Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution.

printer friendly LAN_NEWS_24

You must be logged in to make comments on this site - please log in, or if you are not registered click here to signup