Opinion 1.0
Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand. That time has come. I have never witnessed such a dishonest administration in my adult life. I feel we need to start over with congress. A recent poll stated 68% would vote out the incumbents and 20% would not. What does this say? Hardly any Americans has any faith in our congress. Americans (including myself) would gamble on new blood over the corrupt, old fashion, dishonest political machine that would turn the stomachs of our founding fathers, known as the present day congress. Obama reminds me of a modern day mafia boss. We can't trust a word that comes out of his mouth. As he camapigns for healthcare, lies upon lies spew from his lips. Today, Politico obtained a private memo from Steny Hoyer, D-MD, a Capo for Pelosi, stating do not get into a in-depth debate about the current reconciliation or any other information about their underhanded processes. At noon today, Pelosi is unconscious in her office drinking Jack Daniels on the rocks and tripping over body parts lying on the floor and furniture in her office and outside in the hallway. Harry Reid is baracaded in his office watching re-runs of "Lost in Space" reminising about the days when he played Dr. Smith. President Obama is in the Oval office clutching his autographed Saul Alinsky framed picture, screaming" we are so close, comrade!" I know I will receive emails about me calling Obama a commie, however, if this Obamination passes, the IRS will hire 16,500 new agents to scrutinize the American public and will have access to your personal medical records. Tell me that isn't socialism? The student loans program was also included in the bill? What is next, the secret Obama police headed by Andy Stern, president of SEIU? Tomorrow, there is a huge demonstration at the Capitol in Washington, DC. I believe that thousands will show up. Everyone I have talked to is against this particular healthcare reform. 2,700 pages of socialistic, democrat takeover of healthcare. Sidenote; If I see one more democrat sob story with the underpriveleged constituents behind the representative as wallpaper, I will stick a pointed stick in my eye. Shady backroom deals, closed door dealing, outright lies, fudged math, arrogance, eletists' demeanor and the fear of our beloved nation's financial viability. Children in this country will never be able to pay off our debt. Paul Ryan said today that the healthcare bill is a "financial frankenstein." It will put us in bankruptcy. Another Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security all wrapped in one. This will be the largest entitlement scam in American history. I believe this legislation should be considered treasonous. (treason: A crime that undermines the offender's government. Disloyalty by virtue of subversive behaviour. An act of deliberate betrayal.) Case in point? The CBO score is a pipedream. There isn't a written bill for them to score. Fox News' Brett Baier had the best interview ever with the "anointed one." I think he deserves a Pulitzer Prize. Obama said in the interview that he doesn't care about the legislative process, the end justifies the means? Chicago style politics, in example. Let's dicuss the "deem and pass." If the democrats use this procedure, it will tatint an already tainted legislative process and will trigger a plethura of lawsuits across this country. I don't think this bill will ever come to fruition. Between the states and private organizations, they will be in court for the next 10 years. Remember, this proposed healthcare bill doesn't take effect until 2014. Yes, we pay for it for 4 years before it takes effect. That is how the democrats try to make it financially viable. Pay for it for ten years and receive six years of healthcare. Isn't there a violation of laws in this process? I feel like I need a shower talking about healthcare and the legislative process. We (the American people) will make history tomorrow at the Capitol. I thought the Global Warming was the biggest con job on America, Healthcare supercedes AGW. "Don't tread on me."
He never stops campaigning. It is the only thing he is good at:
The Great Reneger:
Unbelievable Video of the week: Tom Periello, democrat congressman
Coburn threatens House Dems: If you think you’ll get away with selling your vote, think again
posted at 6:02 pm on March 18, 2010
by Allahpundit
Two scoops of awesome via Hengler. The key bit is his promise to scrutinize appropriations bills too. That’s how the horse-trading on this one will be done — in future bills, quietly, after the public’s disgust over dealmaking in ObamaCare has abated a bit. In fact, rumors are circulating that Bart Gordon’s vote was purchased with the promise of a job at NASA and that fellow retiree John Tanner might find himself with an ambassadorship if he plays his cards right. Can we place much stock in rumors, though? Remember, it was also rumored that Joe Sestak was offered an administration role if he dropped his challenge to Specter and there were no witnesses to that. Except, er, Joe Sestak.
This, of course, applies only to the House. In the Senate, they’re much more honest about displaying their graft:
Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) went on the defensive Thursday afternoon after Republicans seized on a carve-out in the health care reconciliation bill for his state as well as comments he made indicating the Senate would likely not be able to pass the bill unchanged.
Conrad told reporters that he has instructed his staff to ask the House to remove a provision from the bill allowing the state-owned Bank of North Dakota to continue receiving federal student loan subsidies, even though the program would be eliminated for other banks. Republicans had already dubbed the provision the “Bismarck Bank Job.”
“In this [partisan] environment, you can’t defend. It doesn’t matter what the merits are. It doesn’t matter,” said Conrad. “So I just told them take it out. … We negotiated this in good faith months ago. But it’s not worth it. It’s not right that it be used to misrepresent this package.”
Hey, Kent? It wasn’t just Republicans who were pissed. Exit question: Am I the only one who’ll miss the colorful names for Democrats’ legislative bribes when this is over? Cornhusker Kickback, we hardly knew ye.
Update: Looks like Floridian Dem Suzanne Kosmas is about to sell her vote for a NASA deal too, so we should probably get cracking on a name for this one.
President Barack Obama put the personal touch on his healthcare lobbying last week, inviting U.S. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, D-New Smyrna Beach, to the White House for a 15-20 minute discussion, according to congressional Democrats…
A congressional Democrat said Kosmas frequently pivoted the conversation to NASA — a major issue for Kosmas as she represents Kennedy Space Center. The NASA facility is set to lost as many as 9,000 jobs once the shuttle is retired this year and she is seeking help for those workers.
Tom Coburn- There's a new Sheriff in town:
2 Comico:
Quote of the day:
"We need courage."Barack Hussein Obama speech at George Mason University, March 19, 2010.
Anger at Washington reaches full throttle
Millions of Americans urged to 'drive stake through the heart' of Obamacare
Posted: March 19, 2010
12:10 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The level of intense anger at Washington is heating up as several high-profile groups are calling on millions of Americans to slam Congress with phone calls, e-mails and faxes demanding that lawmakers vote "no" on the health-care bill.
As WND reported, reforms pushed by President Obama and other Democrats may be approved without ever actually having a direct vote, but could be "deemed" to have been passed and then signed into law by Obama. The process is called the "Slaughter Strategy," named for Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who chairs the House Rules Committee.
Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit group that focuses on constitutional litigation, has distributed a letter to every member of the House, showing that the proposed "Slaughter Strategy" is unconstitutional. Its members have slammed Congress with more than 250,000 faxes expressing outrage over the bill.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states, "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; … in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively."
The clowns in Washington obviously have no clue about our founding document. Send them copies of the Constitution today!
The Founding Fathers included Article I, Section 7 in the Constitution to keep Congress accountable to the people, Liberty Counsel explained.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Louise Slaughter are attempting to deceive the American people by refusing to cast votes on the actual language in the Senate health-care bill," the group said in a statement. "The president and his allies in Congress are masters of confusion and deception. They have a political agenda which distorts the facts regarding health care."
Liberty Counsel warned that the Senate health-care bill funds abortion, rations care, limits freedom and will bankrupt America.
"The president and his allies in Congress are masters of confusion and deception. They have a political agenda which distorts the facts regarding health care," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. "Last night President Obama said he is not concerned with the process. In other words, the end justifies any means. It is unbelievable that the president would disregard the Constitution and the rule of law to push a narrow political agenda that most Americans have rejected."
'Fourth down and goal to go'
Likewise, the American Family Association, or AFA, has joined the fight, sending out action alerts to its entire 2.5 million-member network, urging them to contact their representatives and press them to vote "no" on any and all versions of health-care reform proposals.
AFA also sent targeted action alerts into districts of 46 Democratic congressmen whose positions on this weekend's vote remain uncertain.
Buddy Smith, AFA executive vice president said, "It's fourth down and goal to go, and Democrats are trying desperately to push government takeover of health care across the goal line. The American people need to stand as one against this radical attempt to remake our country and put government bureaucrats between their families and their health-care providers."
'Will the government ever stop?'
The Home School Legal Defense Association, or HSLDA, blasted the current legislation, saying it poses a serious threat to parental rights and homeschool freedom.
William Estrada, HSLDA director of federal relations, explains that Section 2951 on Page 568 of the 2,074-page bill, titled "Maternal, Infant, And Early Childhood Home Visiting Programs," would create a federal grant program to fund state home visitation programs where government officials – including social workers – would be allowed to visit homes of certain families "in order to promote improvements in maternal and prenatal health, infant health, child health and development, parenting related to child development outcomes, school readiness, and the socio-economic status of such families, and reductions in child abuse, neglect, and injuries."
While Estrada notes that home visitation is voluntary, details of the programs are "open to being politically influenced by government bureaucrats who may think that they know more about parenting than do parents."
He warns that parents may be pressured to adopt child-rearing methods that are against the family's religious beliefs, and that home visitation officials could even threaten families and neglect investigations if they refuse to follow parenting education models.
"[F]undamentally, HSLDA believes that the federal government has no constitutional authority to fund and oversee home-visitation programs and parenting classes," Estrada wrote. "Once the federal government gets a foot into the door of families' homes, will it ever stop?"
Praying for Congress
Focus on the Family Action criticized the health-care legislation's funding for abortion and urged Americans to put pressure on the lawmakers to reject the bill. Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family Action's vice president of government and public policy, called the legislation and the process by which Democrats are planning to pass it "fraught with danger."
"If you think you know what's going on, you're missing something because I can barely understand it," Minnery said. "There's two processes – this deem-and-pass thing and reconciliation – both of which are highly questionable when used in these circumstances. We have never before seen a push on a bill of this magnitude that will give government control over 16 or 17 percent of the economy done in an atmosphere in which there are insufficient votes and these arcane procedures being used for it."
Minnery said Democrats are struggling to round up votes, but he doesn't believe they have enough yet. He suggested people call their representatives' district offices because so many people are jamming phone lines at the Capitol. Focus on the Family also encouraged people to call this week during its daily radio broadcast.
Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst with Focus on the Family Action, said there is a lot wrong with this bill.
"We are down to the wire," she said, "and the historic vote is almost upon us. Americans must not delay in telling their lawmakers to 'start over' on health care and to vote 'no' on a health-care bill that throws open the door to federal funding of abortion."
Focus on the Family Action host Stuart Shepard asked that Americans pray for their representatives and ask God to give them wisdom and insight before the vote.
'Driving a stake through the heart' of Obamacare
Freedomworks reported 130 economists signed a letter to the White House warning that the tax hikes needed to pay for a $1 trillion plan would slow economic growth and eliminate jobs. They warned that the bill would raise taxes by almost $500 billion over 10 years and a significant portion of the tax increases would fall on small business owners. They also stated that the bill would impose a tax of $2,000 per employee on employers with more than 50 employees that don't provide health insurance.
"In addition to constricting economic growth and reducing employment, the health care bill will increase spending on health care and will increase the cost of health coverage," the economists wrote. "The new and higher taxes on America's small businesses and workers included in the bill are detrimental to job creation and economic growth, especially now given the fragile state of the economy."
As WND reported, a fierce campaign is urging Americans to go "Code Red" in an emergency effort targeting wavering House Democrats who are vacillating on whether they will vote for the bill.
At last count, the Code Red campaign listed 205 "no" votes, 202 "yes" votes and 24 undecided.
The Tea Party Patriots announced today that tea partiers will be back in Washington, D.C., on March 20 to storm the House offices and demand that lawmakers vote "no" on the bill.
Actor John Voight will join the crowd at noon. The following organizations are also joining the effort: Let Freedom Ring, 60 Plus, Institute for Liberty, FreedomWorks and Americans for Tax Reform.
Meanwhile, Obama may be having trouble keeping his own supporters advocating for the legislation. Even left-leaning organizations such as the National Council of La Raza, or NCLR, which ardently worked toward an Obama victory, appeared disillusioned by the legislation. The group announced today that it will oppose the health-care bill being considered by Congress unless major changes are made during reconciliation. It said the Senate version does not go far enough to cover "all U.S. residents."
Even some in the mainstream media have expressed skepticism over the current plan.
"When even the Associated Press says that premiums will go up under Obamacare, and the Washington Post says the Democrats 'reconciliation' strategy is 'dodgy,' you know you're dealing with something that not even honest liberals can support," noted Bryan Fischer, AFA director of issue analysis. "We need to drive a stake through the heart of this legislation and make sure it never comes to life again."
Chelsea Schilling is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
Kill Bill Vol. III: Red Alert!
March/ Rally at the Capitol in Washington, DC, March 19, 2010 at 12 noon. Bring your signs, I will see you there.
Opposition to Senate Healthcare Bill: Call your Senators!
"We the people" must stop the Obamacare Proposals: I am formally asking (pleading) with you to muster up the initiative and enthusiasm to fight the healthcare bill that will emerge in the end of the year. First, there are 2 bills (proposals) that will somehow be merged into one bill. Liberals are adamant about some form of "Public Option" (Government Run Option) and federally funded abortion. I think the democrats believe they can push this bill through while we are sleeping. The democrats have blocked many bills that would allow the final bill to be posted on the internet 72 hours prior to a vote. Why? you know why. We must oppose this more than we did over the summer. Let them know, we are not against healthcare reform, just not a total makeover. Call and email your representatives. I have emailed and called mine so many times, they are referring to me by my first name. Write an old fashioned letter, it has a lot of importance. Attend your local tea parties and townhalls to voice your opinions and make a overwhelming presence. Below, is a little list how you can get involved. It is our civic duty. "It is our Country."
http://www.congress.org/
http://www.joinpatientsfirst.com/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://www.resistnet.com/
http://www.teapartypatriots.com/
http://www.teaparty.org/
http://www.taxpayer.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/
info@cmpi.org
http://www.fairtax.org/
http://www.conservativeamericansunited.org/
CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES! EMAIL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES! CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES! EMAIL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES!
We need you now! Call and email your representatives throughout the weekend. Do not falter, stay the course!
Capitol Switchboard:
202-224-3141
202-225-3141
800-965-4701
800-828-0498
Quote du jour:
"Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen. (Mr. Obama, this is you.)
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
Federalist Papers
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, January 8, 1788.
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
WE HAVE seen that the result of the observations, to which the foregoing number has been principally devoted, is, that from the natural operation of the different interests and views of the various classes of the community, whether the representation of the people be more or less numerous, it will consist almost entirely of proprietors of land, of merchants, and of members of the learned professions, who will truly represent all those different interests and views. If it should be objected that we have seen other descriptions of men in the local legislatures, I answer that it is admitted there are exceptions to the rule, but not in sufficient number to influence the general complexion or character of the government. There are strong minds in every walk of life that will rise superior to the disadvantages of situation, and will command the tribute due to their merit, not only from the classes to which they particularly belong, but from the society in general. The door ought to be equally open to all; and I trust, for the credit of human nature, that we shall see examples of such vigorous plants flourishing in the soil of federal as well as of State legislation; but occasional instances of this sort will not render the reasoning founded upon the general course of things, less conclusive.
The subject might be placed in several other lights that would all lead to the same result; and in particular it might be asked, What greater affinity or relation of interest can be conceived between the carpenter and blacksmith, and the linen manufacturer or stocking weaver, than between the merchant and either of them? It is notorious that there are often as great rivalships between different branches of the mechanic or manufacturing arts as there are between any of the departments of labor and industry; so that, unless the representative body were to be far more numerous than would be consistent with any idea of regularity or wisdom in its deliberations, it is impossible that what seems to be the spirit of the objection we have been considering should ever be realized in practice. But I forbear to dwell any longer on a matter which has hitherto worn too loose a garb to admit even of an accurate inspection of its real shape or tendency.
There is another objection of a somewhat more precise nature that claims our attention. It has been asserted that a power of internal taxation in the national legislature could never be exercised with advantage, as well from the want of a sufficient knowledge of local circumstances, as from an interference between the revenue laws of the Union and of the particular States. The supposition of a want of proper knowledge seems to be entirely destitute of foundation. If any question is depending in a State legislature respecting one of the counties, which demands a knowledge of local details, how is it acquired? No doubt from the information of the members of the county. Cannot the like knowledge be obtained in the national legislature from the representatives of each State? And is it not to be presumed that the men who will generally be sent there will be possessed of the necessary degree of intelligence to be able to communicate that information? Is the knowledge of local circumstances, as applied to taxation, a minute topographical acquaintance with all the mountains, rivers, streams, highways, and bypaths in each State; or is it a general acquaintance with its situation and resources, with the state of its agriculture, commerce, manufactures, with the nature of its products and consumptions, with the different degrees and kinds of its wealth, property, and industry?
Nations in general, even under governments of the more popular kind, usually commit the administration of their finances to single men or to boards composed of a few individuals, who digest and prepare, in the first instance, the plans of taxation, which are afterwards passed into laws by the authority of the sovereign or legislature.
Inquisitive and enlightened statesmen are deemed everywhere best qualified to make a judicious selection of the objects proper for revenue; which is a clear indication, as far as the sense of mankind can have weight in the question, of the species of knowledge of local circumstances requisite to the purposes of taxation.
The taxes intended to be comprised under the general denomination of internal taxes may be subdivided into those of the DIRECT and those of the INDIRECT kind. Though the objection be made to both, yet the reasoning upon it seems to be confined to the former branch. And indeed, as to the latter, by which must be understood duties and excises on articles of consumption, one is at a loss to conceive what can be the nature of the difficulties apprehended. The knowledge relating to them must evidently be of a kind that will either be suggested by the nature of the article itself, or can easily be procured from any well-informed man, especially of the mercantile class. The circumstances that may distinguish its situation in one State from its situation in another must be few, simple, and easy to be comprehended. The principal thing to be attended to, would be to avoid those articles which had been previously appropriated to the use of a particular State; and there could be no difficulty in ascertaining the revenue system of each. This could always be known from the respective codes of laws, as well as from the information of the members from the several States.
The objection, when applied to real property or to houses and lands, appears to have, at first sight, more foundation, but even in this view it will not bear a close examination. Land taxes are co monly laid in one of two modes, either by ACTUAL valuations, permanent or periodical, or by OCCASIONAL assessments, at the discretion, or according to the best judgment, of certain officers whose duty it is to make them. In either case, the EXECUTION of the business, which alone requires the knowledge of local details, must be devolved upon discreet persons in the character of commissioners or assessors, elected by the people or appointed by the government for the purpose. All that the law can do must be to name the persons or to prescribe the manner of their election or appointment, to fix their numbers and qualifications and to draw the general outlines of their powers and duties. And what is there in all this that cannot as well be performed by the national legislature as by a State legislature? The attention of either can only reach to general principles; local details, as already observed, must be referred to those who are to execute the plan.
But there is a simple point of view in which this matter may be placed that must be altogether satisfactory. The national legislature can make use of the SYSTEM OF EACH STATE WITHIN THAT STATE. The method of laying and collecting this species of taxes in each State can, in all its parts, be adopted and employed by the federal government.
Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''
It has been very properly observed by different speakers and writers on the side of the Constitution, that if the exercise of the power of internal taxation by the Union should be discovered on experiment to be really inconvenient, the federal government may then forbear the use of it, and have recourse to requisitions in its stead. By way of answer to this, it has been triumphantly asked, Why not in the first instance omit that ambiguous power, and rely upon the latter resource? Two solid answers may be given. The first is, that the exercise of that power, if convenient, will be preferable, because it will be more effectual; and it is impossible to prove in theory, or otherwise than by the experiment, that it cannot be advantageously exercised. The contrary, indeed, appears most probable. The second answer is, that the existence of such a power in the Constitution will have a strong influence in giving efficacy to requisitions. When the States know that the Union can apply itself without their agency, it will be a powerful motive for exertion on their part.
As to the interference of the revenue laws of the Union, and of its members, we have already seen that there can be no clashing or repugnancy of authority. The laws cannot, therefore, in a legal sense, interfere with each other; and it is far from impossible to avoid an interference even in the policy of their different systems. An effectual expedient for this purpose will be, mutually, to abstain from those objects which either side may have first had recourse to. As neither can CONTROL the other, each will have an obvious and sensible interest in this reciprocal forbearance. And where there is an IMMEDIATE common interest, we may safely count upon its operation. When the particular debts of the States are done away, and their expenses come to be limited within their natural compass, the possibility almost of interference will vanish. A small land tax will answer the purpose of the States, and will be their most simple and most fit resource.
Many spectres have been raised out of this power of internal taxation, to excite the apprehensions of the people: double sets of revenue officers, a duplication of their burdens by double taxations, and the frightful forms of odious and oppressive poll-taxes, have been played off with all the ingenious dexterity of political legerdemain.
As to the first point, there are two cases in which there can be no room for double sets of officers: one, where the right of imposing the tax is exclusively vested in the Union, which applies to the duties on imports; the other, where the object has not fallen under any State regulation or provision, which may be applicable to a variety of objects. In other cases, the probability is that the United States will either wholly abstain from the objects preoccupied for local purposes, or will make use of the State officers and State regulations for collecting the additional imposition. This will best answer the views of revenue, because it will save expense in the collection, and will best avoid any occasion of disgust to the State governments and to the people. At all events, here is a practicable expedient for avoiding such an inconvenience; and nothing more can be required than to show that evils predicted to not necessarily result from the plan.
As to any argument derived from a supposed system of influence, it is a sufficient answer to say that it ought not to be presumed; but the supposition is susceptible of a more precise answer. If such a spirit should infest the councils of the Union, the most certain road to the accomplishment of its aim would be to employ the State officers as much as possible, and to attach them to the Union by an accumulation of their emoluments. This would serve to turn the tide of State influence into the channels of the national government, instead of making federal influence flow in an opposite and adverse current. But all suppositions of this kind are invidious, and ought to be banished from the consideration of the great question before the people. They can answer no other end than to cast a mist over the truth.
As to the suggestion of double taxation, the answer is plain. The wants of the Union are to be supplied in one way or another; if to be done by the authority of the federal government, it will not be to be done by that of the State government. The quantity of taxes to be paid by the community must be the same in either case; with this advantage, if the provision is to be made by the Union that the capital resource of commercial imposts, which is the most convenient branch of revenue, can be prudently improved to a much greater extent under federal than under State regulation, and of course will render it less necessary to recur to more inconvenient methods; and with this further advantage, that as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!
As to poll taxes, I, without scruple, confess my disapprobation of them; and though they have prevailed from an early period in those States [1] which have uniformly been the most tenacious of their rights, I should lament to see them introduced into practice under the national government. But does it follow because there is a power to lay them that they will actually be laid? Every State in the Union has power to impose taxes of this kind; and yet in several of them they are unknown in practice. Are the State governments to be stigmatized as tyrannies, because they possess this power? If they are not, with what propriety can the like power justify such a charge against the national government, or even be urged as an obstacle to its adoption? As little friendly as I am to the species of imposition, I still feel a thorough conviction that the power of having recourse to it ought to exist in the federal government. There are certain emergencies of nations, in which expedients, that in the ordinary state of things ought to be forborne, become essential to the public weal. And the government, from the possibility of such emergencies, ought ever to have the option of making use of them. The real scarcity of objects in this country, which may be considered as productive sources of revenue, is a reason peculiar to itself, for not abridging the discretion of the national councils in this respect. There may exist certain critical and tempestuous conjunctures of the State, in which a poll tax may become an inestimable resource. And as I know nothing to exempt this portion of the globe from the common calamities that have befallen other parts of it, I acknowledge my aversion to every project that is calculated to disarm the government of a single weapon, which in any possible contingency might be usefully employed for the general defense and security.
I have now gone through the examination of such of the powers proposed to be vested in the United States, which may be considered as having an immediate relation to the energy of the government; and have endeavored to answer the principal objections which have been made to them. I have passed over in silence those minor authorities, which are either too inconsiderable to have been thought worthy of the hostilities of the opponents of the Constitution, or of too manifest propriety to admit of controversy. The mass of judiciary power, however, might have claimed an investigation under this head, had it not been for the consideration that its organization and its extent may be more advantageously considered in connection. This has determined me to refer it to the branch of our inquiries upon which we shall next enter.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.wsj.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/
Chelsea Schilling
Allahpundit
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
