Burnt Orange Report

Um, Byron, how can anything Bush has done to Federal taxes affect local property tax rates? At the least, it would require Bush to have cut spending being sent to local governments because of the tax cuts, but, alack and alas, he has not. So I don't really see how this criticism applies.

Besides, I thought your side loved higher taxes, and more government control over the economic and financial decisions people make. If Bush had forced tax hikes, shouldn't you be singing his praises for doing so?

Sherk

Sherk, most if not all state income taxes are pegged to the federal rate. Fed rates go down, state rates go down. The money has to come from somewhere, so property taxes go up. Not only do you lose your job, you lose your house too. Cool.

not to mention people who are being cut from social programs. When the federal government stops funding social services, those people don't go away...the get absorbed into state programs which are also underfunded, and then they get absorbed into local programs (also underfunded) and then they become the individual tax payers' problems.

Social problems don't go away just because our government doesn't feel like footing the bill. The buck just keeps getting passed until it ends up on your doorstep.

It's pretty easy to see that if Bush hadn't passed federal tax cuts, there may have been more federal money for things like education (no child left behind?) and homeland security. Instead, the states have these increased expenses to pay for, and they're going to have to find the money somewhere.

Add to that the fact that the taxes are being recouped in many cases with non-progressive taxes (at least in TX), and you can see why we would say this is a shift of the tax burden onto the working & middle classes.

Shrek(lich),

You claim to be an economist (grad student), and you see NO connection between a lack of Federal tax revenue and the increased need for local revenue?

As many have posted, the Federal government funds many programs in conjunction with other levels of government (state, county, and city), such as education, law enforcement (i.e. "homeland security"), health care (e.g. medicaid, CHIPS, etc.) & environmental (emission standards, etc.). If the money dries up from the feds it has to come from somewhere.

Either you must know this and chose to pretend otherwise (i.e. LIE) to advance your ideological agenda, OR you must be unfamiliar with the most basic concepts of macro-economics.

Of course, I can see how someone may take the position (albeit misguided) that the aformentioned programs should be cut (what the hell, does the American economy really need a healthy, educated workforce anyway?). However, people have demanded, through their duly elected officals at the state, county, and local level, for these services, hence the necessary property, etc. tax increases to cover them.

Regarding your view that Democrats love taxes & controlling people, I HOPE you are being facetious. (Even I have hope in a so-called economist who does not understand the most basic concepts of macro-economics). If not, I can only guide you to the political models of the Middle East which exhibit the exact kind of theocracy you and your ilk advocate, which does a very good job of controlling people's lives.

WhoMe?

Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful resonse to my posting. Even though we have strong disagreements on issues of principle, I am glad to see that we can discuss them in a civil manner.

As to the points you raised, first of all, I am an economist, and I do see no connection between decreased Federal taxes and local revenues, because local taxes are, for the most part, independent of federal taxes. At least, state and local property, incomes, sales, and most business taxes are. I think state death taxes are linked to the federal rate, but not all states have them (MI doesn't), and that is a small portion of both Bush's tax cut, and state/local revenues.

You are right that the Feds fund a lot of local programs that they have no constitutional business (10th Ammendment) being involved in, but my point was that Bush hasn't cut spending on these (or virtually any other federal) programs, so federal tax cuts haven't had an effect on local finances. So, since federal spending hasn't fallen, state and local officials haven't been hurt by Bush's tax cuts, and that isn't why they are cutting spending or raising taxes. I am perplexed, WhoMe?. How does pointing this out makes me a liar or a bad economist?

The reason states are cutting spending (Michigan, where I live when I am not in school, is cutting spending by ~$900M this coming bugdet year!) is because they massively increased spending during the late '90s boom. State and local spending grew at something like a 50% faster rate than the surging Federal budget did during the late '90s and '00.

Well, it turns out that the economy wasn't doing quite that well, and state governments now have to adjust their spending to the revenue that they are actually recieving, not what they expected to take in. Hence, some states are trying to increase taxes, while others (like Texas) are responding to the problem by reducing the size of government.

Now, as a matter of principle, I *do* take the position that the Federal government should cut spending to state and local programs, both on the constitutional grounds (10th ammendment, again) that the Fed. government isn't supposed to be interfering with the states, even if it is to provide cash (and usually dictate policy with that cash), and on the general grounds that I don't think state and local governments should be operating those programs either. On economic issues I'm pretty much a libertarian, and I wish Bush had slashed and burned federal spending. Manifestly he hasn't, so it makes little sense to criticize him for doing so.

As to the final point, I am not at all being facetious. What do you think taxes are? Voluntary offerings? Umm, not quite. When the government taxes your earnings, and then spends it for you, it takes away your control over how you live your life, and substitutes instead the judgement of government officials, some elected, some not (i.e. civil servants). Increasing taxes and government spending increases the control the government has over how people live their lives, and does diminish individual liberty and freedom.

Look, I am not a theocrat. To paraphrase TX Bubba's comments to me on redistricting, check out my postings on the issue before you criticize. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that people should be allowed, for the most part, to sin (murder being an obvious exception), and that they must voluntarily come to repentance. Faith must be voluntary to be genuine, you cannot force someone into accepting Christ as their savior. The realms of church and state are separate, and since the government turns virtually everything it touches to bovine feces, I like it that way. However, issues like abortion come down to a question of "what is murder." If it is murder, it should be outlawed, and no-one has the right to murder, regardless of their irreligious beliefs. Similarly, gay-marriage is an attempt to use the power of government to abolish the institution of marriage as it has existed for the past several millenia, to use a governmental re-definition of marriage as an instrument of social engineering. You don't have to be a theocrat oppose the government legislating immorality. Not to bring up abortion/gay rights on this thread, just pointing out that I my pro-life, pro-marriage positions don't mean I beleive the government should run peoples lives for them.

Regards,

and Merry Christmas,

Sherk

Sherk,

Thank you for your comments and for wishing me a Merry Christmas. While I appreciate the setiment, I am not Christian and do not celebrate Christmas, religiousy, secularly, or otherwise.

However, I do look forward to the day off and plan to catch up on rest and relaxation. (Then again, knowing me, I probably will go into the office and catch up on some things).

Merry Christmas,

-WhoMe?

Shrek,

By the way, the 10th Amendment does not prohibit the US government from spending money on education, health care, the environment, or other issues.

The 10th Amendment, ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ") was enacted merely to reinforce the point that the States did not need federal authorization to act in their spheres. Neither the express language of the 10th Amendment, its discusssion in the Federalist papers, nor case law has ever professed to limit the Federal government action in the manners in which you suggest.

On the contrary, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Consitution, since the nearly the inception of our Republic, by its express language, discussion in the Federalist papers, and by Supreme Court interpretation has been held to allow Federal Spending for such purposes as you decry.

You may disagree with the wisdom of such expenditures. However, concerning the legality of such spending, your are simply dead wrong. Perhaps you you should stick to economics and leave the constitutional scholarship to the pros.

The silence in rebuttal is deafening.

WhoMe?

The tedium of the seven hour drive home from Rochester, NY, through Canada, past suddenly very consciencious border guards, to home in Michigan is also deafening, but I guess that is besides the point.

As to my duty to rebut, here goes.

It goes without saying that the U.S. Constitution was designed primarily to limit the power of the central government, to create a government capable of functioning (as the government under the articles of confederation was not) while not becoming tyrannical like most European governments of the time. The express language of everyone involved, both in the federalist papers and in virtually every discourse on the topic, centered on how best to restrain the power of government, while still allowing it to operate effectively.

Of course, we got what we have today, with separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches, a divided legislature (with at the time the Senate chosen by the States), and, what is relevant to our discussion, decentralization of power. The scope accorded to the Federal government was limited to what were percieved as being Federal responsibilities, namely, national defense, and everything else mentioned in article 1, Section 8. The understanding at the time was that the Federal government had the power to do everything mentioned it Article 1, Sect. 8, and nothing else. These spheres, war and national defense, currency, patents, weights and measures, the post office, establishing tribunals inferior to the SCOTUS, etc. where the accepted bounds of Federal power. To paraphrase you, the express language of the Federalist Papers made it perfectly clear that the central government was limited in scope to doing only these functions, and no more.

The Bill of Rights was actually controversial at the time for just this reason. Why do we need ammendments saying "Congress shall pass no law respecting ..." when article 1, section 8 already denies congress this power? For one, it is wholly redundant. Additionally, both federalists and anti-federalists were concerned that in later years the bill of rights would be interpreted in later years as saying, in effect, "The government can't do these things expressly prohibited, but everything else is permissible."

It was to allay these concerns that the 9th and 10th ammendments were added in the Bill of Rights. They were percieved by the Federalists as being superflous, not changing anything already in the balance of powers created by the constitution. Rather they merely emphasized that the Bill of Rights was not defining the outer limits of Federal authority, that simply because the Bill of Rights didn't prohibit something, that didn't mean that the government could do it. The 10th ammendment is quite clear on the matter:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is pretty explicit in what it means. Any power not expressly granted to the Feds by the constitution is expressly denied to them, and reserved for the states or the people.

Now, when you referred to clause 1, WhoMe?, I assume you were referring to this when you said spending on local projects is justified:

"...and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..."

Well, yes, the government can do that, but the rest of Section 8 goes on to explain what constitutes providing for the general welfare and common defense. That is why this is clause 1 of article 8. No one at the time ever thought that this conveyed unlimited power to the government, or thought that it meant the government could spend money on anything it wanted.

I mean, why bother specifying that the government can "establish post offices and post roads" or "to exercise like authority over all places purchased ... for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings," or anything else mentioned in Section 8, if the first clause grants the government the power to do anything in the interests of a broadly defined "general welfare"?

Well, the answer is, it can't. The scope of acting for the general welfare is clearly laid down by sect. 8, and the 10th ammendment simply hammers home the point: "this much and no more." When I said that Federal spending was unconstitutional, I referenced the 10th ammendment, since it is the most explicit, but I could have pointed out Art. 1, Sect. 8 and observed that the government isn't granted the power to subsize local schools, give grants to local fire departments, provide for public housing, or whatever else the case may be. Whether or not it is a good idea, the central government doesn't have that power. The constitution leaves it up to the states to make those decisions. The Federalist papers and discussions at the time made that perfectly clear.

Now, the 14th ammendment limited the power of the states, but it did not grant the federal government sweeping new powers. It just said, in effect, that along with the Feds, the states can't violate the rights of their citizens either.

This was the understanding of the constitution and most of the case law on the subject up until the 1930's. Then, during the New Deal (shudder!), the prevailing intellectual climate was that the power of the government *ought* to be nearly unlimited to respond to the crisis (never mind that the New Deal did nothing to get us out of the Depression, and probably made it worse ..., but that is an argument for another day). But the Supreme Court kept standing in the way, and struck down a fair amount of initial New Deal legislation. After FDR got enough appointees on the court, however, the commerce clause was reinterpreted to allow virtually anything that wasn't expressly prohibited. Instead of prohibiting trade restrictions between the states, as it was meant to, anything now that in some roundabout fashion affects interstate commerce (you were growing wheat in your backyard to eat at home, which means you aren't buying wheat from in state, which reduces the demand for wheat imports into your state, which affects interstate commerce, therefore, the government can pass a law regulating how you produce that wheat...), and so on. The commerce clause, instead of regulating the terms of interstate trade (like it was originally meant to), was interpreted to allow the feds to regulate virtually everything -- even though the 10th ammenment clearly states that isn't the case. So, while case law for the past 70 years has supported unlimited federal power, that doesn't mean that it is constitutional.

It is also why we get everything passed on interstate commerce clause grounds, like the Partial Birth Abortion ban (What the @#$@? How does that affect interstate commerce? Come on, GOPers, the 14th ammend is plenty of jurisdiction. You don't need the commerce clause).

Fortunately, the SCOTUS has taken tiny baby steps to reassert the existence of the 10th ammendment, like U.S. v. Lopez, and striking down the VAWA. Recently, circuit courts have also voided a ban producing a machine gun in your own home for your own use (not on 2nd ammend grounds), and a few days ago a panel of the uberliberal 9th circuit (correctly, in my opinion, though I am no fan of drug use) used the 10th ammend to strike down a federal ban on medical marijuana. So the 10th ammendment is making a come back in the case law.

My point, however, has nothing to do with court rulings. Empress O'Conner waking up one morning and deciding the 1st ammendment doesn't really protect political speech doesn't change the fact that it does, the courts just aren't enforcing it. If courts ruled tomorrow that slavery was somehow constitutional (really, they were only talking about chattel slavery, not the new, modern version we have now) or something equally stupid like that, it wouldn't change the fact that slavery or whatever else is unconstitutional.

And so, after way too much writing, my point is that federal spending on local programs is unconstitutional. Spending on education, for example, regardless of how good or bad a policy it is, is nowhere mentioned in article 1, sect. 8, or any of the ammendments to the const., and that, and the 10th ammendment, mean that the Feds have no authority to do anyting about it. It is up to the states. CT wants to spend tons of cash on education, and raise taxes through the roof to do it, while Texas doesn't? Fine, that is a local issue, with no relevance to the Federal government. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

I also submit to you, WhoMe?, that you should like it that way. After all, if the Feds decide how much gets spent on what local projects, then when conservatives get in power and (theoretically, like I said earlier, Bush is really letting me down on this one) cut spending, everyone has to grin and bear it. People like me rejoice at the smaller government, and people on your side rage against what Republicans are doing to the government. If we had a proper understanding of Federalism, we could just have some liberal states with high taxes, and high services to go along with them, and some conservative states with low taxes, and the understanding you must rely on private charity for social programs. To some extent we have this today (NY income tax rate, 8%, Texas, 0%), but if the 10th ammendment were enforced you could choose to live in a state with Medicare and Social Security programs, and I could just as happily choose to move to one that does not, and regardless of who was elected to national office, we could both happily live in states that reflected our preferences. Instead, with a nigh omnipotent Federal government, everyone has to live with the results of who wins the national election. 537 wonderful votes in Florida kept me from hating the present administration as much as you hate it now, but with Federalism we can both be satisfied. Why should you care if people in Wyoming elect a government that doesn't provide for cradle to the grave social programs, and why should it bother me if the citizens of Vermont decline to create a free market paradise?

As ever,

Sherk,

Once again wishing you a Merry Christmas, even if you choose not to celebrate the birth of Christ. That also goes for Byron, Jim, Tx Bubba, Mark, Owen, and everyone else who posts on BOR too.

Shrek,

I suggest you read the seminal cases interpreting the taxing and spending authority of Congress. All of the examples you cite concern the regulatory authority of Congress, NOT its taxing and spending authority. There is a clear constitutional distinction between them. Since the beginning of the Republic, the ability to expend funds for the general welfare has been VERY broadly interpreted. The rationale being that were it otherwise, the ENTIRE budget process would become the province of the judiciary, and not the legislature, where it belongs.

(As an historical anecdote, before the 16th Amendment [Income Tax], the kinds of federal taxes were limited, hence limiting the federal ability to collect revenue, and hence spend. Again, whether one agrees with its aim or not, the 16th Amendment was passed, thereby allowing more ability to raise federal revenue, and hence federal expenditures).

By the way, the 10th Amendment does not prohibit the Feds from doing anything - it merely is a recognition of State sovereignty. True, there must a constitutional grant of authority for the Feds to act, but the 10th Amendment in no way limits Fed authority (Except in a few cases when the Feds try to directly order a state to take a legislative or executive action - such as the "take title" cases involving nuclear waste, or the Brady Bill requirement that local law enforcement, not federal, conduct a background check.)

In sum, while there is clearly room for differences of policy as to what and how much the federal government should fund. (And yes, I think it funds things it shouldn't fund either), the LEGAL authority for such programs is unquestionable.

With all due respect, while you may disagree with programs such as Medicaid, etc., (which is your G-d given right) you really sound foolish when you say they are unconstitutional.

By the way, while I told you that I do not celebrate Christmas, why did you assume that "Byron, Jim, Tx Bubba, Mark, Owen, and everyone else who posts on BOR too" do not celebrate Christmas either?

The Christian Religious Right has no monopoly on faith or morality. In fact, I would say its market share is dwindling.

WhoMe?

I'm pretty busy right now, since I have to start my Christmas shopping, so I'm not going to respond to the substantive issues you raised at the moment. Briefly, however,I'd just like to clarify that I wasn't trying to assume that anyone else did or did not celebrate Christmas. As you pointed out, I have no idea what everyone else's opinions are on the subject (well, being Catholic, I'm pretty sure Owen does) My point was just that I was wishing everyone a happy Christmas, regardless of whether or not they celebrate it. No offense intended, and I hope none was taken.

Sherk

WhoMe?

Granted, the New Deal case I sort of cited dealt with regulatory authority, but my point was simply that the commerce clause had been turned into the vehicle for allowing congress to legislate on anything, be it spending or regulation. Also, just to make myself clear, I am not concerned with current case law in this issue because the question is "is that case law correctly applying the 10th ammend," which I contend it is not. So however the constitution has been interpreted, the issue is *should* it be interpreted that way.

As for specific spending authority, even under current law, the congress can't simply appropriate money and spend it on whatever it wants. Well, actually it does, but that isn't the way it is supposed to work. Theoretically, the Congress must first pass legislation authorizing the program in question, and only then can the appropriators dish out the our tax dollars. In recent years the budget authorizations have expired, and congress just spent the money anyway, but the expenditures on those programs are technically illegal, and Bush would be on strong legal ground if he chose not to disburse the funds. He hasn't, but he could if he had more conservative backbone in him. If I were President, following an ammendment to the constitution to let me serve, I would.

Anway, the point is Congress can't simply authorize expenditures on anything, it has to be within their article 1, sect. 8 jurisdiction, which is why nearly every piece of legislation gets to play six degrees of interstate commerce separation.

The examples I brought up from Section 8 weren't random, either. Post offices and post roads have much less to do with regulatory authority, and a lot to do with appropriating the funds to pay for them. Similarly, "to exercise like authority over all places purchased ... for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings..." is even more explicit in establishing that the congress has the authority to purchase these military bases. Why bother being so clear when you can spend anything on a vague principle of General Welfare?

The reason is that the G.W. clause wasn't so broadly interpreted, initially. Jefferson thought that the Louisiana purchase was unconstitutional, but went ahead and made it anyway, since it was such a good deal (for the record, I favor the purchase, but the merits aren't the issue here). He wrote that he thought it violated the constitution, because no explicit grant of authority was made. Yes, it has been construed to mean anything goes now, but in the time of the Founders, even something that seems to fall so clearly within the accepted domain of the Feds (making treaties) was controversial.

Besides, there is nothing in any of the Federalist papers or any of the documents of the time to indicate that the Founders thought the General Welfare clause allowed the government to pay for everything it wanted to, and a lot to indicate the Founders were very concerned with keeping the Feds on a very tight leash. If they had intended such a regulatory/expenditure, restrained/unchecked dichotomy, you would think they might have mentioned it. The reason they didn't is because they saw no such separation. The congress can spend money, but only on the programs that it is explicitly authorized to (again, why the G.W. clause precedes the list of everything that is permissible for congress to legislate on). Whether you approve or dissaprove of the Dept. of Education, Social Security, the War on Drugs, or paving W. Virginia and Alaska with 24 carat gold, these programs aren't enumerated in the powers of congress, and thus, as the 10th ammendment makes very clear, are left to the states to deal with.

Incidentally, regardless of what you think of the constitutional merits of my arguments, would you prefer it if we did live in such a decentralized government, of the kind I advocate, where liberals and conservatives can adopt their own policies in separate states, and not the winner take all system we have now? If not, why?

As ever,

Sherk

Shrek,

With all due respect, as a matter of established constitutional law you are simply incorrect. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 2-the end of the Section, all deal with regulatory authority. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, is an entirely different authority.

There is an authority to regulate directly, and then there is the power to tax and spend. Legally, they are two entirely different powers. Yes, you are correct that the regulatory authority of the federal government is limited by Clauses 2 et. al., and I agree that the Commerce Clause has often been stretched to the point of absurdity. (For example, I agree that the Violence against Woman Act was property stricken as having nothing to do with Interstate Commerce. In fact, most of our Federal crimes have little, if not very tenuous, claims to interstate commerce).

However, for spending bills, the commerce clause is IRRELEVANT. Appropriations bills do not need an interstate commerce clause nexus. Again, there is certainly room for debate as to the appropriate level of federal expenditures, but the legality is well-settled.

By the way, if Article I, Section 8 provides only for the establishment of a navy and an army, do you think the Air Force is unconstitutional?

http://www.bildmitteilung.us bildmitteilung