DGS49
Diamond Member
"Senator Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna, a representative, on Monday introduced legislation that would impose a 5% annual wealth tax on America’s billionaires.
The proposal, titled the make billionaires pay their fair share act, would apply to individuals in the US with a net worth of $1bn or more, of which Sanders’s office estimates there are 938 people who meet that threshold.
In a news release on Monday, Sanders, the independent senator of Vermont, and Khanna, the Democratic representative of California who has recently gained national attention for his role in pushing the government to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, said that an analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, estimates that “the legislation would raise $4.4tn over the next decade”.
There is a lot that can be said about Bernie and this proposal. Envy as public policy, punishing success, fearing the harmless "inequality crisis," the senility crisis in Congress, and so on. One could also speculate, with some cause for concern, that the truly wealthy would quickly figure out a way to avoid this wealth tax, but my point is on the other end of the matter, specifically, what would be done with the government windfall.
Democrats abhor the very idea of fiscal responsibility, and they would never float the notion that SOME of this windfall might be used to balance the [fukkin'] budget, but Bernie proposes using this money to pay for "kids' healthcare," solving the homeless problem, feeding and housing the "poor," and possibly even saving the planet.
And this is what I challenge.
Every competent HS Civics teacher teaches his students that the U.S. Federal government is a government of LIMITED powers, while the States' powers are not so limited. This concept is codified, basically, in two places in the U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8, which detailed the "powers" of Congress (to spend our tax dollars), and the Tenth Amendment which says, in effect, the powers of the Federal government are limited to those that are detailed in the Constitution; all other governing powers are reserved to the States and the people. That is to say, if the Feds don't get a power from the words of the Constitution, then that power is reserved to someone else.
Section 8 details 17 (or so) powers of Congress, and NONE of them provides any benefit to any individual American (or resident). None. They are all government functions that benefit the country as a whole. That is to say that Congress lacks the "power" to fund, for example,
One might also recall the first attempt to shoot down the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") were focused on whether Congress had the power to "mandate" that citizens carry health insurance. The Supreme Court's opinion in that case acknowledged that Congress had no power to issue such a mandate(!) but it upheld the law by deeming the PENALTY for not buying insurance a TAX! Exactly the opposite of what the proponents argued! In any event, if Congress had the power to promote the general welfare, then there would have been no question to resolve, eh? Clearly, Congress (at least the Democrats who passed the fukkin' law) thought that it promoted the "general welfare" to demand that healthy people buy insurance that they did not want or need.
So for the Lefties who might still be reading this, where in the Constitution does Congress get the power to spend my tax dollars on welfare, SNAP, healthcare for the "poor," housing subsidies, education, or saving the planet?
The proposal, titled the make billionaires pay their fair share act, would apply to individuals in the US with a net worth of $1bn or more, of which Sanders’s office estimates there are 938 people who meet that threshold.
In a news release on Monday, Sanders, the independent senator of Vermont, and Khanna, the Democratic representative of California who has recently gained national attention for his role in pushing the government to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, said that an analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, estimates that “the legislation would raise $4.4tn over the next decade”.
There is a lot that can be said about Bernie and this proposal. Envy as public policy, punishing success, fearing the harmless "inequality crisis," the senility crisis in Congress, and so on. One could also speculate, with some cause for concern, that the truly wealthy would quickly figure out a way to avoid this wealth tax, but my point is on the other end of the matter, specifically, what would be done with the government windfall.
Democrats abhor the very idea of fiscal responsibility, and they would never float the notion that SOME of this windfall might be used to balance the [fukkin'] budget, but Bernie proposes using this money to pay for "kids' healthcare," solving the homeless problem, feeding and housing the "poor," and possibly even saving the planet.
And this is what I challenge.
Every competent HS Civics teacher teaches his students that the U.S. Federal government is a government of LIMITED powers, while the States' powers are not so limited. This concept is codified, basically, in two places in the U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8, which detailed the "powers" of Congress (to spend our tax dollars), and the Tenth Amendment which says, in effect, the powers of the Federal government are limited to those that are detailed in the Constitution; all other governing powers are reserved to the States and the people. That is to say, if the Feds don't get a power from the words of the Constitution, then that power is reserved to someone else.
Section 8 details 17 (or so) powers of Congress, and NONE of them provides any benefit to any individual American (or resident). None. They are all government functions that benefit the country as a whole. That is to say that Congress lacks the "power" to fund, for example,
- Welfare benefits,
- Food stamps (regardless of what they are called),
- Housing subsidies or loans,
- Healthcare for anyone but the Armed Forces (and presumably Veterans),
- Education, or
- Saving the planet.
One might also recall the first attempt to shoot down the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") were focused on whether Congress had the power to "mandate" that citizens carry health insurance. The Supreme Court's opinion in that case acknowledged that Congress had no power to issue such a mandate(!) but it upheld the law by deeming the PENALTY for not buying insurance a TAX! Exactly the opposite of what the proponents argued! In any event, if Congress had the power to promote the general welfare, then there would have been no question to resolve, eh? Clearly, Congress (at least the Democrats who passed the fukkin' law) thought that it promoted the "general welfare" to demand that healthy people buy insurance that they did not want or need.
So for the Lefties who might still be reading this, where in the Constitution does Congress get the power to spend my tax dollars on welfare, SNAP, healthcare for the "poor," housing subsidies, education, or saving the planet?
