Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Taxing the Lawbreakers


I think Democrats are frustrated that despite four years of constant bellyaching--accelerated by their pals in the "mainstream" media--too many people still want us to win in Iraq and the War on Terrorism.

So they've come up with an idea to make the war more unpleasant for us back home here, attacking people where it hurts the worst: the wallet.

From Breitbart.com:

Democrats on Tuesday proposed an income tax surcharge to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war onto future generations.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would pay an additional 12 to 15 percent, Obey said.

I have a different idea. Since national defense (19% of our budget) is constitutional and the plethora of social programs we spend about 60% of our entire budget on are NOT authorized by the constitution, why don't we impose a tax surcharge on all this unconstitutional spending.

We could impose a 60% surcharge on the income of senators and congressmen who vote for social spending which isn't authorized by the U.S. Constitution (that would be all of it). We could, being fair-minded people, of course lower the percentage of this surcharge as the percentage of our budget that went to unconstitutional spending was reduced; in other words, as unconstitutional spending was lowered to 40% of the budget, we could lower the congressional member surcharge to a corresponding 40%.

After all, if they really want this stuff so bad they're willing to ignore the Constitution, isn't it fair that they should be the ones to pay for it? Since so many in Congress love class envy, and since they all make considerably north of $100,000 a year from their taxpayer funded salaries, shouldn't they be the ones to give it up for the good of the country? Shouldn't they pay their "fair share?"

I think this is definitely the way to go. Think it'll pass our fair-minded, looking-out-for-the-little-guy, sworn-to-uphold-the-Constitution Congress?


0 comments:

Dakota Voice
 
Clicky Web Analytics