18 April 2010
In 1773, a group of colonists boarded three British ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston harbor. Why? The British government had foisted a tea tax on the colonies without their input, the colonists refused to pay, and the governor falsely assumed the colonists would concede the tax rather than send the ships back to England as had been done in New York, Philadelphia and Charleston.
Wrong. Samuel Adams stirred the pot and the colonists tossed the tea into the drink. Some colonial leaders then urged reimbursement but the time for cooperation had passed.
Britain’s heavy-handed response included the Coercive Acts in 1774 and attempts to disrupt Boston’s commercial trade. The colonists countered with additional protests and the situation escalated into the American Revolution in 1775.
It’s interesting to note that the British Parliament, not taxes, was the proximate cause of the Boston Tea Party. It had abused its taxation authority and attempted to manipulate commerce to raise revenues. This hubris revealed a flaw in Parliament’s view of its function and authority; disconnects that would ultimately not be resolved by political discourse or reason.
Sound familiar?
I suggest we dedicate this thread to discussing how Americans should conduct the principled protests required to remedy our current situation.
Stu McLennan
Harker Heights
The Vast Write Wing
Forum is now open for registration
Tea Time
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Re: Tea Time
by Stu on Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:28 am
18 April 2010
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its power, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #33
The modern day Tea Party is correctly challenging our federal government over its usurpation of the rights, roles and responsibilities bestowed by the Constitution on individuals and the States. Emboldened by a hubris too often shared by most political parties, this power grab is in contravention to the intent of our Founders. The reversal of this alarming trend hinges on a mobilization of the national will and a return of government at all levels to its proper borders. There are two key steps that would help move our country towards this goal.
1. Repeal the 16th Amendment, eliminate the income tax, and re-mission the Internal Revenue Service. The Constitution gives us two cogent reasons for these actions.
o The intent of Article 1 Section 2 is explained in Federalist #41. The apportionment of indirect taxes (read, sales tax) between the states and federal government was supposed to be based on the decennial census; not the whims of the federal government.
o The intent of Article 1 Section 8 is explained in Federalist #36. Congress was granted the power to “lay and collect” taxes but these taxes were supposed to be based on consumption (indirect) and actual land valuations or occasional assessments (direct). Further, the States, not the federal government, were empowered to establish the systems that defined and collected these taxes.
2. Return 10th Amendment functions to the States. The States should collectively agree to fund only those federal departments that accomplish the objectives enumerated in the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8, as explained in Federalist #41, #42 and #43.
Retain
o Defense
o Commerce
o State
o Justice
o Homeland Security
o Treasury
Eliminate
o Education
o Health & Human Services
o Interior
o Labor
o Transportation (Move some functions to Commerce)
o Veterans Affairs (Move functions to Defense)
o Agriculture (Move some functions to Commerce)
o Energy (Move some functions to Homeland Security)
o Housing & Urban Development
These steps will require Americans to collectively confront political machines, embrace personal responsibility, return family, faith and community to their proper roles, and take an appetite suppressant. The latter will be especially difficult because it will require us to lower expectations vis-à-vis the role of government on spending and entitlement programs including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agriculture price supports.
Tea anyone?
Stu McLennan
Harker Heights
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its power, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #33
The modern day Tea Party is correctly challenging our federal government over its usurpation of the rights, roles and responsibilities bestowed by the Constitution on individuals and the States. Emboldened by a hubris too often shared by most political parties, this power grab is in contravention to the intent of our Founders. The reversal of this alarming trend hinges on a mobilization of the national will and a return of government at all levels to its proper borders. There are two key steps that would help move our country towards this goal.
1. Repeal the 16th Amendment, eliminate the income tax, and re-mission the Internal Revenue Service. The Constitution gives us two cogent reasons for these actions.
o The intent of Article 1 Section 2 is explained in Federalist #41. The apportionment of indirect taxes (read, sales tax) between the states and federal government was supposed to be based on the decennial census; not the whims of the federal government.
o The intent of Article 1 Section 8 is explained in Federalist #36. Congress was granted the power to “lay and collect” taxes but these taxes were supposed to be based on consumption (indirect) and actual land valuations or occasional assessments (direct). Further, the States, not the federal government, were empowered to establish the systems that defined and collected these taxes.
2. Return 10th Amendment functions to the States. The States should collectively agree to fund only those federal departments that accomplish the objectives enumerated in the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8, as explained in Federalist #41, #42 and #43.
Retain
o Defense
o Commerce
o State
o Justice
o Homeland Security
o Treasury
Eliminate
o Education
o Health & Human Services
o Interior
o Labor
o Transportation (Move some functions to Commerce)
o Veterans Affairs (Move functions to Defense)
o Agriculture (Move some functions to Commerce)
o Energy (Move some functions to Homeland Security)
o Housing & Urban Development
These steps will require Americans to collectively confront political machines, embrace personal responsibility, return family, faith and community to their proper roles, and take an appetite suppressant. The latter will be especially difficult because it will require us to lower expectations vis-à-vis the role of government on spending and entitlement programs including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agriculture price supports.
Tea anyone?
Stu McLennan
Harker Heights
Last edited by Stu on Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Stu
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:22 am
- Location: Fort Hood
Re: Tea Time
by Stu on Fri May 28, 2010 9:13 pm
28 May 2010
The President, Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Defense and other key Democrats in Congress likely have no desire to consider the merits of Arizona SB 1070, much less read it themselves. That should not surprise us since they apply political filters to everything they do, whether the subject is combat operations, foreign policy, the economy or border security.
It is also highly likely that they’ll avoid (like the plague) any mention of or comparison to the Mexican Constitution and its Regulation of the General Law of Population. That may help explain why clueless Democrats gave Mexican President Calderon a standing O when he ripped Arizona during a recent joint session of Congress.
Conservatives however hammered President Calderon and Mexico’s immigration policies which are stricter than any in the United States and embrace racial profiling to detect and deport illegal aliens.
Or “visitors” as President Obama prefers to call them.
Mexico’s Constitution prohibits foreigners from any participation in the political process. (Article 33) It also gives the federal government authority to deport foreigners deemed to be “inexpedient”, all without any previous “legal action”.
Mexican immigration policy goes further. Passed in 1974 and amended several times – the latest in 1992 -- the Regulation contains the following provisions.
o Admits foreigners based on their ability to contribute to society. (Article 32)
o Requires immigrants to have the funds necessary to subsist. (Article 34)
o Bars foreigners who may “upset the equilibrium of national demographics”, are detrimental to “economic or national interests”, who misbehave, or are physically or mentally incompetent. (Article 37)
o Allows the suspension or prohibits the admission of foreigners when the federal government deems it “in the national interest”. (Article 38)
o Requires local and municipal police to cooperate with federal authorities in arresting illegal aliens. (Article 73)
o Establishes a national Catalog of Foreigners to track tourists and immigrants (Article 87) and then assigns each an individual tracking number (Article 91).
o Punishes foreigners who possess fake immigration papers with a fine or imprisoned. (Article 116)
o Imprisons for up to 10 years foreigners who are deported and then attempt to illegally reenter the county. (Article 118)
o Imprisons for up to 6 years foreigners who violate the terms of their Visa. (Articles 119, 120 and 121)
o Imprisons illegal aliens for up to 2 years (Article 123)
o Imprisons for up to 5 years a Mexican who marries an illegal alien for the purpose of securing federal, state or local benefits. (Article 127)
Mexico also prohibits businesses from hiring “visitors” who are in the country illegally. If caught, the businesses are fined and the “visitors” may be imprisoned for up to 6 years.
Even Colorado has tougher immigration policies than Arizona. But you’d never know it given the cricket sounds coming from the direction of the Democrat party and its media arm.
Passed in July 2006 during a special session called by then Governor Owens, House Bill 06S-1023 makes state and local governments agencies verify the immigration status of those applying for federal, state or local public benefits; causes applicants to prove their lawful presence; and even denies non-emergency benefits to illegal aliens over 18 years of age.
Said Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald (D-Golden), “We want to be able to look in the mirror and say we did legislation that is tough, enforceable and humane”. She also prodded other states to “follow Colorado’s lead” so the federal government “gets the message that this issue can be tackled even in this hot political environment”.
Just five months later however, after the “glow” had subsided, Senator Fitz-Gerald asked the Mexican Consulate to help investigate her “growing concern” that illegal aliens were being denied benefits after passage of HB 1023.
Amazing but true.
The President is quite fond of reminding opponents that “elections have consequences”. He’s correct. Who do you suppose will be the first person to share that sentiment with him and the Democrat party on November 3rd?
Politely, no doubt.
Stu McLennan
Harker Heights
The President, Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Defense and other key Democrats in Congress likely have no desire to consider the merits of Arizona SB 1070, much less read it themselves. That should not surprise us since they apply political filters to everything they do, whether the subject is combat operations, foreign policy, the economy or border security.
It is also highly likely that they’ll avoid (like the plague) any mention of or comparison to the Mexican Constitution and its Regulation of the General Law of Population. That may help explain why clueless Democrats gave Mexican President Calderon a standing O when he ripped Arizona during a recent joint session of Congress.
Conservatives however hammered President Calderon and Mexico’s immigration policies which are stricter than any in the United States and embrace racial profiling to detect and deport illegal aliens.
Or “visitors” as President Obama prefers to call them.
Mexico’s Constitution prohibits foreigners from any participation in the political process. (Article 33) It also gives the federal government authority to deport foreigners deemed to be “inexpedient”, all without any previous “legal action”.
Mexican immigration policy goes further. Passed in 1974 and amended several times – the latest in 1992 -- the Regulation contains the following provisions.
o Admits foreigners based on their ability to contribute to society. (Article 32)
o Requires immigrants to have the funds necessary to subsist. (Article 34)
o Bars foreigners who may “upset the equilibrium of national demographics”, are detrimental to “economic or national interests”, who misbehave, or are physically or mentally incompetent. (Article 37)
o Allows the suspension or prohibits the admission of foreigners when the federal government deems it “in the national interest”. (Article 38)
o Requires local and municipal police to cooperate with federal authorities in arresting illegal aliens. (Article 73)
o Establishes a national Catalog of Foreigners to track tourists and immigrants (Article 87) and then assigns each an individual tracking number (Article 91).
o Punishes foreigners who possess fake immigration papers with a fine or imprisoned. (Article 116)
o Imprisons for up to 10 years foreigners who are deported and then attempt to illegally reenter the county. (Article 118)
o Imprisons for up to 6 years foreigners who violate the terms of their Visa. (Articles 119, 120 and 121)
o Imprisons illegal aliens for up to 2 years (Article 123)
o Imprisons for up to 5 years a Mexican who marries an illegal alien for the purpose of securing federal, state or local benefits. (Article 127)
Mexico also prohibits businesses from hiring “visitors” who are in the country illegally. If caught, the businesses are fined and the “visitors” may be imprisoned for up to 6 years.
Even Colorado has tougher immigration policies than Arizona. But you’d never know it given the cricket sounds coming from the direction of the Democrat party and its media arm.
Passed in July 2006 during a special session called by then Governor Owens, House Bill 06S-1023 makes state and local governments agencies verify the immigration status of those applying for federal, state or local public benefits; causes applicants to prove their lawful presence; and even denies non-emergency benefits to illegal aliens over 18 years of age.
Said Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald (D-Golden), “We want to be able to look in the mirror and say we did legislation that is tough, enforceable and humane”. She also prodded other states to “follow Colorado’s lead” so the federal government “gets the message that this issue can be tackled even in this hot political environment”.
Just five months later however, after the “glow” had subsided, Senator Fitz-Gerald asked the Mexican Consulate to help investigate her “growing concern” that illegal aliens were being denied benefits after passage of HB 1023.
Amazing but true.
The President is quite fond of reminding opponents that “elections have consequences”. He’s correct. Who do you suppose will be the first person to share that sentiment with him and the Democrat party on November 3rd?
Politely, no doubt.
Stu McLennan
Harker Heights
- Stu
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:22 am
- Location: Fort Hood
Re: Election 2010
by Stu on Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:12 pm
15 November 2010
The great hue and cry emanating from Bell County beginning the evening of November 2nd was liberals realizing that one of their favorite sons was going down in flames. This was followed by an editorial “eulogy” in the KDH on November 6th.
Few would dispute that Chet Edwards has been an advocate for Soldiers and Families in Congress since 1990; Army-wide, not just at Fort Hood. Principled opponents also do not impugn his character or motivation; we simply differ on ideology and policy.
Politicians are a lot of things but most are intelligent and none are irreplaceable. Chet Edwards is a champion of the military but even Clem Kadiddlehopper would have been savvy enough to make Fort Hood a priority of his legislative agenda. This includes impact aid for KISD; land for the Killeen-Fort Hood joint use airport and Texas A&M Central Texas campus; Veterans Affairs; military construction including the new Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center; and the House Army Caucus.
Unfortunately, seniority is a key factor in congressional elections since many voters view the primary mission to be “bring home the bacon”. This was not quite what our Founders intended. Regardless, party affiliation is an advantage when you’re in the majority but not so much when you’re not. Democrats ruled the House from 1990-1994, wandered for a decade, and then returned to power from 2004-2010.
Chet Edwards graduated from Texas A&M in 1974 and has been a career politician since except for a short period in the early 1980s. He joined Congress in 1990 and obviously made an impression with Democrat Party leaders given Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement for him to be Vice President and then making the President’s short list in 2008. That’s abnormal unless you’re politically schizophrenic; acting conservative in Texas and being liberal in Washington DC.
Linking Chet Edwards to Nancy Pelosi was an effective campaign tactic since she epitomizes the truly radical, tone-deaf liberal who is anathema to most in Fly-Over Country. But it's an over-simplification to just say Chet was caught in an anti-incumbent tsunami. He differed occasionally with Democrats and Speaker Pelosi on matters of substance but at his core he is a social and political liberal who voted along party lines 96.3% of the time from 2004 to 2010. A rollup is provided below, as is Congressman Carter’s record for numerical comparison.
Voted along party lines. (Source: Congressional Record)
• 108th Congress, Jan 03 to Jan 05, 1221 total votes. Carter – 96.1% (of 1162 votes). Edwards – 86.4% (of 1167 votes).
• 109th Congress, Jan 05 to Jan 07, 1214 total votes. Carter – 96.2% (of 1176 votes). Edwards – 83.7% (of 1186 votes).
• 110th Congress, Jan 07 to Jan 09, 1876 total votes. Edwards – 96.0% (of 1797 votes). Carter – 92.7% (of 1776 votes).
• 111th Congress, Jan 09 to Jan 11, 1555 total votes. Edwards – 96.1% (of 1499 votes). Carter – 92.1% (of 1467 votes).
Some of Chet Edwards’ notable votes with the Democrat Party are listed below.
• Opposed extending the Bush tax cuts. (HR 4297)
• Opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. (S 3)
• Opposed a $40 billion reduction in welfare, child support and student loan programs. (HR 653)
• Opposed The Surge in Iraq in 2007. (HR 63)
• Opposed establishment of a free-trade zone with South America. (HR 3045)
• Supported a $60 billion increase in funding to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. (HR 976)
• Supported repealing tax cut incentives to oil and gas companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico. (HR 6)
• Supported amending the Social Security Act and enabling a government take-over of negotiations with drug makers. (HR 4)
• Supported raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. (HR2)
• Supported implementation of contentious portions of the 9-11 Commission findings. (HR1)
• Supported the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (HR 810)
Chet Edwards also occasionally broke ranks with the Democrat Party and supported Republican positions. (Note that I did not say Conservative.) Some examples are listed below.
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (S 1927)
• Funding of Operation Iraqi Freedom without a troop withdrawal timeline. (HR 861 and HR 2206). He then changed course and supported linking war appropriations to an April 2008 deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq. (HR 2956 and HR 1591)
• Military Commissions Act. (S 3930)
• Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. (HR 5825)
• Secure Fence Act. (HR 6061)
• Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act. (HR 5970)
• Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act. (HR 4437).
• Energy Policy Act that offered tax breaks and incentives to spur oil and gas company innovation. (HR 6)
• Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. (HR 4173)
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obama Care). (HR 3590)
We don’t know which of these “breaks” were real and which were Memorex; calculated as part of Democrat Party leader strategy. The greater the majority, the more games can be played with votes to “protect” at-risk caucus members.
Many voters in central Texas are discerning and do not have sound-bite memories. Understanding how Congress operates and the totality of Chet Edwards' record likely helps explain why he was thumped 62% to 37% in this election.
One minor additional detail. For someone who touts being “one” with the military, it was odd that Chet's staff used an absurd picture in his campaign ads. You know, the one with Chet standing in front of a demilitarized Army main battle tank – likely a memorial somewhere - and talking with two people who are obviously not Soldiers. You'd think they could have found (or filmed) footage of him with real Soldiers, Marines or Airmen somewhere at a military installation.
Several of Chet Edwards’ campaign ads accused Bill Flores of not supporting veterans because he proposed privatizing their health care. Chet even enlisted the help of a former Fort Hood commander to hammer home the point. Truth is, it needs to be reformed – the normal definition, not Obama’s -- and we should raise TRICARE premiums. This comes from someone who benefits from the latter.
Like Social Security, reforming and privatizing veterans care is overdue. Veterans should be able to see the doctor of their choice, within reason, and injecting them into the private sector is likely to produce the same overall results enjoyed by most Americans; the best, most efficient and effective medical care in the world. The claim that private health care providers can't handle their needs or would reject disabled veterans is conjecture, sophistry, or both.
As a retiree, my wife and I have TRICARE Prime coverage and separate Primary Care Managers at a clinic on Fort Hood. The cost is $460 per year. That's quite a deal for us but not the American taxpayer.
I'd even go a step further; eliminate the Department of Veterans Administration, transfer functions to DoD that need to be retained, and reallocate its budget ($125 billion in 2011). See my comments in the 18 April post above.
But I digress.
Bill Flores says he is a social and fiscal conservative. He graduated from Texas A&M in 1976 and spent three decades in the oil and gas industry, rising to the position of CEO for Phoenix Exploration Company before venturing into politics for the first time. Unlike his vanquished opponent, Bill Flores successfully led people, managed things, and coordinated financial matters in the private sector. Now we’ll see if he can help effect the required change in Washington.
Congressmen Carter and Flores will no doubt co-labor effectively for all of central Texas, including Soldiers, Families and military retirees. Better still, there will be another conservative voice in the next Republican controlled Congress.
Some local community leaders will likely host a “farewell tour” for Chet Edwards before year’s end. Come January 2011 however, they need to finally embrace reality and act appropriately.
Still Serving, Army Strong!
Stu McLennan
Harker Heights
The great hue and cry emanating from Bell County beginning the evening of November 2nd was liberals realizing that one of their favorite sons was going down in flames. This was followed by an editorial “eulogy” in the KDH on November 6th.
Few would dispute that Chet Edwards has been an advocate for Soldiers and Families in Congress since 1990; Army-wide, not just at Fort Hood. Principled opponents also do not impugn his character or motivation; we simply differ on ideology and policy.
Politicians are a lot of things but most are intelligent and none are irreplaceable. Chet Edwards is a champion of the military but even Clem Kadiddlehopper would have been savvy enough to make Fort Hood a priority of his legislative agenda. This includes impact aid for KISD; land for the Killeen-Fort Hood joint use airport and Texas A&M Central Texas campus; Veterans Affairs; military construction including the new Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center; and the House Army Caucus.
Unfortunately, seniority is a key factor in congressional elections since many voters view the primary mission to be “bring home the bacon”. This was not quite what our Founders intended. Regardless, party affiliation is an advantage when you’re in the majority but not so much when you’re not. Democrats ruled the House from 1990-1994, wandered for a decade, and then returned to power from 2004-2010.
Chet Edwards graduated from Texas A&M in 1974 and has been a career politician since except for a short period in the early 1980s. He joined Congress in 1990 and obviously made an impression with Democrat Party leaders given Nancy Pelosi’s endorsement for him to be Vice President and then making the President’s short list in 2008. That’s abnormal unless you’re politically schizophrenic; acting conservative in Texas and being liberal in Washington DC.
Linking Chet Edwards to Nancy Pelosi was an effective campaign tactic since she epitomizes the truly radical, tone-deaf liberal who is anathema to most in Fly-Over Country. But it's an over-simplification to just say Chet was caught in an anti-incumbent tsunami. He differed occasionally with Democrats and Speaker Pelosi on matters of substance but at his core he is a social and political liberal who voted along party lines 96.3% of the time from 2004 to 2010. A rollup is provided below, as is Congressman Carter’s record for numerical comparison.
Voted along party lines. (Source: Congressional Record)
• 108th Congress, Jan 03 to Jan 05, 1221 total votes. Carter – 96.1% (of 1162 votes). Edwards – 86.4% (of 1167 votes).
• 109th Congress, Jan 05 to Jan 07, 1214 total votes. Carter – 96.2% (of 1176 votes). Edwards – 83.7% (of 1186 votes).
• 110th Congress, Jan 07 to Jan 09, 1876 total votes. Edwards – 96.0% (of 1797 votes). Carter – 92.7% (of 1776 votes).
• 111th Congress, Jan 09 to Jan 11, 1555 total votes. Edwards – 96.1% (of 1499 votes). Carter – 92.1% (of 1467 votes).
Some of Chet Edwards’ notable votes with the Democrat Party are listed below.
• Opposed extending the Bush tax cuts. (HR 4297)
• Opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. (S 3)
• Opposed a $40 billion reduction in welfare, child support and student loan programs. (HR 653)
• Opposed The Surge in Iraq in 2007. (HR 63)
• Opposed establishment of a free-trade zone with South America. (HR 3045)
• Supported a $60 billion increase in funding to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. (HR 976)
• Supported repealing tax cut incentives to oil and gas companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico. (HR 6)
• Supported amending the Social Security Act and enabling a government take-over of negotiations with drug makers. (HR 4)
• Supported raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. (HR2)
• Supported implementation of contentious portions of the 9-11 Commission findings. (HR1)
• Supported the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act and federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (HR 810)
Chet Edwards also occasionally broke ranks with the Democrat Party and supported Republican positions. (Note that I did not say Conservative.) Some examples are listed below.
• Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (S 1927)
• Funding of Operation Iraqi Freedom without a troop withdrawal timeline. (HR 861 and HR 2206). He then changed course and supported linking war appropriations to an April 2008 deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq. (HR 2956 and HR 1591)
• Military Commissions Act. (S 3930)
• Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. (HR 5825)
• Secure Fence Act. (HR 6061)
• Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act. (HR 5970)
• Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act. (HR 4437).
• Energy Policy Act that offered tax breaks and incentives to spur oil and gas company innovation. (HR 6)
• Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. (HR 4173)
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obama Care). (HR 3590)
We don’t know which of these “breaks” were real and which were Memorex; calculated as part of Democrat Party leader strategy. The greater the majority, the more games can be played with votes to “protect” at-risk caucus members.
Many voters in central Texas are discerning and do not have sound-bite memories. Understanding how Congress operates and the totality of Chet Edwards' record likely helps explain why he was thumped 62% to 37% in this election.
One minor additional detail. For someone who touts being “one” with the military, it was odd that Chet's staff used an absurd picture in his campaign ads. You know, the one with Chet standing in front of a demilitarized Army main battle tank – likely a memorial somewhere - and talking with two people who are obviously not Soldiers. You'd think they could have found (or filmed) footage of him with real Soldiers, Marines or Airmen somewhere at a military installation.
Several of Chet Edwards’ campaign ads accused Bill Flores of not supporting veterans because he proposed privatizing their health care. Chet even enlisted the help of a former Fort Hood commander to hammer home the point. Truth is, it needs to be reformed – the normal definition, not Obama’s -- and we should raise TRICARE premiums. This comes from someone who benefits from the latter.
Like Social Security, reforming and privatizing veterans care is overdue. Veterans should be able to see the doctor of their choice, within reason, and injecting them into the private sector is likely to produce the same overall results enjoyed by most Americans; the best, most efficient and effective medical care in the world. The claim that private health care providers can't handle their needs or would reject disabled veterans is conjecture, sophistry, or both.
As a retiree, my wife and I have TRICARE Prime coverage and separate Primary Care Managers at a clinic on Fort Hood. The cost is $460 per year. That's quite a deal for us but not the American taxpayer.
I'd even go a step further; eliminate the Department of Veterans Administration, transfer functions to DoD that need to be retained, and reallocate its budget ($125 billion in 2011). See my comments in the 18 April post above.
But I digress.
Bill Flores says he is a social and fiscal conservative. He graduated from Texas A&M in 1976 and spent three decades in the oil and gas industry, rising to the position of CEO for Phoenix Exploration Company before venturing into politics for the first time. Unlike his vanquished opponent, Bill Flores successfully led people, managed things, and coordinated financial matters in the private sector. Now we’ll see if he can help effect the required change in Washington.
Congressmen Carter and Flores will no doubt co-labor effectively for all of central Texas, including Soldiers, Families and military retirees. Better still, there will be another conservative voice in the next Republican controlled Congress.
Some local community leaders will likely host a “farewell tour” for Chet Edwards before year’s end. Come January 2011 however, they need to finally embrace reality and act appropriately.
Still Serving, Army Strong!
Stu McLennan
Harker Heights
- Stu
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:22 am
- Location: Fort Hood
Re: Federal Taxes
by Stu on Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:35 am
June 23, 2012
Why have some in the Republican Party and conservative media supported ballot initiatives to repeal property taxes?
Voters in North Dakota, who already pay a state income tax, recently opted to retain state taxes on real property; an estimated $812 million in revenue just this year. Proponents said this tax runs counter to “property rights” and ostensibly constrain an owners ability to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange, or destroy it. Opponents said balancing the state’s budget should not hinge on projected oil and gas revenues. That may be true but a stronger argument exists.
As noted above, the framers of the United States Constitution supported taxing real property.
Federalist #36 explains the intent of Article 1 Section 8. Congress was herein granted the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” based on actual valuations or occasional assessments (direct tax) and consumption (indirect tax). States were also empowered to establish the systems that defined and collected these revenues, thus providing a fiscal counterweight. Funds collected were to be used by the federal government to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare. State control of the strings also constrained federal spending to its constitutional functions.
Federalist #41 explains the intent of Article 1 Section 2. The apportionment of direct taxes between states was to be based on the decennial census; not the whims of the federal government.
Instead of railing against property taxes, we should repeal the income tax. In 1913, the XVI Amendment gave the legislative branch the power to impose a tax that, to this day, allows the federal government to exceed its constitutional boundaries and coerce states that receive “federal dollars” – the very term being a classic oxymoron. Once states receive these funds, largely in the form of entitlements, few governors and legislatures have the collective willpower to resist the associated federal “strings”. Further, judicial branch support has allowed this onerous tax to remain essentially unchallenged.
Indirect taxes on consumption (sales) and direct taxes on land valuation (property) were included in the Constitution's original framework. Income taxes were not. As proponents of the Fair Tax already know, that is an issue worthy of ballot initiatives.
Stu McLennan
Harker Heights
Why have some in the Republican Party and conservative media supported ballot initiatives to repeal property taxes?
Voters in North Dakota, who already pay a state income tax, recently opted to retain state taxes on real property; an estimated $812 million in revenue just this year. Proponents said this tax runs counter to “property rights” and ostensibly constrain an owners ability to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange, or destroy it. Opponents said balancing the state’s budget should not hinge on projected oil and gas revenues. That may be true but a stronger argument exists.
As noted above, the framers of the United States Constitution supported taxing real property.
Federalist #36 explains the intent of Article 1 Section 8. Congress was herein granted the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” based on actual valuations or occasional assessments (direct tax) and consumption (indirect tax). States were also empowered to establish the systems that defined and collected these revenues, thus providing a fiscal counterweight. Funds collected were to be used by the federal government to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare. State control of the strings also constrained federal spending to its constitutional functions.
Federalist #41 explains the intent of Article 1 Section 2. The apportionment of direct taxes between states was to be based on the decennial census; not the whims of the federal government.
Instead of railing against property taxes, we should repeal the income tax. In 1913, the XVI Amendment gave the legislative branch the power to impose a tax that, to this day, allows the federal government to exceed its constitutional boundaries and coerce states that receive “federal dollars” – the very term being a classic oxymoron. Once states receive these funds, largely in the form of entitlements, few governors and legislatures have the collective willpower to resist the associated federal “strings”. Further, judicial branch support has allowed this onerous tax to remain essentially unchallenged.
Indirect taxes on consumption (sales) and direct taxes on land valuation (property) were included in the Constitution's original framework. Income taxes were not. As proponents of the Fair Tax already know, that is an issue worthy of ballot initiatives.
Stu McLennan
Harker Heights
- Stu
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:22 am
- Location: Fort Hood
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest