Third Party & Independents Archives

Illegal Immigration Spurs Constitutional Amendment

Among the millions of Americans frustrated with the refusal by the federal government to forcefully control illegal immigration is South Carolina Senator Glenn McConnell. As President Pro Tempore of the Senate McConnell has explained why he is calling for the nation’s first use of the US Constitution’s Article V provision for a convention of state delegates to propose constitutional amendments.

“While this action is unprecedented, I also believe that the danger facing our country is unprecedented. We need to act now. …Congress has refused or is incapable of acting, thereby leaving the states in the position of burning while Congress fiddles. …the problem of illegal immigration is one that has reached a boiling point,” said McConnell, a Charleston Republican.

He notes that if his resolution is approved by two-thirds of states it “would require Congress to call for a constitutional convention.” What McConnell has not said, however, is that for many decades Congress has refused to obey Article V and call a convention that sufficient states have already asked for. The one and only requirement in Article V has been satisfied and Congress has no discretion in this matter.

McConnell’s proposed constitutional amendment has these provisions:

1. No provision of this Constitution, or any amendment thereto, shall restrict or limit any state from enforcing federal law with regard to immigration violations. In the absence of proof of legal citizenship status, a state may decide what governmental services funded in whole or in part by the state may be provided to or denied from any undocumented alien located within the state’s respective jurisdiction. States shall also have any power to regulate illegal immigration that has not been specifically preempted by an act of the Congress.

2. In implementing the provisions of this article, each state shall have the authority to prescribe civil and criminal penalties in addition to any provided by federal law for entering the United States illegally.

3. A state shall also have the power to apprehend and expel persons who are within the state’s jurisdiction in violation of federal immigration law. The federal government must provide timely assistance to the state in expelling undocumented aliens upon request by a state.

Considering the historic record-low level of just 11 percent public support for Congress and the widespread public concern about the many impacts of unchecked illegal immigration, especially on communities and local governments, this call for an Article V convention is extremely timely. Few Americans are aware of their constitutional right to an Article V convention, provided by the Framers of our Constitution as a kind of escape clause should citizens lose confidence in the federal government. Could it be any clearer that Americans have lost confidence in the federal government?

While there are many other issues that merit debate by state delegates in an Article V convention, many of which have been proposed in previous state applications, the illegal immigration crisis has the potential to put enough political pressure on Congress to obey the Constitution and call a convention which it has refused to do thus far. Opponents of both the convention method of amendment and tough immigration law will assert that 33 more states must apply, assuming South Carolina acts. Senator McConnell has fallen into this trap. In reality, all 50 states have applied 567 times for a convention. Still, a new South Carolina application addressing illegal immigration may bring the failure of Congress to obey the law of the Constitution greater visibility and provoke public anger. We have something worse than a do-nothing Congress; we have a break-the-law Congress.

Americans that laud the Constitution and the rule of law, and want more effective actions to address illegal immigration – surely a super majority of citizens – should tell their state legislators that they support McConnell’s proposal and the call for the nation’s first Article V convention.

We have had more than enough talk, lies and spin. Now is the time for meaningful action. American is not a lifeboat that untold millions of poor, suffering people can illegally jump into – not without lifeboat-America sinking into third-world status. The corporate powers behind both the Democrats and Republicans are eager to sell out middle class Americans to get cheap labor. And their control over Congress has created the crisis that Senator McConnell has courageously addressed through a call for an Article V convention. Let’s assist his bold effort.

We can expect opposition to the McConnell proposal from a number of groups that have always opposed using the Article V convention option. On the political left and right are many groups that fear a convention because they want to maintain their power and the status quo – a political system easily corrupted by corporate and other special interests through campaign contributions and lobbying. They have cleverly propagated the lie that a convention could by itself wreck our Constitution, which is impossible because proposed amendments must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Elites fear an Article V convention because once convened it is independent of Congress and the White House, and could re-engage distracted Americans in their government by seeing the Article V convention as the means, finally, to reclaim their government. Learn more from Friends of the Article V Convention.
.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at October 12, 2007 7:56 AM
Comments
Comment #235930

“1. No provision of this Constitution, or any amendment thereto, shall restrict or limit any state from enforcing federal law with regard to immigration violations. “

Joel, this is badly tangled language. It is preemptive of further amendment, for one thing. It also seems to weave law made under the auspices of the Constitution into the fabric of the Constitution itself in that it could mean that immigration law would seem, under this wording, to fall outside the purview of the federal courts.

Yeah, we need to do something, and an Article V convention might be the right thing with proposals well thought out and well worded, but this one ain’t it.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 12, 2007 9:05 AM
Comment #235939

It’s getting ugly out there, because too many politicians in Do-Nothing Congress refuse to address so many serious problems growing in number and severity.

In this case, Congress pitted American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits from cheap labor, and illegal employers are still being allowed to break the law. Some Judges are now ruling to bar the use of Social Security numbers (SSN) in its effort to increase enforcement efforts because they say the numbers are inaccurate. Nevermind that the small proportion of total mismatches that are mistakes could be cleared up fairly quickly.

Most Americans want illegal immigration stopped by enforcing existing laws and/or securing the borders, but elected and appointed officials refuse to do both.

So citizens are forced to take action because government chooses to despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other.

Hopefully, the dismal 11%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress will translate into some of these law breakers being voted out.

Until then, voters have the government they deserve, and should ask themselves why they give Congress dismal approval ratings, but repeatedly reward Congress with 95%-to-99% seat-retention rates.

Seat-Retention Rates in Congress:

  • Average Seat Retention rate for last election: 07-Nov-2006: 95.6%

  • Average Seat Retention rate between 2000 and 2006: 98.4%

  • Average Seat Retention rate between 1996 and 2006: 97.6%

  • Average Seat Retention rate between 1980 and 2006: 97.7%

  • Average Seat Retention rate between 1855 and 2006: 95.4%
HHHHhhhhhmmmmmm … do ya think there might be some connection between voters repeatedly rewarding Do-Nothing Congress with 95% re-election rates, and Do-Nothing Congress ignoring:
  • the laws?
  • the nation’s pressing problems growing in number and severity?
  • and the voters?
Rewarding corruption will simply get more of it, and breeds more disrespect for the law. If the polls are somewhat accurate, and voters don’t like being pitted against illegal aliens, then perhaps they should stop pulling the party-lever and rewarding the politicians that do it?

Yeah, we need to do something, and an Article V convention might be the right thing with proposals well thought out and well worded, but this one ain’t it.
Yes, better wording can be hammered out. But it’s not likely if voters continue to reward Congress for refusing to call an Article V Convention using these two false excuses:
  • [a] two-thirds have not filed same-subject requests.
      That is false: the two-thirds requirement has been met 4 times:
      • (1)direct election of U.S. Senators;
      • (2)repeal of federal income tax;
      • (3)apportionment;
      • (4)and balanced budget amendment}
  • [b] two-thirds have not filed contemporaneously
      That is False: Article V states “whenever”; not when Congress feels like it}
Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 10:21 AM
Comment #235945


Dan: your DO-NOTHING CONGRESS slogan is very misleading. Congress does plenty of things. But, everything they do must be approved by their CORPORATE MASTERS. THE MASTERS have bought our politicians and THE MASTERS are blackmailing us. If we try to put and end to their WORLD DOMINATION scheme, they will collapse our economy. They have this attitude, what good is it to have the statis of the only world super power if you can’t use your economic and military power to force your will on the other countries and the peoples of the world. Many of us are quick to dismiss conspiracy theory even thogh there are many institutions dedicated to stopping conspirators.

Posted by: jlw at October 12, 2007 11:20 AM
Comment #235947

jlw,
You are so right about that.
After all, a very tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more).
How can the remaining 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters compete with that?
Especially when so few even know it?
And these 10 REGRESSIVE systems did not all come about by mere accident, did it?

One thing is for damn certain. Voters won’t improve it by repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% to 99% re-election rates.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #235953

I just gotta streak in here and say:

Gore Wins Peace Prize for Climate Work

OSLO, Oct. 12 — The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today to Al Gore, the former vice president, and to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its work to alert the world to the threat of global warming.

Just remember peeps, all the stuff independents said during Bush’s campaign: that he was just like Gore, that both parties were equally corrupt, that your vote wouldn’t matter. I don’t know about y’all, but I would give my left testicle to have had Gore, not Bush, as president.

Posted by: Max at October 12, 2007 11:55 AM
Comment #235954

“While this action is unprecedented, I also believe that the danger facing our country is unprecedented. We need to act now. …Congress has refused or is incapable of acting, thereby leaving the states in the position of burning while Congress fiddles. …the problem of illegal immigration is one that has reached a boiling point”

Republicans never appeal to your common sense or logic; their tactic is always to try and make people irrationally afraid.

Posted by: Max at October 12, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #235955

“Republicans never appeal to your common sense or logic; their tactic is always to try and make people irrationally afraid”

Which is why someone would believe a liberal who passes off half-truths and opinion as fact, is somehow better than a Republican who does the same.

Quit fearing one side and excusing the other.
Start fearing govt and don’t accept its excuses.

Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #235956


Max: We are all products of and enablers of the system. The only major difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats like to tinker with the system and Republicans don’t.

Posted by: jlw at October 12, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #235959


Joel: Is the same Glen McConnell who proclaimed himself Emperor of the South on behalf of the new sons of the confederacy?

Posted by: jlw at October 12, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #235969

jlw

“Joel: Is the same Glen McConnell who proclaimed himself Emperor of the South on behalf of the new sons of the confederacy?”


why not critique the messege, instead of throwing bombs. if you don’t agree illegal immigration is a problem, then just say so. if you believe it is, then lets stop the partisan BS, and evaluate the plan regaurdless of who came up with it. it seems every time someone tries to adress the problem, political hacks and activist judges throw a wrench in the works. look at the latest attempt to verify soc. sec. #s. it was just shut down by a legal motion by the aclu, labor unions, and judge breyer.


i won’t disagree there are plenty of elected officials who don’t give a damn about thier fellow americans, but they exist in both parties, and to try to say otherwise is flat out nonsense.

Posted by: dbs at October 12, 2007 1:36 PM
Comment #235972
jlw wrote: We are all products of and enablers of the system.
That is the truth. We’re all culpable.
Quit fearing one side and excusing the other.
So, Democrats blame Republicans. Republicans blame Democrats. Voters reward both and don’t understand why nothing gets done.
Joel: Is the same Glen McConnell who proclaimed himself Emperor of the South on behalf of the new sons of the confederacy?
Yes, I think so, but I don’t think Joel is vouching for his character. These days, I’m not sure there are many (if any) in D.C. whose character I’d vouch for. Not because they are worse human beings (on average) than the rest of us, but because power, money, and self-gain have already corrupted most (if not all) of them.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 1:53 PM
    Comment #235973
    look at the latest attempt to verify soc. sec. #s. it was just shut down by a legal motion by the aclu, labor unions, and judge breyer.
    Yes, if judges won’t uphold the laws, why should anyone obey the law? This sort of thing can breed more disrespect for the law. That’s not a scare tactic. This sort of thing encourages more illegal immigration and sends the message that we are powerless (or unwilling) to deal with the problem.

    The thing about the SSNs: if there are mistakes, the could be cleared up fairly quickly, and we could then correct the mistakes in the Social Security databases. I don’t think anyone is advocating deporting actual U.S. citizens, but that is what their supposed fear is? Talk about fear mongering.

  • Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 2:01 PM
    Comment #235980


    Joel: I am opposed to illegal immigration because I am against the way we run our economy, not because I am a racist. If you like the way our economy is ran then you should be for illegal immigration.

    The mantra of our economy is Growth, not Om. Our economy either grows or it will stagnate and collapse. A major factor in economic growth is population growth. So if you want to blame illegal immigration on something blame it on the PILL. Unless or until we are willing to change our consumptive growth economy into one that is self-sustainable and less dependent on growth, we are going to be dependent on mass immigration. An economy that produces a million new jobs, but only has 500,000 workers to fill them is in trouble.

    I am opposed to a Constitutional Convention because I fear it. I am well aware of how a small group with a cause can propagandize issues which are very unpopular and use them to gain power for a cause which has nothing to do with original intent. If it can happen in Russia, Germany, Iran, it can happen in America.

    Posted by: jlw at October 12, 2007 3:51 PM
    Comment #235982
    I am opposed to a Constitutional Convention because I fear it.
    I don’t think fear is justified, because it takes three-fourths of the states to ratify any proposed amendment. That means 38 states have to ratify an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution.

    If we fear the right to ever amend our Constitution via Article V, then we have already slipped too far. And what other mechanism is there for proposing amendments when Congress will never (due to conflict of interest) entertain some amendments (like campaign finance reform, term limits, one-purpose-per BILL, Gerrymandering, taxation, etc.)?

    What you should be afraid of is that Congress is violating the Constitution and wondering what’s next?

    Already, 4 times, states have sumbitted sufficient amendment applications (on the same subject), and Congress still ignores the Constitution.

    Our economy either grows or it will stagnate and collapse.
    That’s true if the U.S. population keeps growing by over 3 million per year. That’s the problem with population growth. Ask China and India.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 4:09 PM
    Comment #235987

    jlw, I empathize with your fear of an Article V convention. But, an Article V convention is a constitutional method of addressing problems. Failing to address and solve problems can and will lead to Revolution and civil war. Given the choice, I would choose the specter of an Article V convention with its many safeguards over civil war or revolution spilling millions of quarts of American blood in our streets, any day.

    America has experience with both revolution and civil war. They are an integral part of our history. History can and will repeat itself if we ignore the causes of that history. America is no longer a just nation. It unjustly rewards evil and corruption of our system, and severely punishes the poor and weak.

    Take the mandatory sentencing guidelines for cocaine and crack for example. Exactly the same chemical, but, sentencing guidelines for wealthier and better connected cocaine users are 10 times lighter than for the users of the vastly cheaper poorer person’s economic choice of crack or rock cocaine. Cocaine users tend to be more Caucasion. Crack users tend to be more Hispanic or African American.

    This sort of injustice is not dissimilar from King George’s favorable tax treatment of loyalists and burdensome taxation of other religious colonialists. Or his favorable dispensations toward Anglican Church goers and punitive measures against Catholics and Protestants.

    Our government pitted slavers against abolitionists. We are witnessing a similar breeding of civil unrest between American citizens and illegal immigrants, a small number of whom are Hizbollah terrorists coming across our Southern Border, according to our own intelligence sources. Hizbollah is well entrenched in the tri-state region of S. America where many of our illegal immigrants are coming from.

    If the government will not resolve the escalating conflict, the people surely will and are as in Irving, Tx., Tulsa, Ok., and San Diego, Ca.

    And as the problem grows, so will the propensity to violence as a means of addressing the problem. It is in our history, our nation has been through this before, and it was repeated again as recently as the late 1960’s and early 1970’s as Americans watched their cities burn, looted, and wholesale murder take place on its streets, by both criminal elements and our national guard at Kent State.

    Our history will repeat itself, yet again, unless the people and government chooses to resolve, instead of fuel, the dissent and defensive reaction. The majority of the American people demand our nation and way of life be defended. Our government refuses to yield to those demands in anykind of effective way.

    The States and the people have two courses of action. Constitutional via Article V, or, revolt against its own government’s inaction. Which would you prefer?

    Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2007 4:51 PM
    Comment #235991

    “proposed amendments must be ratified by three-quarters of the states”

    Does that mean one vote for each state or is there some kind of electoral math, or representitive math used?

    Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2007 5:03 PM
    Comment #236005

    kctim, its in your US Constitution. “when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;”

    Which means, as I understand it, each of the state’s must assent by either a vote of their legislature, or, in an amendment convention convened by the state. The method chosen is up to the Congress, and there is the wrinkle. What to do if the Congress does not designate the method?

    Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2007 6:04 PM
    Comment #236006
    kctim asked: Does that mean one vote for each state or is there some kind of electoral math, or representitive math used?

    kctim, that is a good question. Thank you for asking. We must look to the 14th Amendment for guidance …

    (7.5)QUESTION: How many delegates to an Article V Convention would each state have?
    ANSWER: There is a great deal of discussion on this matter and it is certainly not settled. The main question revolves around how voting will be conducted at the convention. If the convention votes by states, then the number of delegates is not that important as each state would have one vote. If, on the other hand each delegate casts a vote and the states are ignored then the number of delegates is very important.
    The problem is that if the convention is operated on the basis of individual delegates as there are not two houses as is the case in Congress (the Constitution does not create two conventions in Article V but calls for a convention to propose amendments meaning a single entity or whole. The word “a” thus creates one convention.) then the numeric numbers of the larger states would threaten to dominate the smaller states as was the main issue before the Founders of the Constitution. Their solution was to allow for one house of Congress (the House of Representatives) to represent the populations of each state thus favoring the large states and a Senate of equal representation for each state favoring the smaller states and requiring that no action by Congress could occur without both houses affirming this action. This is known as the Great Compromise and was the key to the states agreeing on the Constitution.

    The issue is no less important for an Article V Convention. Fortunately, there is a solution. Because of the 14th Amendment of equal protection under the law, the Constitution would demand that as in Congress each state would receive the same number of representatives as it currently has in Congress, that is the total number of representatives and senators combined.

    Therefore the answer of how many delegates each state would have is that they would have the same number as they now have in total in Congress.

    . . .
    _______
    (7.7)QUESTION: How would the delegates to an Article V Convention vote, as individuals or by states?
    ANSWER: Article V of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause provides the answer to this question. Article V mandates that both houses of Congress (assuming a quorum) require a two-thirds vote of the members present to propose an amendment to the Constitution. The equal protection clause therefore compels that any vote from the convention must be a two-thirds vote of the entire convention (assuming a quorum of its members).
    Thus, whether the convention votes by individual delegates or by states in which the delegates vote to create a state vote, the Constitution mandates that two-thirds of those votes must exist in order for an Article V Convention to propose an amendment for ratification by the states. This fact is a little noticed but important obstacle in the way of any runaway convention besides those discussed elsewhere in this FAQ’s.

    The equal protection clause goes further than a total vote however. In the original design of Congress, the Founders intended that one of the houses would represent population (the House) and the other the states (the Senate). Thus, a two-thirds vote by both population and states is required in order to propose an amendment to the Constitution. This standard, under the equal protection clause, must therefore apply to an Article V Convention and the answer as to how the delegates will vote, by state or individuals, becomes obvious.

    The convention will be required to have at least two-thirds of the total number of delegates (assuming a quorum) vote in favor of a proposed amendment as well as voting in such a manner that two-thirds of the states present (assuming a quorum) also favor the amendment proposal. This constitutional double whammy (which is the same obstacle Congress faces each time members wish to propose an amendment) is certain to limit the number of proposed amendments making it out of the convention as well as insuring that there is absolutely no change a “runaway” convention will occur.
    _______

    For more, Frequently Asked Questions, please see this F.A.Q.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 12, 2007 6:12 PM
    Comment #236028


    It seems to me that this call for a Constitutional Convention to consider McConnell’s Amendment gives the federal government an incentive to pass an amnesty bill. Would we then be considering a radically different amendment than the one above?

    What about the economic considerations that I mentioned? Am I so dumb that I have completely missed the mark there? I would much prefer a Constitutional Convention to address the economy. Instead of treating the symptoms, why don’t we consider treating the disease?

    Posted by: jlw at October 12, 2007 11:44 PM
    Comment #236038
    Instead of treating the symptoms, why don’t we consider treating the disease?
    The convention would be a good time to submit amendments for many problems.

    But I don’t know it will do any good as long as Congress enjoys a 95% to 99% re-election rate.

    There are many common-sense reforms that could be considered, but Congress won’t consider any reforms that might even remotely reduce their power, their opportunities for self-gain, or reduce the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies.

    Amnesty Bill? Some in Congress are already trying to get an amnesty.

    I can understand giving a path to citizenship to some (i.e. children brought here by their parents and spent half their life here), but we need to first stop the illegal employers, stop the inflow of 2 million illegal aliens per year across our borders, and start enforcing existing laws. The local and federal governments need to work together on it instead of pointing fingers at each other. We tried an amnesty in 1986 and it more than quadrupled the problem. This huge mess is another of many huge messes allowed by the federal government to grow and grow until there are no easy solutions.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2007 5:19 AM
    Comment #236046

    David and d.a.n
    Thanks for the input and leads to further read up on it some.

    Posted by: kctim at October 13, 2007 12:51 PM
    Comment #236053

    d.a.n, one of the real potential dangers however, is that the politicians will amend provisions such that they, the politicians, 1) garner more power, 2) grant themselves greater immunity for misdeeds, 3) entrench the money system to their favor as incumbents and 4) adjust election procedures and policy to favor incumbents even further. All of these measures would have potentially more support by incumbent politicians than any issue regarding illegal immigration, border security, or the economy.

    This has always been my fear of an Article V convention. That fear is assuaged a bit by the fact that such a convention would put an intense spotlight on the process and government and generate such hostile protest and vigilance should politicians attempt to entrench the power further. That said, we have witnessed many times politicians saying to hell with the public, we will tend our own power. It is a risk. But, I am convinced it is a risk worth taking now.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2007 3:29 PM
    Comment #236064

    There’s a small possibility of that, but I don’t think so.
    Why?
    Because:

    • (1) Delegates from the states are who is voting on the amendments.

    • (2) It means three fourths of the delegates have to be equally corrupt as federal politicians.

    • (3) The convention will receive a lot of media attention; the people will be watching and the media will be reporting on it.

    • (4) The blogs and internet will be ablaze, and the Main Stream Media is finding it increasingly difficult to ignore the blogs.

    • (5) The state legislatures don’t have many (if any) motivations to give up more power to the federal government.

    • (6) If anything, the state legislatures will be reducing the federal government’s power (perhaps introduce term-limits, balanced budget, one-purpose-per-bill, prohibit Gerrymandering, etc.).

    • (7) Congress is not involved for the most part. Once Congress calls the convention, Congress has no role in the voting process.

    Other people ask of an Article V Convention is a good idea.
    Here is F.A.Q. # 8.3 that also address that question.

    Even as cynical as some thing I am, it does not seem likely that three fourths of the state legislatures are going to pass many (if any) amendments that give more power to the bloated, do-nothing federal government. However, if Congress is allowed to continue to violate the Constitution, more chaos, greed, and corruption could make a convention pointless. Is a convention pointless now? I don’t think so. There me be few amendments that come out of it, but I think the process would be very helpful in raising awareness about a number of pressing problems facing the nation.

    The real problem now is that Congress is refusing to call a convention even though the two-thirds requirement has been met 4 times (and on the same-subject too), and 567 applications have been submitted.
    567 applications by state legislatures since 1787.
    554 applications by state legislatures since 1900.
    432 applications by state legislatures since 1950.
    432 applications by state legislatures since 1950.
    384 applications by state legislatures since 1960.
    221 applications by state legislatures since 1970.
    071 applications by state legislatures since 1980.
    044 applications by state legislatures since 1990.

    Congress is in violation of Article V.

    Looking at the applications above, does it not start to look a little ridiculous for Congress to continue to violate Article V.
    There’s more to come on this subject which I think you are going to find most interesting.
    Also, Congress persons are very strangely silent on the subject.
    Write your Congress persons and ask a question about something like illegal immigration.
    Then write your Congress persons and ask a question about their position on Article V and see what happens. Nothing.
    Why?
    Because they are violating Article V, and they know it.
    This isn’t going away, and neither is the illegal immigration problem.
    It may have to get ugly first, but it’s not going away.
    The states are not going to continue to tolerate the federal government violating the Constitution indefinitely.

    The framers of the Constitution created Article V so that we may avoid the alternative.
    Many voters are learning about these REGRESSIVE systems and the worsening disparity trend.
    Seat-retention rates in Congress fell by 3.6% (from 99.2% in 2004 to 95.6% in 2006).
    The voters will gruadually figure it out as they grow poorer and the pain grows.
    It is a built-in safety valve.
    If we can not get badly-needed commonsense reforms via Article V, then things will get ugly.
    Things are already getting ugly.
    Things will most likely get worse before they get better, because by the time corrections are implemented (if ever), things are already painful.
    Unfotunately, pain is a lagging indicator.
    And voters should ask themselves one simple question:

      Is rewarding Do-Nothing Congress who has dismal 11% to 18% approval ratings with 95% to 99% re-election rates working?

    And voters should ask themselves if these ten things that are hammering them all came about by mere accident:

    • (01) Massive $9 Trillion National Debt is being piled up on voters and younger generations (it could take centuries to pay down). With an approaching 77 million baby boomer bubble (13,175 or more people per day eligible for Social Security and Medicare), some adjustments will be necessary. So much debt is unfair to future generations. It is worse than a REGRESSIVE tax.

    • (02) illegal immigration is like a REGRESSIVE tax, causing job displacement and many burdens and costs to be shifted to tax payers that already pay REGRESSIVE sales taxes and REGRESSIVE income taxes for the already burdened social services.

    • (03) The ridiculous federal tax system which is effectively REGRESSIVE due to numerous tax loop holes.

    • (04) Inflation is like a REGRESSIVE tax, since the poor are limited in ways of preserving wealth with property, gold, stocks, homes, etc. There are also money system problems. Inflation is usually a result of excessive money creation. The mismanaged money system creates inflation. Predatory interest rates and lending practices (i.e. raising Adjustable Rate Mortgages from 6% to 14%) are wide-spread. The Federal Reserve gets to keep the interest on the money created out of thin.

    • (05) Dozens and dozens of REGRESSIVE sales taxes (city, state, county sales taxes, fuel taxes, telephone excise taxes and fees, etc.); all sales taxes are REGRESSIVE.

    • (06) Corporate income taxes are more like hidden REGRESSIVE taxes passed on to consumers. Have you seen owners of corporations cutting their salaries? We have too many taxes on too many things that are all like hidden sales taxes. All sales taxes are REGRESSIVE.

    • (07) Property taxes in many cases are REGRESSIVE, since (like all sales taxes are REGRESSIVE), as income decreases, the property tax increases (as a percentage of income). Also, property taxes are double, triple, quadruple, quintuple, … , N-tuple taxation because it is repeated every year! A home owner is taxed every year on what the home owner already owns. A $100K house can be taxed $2K every year. That is $10K after only 5 years. And to make matters worse, property taxes keep rising with inflation. In only 20 years, your property total property taxes could exceed the original price of the property. And rising rates are running some people out of their homes. It forces the elderly to downsize and sell homes they have lived in for many years to reduce their annual property tax.

    • (08) Caps (e.g. currently $97,500) on Social Security taxes is a REGRESSIVE tax. The wealthy collect Social Security, but they do not contribute proportionately with respect to income. The argument for the cap is that the wealthy pay more in than they will ever receive back. So? Social Security and Medicare are subsistence systems. Not a retirement system in which the government is merely holding your money for you until you retire. Therefore, if we are going to have a Social Security and Medicare system, we should all pay an equal percentage. Otherwise, the system is REGRESSIVE.

    • (09) Our government is FOR-SALE. An amazingly tiny, tiny 0.15% of all 200 Million eligible voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more). How can the remaining 99.85% of all 200 Million eligible voters compete with that to have an equal voice within government? On average, a mere 300,000 people are making 83% of all federal campaign donations, which is about $6667 per person (in year 2004). On average, the remaining 99.85% of all 200 Million eligible voters are averaging a mere $2.00 per person. And since government is FOR-SALE, bought-and-paid-for politicians (puppets) carry the water for their big-money donors (puppeteers). As a result, corpocrisy, corporate welfare, graft, pork-barrel, waste, and other manifestations of unchecked greed are rampant. That is not only worse than any REGRESSIVE tax. It is OPPRESSIVE. It is and government of, by, and for those that abuse vast wealth to control and influence government. And while many voters know this, they do a very strange thing. They then reward Congress with a 97.6% re-election rate; empowering and rewarding corrupt politicians to grow more corrupt and irresponsible.

    • (10) Unnecessary wars; We have had 7 wars in the last 90 years (about 1 war every 13 years). A war in Afghanistan and in Iraq are ongoing as of late 2007. Some of those wars were probably unnecessary (i.e. Vietnam, and Iraq-2 which was largely based on invalid intelligence about Weapons of Mass Destruction that was never verified). What is more REGRESSIVE than that? It is not just REGRESSIVE. It is OPPRESSIVE.

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 13, 2007 6:09 PM
    Post a comment