As a nation under the U.S. Constitution we are 228 years old, and it may surprise readers to learn that for the first 124 of those years we had no federal income tax and handled our national expenses quite well. Today, those paying federal income taxes may be assessed as much as 20 to 25 percent of their income but, prior to 1913, people kept what is now taken from them.
What would you spend it on if were it not taken? Probably not on basics such as food, housing and utilities; they are already covered by what you are allowed to retain. You would spend the extra quarter of your salary on thousands of items that are made by others, as well as on services you may desire. This would not only enrich your life; it would provide jobs for others making those items or providing those services. Many middle class folks could purchase a new car every year with what they are now forced to pay to the federal government.
Would you spend your money more wisely than the federal government? Certainly! Most of the money taken from you by the federal government is spent on perpetual war, foreign aid, grants to privileged portions of our society and endless unconstitutional subsidized programs; the last two of which basically take the money of those who produce and redistribute it to those who do not. So corrupt is the system that many who pay no taxes still get income tax refunds.
Of course, those receiving and benefiting from these programs will defend them. But the fact remains that tax monies go, for the most part, on government jobs which produce little or nothing but consume the production of those who work. Such jobs do not produce for public consumption a potato, a carton of milk or even a can of hair spray. They bring another guy to the table to eat but do nothing to produce food to eat.
What largely brought about the give-away programs of the 20th century was the now 104-year-old 16th Amendment -- the federal income tax. All three 1912 presidential candidates, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, and their respective parties, wanted this financial water faucet they could turn on at will. They could purchase anything -- even people.
Prior to 1913, the federal government remained largely faithful to its grants of power in Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, which gave federal government only four powers: to tax, pay the debts, provide for the general welfare and provide for the common defense. Because the federal government has the inclination to maximize its authority, the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness federal powers more fully. Outside these qualifiers the federal government had no power to tax or to spend.
General welfare then meant everyone equally (general) as opposed to "specific welfare" or "privileged welfare" as it is today, targeting those to forfeit and those to receive monies. The Constitution did not deny states, counties or cities from having such programs, only the federal government. But politicians soon learned that the more they promised to the people from the money of others, the easier it was to get elected and stay elected.
The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding things clearly not on it was that each time it did so, the stronger the inclination was to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list. I ask my students what would happen if they took one lollipop to kindergarten and gave it to one child? What would the others say? Where is mine? Try taking away long-provided benefits from a privileged group as, for example, food stamps, and see how popular you are with that voting group in the next election.
So why does the government now need a fourth of everything you make and still not have enough to pay its debts? Because we went off the listed powers assigned in the Constitution, and every departure requires more taxpayer funding.
The only way to pay less tax is to have less government. A side benefit is more freedom. The productive classes would not be hurt as might be supposed. Seldom do they qualify for the federally-subsidized programs anyway. The fourth taken from the productive classes would be spent by them creating a haven of jobs for those who wish to work and would give them no excuse not to work. The cycle of dependency would be drastically reduced. The federal government would no longer be an enabler to those not working. States would decide for themselves what assistance programs they could afford, with some states offering more and others less, as the 10th Amendment mandates.
And, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government -- even wars -- our first 124 years? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. We got product producers in other countries to cover our national expenses and, thus, we were able to spend on ourselves every cent of what the federal government now takes, which inadvertently stimulated the economy.
No one should be able to argue that our almost $20 trillion national debt is fair, has really worked for any of us or is a better plan. I personally like the idea of being able to purchase a new car every year.
Harold Pease, PhD, is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for more than 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Editorial on 04/12/2017