Tax The Goods, Not The Income

Imagine living in a world with no income tax; an America where each and every citizen takes home 100% of what he or she earns each week; a land where the individuals are taxed on what they choose to buy and not what the government chooses to take. This could all happen, virtually overnight, if the Washington elites would only let it. With responsible Congressional leadership, the federal income tax could be completely dissolved and replaced with a flat-rated federal sales tax. This tax of six to seven percent on all new, manufactured goods and services, would generate the same, if not more revenue for the federal government than our current, convoluted system. Take into account that all people in America, legal or illegal, resident or tourist, would then be paying their fair share of tax and the positive potential of revenue for the nation is remarkable. Once the federal government initiates such changes the states will surely follow, leaving the American public with a truly tax-free paycheck. While it is true that in states such as New York, with high sales tax rates already in place, consumers may have to pay as high as 15% on purchases; it is also true that these people will have more money to spend to begin with, leaving them at liberty to choose how to spend it.
Under this “fair tax” system, individuals who earn less will spend less and therefore, pay less in taxes. Inversely, individuals who earn more will spend more and hence, pay more in taxes. It’s that simple and it’s as fair and American in principle as a tax system can be. Upon enactment, this fair tax would transform America from the government-run economy that it currently is, into the consumer-based, super-capitalism of which it was always intended to be. With businesses no longer being taxed to compensate employees and investors no longer punished for commercial success, our economy will, once again, be free to thrive. This, of course, will result in expanded job creation, an increased GDP, and with that, more federal revenue.
No longer will politicians attack American business in endless attempts to ignite public passions. Their political fates and the success of private enterprise will now be intertwined. All political parties will seek to foster private sector growth, due to their respective links in prosperity. For the first time in over a century, what will be good for the people will be good for the politicians. The concept of representative republicanism will, once again, thrive in America.
The American people have been inundated for so long with the concept of government levies and redistribution of their hard-earned pay that, to many, it seems natural. But it should always be remembered that there is something inherently wrong with one group of people taking the bread earned from the sweat of another group’s brow and arbitrarily mandating its allocation. The American system of government is based on individual liberties and freedoms of commerce. Our practice of taxing the peoples’ incomes denies them these liberties and impedes their commercial success. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that “America is the country of the future. It is a country of beginnings, of projects, of vast designs and expectations.” If the government would just remove the economic shackles from the American workers, investors and entrepreneurs, it could reinvent our economy and bring back the America of Mr. Emerson’s day. A consumer based, flat rated tax is the nation’s best chance to achieve this. No longer would the will of the public be disregarded due to conflicts of rival parties. Our politicians would be held directly accountable for their actions and an American economy, driven by a free and open market, could once again flourish.

Jeremy Pitcoff
Smithtown Republican Committeeman

I, Jeremy Pitcoff, of Nesconset, New York, hereby petition my state’s Assembly and Senate, to create and pass legislation clarifying its citizens’ rights to self determination. I respectfully request New York’s State Legislature to address the innate illegality of the “individual mandate,” recently passed into federal law in the guise of healthcare reform. In passing this bill, the Democrat party has enacted a law which forces individual citizens to enter into private health insurance contracts and purchase government approved policies accordingly. This is the first time in American history that such a law, mandating peoples’ private spending, has been enacted.
Because the Constitution grants only limited powers to the Federal Government, and because none of these powers carry any implied jurisdiction for federal coercion of private purchase, Obama-Care appears to wither under constitutional scrutiny. This being the case, the individual States of the Union have a moral obligation and political responsibility to uphold the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This crucial element of the Bill of Rights was created to insure that even in times of illegitimate collusion between the separate branches of government, federal power could still be reined in. In a democratic republic, the States are, and of right ought to be, the most powerful check on federal tyranny.
It is times like these, with Congress passing laws of such dubious legitimacy, that New York must reassert its rightful role as federal watchdog. Our State Legislature must step to the forefront and assertively declare that our Federal Government has no constitutional right to make decisions on its citizens’ private healthcare management. Because our new state and federal laws will prove irreconcilable, the Supreme Court of the United States will become the final arbiter of Obama-Care’s legitimacy. The Court’s decision will then become the law of the land and all interested parties will respect it as such. Win or lose, the State of New York will take pride in knowing it did its best to preserve the individual liberty and autonomy of commerce its citizens demand and expect. If New York’s current legislature proves unwilling or unable to enact a law reasserting the rights of its citizens, then these citizens will know who and who not to elect this November. The time is now for New Yorkers to unite against federal infringement and fight back this wave of big-government rule.

Jeremy Pitcoff
Smithtown Republican Committeeman

Don't Tread On Me

With so much talk of Congressional ‘reconciliation’ in America’s political dialogue, one would think that this legislative procedure is, in and of itself, the topic of debate. However, the reality is that this process is merely a last ditch effort by the Democrat leadership to pass a bill, before the November, 2010 midterm elections, that has become wildly unpopular among the American people. In the midst of an economic crisis, President Obama has spent the first third of his term in office desperately trying to nationalize America’s health insurance system while paying attention to little else. As someone who has closely scrutinized the President’s crusade from its inception, even I find myself occasionally lost in the melee of the moment, losing focus on the series of events which brought us to our current situation. The time between now and November will decide the fate of Obama-Care, and with it, the future of America. In order to fully comprehend where we are now, and what is in store for our nation, we must occasionally step back and reflect on how we got here.
During his 2008 election campaign, Senator Barack Obama won much popular support by making vague references to health insurance reform, using a sort of ‘no person left behind’ rhetoric in regard to America’s healthcare system. With sweeping promises of change and presenting himself as the Anti-Bush candidate, Obama handily won the election and was soon sworn in as America’s 44th President. Though President Obama showed some initial signs of focusing on foreign affairs with his new, apologetic, diplomatic approach, it soon became clear that creating a nationalized healthcare system would be the true focus of his first year in office. He led his party in creating “stimulus bills” which he promised would be used to create new jobs. These bills enabled Congress to borrow and print more money, doubling the size of our national debt. Furthermore, much of the money created from this legislation was used to create de facto slush-funds which the House and Senate leadership could use to offer sweetheart deals to disenfranchised Democrats. In the end, the President’s “stimulus” and “job creation” bills were used mainly to further propagate his dream of federally controlled healthcare.
As President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid worked together to create a healthcare bill, their focus was mainly on getting support from their fellow Democrats. Little regard was paid to Republicans or to the voice of the American people. This strategy appeared to be politically prudent, if nothing else, due to the fact that both houses of Congress were now under the control of the Democrats. In the House of Representatives, a simple majority vote is all that is necessary to pass healthcare legislation. The Senate rules for such sweeping proposals require a three fifths (60 vote) majority and fortunately for the President, this was the precise number of Senators under his control.
As details of the House and Senate proposals slowly permeated the national media, popular support for the bills waned accordingly. Americans, as they always do, pushed back against the threat of government over-intrusion and increased tax burdens. New grass roots movements sprang up and town hall meetings were held across the land. This, however, did not faze President Obama and his cohorts. The House and Senate respectively proceeded to pass separate healthcare legislation. Though the House and Senate bills contained many major differences which would later have to be negotiated, the dye was essentially cast and Obama-Care seemed inevitable. As with all legislation, the House and Senate would now meet together to work out a compromise: combine the two bills and vote respectively on the new, refined product. The President would then sign the bill and it would become law. Since they had almost two years before the next Congressional election, the administration decided to launch an all out public relations campaign to win back popular support for the President’s bill before it was passed. The House and Senate would simply sit back and let President Obama lead fate’s course before they made legislative history. But the Democrats were doomed to discover that fate often stubbornly insists on choosing its own path.
When Senator Ted Kennedy passed away in August 2009, it was a foregone conclusion that he would be replaced with another left leaning, Obama supporting Democrat. After all, Massachusetts was the most liberal state in the Union and Kennedy its standard-bearer for decades. Massachusetts, however, is also the land of the Boston Tea Party and the battles of Lexington and Concord, and has historically proven an outlet of American popular dissent. To the shock of most political pundits and all Democrat party leaders, Republican Scott Brown won the state’s special election for Kennedy’s seat on the promise of stopping Obama-Care and all its fiscal liberalism. With the Senate no longer having the 60 vote majority necessary to re-pass its legislation, and its bill at such odds with that of Congress, most Americans took a deep breath and mused at how close they came to having their popular will denied. Obama-Care was dead and the country could now move on. However, President Obama, who prides himself on audacity, was not willing to relent. After a series of backroom deals, using money from the economic stimulus slush-fund, the administration proved to have one more trick up its heart-worn sleeve…….reconciliation.
Reconciliation is a legislative process in which the Senate can pass sweeping laws with a three-fifths vote and then reconcile budgetary dilemmas with a simple majority. The resolution was created in 1974 and has been utilized thirteen times thenceforth. Mainly, the reconciliation process has been applied to laws in order to reduce taxes and decrease deficits, most notably in the tax cut initiatives of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Though blatantly contrary to the will of the American people, President Obama is now pushing the House leadership to apply this process to fix his healthcare conundrum. Mr. Obama has instructed Speaker Pelosi to have Congress vote on the Senate’s bill, as is, and work out their differences later. Because the Senate has no chance of getting a 60 vote majority on a new, revised bill, this procedural trickery is the President’s last hope for winning his crusade.
For the House to pass the Senate bill, many a Congressman and Congresswoman will have to abandon their principles in the hope that, in the end, the Senate will justify their actions via reconciliation. Pro- life House Democrats will have to vote for a Senate bill which allows for public funding of abortions. Fiscally conservative “blue-dog” Democrats will need to vote for a bill which adds billions to the national deficit and many representatives from both bodies are uncomfortable with the President’s “individual mandate” in which all Americans are forced into buying federally controlled health insurance or risk severe fines and/or imprisonment. All this being said, Democrats have chosen to go the reconciliation route, leaving the American people with three options of recourse.
1. The bill is passed and the American people suddenly change their minds, rejoicing for their new taxes and Medicare cuts. They finally realize that the government knows best and that the citizens are mere peons with no capacity for political thought. All sing Kumbaya and go to bed.
2. The people organize resistance to the bill and the government intrusion it entails. In November, the Republicans take back the majority in both houses of Congress. The new Congress uses the reconciliation process to undo what was done and dares the President to veto their publically mandated repeal.
3. The President does indeed veto the new Congress’ repeal and seals his own fate for the 2012 Presidential election. Since the healthcare subsidies in the current bill don’t kick in until 2013, even though the taxes and Medicare cuts will begin immediately upon passage, it would still be possible for a new President and a new Congress to reverse the bill in its infancy.
“Don’t Tread On Me” is a long held motto and instinctive philosophy which reflects the American people’s view of big government. Federal invasion on individual liberty is as offensive to Americans today as it was in 1776. When the government over tightens its grip on the States’ and the People’s autonomy, Americans inevitably fight back. In the end, nationalized healthcare, as the President envisions it, will never take effect. All President Obama can gain by pushing his agenda, via reconciliation, is infamy. What he can lose, however, is far worse….. the future of his party, his Presidency and the respect of hundreds of millions of American citizens.
Jeremy PitcoffSmithtown Republican Committeeman

Liquor, Wine & American Spirits

In Albany, Governor David Patterson’s time has been all but consumed with fighting off demands for his immediate resignation. Lawmakers and political aspirants from all ideological camps have been quick to judge the Governor’s actions, regardless of investigative results. Amid this political turmoil, however, the very real issue of passing a New York State budget has been left all but forgotten by the local and state media. As for Mr. Patterson’s involvement in the domestic violence case of one of his closest aides, only time will tell. The Governor’s proposals for the 2010-11 budget, however, are immediately available for public scrutiny and should be closely examined before adoption. Among the Governor’s many ill conceived propositions to reduce New York State’s budget deficit, one such plan has the potential to not only fiscally impede Long Island’s small business community, but to irrevocably damage the rich historical character of its commerce.
Long Island and New York City are unique to the Nation in their large proportion of independently owned, service oriented businesses. In virtually every shopping center or city block can be found a local restaurant, a boutique, a pizzeria and a liquor store. Though the Governor’s new budget does, in fact, propose new taxes on clothing and “high in sugar” beverages, it does not foretell the immediate ruin of the local food and apparel industries. The same cannot be said, however, of New York’s liquor store community. Governor Patterson’s plan to legalize the sale of wine in grocery stores, delis and bodegas, would virtually thrust the iconic symbol of the “Mom and Pop” liquor store, into the ash heaps of history.
Proponents of the Governor’s plan to bring wine into the supermarkets at the peril of the small businessman, claim an estimated $300 million in State “new franchise fees” as justification. But these numbers are questionable at best and are one time fees only. Notably, these figures do not reflect the inevitable loss in State revenue due to so many liquor stores going out of business, leaving owners and employees alike, on the unemployment line. Due to the supermarkets’ colossal buying power, many distributers will also find themselves left irrelevant, as wines will now be purchased in bulk, direct from a few favored wineries. The long term fiscal benefits of these measures would be marginal at best, and in all likelihood, neutral. Essentially, the State would be borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. But the damage this proposal could inflict on New York’s unique commercial spirit is immeasurable, and should prove the true argument of dissent.
Since America’s inception into nationhood, its citizens have continuously possessed the unique outlook of linking commerce and self-sufficiency to virtue and self-employment. America, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, was predominantly agrarian in nature. To own one’s own farm, was the premier goal of most Americans. But unlike most nations of the era, Americans were not content to simply utilize their crops to subsist their family’s needs. Most of these farm owners aspired to create surplus goods which would enable them to partake in small-scale business endeavors. When famed historian, Alexis de Tocqueville, visited America from France in 1831, he was impressed to find that “almost all farmers of the United States combine some trade with agriculture; most of them make agriculture itself a trade.”
Though America is no longer an agriculturally based society, its basic cultural aspirations have remained unscathed. Most of New York’s farms of old, have been traded in for Colonials and Condominiums, but the essential principle remains. Virtually all American Citizens still yearn to own a home and dream of, one day, opening a business for themselves. For most, these aspirations will remain simply a dream, but it’s a quintessentially American dream and one worth striving for.
Governor Patterson’s plan will only prove to destroy one of New York’s last independently-owned small business industries. It will achieve this with little to nay long term benefits for the State, selling New York’s entrepreneurial soul for a onetime cash infusion. It will further serve to make extinct the small business owner who is willing to labor at his or her shop, day and night, to earn a decent living. He or she will be replaced with more 8 to 5 jobs with no prospects of commercial expansion. This will prove to further stifle the innate industry of New York’s small- business class and diminish its ability to create new jobs.
Small business is the driving force of New York’s economy and its entrepreneurial class is willing to subject itself to tremendous strain in exchange for autonomy of commerce. To pass legislation which would unquestionably harm an industry with such historic and cultural significance to the State of New York, would prove not only rash, but caustic to its character. As if it weren’t bad enough having Albany tax our sugars, our payrolls and our salts, it now wants to take from us the one thing we New Yorkers have left……our spirits.

Jeremy Pitcoff
Smithtown Republican Committeeman

Irrevocably Bound

On January 1st, 1960 the Town of Smithtown voluntarily relinquished the lion’s share of its local autonomy. With the enactment of the Suffolk County Charter, Smithtown and the nine other townships comprising the region permitted a larger, more centralized government to take the reins of power in Eastern Long Island. This Charter provided for a new “administrative officer” named the County Executive and allowed for the creation of a “county police department” to supersede the hegemony previously held by local law enforcement. The townships, once authorizing this transfer of power, were to be “irrevocably bound” to the county without prospect of recourse or appeal. Now, fifty years and seven County Executives later, Smithtown is suffering the inevitable consequences of government expansion. It is learning the age-old lesson that the bigger a government gets, the less efficient it becomes. By nature, its expanding bureaucracy will necessitate injustice and misrepresentation.
For decades, since the creation of the Suffolk County Charter, Smithtown’s 4th precinct has been labeled a “low risk” crime area by the powers that be and has been allocated County funds and resources accordingly. Historically, the residents of Smithtown have been willing to pay higher property taxes in exchange for safer streets and better education. However, the disparity between resident taxes paid and 4th precinct funds received has grown so large that Smithtown is no longer the “low risk” safe haven of old. Out of the $47.8 million Smithtown residents now pay in property taxes for the Suffolk County Police Department, only $24 million gets back to the 4th precinct and its brave men and women in blue. With Smithtown’s burgeoning heroin endemic on its streets and in its schools, it defies all logic that County Executive, Steve Levy has allowed this monetary injustice to occur. The people of Smithtown are not getting back that which they have paid for their security and their peace of mind. The officers and detectives of the 4th precinct are some of the best and the brightest in the nation but their hands are virtually tied by big-government handcuffs and their ability to perform has been stymied by bureaucratic ineptitude. With diminishing funding and escalating cuts in manpower, squad cars and resources, it’s no wonder that Smithtown finds itself mired in the middle of Long Island's heroin crisis.
With recent news headlines, County Executive Levy has deferred comment on the 4th precinct’s resource debacle to Suffolk County Police Commissioner, Richard Dormer. Dormer, who has performed admirably as Commissioner, has had no choice but to serve the county as a whole while simultaneously dealing with a faltering revenue stream in difficult economic times. He has explained that his job as commissioner requires him to allocate funds to the precincts proportionate to their populations and shift resources as needs and emergencies dictate. Ultimately however, the recipients of these discretionary funds are at the mercy of the ever- political office of the County Executive; and here lies the bigger problem.
Smithtown homeowners pay higher property taxes because, on average, their homes are worth more money. Their property values are higher mainly because historically, their neighborhoods and schools have been safer than others in the county. However, with only half of the Smithtown property-tax dollars allotted for law enforcement actually getting back to the police force that keeps Smithtown safe, it is only logical that it would become less safe in time. Hence the heroin in its schools and the drug related violence on its streets. It stands to reason that, sooner or later, this rise in crime will create a drastic drop in the value of Smithtown’s homes. Less value in properties will necessitate fewer taxes collected for the county and of course, less revenue for the Suffolk County Police department. In the end, all of Suffolk County loses as a result of this type of wealth distribution. Only the County Executive has the power to stop it.
Steve Levy owes it not just to Smithtown, but to the county as a whole, to insure that each township receives back in benefits at least a fair share of what it pays for that purpose. Anything else is not only irresponsible but proves detrimental to the entire region.
Certain towns generate more revenue because they have more to offer. If they are not permitted to reap their due benefits from that revenue then, eventually, their ability to raise it will cease. The County government should embrace and foster its more affluent towns and encourage others to emulate their success. What it’s doing now is the antithesis of that; plunging successful towns down while merely maintaining the status quo for the rest. Of course, these are the ways of big government. Common sense rarely applies and the red tape runs rampant. Smithtown, by law, is “irrevocably bound” to the Suffolk County Charter and in most respects it ought to be. But the colossal bureaucracy that the county government wields, if not checked, will readily run afoul. All Smithtown can really ask for is a chance to extradite itself from those big-government handcuffs and to be giv

If I Were Running For Congress…

Due to lack of funding, name recognition and political experience I am forced to announce my official non-candidacy for the New York 1st district congressional seat. However, I would like to take a moment and reflect on the message I would have conveyed had I more D.C. connections, capital backing and/or political popularity. I believe I owe this to my town, my county and especially my imaginary following. If I were running for congress this would be my message and I believe what the people of Long Island would truly like to hear.
As a small business owner in Smithtown, I’ve had to say goodbye to far too many long-time customers as they have been forced out of Suffolk County. They have left New York and have tried to seek refuge for themselves and their families in lower taxed states such as the Carolinas and Florida. I have seen the costs of running my business go up and up as my clientele has had less and less money to spend. Raising taxes is not now and has never been the answer to fixing a troubled economy. The more money a family has in its pocket, the more likely it is to spend it. This is simply plain and common sense. This money will be spent at local restaurants, shops and boutiques, who will, in turn, hire more people who will naturally spend yet more money in their communities. This of course will generate more revenue for the state and country, via sales tax, than any amount of erroneous payroll, capital gains or income tax could hope to achieve. Increasing the tax burden on an ever-dwindling and economically suffering population could only exacerbate the problems of an already overly-governed population.
As a matter of fact, in this non-candidates opinion, the true answer to all our woes would be to eliminate federal and state income taxes altogether. This lack of revenue would be replaced with a higher, flat rated tax on all purchased goods. This would change our system overnight from the government run economy which it currently is, into the consumer based super-capitalism of which it was always intended to be. It would give the American people a chance to actually take home their hard-earned income with no strings attached. A chance to receive the actual fruits of their labor and not let the government eat the bread earned from the sweat of another man’s brow. It is basic human nature to spend more when you have more. The more you spend, the more someone else receives. The more they receive, the more they spend and so on and so on and so on. These are the pure and simple, black & white conservative tenants of American economic philosophy. There’s no need for grey. It’s just not necessary.
The American Constitution is the most brilliant political document ever created. It has enabled us to evolve into the greatest, most benevolent nation the world has ever known. The original intents of our founders should be closely reflected upon and strictly adhered to by anyone blessed enough to be popularly elected into its government. A congressman’s mission is clear. He is elected into office, by his peers, to represent their interests. To vote nay or yea on proposed legislation based purely on how it would impact his constituency. Often these votes will run parallel, for better or worse, with the interests of the state and the country as a whole. This however, will not always be the case and will test the true character of the man or woman whose constituency’s interests he or she has sworn to protect. This very loyalty to my neighbors and community would be my de facto fait accompli. I would wake up every morning asking myself what I could do to better improve the daily lives and general welfare of the people who hired me to do so.
This would be achieved by keeping our streets safe, our businesses flourishing and our community values strong. I would make every effort to help sustain and assist in elevating our impoverished and less fortunate citizens through a strong network of charity organizations and philanthropic private sector institutions. I would encourage and help promote a merit based system of promotion for our town, county, state and federal employees, guaranteeing that our tax dollars go to the improvement of our infrastructures rather than maintaining the status quo. I would promote the inherent strengths of American exceptionalism by freeing our private sector industries from the chains of regulations, creativity stifling laws and entrepreneurial discouraging taxes currently imposed on them by Albany and Washington. I would preach the gospel of our nation’s innate ingenuity in the fields of science, arts, technology and industry as opposed to the theory of the average Americans mediocrity currently being espoused by our President and his minions. I would explain that the people of this country are the source of its strength and not the children of its government needing coddling and direction.
I would vote for any and all legislation which would result in the strengthening of our military might while maintaining the appropriate balance of civilian rule. For it should be inherently clear to all rouge nations and terrorist networks that the consequences of attacking our nation and its interests, at home or abroad, would be to meet the full concentrated vengeance of the strongest, most intelligent war machine which the world has ever known. This is not only Americas right but its responsibility to the rest of the free world. I would also insist that all war criminals and enemy combatants be tried by military courts in a swift and effective manner and not be given the privileges of an American civilian court. When it comes to protecting our nation there should be no choice but to grab the figurative bull by the horns.
And that, in a nutshell, would be my message if I were running for congress which, of course, I’m not. However, I have a strong inclination that anyone with the wherewithal to convey a similar message this November will guarantee themselves a seat in New York’s 1st congressional district or, for that matter, any district in this great land.

Easter At The White House

Perhaps in the spirit of Easter, the Obama administration now seeks to resurrect its martyred healthcare bill. This, of course, will spark a new round of hostile debate between Democrats and Republicans alike. The new 2.9% Medicare payroll tax on “interests, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents” is surely to become an issue of hot contention. If this tax, as is rumored, extends to capital gains, it will raise the ire of people in all political parties. In this economic climate, very few Americans will approve of a bill which would inevitably hinder job growth by discouraging capital investment. The internecine battle between ideological naiveté and pragmatic prudence will, once again, consume our national media’s dialogue. It will create the net effect of knocking down the prestige of American politics yet another notch.
As the White House continues to push forward with its plans to nationalize America’s health insurance system, many legitimate concerns are raised and competent arguments made. Fear of a general decline in healthcare quality, tax increases and Medicare cuts are just a few examples of grievances voiced by the American people. There is one argument however, which is oft overlooked and which leaves all other points moot. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction, under the Constitution, to implement the key ingredient of Obama-Care. The “individual mandate” in which all Americans are coerced into what would be the new, federally controlled healthcare system is not only unconstitutional but offensive to the very concept of Americanism.
The Constitution of the United States determines, first and foremost that all governing laws shall be created by Congress. Article 1, section 1 simply states “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” This clause takes precedent over all others due to the Founding Fathers’ quest to insure that the power of this government would flow from the people upwards. The direct representatives of the people were to have the sole power to initiate legislation. The Constitution then goes on to enumerate seventeen specific powers granted to Congress; leaving all else to the States and to the People. This leaves no doubt as to the limited role the Founders intended for the Federal Government. Congress is then allotted the power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”. Of the seventeen congressional powers listed in Article 1, section 8; seven deal with war powers and military matters, two with currency regulations, and one respectively with the post office, the National Capital, patents, inferior courts and naturalization. This leaves Congress granted with a mere three Constitutional powers which hold relevance to the current healthcare debate.
1. “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States.” This clause is what enables our legislative bodies to keep in place its current ban on interstate competition among health insurance companies. Though the removal of this ban would certainly help to bring down premiums by opening the market for individuals and groups, it is not necessitated by Constitutional authority.

2. “Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” This is the power which will legally enable Congress to borrow many more trillions of dollars from China in order to fund the President’s national healthcare dream and juggernaut the nation’s already unsustainable debt into barely conceivable proportions. This, of course, would be highly unpopular among the American people but not in violation of Constitutional law.

3. “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…” The “general welfare” provision in this clause is without a doubt, the lynchpin to the President’s legal justification of his healthcare overhaul. It may, very well, grant Congress the Constitutional authority to “borrow money on the credit of the United States” and to collect erroneous taxes from its citizenry in order to fund its ideological endeavors. The revenues collected from these new taxes could then be “properly” distributed among the masses in accordance to the Federal Government’s judgment.
Thus is established the aspects of Obama-Care which, however negligible, are within the Constitutional rights of Congress to enact. It can legitimately continue to block national competition among health insurance companies, supersede the authority of the States to regulate these companies and levy new taxes on individuals and businesses to fund its ever-expanding bureaucracy. Since it would be naïve to presume that tax increases alone could possibly cover the net deficit of this incredibly large program, Congress would also have legitimate power to receive more loans on American credit. This, of course, would further exacerbate America’s growing dependence on foreign nations, but would be legal nonetheless.
The “individual mandate”, which is the driving force behind the President’s proposed bill, does not hold up to the same Constitutional scrutiny. This mandate would compel all American citizens to purchase the health insurance which would now be under the Federal Government’s control. Individuals who would choose to opt out of the system would face government imposed fines and possibly time in jail!! Businesses with fifty employees or more would face a $2000 per employee fine for not offering group plans!! This type of Federal infringement on personal liberties would be so blatantly in violation of the Constitutional powers granted to the government, that it is beyond the precipice of debate. None of the seventeen powers granted to Congress, stated or implied, could be twisted into a de facto, carte blanche for the Federal Government to create laws which punish people for not buying health insurance! There is a strong case to be made that this act of imposed penalties, based solely on a group of people’s unwillingness to purchase something controlled by the government is, in fact, a “Bill of Attainder” which is specifically banned in the “Limits of Congress” section of the Constitution. (Article 1, Section 9)
Perhaps most disturbing, however, is the implied reasoning of the President and the Congressional Majority Party Leaders in validating this type of coercion. The States of this Nation mandate that individuals purchase car insurance policies in order to register their automobiles. These laws are based on the theory that a license to drive is a privilege granted by the State and not a right of its citizenry. Our current national leadership seems to apply this same theory to health insurance. The disturbing underlying message is that to simply be alive and free in America is a privilege granted by the Federal Government and not the divine right of man promised by our nation’s Founders.
Perhaps in the spirit of Easter, the Obama Administration now seeks to hand out baskets full of candy to some, while violating the rights of many. Perhaps it feels these “many” should suffer and repent for what it perceives as America’s litany of sins. The Constitution was created to protect the people from their government and NOT for the government to protect the people from themselves, as our current leadership seems to infer. The beauty of the American system of government is that it allows for open debate of contentious issues such as the current healthcare proposal. But bills in violation of the Constitution should lay dead upon arrival, with no chance of resurrection. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and must always remain the “end all- be all” of American political debate.

Forgive But Don't Forget

Congressman Steve Israel, in the February 4th edition of the Smithtown News, made an argument linking the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC to “legalized corporate bribery”. I would like to take a moment to reflect upon, and if I may be so brazen, repudiate the opinions offered by the representative of New York’s 2nd congressional district.
The case placed before the Supreme Court, questioned the constitutionality of a section in the 2002 Campaign Reform Act in which it states that federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their ‘general treasury funds to make independent expenditures’ which advocates any particular candidate for federal office. In other words, the Justices were prompted to decide whether or not the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the power to suppress political speech based solely on the speaker’s identity or affiliations. Of course their answer was an unequivocal NO.
I can forgive Congressman Israel for being so agitated by the fact that corporations will now have a voice in political dialogue. After all, he and his party are certainly no friends to Long Island business. Advocating tax raising policies like cap & trade and creating an inflationary-ripe deficit through erroneous public programs is certainly not the answer to corporate New York’s prayers. I can even excuse Mr. Israel for his Machiavellian approach to politics and his willingness to forgo the Constitution and its first amendment when it doesn’t suit his party’s needs. After all, these are the same people who, just last month, were pushing for a nationalized, mandatory, single-payer health care system.
But the one thing for which, even I cannot forgive the Congressman, is his apparent belief that we Long Islanders are fools. For wouldn’t we have to be insanely naïve to believe that a Supreme Court decision based on 1st amendment rights was actually a “new weapon” handed over to what he imagines to be these Godfather-like, criminal corporations who’s CEOs will now march into the offices of elected officials and say “We’ve got cash to spend for you or against you. Now how will you vote on this bill?” (The congressman’s words…not mine) Notably, not once in Mr. Israel’s entire dissertation did he mention the constitution and/or the precedents evoked by the Court when making its decision. This type of contempt for the people’s general intellect and ability to decipher fact from fiction seems to be endemic among the Democrats now in power.
True American leaders trust the people to trust themselves. They know that the source of this country’s power is in its citizens and not its government. If corporations want to voice their political concerns ….let them! If unions want to support a candidate they feel will look out for them…so be it! Pro choice, pro life, animal rights, gun rights, CFA, NDA……they all are citizens of this great nation and reserve the right to free speech.
In the end it won’t matter what I said about Congressman Israel’s diatribe in the Smithtown News. What will matter is what he did as representative of New York’s 2nd Congressional district. Neither his rhetorical high jinks nor my intuitive rebuttal will ultimately decide his political fate. His actions on the floor of the House of Representatives and it’s affects on his constituency will be the final arbiter. Nonetheless, it would serve the congressman well to realize that we ordinary citizens are not the pawns of his literary fairytales but the CEOs of his literal office and we don’t take kindly to political sugar coating. Once again, we can forgive the congressman his antipathy towards the Constitution….for it is only indicative of his party as a whole. We can forgive him that. But come this November we cannot forget, and we must vote back into office candidates who will, once again, trust people to trust themselves.