Fair - part two

Despite the fact that the nebulous and inherently imbecilic premise of governmental ‘fairness” is discounted by the American electorate on an almost quantum level, the hue and cry over it continues unabated by the full spectrum of the body politic to he extent that the argument continues around a ‘fair’ tax structure and ‘fair’ tax rate, so that certain Americans would be paying their ‘fair’ share, despite there being no substantive  evidence that suggests what the intent of ‘fair’ might be.

The founders and framers had a very specific concept with respect to taxation. The Constitution clearly stated what their firm conviction was to as to taxation; they understood a functioning government needed revenue by way of collecting taxes, but their methodology was specific.

Consider the relevant delineation within Article 1, Section 9

“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Note the words ‘unless in proportion’.

That was what the constructors of our founding document believed to be the singular way of allaying the cost of government. There is little if any ambiguity; equally shared by all. No hint of ‘fair’, but only ‘equal’.

A subsequent Congress decided that there was a better way to be ‘fair’. They called it the sixteenth amendment and all it did was to use this phrase within its construct:

“without apportionment…and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The supposition is that they felt the Constitution as originally written was insufficiently ‘fair’.

The Constitution was flawed from its inception; qualifying black folks as three-fifths of a whole person was a bad idea, and thus that clause absolutely needed to be excised from the document nby wayof amendments.

The principal governmental funding mechanism, however, was changed to make it more ‘fair’ and thus one of the true bedrock principles of a self ruling democratic republic was scuttled for nothing more than a short sighted political theater sense of ‘fair’.

The dictum of unforeseen consequences has now led us to the point where the tax structure, its rates, and the concept of a tax is being used to quantize society as a whole, depending on the perceptions of those who are in temporary control of the mechanisms of government.

Consider the current financial state of the economy. It can be argued that the housing bubble, the deficiencies of Wall Street, and a bloated national debt were the cornerstones of the recent debacle.

The housing market collapse was initiated by the inflated worth of housing, and that mortgages were given to folks who could not have conceivable repaid those loans. The foundation for such a process was governments’ belief that it was only ‘fair’ that the American dream be realized by everyone, regardless the cost.

Wall Street was made whole by the abused taxpayer on the premise that if it was not bailed out, the very being of the economy would be destroyed, plunging the nation into irrevocable despair. It was deemed the right and ‘fair’ thing to do, given the scope of the national interest. Consider that: the government providing financial relief for private entities, in the name of ‘fairness’.  A free market economy will not thrive if the government is intent on deciding who will win, and who will lose.

The national debt is an ever increasing monster simply because of the fact politicians of all stripes have never explained what the cost of government actually is;  its obfuscation has become an art form unto itself. They pledge tax cuts, promise to increase taxes on the wealthy, so that they pay their ‘fair’ share, without detailing what those audacious claims mean in true dollars and cents.

How do they promise to either cut some, or raise some, again, all in the name of being ‘fair’, without disclosing what their intended fiscal end game truly is?

In hard economic times, an electorate is more than willing to seek a scapegoat for their troubles, and are ill-served when their elected officials opt to build straw men and claim that it is the ‘unfairness’ of the system is to blame.

The system, as envisioned and constructed by the founders and the framers is fine; it is the ignorance and cowardice of the current custodians of our heritage that make it seem unfair, manipulating money for short term political gain and glory.

There is little ‘fair’ about the American people being abused in such a manner, and the American people, en masse, need to put it end to it in the only way Americans know how – at the ballot box.

That is fair.