The word “change” has been thrown around like a rag doll this election cycle. Democratic nominee Barack Obama made it the theme of his campaign during the primaries and was eventually joined by others, including the Republican nominee John McCain in campaigning for it. There isn’t any question Obama got this right. However, change can be either negative or positive.
Since Obama started this theme, let’s examine some of the change in his proposed policies. Let’s start with taxes.
Obama says that he wants to provide a tax cut for working families and effectively eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. This is certainly a positive change for those affected by this plan.
There is just one problem. Obama seems to have forgotten the General Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In order to do this he must do it for all American citizens. Otherwise, an honest judiciary, should a suit be filed giving them their opportunity to do so, will have no choice but to declare it unconstitutional.
As a former editor of The Harvard Law Review, Obama should know the Sixteenth Amendment was concocted as the result of the decision by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust.
For those that don’t know of this decision, it declared a Massachusetts income tax unconstitutional. (Note: The Republicans must take the blame for this. It was their idea of a bad joke on the Democrats of the day, and unfortunately for us the joke allegedly backfired. Perhaps I’ll explain “allegedly” in a future article.)
Let’s move on to Social Security. My reason for tying taxes and Social Security together will come clear in just a bit. Obama says that he “is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future.”
The only thing guaranteed by his plan is that it will not raise enough revenue to pay for all benefits already promised to our senior citizens. If Obama or any other presidential candidate is serious about saving Social Security, they have to come up with a plan that finds new revenue sources.
Of course, that plan already exists. It is commonly called the FairTax. Under FairTax legislation, immigration status would not be relevant because it is a national sales tax collected by corporations at the final point of sale on the purchase of all new goods and services. What about the tourists who visit our shores every year? Under the current tax system, they contribute nothing. Under the FairTax they pay into the system as well.
A recent article in The Reflector made an argument about making prostitution legal so we could collect taxes off of it. Guess what! The FairTax keeps prostitution illegal and we collect taxes off of the illegal activity at the same time. How about those who live chiefly, if not entirely, off of investment income? What’s that? Did I hear someone say that these people should already pay Social Security taxes? If I did, you are wrong. Social Security taxes are only collected from wages.
Can you picture taking away the politicians’ ability to use our tax code to reward supporters, punish detractors and solve much of Social Security’s cash flow problems at the same time? Now this is the change I believe in, or in Social Security’s case, live with.
Kerry Hunt is a parking service officer at Mississippi State. He can be contacted at [email protected].