Skip to main content

Who Really Taxes & Spends?

Isn't it a stretch to blame the President, no matter which one, for taxing and spending. He's not to blame. Let's get the responsibility in the right place and forget all of this political posturing. Every politician is pointing fingers at the Presidents - and they are all wrong.

The 1st clause of Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution reads thus: ALL REVENUE SHALL ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BUT THE SENATE MAY PROPOSE OR CONCUR WITH AMENDMENTS AS ON OTHER BILLS.

  • The HOUSE has the exclusive responsibility to originate bills to appropriate money and raise revenues.
  • The PRESIDENT is permitted to propose tax and spending measures - or veto them.
  • The CONGRESS can ignore the President's proposals and override his vetoes.

It's a simple as that. Why do so many in politics or the media get away with statements like "Reagan's budget deficits," "Clinton's budget surpluses," "Bushe's tax cuts," and "Obama's spending binge."  These statements are either ignorance, willful deception, sloppy thinking, or plain stupidity. The real truth is that WASHINGTON has been on a spending rampage for decades no matter who occupied the White House. In 1970 all federal spending totaled $926 billion. In 2012 it totals almost $4 trillion.

Now let's reconsider OBAMACARE (for example). Most members of the Republican controlled House of Representatives say they are against OBAMACARE. If they really were, they would attach a rider to legislation or some other device to the Department oif Health and Human Services appropriation bill to ban spending ANY money on OBAMACARE. They have the power to do so. Continuing the pretense that it is the President who is controlling the spending may be politically advantageous - BUT IT IS WRONG.

Is this one more indication that our two party political system is broken?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gloves Off

. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS BETRAYED OUR TRUST AGAIN. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, makes no difference at all. Our legislators voted according to "what's best for them". It was clear that the people want to reduce the costs and improve access to our overall health care system. It was also VERY CLEAR that they did not want the 2000 page legislative monstrosity that was produced by a small number of far left liberal Democrats, who worked behind closed doors to fashion a pork filled blunderbuss that virtually no one has been able to read, or discuss, or debate, or offer alternatives to specific unreasoned clauses. It is (now) a BAD BILL , passed by BAD POLITICIANS, that compose a BAD MINORITY segment of America's out-of-control government. AND WE HAVE NO LOGICAL WAY TO PAY FOR IT EITHER. The far left liberals like to point at  SOCIAL SECURITY   as a text book success. They are wrong and will not admit it despite the concrete evide
20 comments
Read more

Why Blackwater Mercenaries

Over some years the name Blackwater shows  up in the news. It is, by their own estimation, the largest mercenary group in the world. I think I first noticed it when reports from Iraq mentioned they were employed (by whom?) to escort and protect members of the Iraqi government from place to place. Then I became aware that they had joined several of the firefights between our marines and Iraqi enemies. I wondered just how these mercenaries (that supposedly came from the United States) were  hired by someone (who?) to fight? That led to the question of just who would be responsible if a situation involved the accidental killing of an innocent bystander? It  might be a little sticky for an unauthorised mercenary contracted by the United States but not a member of our military forces.  Or suppose a Blackwater type killed a military Iraqi combatant and was then captured by the enemy. Would he be treated as a spy, or as a American combatant, or whatelse?  And would the Geneva Convention
18 comments
Read more

Sarah-palin-itus

. Am I the only one that watches the liberal roar caused by the soccer mom . . . and laughs?   I suspect Sarah is a nice and decent person who will eventually prove to be a better political critic than elected official. But who knows. She projects an effervescent personality, a better than average intelligence, and solid conservative values. Still,  as a political leader of consequence I suspect she is a female Peter. You do remember THE PETER PRINCIPLE don't you. Dixon
10 comments
Read more