Smitty From That Other McCain Put Forth a Challenge…

July 20, 2009

…so I must respond.

In this post, he argued that any conservative worth his salt should be able to stand behind this new-fangled proposed set of Constitutional amendments.

I can mostly agree. I do have some suggestions for improvement, though:

1) I think a 10% cap needs to be in place on the national sales tax Proposed Amendment #1 is espousing (by making all other Federal taxes illegal). I mean, if we are trying to cut back the Federales to the size intended by the Founding Fathers, why are we allowing them to take more money than what God asks for? If this gets approved, what would stop them from initially setting the sales tax to some ridiculously high percentage?

2) Proposed Amendment #4 should similarly ban any increases in power granted by treaty/international hoopla in the executive and judicial branches.

3) Something is fishy about Proposed Amendment #7. Senators cannot serve more than 2 terms, but Representatives can serve 6? A rewrite to make that more fair (say, no more than 3 terms each) is in order.

4) Why is the line-item veto only allowed when the budget is not balanced? A Constitutional linebacker president might very well want to kill unconstitutional programs and an evil legislature could respond by getting the budget written in a manner where it meets that squishy definition of “balanced”.

Other than that, it’s all good. I’m not quite sure where I stand on the whole Fair Tax/ Flat Tax spectrum, but otherwise I wholeheartedly agree with the principle behind these proposals.

But, then again, Ron Paul was my second choice (over who we got) in the Texas primary. He would have been my first choice had he not blamed 9/11 on us. So, I could just be a squishy RonPaulian.

Ron Paul.

Ron Paul.


3 Responses to “Smitty From That Other McCain Put Forth a Challenge…”

  1. Tony G Says:

    In reference to term limits, you may consider how long the terms are. Yeah, a Representative gets 6 terms but that’s only 12 years, while a senator gets only 2 terms, but already, he’s at 12 years. If they were put at 3 each, you’d have representatives for 6 years and senators for 18. Now who sounds fishy? I think you just want to ruin representatives’ careers and serve 18 years in the Senate. I call Shenanigans!

  2. liberexmachina Says:

    I thought about that after posting. It still seems ridiculously lopsided either way.

    Mayhaps if we return the Senate to it’s original intent (representing the states as opposed to the people residing in a given state), it would seem less unfair. Or if we amend the Constitution to reduce the term of Senators down to 2 years.

    Then again, who but power-mad tyrants seek more than 3 terms in the House without moving on?

  3. Tony G Says:

    I still call shenanigans…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: