A Profoundly Silly Argument
Here, the New York Sun catches Hillary Clinton making a misleading -- and indeed dangerous -- argument against school vouchers. Give it a read.
As the piece points out, a fundamental flaw in liberal reasoning on school choice is as follows:
The argument can be made that the First Amendment is different from school vouchers because it involves private action rather than state funded action.The flaw in that argument is that it assumes the money belongs to the state rather than to the taxpayer from whom it was originally collected.
That's true, and it remind me of my days back working in the Senate. A tax cut was under discussion, and then-Sen. Carol Moseley Braun using phraseology like "if we give a tax cut" -- as though the money belongs to the government, who then bestows it on the people.
As Ronald Reagan was the first to point out, the liberals have that one backwards.
As the piece points out, a fundamental flaw in liberal reasoning on school choice is as follows:
The argument can be made that the First Amendment is different from school vouchers because it involves private action rather than state funded action.The flaw in that argument is that it assumes the money belongs to the state rather than to the taxpayer from whom it was originally collected.
That's true, and it remind me of my days back working in the Senate. A tax cut was under discussion, and then-Sen. Carol Moseley Braun using phraseology like "if we give a tax cut" -- as though the money belongs to the government, who then bestows it on the people.
As Ronald Reagan was the first to point out, the liberals have that one backwards.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:18 AM
4 Comments:
I agree that people have a First Amendment right to teach racism and that government funds belong to the people, not the government. I would, however, oppose vouchers being given to racist or pro-violence schools. The government has the legal and moral right to tax for legitimate purposes, including education. It has neither the legal nor moral right to then give that money to schools teaching racial supremacy or jihad.
The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the right to levy an income tax.
Pete writes on the income tax, "That practice was abhored by our founders and only began in the early 20th century when the Supreme Court began to renege on its duties..."
LQ quite correctly points out that the 16th Amendment specifically provides for the income tax. What LQ did not to mention was that the 16th Amendment was passed speicifically to overturn an 1895 Supreme Court decision that declared the income tax unconstitutional.
Unsurprisingly, Pete is incorrect.
Not merely incorrect but exceedingly, embarrasingly wrong.
This is par for the course for members of Carol's amen chorus.
Pete also asked, "Please show me, LQ, where in the Constitution it says that FedGuv has the right to tax individuals."
I'm not LQ, but the following also answers your challenge... No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.--U.S. Constitution Article I Section 9.
Post a Comment
<< Home