I’ve written occasionally about how the Founding Fathers wanted to limit the federal government’s powers by providing a list of enumerated powers in Article I, Section VIII, of the Constitution.
Sadly, the Supreme Court decided about 70 years ago to no longer uphold that part of the Constitution (sounds familiar, huh?).
But we should never give up on trying to restore our fundamental liberties, so I am very impressed that Senator Coburn raised this important issue while talking to one of the empty suits at MSNBC.
It’s somewhat amusing, by the way, to see that the MSNBC host didn’t have the slightest clue about the existence or meaning of Article I, Section VIII.
Having praised Senator Coburn, now let’s turn our attention to something very disappointing.
Here’s what the Oklahoma lawmaker recently said, as reported by a home-state newspaper, about a possible budget deal that would increase America’s fiscal burden.
They’re happy as loyal Americans to pay more taxes. And they will under any plan that I put forward.
WTF? He’s equating loyalty with being happy to give more money to the dysfunctional and corrupt political class in Washington! If he knows about Article I, Section VIII, then surely he understands that America’s birth was – in part – a tax revolt.
If Coburn’s quote sounds eerily familiar, it’s because a couple of other politicians have said similar things. But this is why the Senator’s remarks strike such a discordant note. He’s echoing the words of Joe Biden and Francois Hollande, two of the world’s most reprehensible statists.
Moreover, if the federal government actually obeyed the Constitution, as outlined in Article I, Section VIII, the federal budget easily would be reduced by more than 50 percent and the federal government would have a giant surplus. So why, then, is Senator Coburn willing to raise taxes?
And even if we pretend the Constitution doesn’t exist, why put taxes on the table when experience teaches us that politicians will simply spend any new revenue that materializes?
Last but not least, why agree to a tax hike when the budget can be balanced in just 10 years if politicians take the very modest step of restraining spending so it grows by 2 percent each year?
Taxpayers generally should be glad that Tom Coburn is in the Senate. I’m guessing that he does the right thing 90 percent of the time, which is more than can be said for most of his colleagues. But his comment about “loyal Americans” reveals an unfortunate blind spot on taxes and budget deals.
[…] More specifically, they endorsed the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which means they put themselves on record in favor of getting rid of all federal spending and intervention that is inconsistent with the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited central government. […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] Protestants. This means they had a biblical view of man with an understanding of our sin nature and this led them to come up with a limited government with many checks and balances. They had a strong belief in […]
[…] There is at least one Republican who is against majoritarianism (and for the right reason). Click here for the […]
[…] More specifically, they endorsed the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which means they put themselves on record in favor of getting rid of all federal spending and intervention that is inconsistent with the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited central government. […]
[…] There is at least one Republican who is against majoritarianism (and for the right reason). Click here for the […]
[…] More specifically, they endorsed the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which means they put themselves on record in favor of getting rid of all federal spending and intervention that is inconsistent with the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited central government. […]
[…] There is at least one Republican who is against majoritarianism (and for the right reason). Click here for the answer. Rate this:Share […]
[…] More specifically, they endorsed the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which means they put themselves on record in favor of getting rid of all federal spending and intervention that is inconsistent with the Founding Fathers’ vision of a limited central government. […]
Jefferson wrote his one single reference about the “separation of church and state” in a letter to the Danbury Baptist church. He was writing about protecting religion from the federal government, not about protecting government from religion. Jefferson supported religious freedom and worked with James Madison in 1786 to write the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which not only shut down official sanction of the Church of England but also prevented the state from compelling any citizen in religious activities. It blocked a plan to compel citizens to pay taxes that would then be used for any church activities.
What Jefferson was saying, that he had read from the Constitution, which had been written by his colleague of similar mind, Madison, is that the federal government has no authority to compell a church to do anything. It is separate and cannot compel a church to recognize and perform a gay “marriage” if it goes against the views of the church. And that the federal government is separate and is not authorized by the Constitution to force religious institutions to pay for abortions and birth control.
Jefferson got it. The Supremes didn’t. In fact, this is so far and away, so nearly the opposite of what the founders had written and allowed that one has to wonder why the question of disbarment has not been raised.
You might check to see if the local paper included my entire quote or che k with my comm director to see if there is context that might decrease your frustrations. Or you might pick up the phone and call me. Tom
In a way, I kind of agree with Coburn. I’m not taxaphobic, but like the primary Republican candidates, I would not have accepted a 10 to 1 spending cut / tax increase deal since the history of such deals is that we would get the taxes but never get the spending cuts.
However a deal that reduces our long term deficit problem in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would be worth trading taxes with the Democrats. So I’ll wait and see if Coburn and his band of merry Senators actually put something together before I shoot it down, sight unseen.
I too have always had mixed feelings about Coburn. The same goes for guys like Kyl, Grassley. One minute there they are saying and doing the right thing, the next, its like, as you put it, WTF?!