We can afford pass-times because we live in a society where we all contribute something that allows others to focus on their contributions. You don't have to be a farmer to enjoy the foods you buy from the grocery store, or a tailor to present yourself in the best clothes. You do your specialty so that others don't have to, and then you enjoy some time off to do what you want, while you count on others to do their jobs.
It's really a barter system where the goods or services you and I bring to the market place are given a value and we trade them according to that value. The system works well and allows you to save up equity in the form of currency.
That's why I get so angry when we have to learn someone else's specialty because they are dropping the ball. Have you noticed yourself becoming more proficient at someone else's job because they don't know what they are doing? And doing so robs you of your time to enjoy your interests.
For the system to work, we need a couple of things that are less tangible, but just as necessary. These include lawmaking, law enforcement, oversight, and defense against outside forces. We define it as the "government".
All that to say that there was a day when you could count on Congress to at least know the laws, and while they seemed to have a clever way around them, they didn't throw caution to the wind and do whatever they wanted. So let's ask a question.
Why is Congress full of lawyers? Because they are known as the "Legislative Branch" of government. That should mean that they are the supreme authority on law making, and they therefore should understand the Constitution on which all laws are based. It only stands to reason that they might even know the laws that they, as an institution, had already passed.
Unfortunately for us, it appears that the lawyers in Congress are not quite as proficient as we might have hoped at their primary task. One more area where we as citizens must take up the slack and learn some things that we could have probably gone without knowing for the rest of our lives and been happy.
By now, we are all familiar with the "stimulus package" put together by the current administration and his loyal followers in Congress. We are also aware of the attack against AIG for fulfilling their contractual obligations to their executives in the order of about $165M. An outrageous number? Perhaps. Although, I thought most outrageous number nowadays were in the Billions. What do I know?
So anyway, now Congress, looking stupid (ahem, sorry)...looking less than savvy about the whole stimulus package since it hasn't helped, has positioned itself against a handful of executives at AIG telling them that they had better give the money back or it will be taxed out of them. Now this brings up two very interesting things. The first is, why aren't they told to re-allocate the money? Wasn't it given to AIG in the first place to build in "stimulus"? Now Congress is having a cow because they want these millions back, as if it was theirs in the first place. But the second is even more disturbing and here is where we have to sit through Law 101. Congress has threatened these few individuals that if they do not give the money "back", they will tax it out of them. The following is undisputed:
Article I of the U.S. Constitution -- a section stating Congress cannot pass any "Bill of Attainder" or "ex post facto" law. A Bill of Attainder is an act of the legislature that singles out and punishes a group or individual without trial. An ex post facto law retroactively changes the legal consequences of an act.I'm not sure I can put that any clearer than that. Congress can't focus in on you with any law or taxes without a trial, and they can't go back and make illegal an act, which you did legally, and hold you liable for it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/congress-invites-court-challenge-aig-taxation-plan-lawyers-say/
Folks, it should send shivers down your back that our Congress right now, with everything that is going on nationally and internationally, is focused on $165M bonus plan that was part of a previously standing contract and could not legally be withheld. Meanwhile, a 410 Bbbbbbbillion dollar budget was "signed in protest" by Obama for the government to "continue running". Why in protest you ask? He said it was "imperfect".
Hmmm. How imperfect? Could it be that there were moneys in excess of $165M that could be, let's say, wasted? Do you think there will be a special task force to go out and punish those in government who might waste that? And what would have happened if Obama hadn't signed? They wouldn't have shut down. They would have defaulted to the previous year's budget. That, Obama, couldn't allow because last year's budget will not pay for all of the spending he has in mind. By the way, the last time I checked signing a bill was not any kind of protest, but in fact was a "sign" of approval.
Is your head spinning yet? We aren't done yet.
...Rep. Charlie Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, authored a resolution that would place a 90 percent income tax on bonuses for employees with family incomes above $250,000 for firms, like AIG, that received at least $5 billion in bailout money. Initially, Rangel said he was uncomfortable with the idea of meddling with the tax code as a solution to the AIG problem, but he told FOX News he "had an obligation to respond to the fears and anger of the people."Wow! The people speak and Rangel hears them! In fact, they speak so loud, he forgets that he is bound by the Constitution of the United States! He's not alone.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/congress-invites-court-challenge-aig-taxation-plan-lawyers-say/
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that recouping a "substantial portion" through taxation is one of several viable possibilities... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also said Tuesday that legislation being crafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., would subject the bonuses to a tax of more than 90 percent... Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wants to require AIG to pay back the money to the government and deduct that amount from the $30 billion bailout commitment, as well as subject future bonuses to tough restrictions... Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "If (AIG CEO Edward) Liddy does nothing, we will act and will take this money back and return it to its rightful owners, the American taxpayers. We will take this money back by taxing virtually all of it."Since when does our Legislative branch KNOWINGLY pass an ILLEGAL law and say, "You don't like it? Take us to court! I dare you"?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/congress-invites-court-challenge-aig-taxation-plan-lawyers-say/
Why do we have to know their job? We put them there. "We the people" interview and hire these people into these positions. If they are not going to do their job legally (according to their own laws), and they are going to focus their powers against individual citizens in an attempt to cover up their own wanton waste and abuse, then we can't afford to keep them on the payroll. These people are dangerous. Tell them that you are planning on firing them if they don't straighten up and fly right, and then use your vote and influence to follow through on your warning.
Then fire them -- because these people won't change. And you might be their next target.
The Ericator
UPDATE: I wrote this last night and in unprecedented time, the House of Representatives passed the aforementioned bill, which will tax the bonuses of all of the companies who received $5B or more at a rate of 90% (retroactively). The Senate is expected to make changes, but that doesn't matter. The Congress is out of control. This is proof. There isn't enough time in the day to even write about the atrocities being perpetrated by our government.
Good post, my friend! Tis a shame, but it's not just Congress that's become detached from our Constitution. The average American has never read it either. We get the government we deserve.
ReplyDelete