We have heard much in the six months since PRESDT was inaugurated about “fake news” and with good reason. Not that “fake news” is really something new in the world we live in, but in the past it has really meant items of newsworthiness being accidentally misreported, falsely reported or not covered at all. It was my often stated fact that “in every incident where I was present or had personal knowledge of a scientific nature of the subject, the facts reported bore no relation to the facts known to me, except that the incident occurred.” Unfortunately that has not changed much.
On the other hand, one of the worst, in my opinion, misarrangements of reporting is the deliberate failure to even report the incident. This came to my attention on July 12. When sorting though a stack of papers, one was found dating back to November of 2013, almost four years ago. While not earth-shaking in newsworthiness, it seems even today to be of sufficient importance, especially with PRESDT having promised to attack the tax laws and lower taxes.
The item in question was a single sheet of paper on which was printed the entire proposal to repeal Amendment XVI, which authorize Congress to establish a tax on personal and corporate incomes. It was ratified by the required number of states in 1913. Note the word authorized – that means that they were not required to impose such taxes. According to reports of the day, promises were made that the tax proposed under the Amendment would be 0.5 percent on incomes exceeding (if memory serves correctly) $150,000.
Look what we have now – even payments from Social Security can be taxed. The Clinton Administration did this even though payments into the fund were after taxes were paid at the time. Thus, those of us receiving the pay back can be subject to double taxation, which is neither ethical, moral nor constitutional. And it hits the ones most needing the funds – those over 62.
The document in question was received by fax probably from the office of then first term U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Oklahoma. At the time, my understanding was that the Amendment mandated the collection of income taxes, which a reading of the Amendment dispelled. The document was dated November 13, 2013, and was labeled “House Joint Resolution 104” whick “proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.”
Bridenstine (for himself, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Ron Destains, R-Florida) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. I was unaware of this until receiving the fax somewhat later, but was greatly impressed by his willingness to do what had been requested. Unfortunately, the committee quietly buried the resolution and my request for a list of the members of the committee and the recorded vote, if one was taken, has just been made.
In my opinion, there is too much of this burial in committee with no publicity of the members, their vote if one was take, and in particular the name of the chairman since it often is the decision of the committee chair to not even vote on a proposal. Thus we have the feeling of too much power in the hands of too few.
My receipt of this document was the first inkling that his attempt had been made. It seems to me that it should have received at the very least a notice in the media. While it would be impractical for media to announce every proposal coming before every legislative body, a proposal for a constitutional amendment seems to me to be quite worthy of being reported. The thought occurred to me that the editorial staffs of the various sources of news (?) might have not wanted Mr. Bridenstine to have the favorable feeling that such a story would have generated. Certainly there is major animosity among most of the population towards the income tax and the massive amount of time and money expended to comply with its idiotic requirements to warrant disclosure of a move to remove it and the impediments to prosperity caused.
A suggestion has been made to the congressman to push the current House Bill establishing the “FairTax” on a five-year trial basis and suspending the income tax subject to repeal of all such laws if the “FairTax” proves to be as effective and successful as projected by the designers.