Apr 21, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
As a young man I observed that those who saw racism in everything were usually the most racist. That analysis has proven itself over time. Today the accusation is so frequently made on Democratic Party media outlets, very recently by Beto O’Rourke against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that it’s now difficult to know who is not a racist. If a Jew, the most persecuted race in modern world history, is racist as O’Rourke says, then who is exempt? But the term is used several times a night on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC news outlets. Presumably everyone is racists except Democrats who decry everyone else as such.
As a result white Democratic presidential contenders are apologizing for and fleeing from their whiteness. Joe Bidden and Bernie Sanders, are “old white men,” we are told. The party seems intent on purging the stain of whiteness from itself. Sanders, thus far ignores it while instead apologizing for his great wealth and use of “tax breaks.” Biden recently apologized to Anita Hill for the "whiteness" of the Senate Judiciary Committee he once chaired.
Beto O’Rourke, formerly Robert Morris, (name changed allegedly to attract hispanic voters) recently admitted having benefited from what he called “white privilege.” He told a group, “Absolutely undeniable. I have been arrested twice. But that didn't come to define me or narrow my options in life. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I'm a white man.”
Democrats also see everywhere “white nationalism,” a form of racism, and attempt to attach the label to anyone who wishes to enforce existing, longstanding, immigration law, the same law enforced by Barack Obama. Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently tweeted, “Stephen Miller is a white nationalist. The fact that he still has influence on policy and political appointments is an outrage.” This, coming from probably the most anti-jewish (and therefore racist) member of congress. Unable to show clear documentation for the charge, supporters acknowledged that although they could not X-ray for “racist bones,” even so, Miller (and by extension President Donald Trump his boss) is still guilty of “soft-core” white nationalism. In other words, they are white nationalists because they are white, the majority, and in power.
Since whites participated in slavery in our early history thirteen Democratic Presidential hopefuls attending the Al Sharpton founded National Action Network’s annual conference April 3, committed to sign Congresswoman Jackson Lee's recently introduced bill creating a commission to study reparations for African-Americans. Most saw it as a way of addressing the persistence of racism and white supremacy today. Cory Booker said, “It will begin to right the economic scales of past harms.”
Senator Kamala Harris, “Justice means recognizing domestic terrorism, including white nationalist extremism,” which she noted, “should be considered a national security priority.” Senator Bernie Sanders said he would sign, then returned to his racist central theme, "We have a president who is a racist, who is a sexist, who is a homophobe, who is a xenophobe, and who is a religious bigot.”
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand would sign as would Congressman Beto O’Rourke, Governor John Hickenlooper and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Indeed no presidential candidate at the gathering opposed it. All supported “racial restitution,” whatever that means.
The problem with such legislation is no white person now living had anything to do with slavery 154 years ago. Even then, it was almost entirely the whites of the north that gave their lives to free the slaves. It was whites that established and maintained the Underground Railroad at considerable risk to themselves and it was white author Harriet Beecher Stow in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, who brought attention to the moral issue of slavery. Even today, race baiters need to be reminded that it was whites that elected the first half-black president, Barack Obama.
Of course, there were abuses of the past. Indians, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Quakers, Jews and Mormons can all make cases. Race baiters want whites to acknowledge that they are racist and oppressive by nature and should have what they call “white guilt.” The only remedy they seem to accept is compensation, but this is never enough.
But their focus is almost entirely on the blacks and slavery and the then perpetrators and victims are dead and today’s descendants, many generations later, were not wronged. How do they make the case for their receiving compensation for wrongs committed to their ancestors without committing an injustice to those now living—even if it were their ancestors who committed the injustices mentioned? Would they not be the source of new injustice?
Why should I pay for the injustices of my ancestors, even worse, when they may not have been the perpetrators? And why should my black neighbor receive a benefit forced from me without creating an injustice to me? Under this logic his posterity will need to atone to my posterity. Could not the same arguments be used against them in a later century?
Today most white Americans are of many races and not racist. Insisting that all whites should have “white guilt “ because of presumed ancestral injustices or confederate association only exacerbates racism, the very thing race baiters insist they wish to end. Then, are not race baiters the “real” racists? That the news gives their racism so much attention should be objectionable to everyone.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 15, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
Harold Pease, Ph. D
As a nation under the U.S. Constitution we are 230 years old. It may surprise readers to learn that for the first 124 of these years we had no federal income tax and handled our expenses quite well. Today the 55% who pay federal income taxes (77.5 million do not), pay nearly a fifth of their income to the federal government. Prior to 1913 one kept what is now taken from them.
How would you spend it if not taken? You would spend the extra fifth of your salary on thousands of items that are made by others as well as services you might like. This not only would enrich your life but it would provide jobs for others making those items or providing those services. Many middle class folks could purchase a new car every other year with what they are forced to give to the federal government.
Would you spend it more wisely than the federal government? Certainly! Most of the money taken from you by the federal government is spent on perpetual war, foreign aid, grants to privileged portions of our society, and endless unconstitutional subsidized programs; the last two categories of which basically take the money of those who produce and redistribute it to those who do not. Even some non-tax payers get income tax refunds—so corrupt is the system.
Of course, those receiving and benefiting from these programs will defend them. But the fact remains that tax monies provide largely government jobs, which are almost entirely consumption jobs (jobs that consume the production of society but produce little consumable). Such jobs cannot produce for public consumption a potato, a carton of milk, or even a can of hair spray. They bring another person to the table to eat, but not another to produce something to eat.
What largely brought about the give-away programs of the Twentieth Century was the now 106-year-old 16th Amendment—the federal income tax. All three 1912 presidential candidates Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, and their respective parties, wanted this financial water faucet that they could turn on at will. With it they could purchase anything—even people.
Prior to 1913 the federal government remained mostly faithful to her grants of power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which left them with only four powers: to tax, pay the debts, provide for the general welfare, and provide for the common defense. Because the federal government has the inclination to maximize their authority the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness them more fully. Outside these qualifiers the federal government had no power to tax or spend.
General welfare then meant everyone equally (general), as opposed to “specific welfare” or “privileged welfare” as it is today, targeting those to forfeit and those to receive monies. The Constitution did not deny states, counties, or cities from having such programs, only the federal government. But politicians soon learned that the more they promised to the people, from the money of others, the easier it was to get elected and stay elected.
The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding things clearly not on it was that each time they did so the stronger the inclination to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list. I ask my students what would happen if they took to kindergarten a lollypop and gave it to one child? What would the others say? Where is mine? Try taking away long provided benefits from a privileged group, as for example food stamps, and see how popular you are with that voting group in the next election.
So why does the government now need a fifth of everything you make and it is still not enough? Answer, because we went off the listed powers of the Constitution and every departure required more taxpayer funding. The solution to less tax is less government. A side benefit is more freedom. The productive classes would not be hurt. Seldom do they qualify for the federally subsidized programs anyway.
The fifth taken from the productive classes would be spent by them creating a haven of jobs for those who wished to work. The cycle of dependency would be drastically reduced. The federal government would no longer be an enabler to those not working. States would decide for themselves what assistance programs they could afford with some states offering more and others less as the Tenth Amendment mandates.
So, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government—even wars—our first 124 years? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. We got product producers in other countries to cover our national expenses and thus we were able to spend on ourselves every cent of what the federal government now takes, which inadvertently stimulated the economy. No one should be able to argue that our exceeding $22 trillion national debt is fair, has really worked for any of us, and is a better plan. I personally like the idea of being able to purchase a new car every other year.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 9, 2019 | Economy, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D.
In the current College Admission Scandal some Hollywood actors have paid bribe money to get their children admitted into some prestigious institutions for which they are not qualified to attend. But colleges have been on the defensive for some time for reducing campus free speech, at least for conservatives and constitutionalists, giving predominantly one side of issues, and becoming bastions of progressive—even socialist—politics. Now they are accused of racketeering their students with devastating student loan debt.
The most recent accusation was made by Tucker Carlson March 18, 2019. Most of what he shared I witnessed as a full time faculty member for forty years. In remarks entitled “Fixing America’s $1.5T Student Loan Mess” he noted that student loan debt is now larger than “the entire GPA of Spain, of Sweden or any of the 54 countries in Africa. Apart from mortgages student loans are the biggest source of personal debt in this country, more than car loans and credit card bills.” It is enough debt, he says, “to stunt the entire generation of young people.”
Today the average college graduate owes $37,000 up from $20,000 just 13 years ago. “Student debt is rising far faster than the earnings of the American workers…” For law school graduates it is $110,000 and for medical school graduates it is nearly $200,000. Carlson adds, “Over all, two million Americans owe over $100 grand in student loans. Imagine starting life that far behind.” Many with this debt never finished a degree. “Instead of improving their life by attending college they wind up poorer and in bondage. And not just a few of them but millions and millions of them.”
But students do not have to go to college or incur this debt. Aren’t they alone responsible? No! The culture tells them at an early age that college is the ticket to prosperity and self worth. This is reinforced by parents. Going to college is also promoted by the universities as it justifies their positions and campus expansion. It is mostly about money and numbers.
So why blame the colleges? “Right now the federal government allows young people to take out an almost unlimited amount in student loans. Colleges know this, of course, and they hike their tuition to capture as much of that money as they can. Young people have little choice but to go along with it. Colleges control access to the credentials that we are all convinced are necessary, mandatory, to achieve success in the modern economy.” This is why Carlson calls it a racket. “These are the gate keepers of modern society and are ripping up every kid who passes through those gates.”
But this is only a part of the racket? The colleges and universities promote powerful lobbyists who swarm Washington for more unlimited student loan monies from which they benefit. Instead of lowering tuition they use the money to hire mostly more administrators and build more buildings. “From 1987 to 2012 the number of administrators on college campuses more than doubled. It’s far bigger than the increase of actual students going to college. College administrators routinely make 6 figure salaries…. College presidents often get 7 figure salaries. Their pay is probably the only thing in America rising as fast as tuition costs.” Essentially they are getting richer at student loan expense. They also have hired massive staffs.
Where else does the racket money end up? Carlson invites us to “Drive through rural America and see how well they have done. In a sea of poverty and despair you will notice gated islands of affluence. These are colleges. Outside the gates people are unemployed and dying of opioid overdoses. Inside the gates it looks like the rift on south beach. If you haven’t been to an American university lately, see it for yourself. Everything is new. There has been a building boom under way for decades on campuses. All of it funded by debt that is destroying a generation of American kids.”
So what is the answer? Require colleges to co-sign student loans—to share the liability. Right now “colleges get rich no matter what happens to the kids. Kids are on their own. If students get a degree and a decent job and repay their loan that’s great. But if they drop out of college and their degrees turn out to be worthless, as so many are, and they can’t repay what they have borrowed. So what! Colleges don’t care. They have no stake in the outcome. Colleges get all the benefits and none of the risks. That is the definition of a scam…. It should not be legal.”
If colleges had to co-sign for loans and be liable for defaulted loans they would implement checks on eligibility for the loans. These might include higher GPA requirements for loans, or loan amounts based upon previous success. As more than fifty percent of students drop out of college the first two years, government financed loans might be limited to junior and above levels of college when natural law has already identified those who are ready and will benefit from college. The truth is no one should get a loan to go to college until he/she is self disciplined enough to stick and have some idea what field is attractive to them and why.
What Carlson has portrayed I have seen.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 1, 2019 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
For some time we have been reporting the influence of the moneyed elite, notably George Soros and Tom Steyers, in choosing our elected officers from the White House, with the “billionaire club,”down to local races. This happens when money flows in from outside where the candidate will serve allowing those of wealth, to replace constituent influence thus effectively purchasing the representatives from outside the districts. If constituents have lost their power to decide their leaders, how can we pretend any longer that we have a democratic republic?
On the congressional level, those holding “safe seats,” as for example Democrat Nancy Pelosi and Republican Kevin McCarthy, can either buildup gigantic arsenals to “nuke” a threatening contender, or worse, handoff their unneeded donations to a like-minded candidate in another state to favorably impact elections often adverse to the will of its citizens. These outside influences have to stop.
More funding allows more signs and literature to be distributed, and more newspaper, radio and television ads to destroy an opponent or get a message out resulting in a higher probability of winning. Candidates with the most money and publicity usually win and the rich, by their funding, select contenders long before the people vote, therefore they dominate the result. In many cases more money originates from outside a voting district than within. If no candidate could receive money or influence from outside their district, it would stop much influence peddling.
LibertyUnderFire is the lead advocate for ending outside influences in our nation’s elections and thus offers the following new amendment to the Constitution. “All election funding, outside candidate’s personal wealth, (individuals or organizations), in all elections shall originate from eligible voters in the district served by the election and donated since the last election for the same office.”
Propositions are a part of most elections and can be considered without attachment to a candidate. This would not stop the funding or creation of ads for or against a candidate, or ballot issues, so long as all monies used in such originates from voters within the district served by the candidate. The word original is designed to stop donation transfer from outside district sources to inside donors to circumvent the amendment.
Under this amendment the 1996 Bill Clinton campaign could not have received money from China to influence the election; nor from any individual not eligible to vote for president, nor could Clinton Foundation monies be used to influence elections as much of that money comes from international contributors. Some of us still remember the Bill Clinton Chinese Fundraising Scandal involving DNC finance chairman John Huang and Chinese nationalist Johnny Chung. The DNC was forced to return more than $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations from foreign nationals, largely from China, to gain favor in the Clinton Administration.
Neither could the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who fund many Republican Party candidates on the right side of the political spectrum, and George Soros, or Tom Steyer, who fund Democratic Party candidates and issues on the left, influence any contest to which they cannot personally vote. This amendment would limit the billionaire class to the “purchase” of only THEIR congressman or senator —not a large group of them.
Both Soros and Steyer bankrolled far left candidate Andrew Gillum’s Florida campaign for governor hoping to flip the state from red to blue anticipating that the resulting electoral count increase could sway the nation for decades. Gillum “courted Soros' organizations and spoke at a number of their gatherings.” When they met at San Francisco, “he promised to back Gillum’s gubernatorial run.” Steyer “funneled about $800,000 into the Get Out the Vote initiative prior to the Gillum run” (Ingraham Angle, August 29, 2018). An activity that was targeted to get Gillum elected; hence would be denied Steyer with the new amendment, as with most of the $30 million he spent on the midterms. Steyer is a resident of California, not Florida.
Congressmen from “safe” districts could not “handoff” their unneeded donations to a like minded candidate in another district. Nor could they holdover funding from previous victories to “nuke” a future opponent. Contributions are a form of voting normally intended for this candidate only, and for this election only, and they could only be accumulated since the last election for that office. Laws presently limit the amount of individual contributions but the “rich” find loopholes in donating as in the case of Gillum.
The “rich” have been involved in influencing elections at least since the 1896 “giants of the Industrial Revolution” buyout of William McKinley for president when they used their money to bury opponent William Jennings Bryan. This amendment would not have stopped that as all citizens elect the president—only a rigorous enforcement of present law restricting individual contributions could do that—but today it would stop international campaign funding as happened in 1996 for Clinton.
Nor will it today stop all of George Soros’ 11 major influence groups, some of which sponsor activities that border on treason. His funding Antifa, Kavanaugh “Hearing disruptors,” and those accosting Senate committee members, or funding caravans of illegal immigrants from Central America may have to wait for other solutions. But the amendment will prevent he and other rich from replacing constituents in choosing representatives. Expect by-partisan opposition from the rich.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Apr 1, 2019 | Globalism, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph,.D.
This column is my 500th published column on liberty and the Constitution. I taught the Constitution and Current Events for forty years at the college level and therefore am qualified to pose the following question. “What if fake news is not the only thing that is fake?”
What if things are not as they seem, that we not only have fake news but fake history, education, science, and more? That our world is far more Orwellian than presumed.
Let’s begin with a not so fake history. What if after the Civil War certain enterprising and gifted men, such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and J. P. Morgan, used the free market philosophy to gain great wealth and monopolistic power over oil, steel, railroads and banking. These men then funding the politicians that would protect their interests from “real” legislative control over their monopolies.
What if they saw even greater wealth and power in expanding their influence to the world arena and financed a president, William McKinley, who with a little help from “yellow journalism,” enticed the United States into war against Spain, which win, netted America rich, lush, and lavish colonial colonies? These possessions never benefited average America who had to provide the brawn, blood and money to keep the Philippines under subjection while the capitalists reaped huge benefits and profits.
What if these moneyed elite saw the need to create an influence organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), to make certain that they never lost their new found power to guide foreign policy and future presidents? For almost a hundred years this organization seated a third of the cabinets of all presidents yet it is never mentioned on globalist media outlets. This they did by infiltrating with CFR members the Republican and Democratic Parties and ignoring all other parties. J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller purchased all major media streams of news (information) so that the internationalist view alone dominated. Some form of managed news, fake news, has existed since 1921.
What if these moneyed interests came to the conclusion that to properly manage the world a type of world governance needed to be created which resulted in the League of Nations? But the Constitution, if interpreted as written, would allow no government over it and their efforts, accepted and implemented by internationalists in Europe, was rejected in the United States. Our failure to join eventually ended the League.
What if the globalists used World War II to reignite their world government effort with a United Nations, the Rockefeller’s even providing the property for it? Its function and purpose they knew would be enlarged with time until it would be the only real government. U.S. wars thereafter, the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, were UN—not U.S.—initiated wars. But America was still resisting allowing the UN total government.
Failing this, what if the new plan became to instead unite nations of Europe into the European Union and the nations of North American (Canada, Mexico and the U.S.), using the model of the EU, into the North American Union and likewise for 20 other regions of the globe into what is called regional government? Nationalism would be destroyed and these regions later would surrender sovereignty to the world government of the United Nations.
The plan required fake history, or at least history that did not link the above. Textbooks and history classes must be made to show the benefits of global union and the UN as a benevolent organization. No one should ever accept that we had been led by the moneyed elite to lose our Constitution as the supreme document of the land, as well as our freedom, sovereignty and independence, for a global government that guaranteed none of these things.
What if the plan required fake science, first global warming, which could not be confirmed over time, and thus was changed by advocates to climate change, which does change seasonally and over time, but still lacks clear documentation that man actually is the agent of that change? What is missed in the argument, and the probable reason it is still seriously discussed, is that it benefits the globalist. If viewed as a globalist problem it therefore requires a world government solution.
The plan required fake education at least in the above categories and peripheral areas of sociology and political science as well. As world government requires total control, first mind control through education then force for those not “properly” educated. A philosophy opposite limited government is the only government that could work. Socialism, which never worked in the USSR, China, North Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela or any other place on earth, must be made to be a part of the intended new world order. World socialism would allow no competing ideologies; no place to flee. This philosophy permeates university campuses today. I had few colleagues who did not advocate it.
The plan required fake news. All the globalist news outlets are owned by the moneyed elite and promote the fake history, fake science, fake education scenario as described above. Today parents send their young adults to college to be educated but instead they are largely propagandized and return home advocates of something their parents oppose. Perhaps it is time to drop the “what if” in the above scenario.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Mar 5, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
Most think that the 2020 presidential election is almost two years away. Not so!! The first vote, the vote of the billionaires who choose our candidates, is happening right now. It happens every four years and Democrats and Republicans simply change places. This time it is the Democrats lining up with alms bowl in hand—not to their constituents or the little donors that used to be their base long ago, but the super rich who they pretend to be against.
Candidates each take their “dance” before the billionaire club and are picked by one or more of them. Almost everyone has noticed the dramatic shift to socialism made by the Democratic Party presidential candidates, not because their constituents necessarily demand such, but because their real bosses, the moneyed elite, do. Their moneyed sponsors, primarily George Soros , the leading funder of far-left causes and elections the past two decades, who is said to have spent $25 million on Hilary Clinton and other democratic candidates in 2016 and another $15 million in the recent midterms, and Tom Steyer, who “promised to spend at least $30 million to elect progressives this campaign season,” making him the “most important Democratic donor in the United States.”
Tucker Carlson reported last week on Fox News, “This coming Saturday, Sen. Cory Booker is attending a Silicon Valley fundraiser. It is hosted by Gary and Laura Lauder. They are heirs to the $14 billion Estee Lauder fortune. Kamala Harris just had a fundraiser in Beverly Hills that was attended by an army of wealthy studio execs. Kristin Gillibrand did not even start her campaign for president before asking the permission of Wall Street.”
Yes, Republicans do something similar when it is their turn to oppose a seated Democrat president. Trump was the exception as he financed his own primary making him the only presidential candidate since William McKinley that is not largely purchased by wealthy donors. There are more Democrat political billionaire activists than Republican, taken together Soros money and organizations, and now, Steyer’s money, easily dwarf that of the Koch brothers, said to be funding most of the right side of the political spectrum.
The billionaire club easily favors the Democratic Party and the far-left side of the political spectrum. What is far worse is that Soros and Steyer seem not to be promoting rank and file Democrats but instead radicals who want to upend our political system. It appears that the rich who initially controlled the Republican Party, then both major parties for over 100 years, now has much greater dominance over the Democratic Party. Should they succeed, we will become a socialist country.
So why are the super rich overwhelmingly progressive—code for socialist. Tucker Carlson argues “They love mass immigration -- it brings them servants. They support federally-mandated snobbery, masquerading as environmentalism. Abortion is essentially a sacrament to them, especially when practiced in poor neighborhoods” (February 21, 2019).
What is certain is that essentially socialism allows them to command society with their money, to right all wrongs. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex is now wondering if society should limit its number of children. Everything is managed from cradle to grave. Other forms of government deny them this kind of control.
So if most of the billionaire club are progressives and Democrat why do they overwhelmingly fund the party and philosophy that purports to seize their wealth and control? Have not Democrats identified the enemy as “old white men,” which most billionaires are? Taxing is their favorite instrument of control and Democrats have been for higher taxes on the “rich” for decades. Cortez advocates 70%, Elizabeth Warren even higher.
Don’t they pay more taxes because they make more? Yes, but only to a point. The secret is that the rich will never pay more than 24% no matter how much they make. And they, being the financiers of the presidential candidates, will never be required to.
Carlson explains how it works“The top federal income tax rate stops at about 500 grand. So what's the difference between someone making $500,000 a year and someone making $50 million a year? The answer: The richer one can much more easily evade paying full freight, and they do.”
The rich that the Democrats want to tax are not the “real rich,” only those who make less than $500,000 per year. Those making more are locked in to no more than 27% and the richest of the rich only 24%. “According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of Americans pay about 27 percent of their income in taxes. But the top tenth of 1 percent -- that's people who make $35 million a year -- pay less than 26 percent. And the top thousandth of a percent -- the absolute richest -- pay less than 24 percent. In other words, past a certain point, the richer you are, the less you pay. That's why billionaires back socialism. It doesn't cost them much.
The first election is theirs as they fund the candidates who share their socialist views and get a tax cut as well. The show part of the election, the one acknowledged by everyone, does come in two years but well after their candidates are safely placed to win. The masses then salivate over which one of of the anointed the moneyed elite have preselected for us.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
