by Michael Bargo, Jr.
The fact is, while Democrats are preaching fairness and equity among voters, -- they have seized control -- over the legislative branch of the Federal government, -- in a manner that permanently denies all of us the full value of our vote.
Every election cycle we hear about how every vote must count, how every voter must have equal access to the ballot box, and how no one can be denied the opportunity to express their voice to how the government is run. This concern has been seized upon as the primary interest of the Democratic Party who have made it their personal crusade to ensure fairness in every election, by the careful, fair supervision of the voting process in every voting precinct.
But while this is the public rhetoric, the private reality is much different. The fact is, while Democrats are preaching fairness and equity among voters, in Congress they have seized control through a scheme that has taken over the legislative branch of the Federal government, and done so in a manner that permanently denies all of us the full value of our vote.
How this has been done has, until now, never been explained. At first glance this observation seems to be another unfounded conspiracy, but no observation on how government has managed to steal the value of our vote can be more solidly founded on the principles of our republican form of government and the realities of the national budget.
In order to understand how this vote theft has been perpetrated it’s necessary to briefly review the nature of the American form of national government. From the Declaration of Independence, Notes on the Debate which formed the Constitution, and the final Constitution these principles are certain: that the U.S. government derives its power and authority to govern from the will and consent of the people. And that to consult with the people, Congress, as written in the Constitution, is up for reelection every two years. The President of the U.S. every four years.
Here’s the big question: does this mean that all policy issues are up for reelection every two years? The constitution does give guidance on this issue. It lists 18 policy issues that Congress will provide for. These include the Army and Navy. The only limit on time regarding the national budget is mentioned for the Army: no appropriations for the Army can be for more than a term of two years. This places an absolute two-year limit on appropriations.
The other essential fact of budgeting is that all bills of appropriations shall originate in the House of Representatives, then voted on by the Senate and signed or vetoed by the president. This clearly states that all appropriations require an act of legislation specific to that appropriation, and by implication that the appropriation cannot last for more than two years.
It’s this two-year time limit that has been seized upon by Democrats as a loophole and violated. In addition, they have seized upon the idea, clearly violative of the Constitution, that all acts of appropriation must be passed by the House.
Does this mean Congress can pass the Social Security Act in 1935 and force all subsequent voters to pay for it? Or does it mean Social Security should be voted on by the voters and their representatives in Congress every year? After all, there is nothing in the one-year limit of appropriations that would prevent Social Security from continuing for many decades.
But the difficulty, what makes this issue more dangerous to the country’s republican form of government, is that two developments regarding this trend clearly violate the Constitution. One is that by mandating Congress fund Social Security forever, Congress clearly usurps the authority of the people to provide their will and consent to the program. Keep in mind the people still have the opportunity to reappropriate money through Congress every year.
The issue then is whether or not these so-called “mandatory” spending programs violate the U.S. Constitution, and they clearly do. Here’s why: the Congressional Research Service reviewed the mandatory spending programs and published their report in 1996 called “Mandatory Spending Since 1962.” The very first sentence of the report states: “Mandatory spending is composed of budget outlays controlled by laws other than appropriation acts.”
In 1985 Congress passed the “Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act” and defined “spending authority” as “authority provided in laws other than appropriation acts… and includes contract authority, authority to borrow, and entitlement authority if budget authority to make the required payments has not been provided in advance by appropriation acts.’ The reader can decide how this payment without appropriation acts comports with the requirement that an act of appropriations can only originate in the House of Representatives, as cited in the constitution.
The link then, between the will and consent of the people and how your money is spent by Congress, has been completely broken. The facts prove the point: in fiscal year 1985, 58% of the money spent was not provided for in the annual appropriations process. You and I had absolutely no say in how 58% of tax money was spent in 1985 and the loss of our will and consent as to how Congress spends our money on policies of our choice, as we express them in the ballot box, has dramatically increased.
While permanent appropriations, backdoor spending and spending authority are three of the basic constitutionally corrupt schemes developed to force us to spend money without our consent, deficit spending and debt cannot be overlooked, for these simple reasons: debt creates tax appropriation burdens for future taxpayers. That means taxpayers in the future have no say as to how their taxes are spent. Deficit spending also spends money exceeding revenues: it spends money the taxpayers didn’t pay. So future taxpayers are required to pay for the money spent by past voter groups.
Since every two years a new, unique set of voters is supposed to be allowed to express its will and consent; debt and interest payments force future taxpayers to support the will and consent of past voters. I call every two-year group of voters a voter cohort. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that every vote must count, that all votes have equal weight in an election. But the Court has never addressed the issue of votes cast by different voter cohorts over time. Only votes cast on the same day.
The loss of the value of our vote is complete. Due to the spending of Democrats and Obama in 2010 we lost the entire value of our vote: more was spent on mandatory spending (over which we have no opportunity to consent) interest payments on the debt, and deficits. In 2016, just last November, we had access to only 9% of the value of our vote. When the “pre-spent” amounts equal 100%, that means we have no say at all over how policies in the budget express our will and consent. We are there.
So while cleverly scamming people into believing they worry that “every vote counts” Democrats have forced us to pay for their entitlement programs, the programs that keep them in power. They have permanently taken over Congress. It doesn’t matter if non-citizens vote, or what identity groups prefer.
The die has been cast.
But while this is the public rhetoric, the private reality is much different. The fact is, while Democrats are preaching fairness and equity among voters, in Congress they have seized control through a scheme that has taken over the legislative branch of the Federal government, and done so in a manner that permanently denies all of us the full value of our vote.
How this has been done has, until now, never been explained. At first glance this observation seems to be another unfounded conspiracy, but no observation on how government has managed to steal the value of our vote can be more solidly founded on the principles of our republican form of government and the realities of the national budget.
In order to understand how this vote theft has been perpetrated it’s necessary to briefly review the nature of the American form of national government. From the Declaration of Independence, Notes on the Debate which formed the Constitution, and the final Constitution these principles are certain: that the U.S. government derives its power and authority to govern from the will and consent of the people. And that to consult with the people, Congress, as written in the Constitution, is up for reelection every two years. The President of the U.S. every four years.
Here’s the big question: does this mean that all policy issues are up for reelection every two years? The constitution does give guidance on this issue. It lists 18 policy issues that Congress will provide for. These include the Army and Navy. The only limit on time regarding the national budget is mentioned for the Army: no appropriations for the Army can be for more than a term of two years. This places an absolute two-year limit on appropriations.
The other essential fact of budgeting is that all bills of appropriations shall originate in the House of Representatives, then voted on by the Senate and signed or vetoed by the president. This clearly states that all appropriations require an act of legislation specific to that appropriation, and by implication that the appropriation cannot last for more than two years.
It’s this two-year time limit that has been seized upon by Democrats as a loophole and violated. In addition, they have seized upon the idea, clearly violative of the Constitution, that all acts of appropriation must be passed by the House.
Does this mean Congress can pass the Social Security Act in 1935 and force all subsequent voters to pay for it? Or does it mean Social Security should be voted on by the voters and their representatives in Congress every year? After all, there is nothing in the one-year limit of appropriations that would prevent Social Security from continuing for many decades.
But the difficulty, what makes this issue more dangerous to the country’s republican form of government, is that two developments regarding this trend clearly violate the Constitution. One is that by mandating Congress fund Social Security forever, Congress clearly usurps the authority of the people to provide their will and consent to the program. Keep in mind the people still have the opportunity to reappropriate money through Congress every year.
The issue then is whether or not these so-called “mandatory” spending programs violate the U.S. Constitution, and they clearly do. Here’s why: the Congressional Research Service reviewed the mandatory spending programs and published their report in 1996 called “Mandatory Spending Since 1962.” The very first sentence of the report states: “Mandatory spending is composed of budget outlays controlled by laws other than appropriation acts.”
In 1985 Congress passed the “Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act” and defined “spending authority” as “authority provided in laws other than appropriation acts… and includes contract authority, authority to borrow, and entitlement authority if budget authority to make the required payments has not been provided in advance by appropriation acts.’ The reader can decide how this payment without appropriation acts comports with the requirement that an act of appropriations can only originate in the House of Representatives, as cited in the constitution.
The link then, between the will and consent of the people and how your money is spent by Congress, has been completely broken. The facts prove the point: in fiscal year 1985, 58% of the money spent was not provided for in the annual appropriations process. You and I had absolutely no say in how 58% of tax money was spent in 1985 and the loss of our will and consent as to how Congress spends our money on policies of our choice, as we express them in the ballot box, has dramatically increased.
While permanent appropriations, backdoor spending and spending authority are three of the basic constitutionally corrupt schemes developed to force us to spend money without our consent, deficit spending and debt cannot be overlooked, for these simple reasons: debt creates tax appropriation burdens for future taxpayers. That means taxpayers in the future have no say as to how their taxes are spent. Deficit spending also spends money exceeding revenues: it spends money the taxpayers didn’t pay. So future taxpayers are required to pay for the money spent by past voter groups.
Since every two years a new, unique set of voters is supposed to be allowed to express its will and consent; debt and interest payments force future taxpayers to support the will and consent of past voters. I call every two-year group of voters a voter cohort. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that every vote must count, that all votes have equal weight in an election. But the Court has never addressed the issue of votes cast by different voter cohorts over time. Only votes cast on the same day.
The loss of the value of our vote is complete. Due to the spending of Democrats and Obama in 2010 we lost the entire value of our vote: more was spent on mandatory spending (over which we have no opportunity to consent) interest payments on the debt, and deficits. In 2016, just last November, we had access to only 9% of the value of our vote. When the “pre-spent” amounts equal 100%, that means we have no say at all over how policies in the budget express our will and consent. We are there.
So while cleverly scamming people into believing they worry that “every vote counts” Democrats have forced us to pay for their entitlement programs, the programs that keep them in power. They have permanently taken over Congress. It doesn’t matter if non-citizens vote, or what identity groups prefer.
The die has been cast.
Michael Bargo, Jr.
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/how_democrats_permanently_stole_your_vote.html
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the author
No comments:
Post a Comment