I Have To Agree

Virginia Ballot Questions 2010:

Vote NO on 1, 2, and 3
by Rob Schilling on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 9:15am

On November 2, 2010 Virginians will be faced with several seemingly innocuous but fatally flawed ballot questions, primarily dealing with various facets of taxation in the Commonwealth.

At hand are three constitutional amendments, which appear on the ballot following a multi-stage approval by the Virginia General Assembly, as follows:

A constitutional amendment, as established in Section 1 of Article XII, can be proposed in either house of the Virginia General Assembly. If a proposed amendment is approved by a simple majority vote in one session of the state legislature, it is automatically referred to the next session of the state legislature that occurs after the next general election of members of the Virginia House of Delegates. If in that second session the proposed amendment is “agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house” it is then placed before the state’s voters. If approved by a simple majority vote, it becomes part of the state’s constitution.

Question 1 reads:

Shall Section 6 of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize legislation that will permit localities to establish their own income or financial worth limitations for purposes of granting property tax relief for homeowners not less than 65 years of age or permanently and totally disabled?

Question 2 reads:

Shall the Constitution be amended to require the General Assembly to provide a real property tax exemption for the principal residence of a veteran, or his or her surviving spouse, if the veteran has a 100 percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability?

Questions 1 and 2 deal with real estate taxation. Helping veterans, disabled, and elderly people is a noble goal, as is tax reduction; the means by which the assistance will be granted, however, is insidious.

America’s founders recognized inherent peril in progressive taxation: a citizen exempt from paying taxes that his neighbor must pay, has no incentive in keeping the tax low because he, himself, does not pay the tax.

Alexander Hamilton warned against multi-tiered real estate taxation schemes in Federalist 35:

“No tax can be laid on land which will not affect the proprietor of millions of acres as well as the proprietor of a single acre. Every land-holder will therefore have a common interest to keep the taxes on land as low as possible; and common interest may always be reckoned upon as the surest bond of sympathy.”

The disastrous results of nearly a century of progressive income taxation can be seen in present day America where 47% of U.S. households paid no federal income tax in 2009. Those paying no tax actually have a vested interest in seeing rates raised for federal income-taxpayers, in order to maintain their own tax-free status.

Virginians would be unwise to allow their system of property taxation to emulate the federal model of progressive income taxation with its designated “winners and losers” and special “protected” classes.

By adding more exceptions to the rule, Virginia Ballot Questions 1 and 2 continue the erosion of “flat” (i.e., equitable) real estate taxation in the Commonwealth, ultimately to the detriment of maintaining Hamilton’s referenced common interests in private property rights and ownership.

Ballot Question 3 fundamentally enlarges state government at the expense of ordinary citizens and the overall state economy.

Question 3 reads:

Shall Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to increase the permissible size of the Revenue Stabilization Fund (also known as the “rainy day fund”) from 10 percent to 15 percent of the Commonwealth’s average annual tax revenues derived from income and retail sales taxes for the preceding three fiscal years?

Increasing the allowable size of Virginia’s “rainy day fund” by 50% is a colossally bad idea. The state is not a bank, an investment, or a savings account; it should hold as little of the people’s money as is practical.

Funds retained by government are unavailable to the state’s economy and thus stifle economic activity both of businesses and individuals.

In addition, fattening the state’s “slush” fund encourages growth in the size and scope of state government, and it is a disincentive to vital cost cutting and budget reform/reduction measures.

Disappointingly, many known “conservatives” publicly are supporting some or all of these constitutional amendments— each of which was passed unanimously in both houses of the Virginia General Assembly. In reality, legislators will reap political gain and political power from the passage of the measures: this is another opportunity to buy votes and to curry favor from large constituencies, all in the name of providing assistance.

As an entire class, property owners are deserving of relief from crushing real estate taxation in Virginia, but such reprieve granted piecemeal is detrimental to property rights and to America’s common interest in limited government. There are better and more American-centric ways to assist veterans, disabled, and elderly people. And, growing the ability of the state to confiscate—and ultimately spend—greater sums will further saddle taxpaying Virginians and encumber Virginia’s struggling economy.

Don’t be fooled by seemingly sympathetic subjects. Progressive taxation and government largesse have not benefited America in the preceding century. The 2010 ballot questions are bad news for liberty loving Virginians, and if passed, they will result in greater state control over our everyday lives.

Virginia Ballot Questions 2010: Vote NO on 1, 2, and 3.

Tuesday Night Jefferson vs Hamilton

WHAT: Jefferson vs Hamilton Debate
Hamilton (Big Government) vs. Jefferson (Small Goverment) -
Come hear the debate and you make the call.

WHEN: October 26, 2010 from 6:30pm to 8pm
Doors open at 6:30 pm, program begins at 7:00 pm

WHERE: C.E. Curtis Elementary School
3600 W. Hundred Rd.
Chester, VA 23831

TICKET INFORMATION purchases are available at www.chesterpatriots.com for $10.00* each; click on the bookstore page to order

Note: There is no tangible ticket, their name will be on a list and checked at the door.

*Cost of ticket is to pay Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hamilton for their time and travel expenses.
Mr. Hamilton is traveling from Pennsylyvania for this event

Mark Alexander-The Patriot Post

Second Amendment -- Still 'The Palladium of Liberties'
Mark Alexander

Now more than ever, armed Patriots must stand ready, in the words of Patrick Henry, to "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel."

"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." --James Madison

James Madison's words regarding the "ultimate authority" for defending liberty (Federalist No. 46) ring as true today as in 1787, when he penned them.

Likewise, so do the words of his appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution," "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

In recent decades, the "enterprises of ambition" and "usurpation and arbitrary power" among Leftist politicians and their corrupt judicial lap dogs have become malignant, eating away at our Essential Liberty and our constitutional Rule of Law.

This has never been more so than since the charlatan Barack Hussein Obama duped 67 million Americans into seating him in the executive branch.Much of the debate about the need to infringe upon the right to bear arms is framed in terms of safety.

Gun-control advocates argue that more guns equal more crime.

Those advocating for more lenient gun laws argue that more guns equal less crime. Only one of these diametrically opposed views can be true.

While the latter group is factually and demonstrably correct, basing Second Amendment arguments on the issue of safety is as fallacious as attempting to assert the 14th Amendment argument.

In an editorial this week, the conservative Washington Times opined, "The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city's murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind..."

No, they should not. After all, violence is a cultural problem, not a gun problem, and certainly not a Second Amendment problem.

What each member of the Supreme Court must only keep in mind is the plain language of the Constitution, the Second Amendment and the First Principle of his or her oath: "To support and defend our Constitution," as should everyone who has taken that oath.

Accordingly, the High Court should find that the gun restrictions in Chicago, and by extension, those in any other state, are in direct violation of the inherent rights of the people "to keep and bear arms."

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark AlexanderPublisher, PatriotPost.US