Create a Currently Non-Existent Political-Pressure Structure That Will Make Reducing National/Federal Spending Unavoidable.

portfolio1 portfolio2 portfolio3 portfolio4

small portfolio1 small portfolio2 small portfolio3 small portfolio4
themed object
Liberty and Prosperity for All
get in touch

Sec. #6: Create Pressure To Make Federal Spending Reductions Unavoidable.


Political pressure is arguably the world's most powerful human institution. Countless examples could be given. Two will be mentioned here.

In December 2010, Barack Obama signed legislation to extend for two years the personal income tax rates in effect from the George W. Bush presidency.

Knowing Obama, it likely grated his soul to extend the lower tax rates. However, the political pressure of economic circumstances left him little choice but to sign.

Example two. Countless factors exist in the Washington D. C. "Swamp" that keep up continual political pressure for evermore spending by "the Feds." The "Border Bill" of Valentine's Day week 2019 is an example. Countless spending items unconnected with the security of America's borders were threaded throughout the 1159-page Bill.

It's critically important that a restructuring be implemented that creates intense political pressure for LESS, not MORE spending. The CST, and its two companion proposals will implement, in perpetuity, the needed new structure.

How will this U S Government "limitation" be achieved?

Here's an explanation of how and why the restructuring of U S Government funding to the CST and its two companions will give the much-needed favorable result of pressure to keep spending down.

Keep in mind the basic structure of the CST.

The basic structure is that with the exception of Duties (Tariffs), the U S Government will no longer have any constitutional authorization to lay and collect any internal tax(es) on Americans or American businesses.

Presently, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1 (I-8-1) of the Constitution empowers the U S Government, through Congress, to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, ...."

I-8-2, borrowing powers authorized to Congress, will be constrained as well. Future borrowing will only be allowed to payoff Federal debt securities that existed at date of conversion to the CST funding system. No future borrowing will be allowed to fund new, or currently operating, National/Federal spending programs.

There are legitimate matters requiring spending by the U S Government. The main focus being to provide for the "common defence" of the USA, as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.

According to James Madison in Federalist Paper 45, paragraph 9, the powers of the then proposed government under the then proposed Constitution were to be "few and defined" with the powers too remain with the States to be "numerous and indefinite."

Now, in the early 21st Century, does the U S Government vs. the States power structure reflect this few and defined/numerous and indefinite split stated by Madison? If anything, the Feds have the numerous and indefinite powers. Can the State powers in 2019 even be considered few and defined?

With the CST and its two companions implemented as proposed, the States will be in a position to reestablish this few and defined/numerous and indefinite structure as it was intended in 1787 when the Constitution was written, and do it rather quickly.

The States will have the "purse strings", therefore will be in a position to bring immense political pressure on "the Feds" to focus on what the Constitution allows them to do, and nothing more. Hence, reduced cost to American taxpayers.

By Constitutional Amendment, the States will be required to pay their ratable shares of the Federal Budget.

The States holding the purse strings, and the Feds being able to mandate payment, will set up much needed, on-going tension.

The Feds will face a gigantic army made up of state and local government officials and the American People. If elected National/Federal officeholders try to "take over" more than the "few and defined" powers the Constitution allows, they will face a high probability of "career ending injuries" in the next election. (Perhaps it will become "vogue" for such officeholders to boast about keeping their State's ratable share of the yearly Federal Budget low because the overall U S Budget was kept "tight.")

Per the Constitution, there is a separation of powers into three branches of the U S Government - Executive, Legislative and Judicial. However, the last 100+ years has seen the development of a fourth branch - the Administrative State, Swamp, Deep State, or whatever you want to call it.

A derivative benefit of the CST funding system will be the reining in of this Administrative State. This reining in will be unavoidable. With no power to tax, except for Tariffs that will be fully used for funding the AHAF, there will be an immediate focus, a REAL focus, on cutting, trimming and "leaning down" the Administrative State.

The States will not want to have the yearly "Invoices" to pay their ratable shares of the U S Budget contain "waste, fraud and abuse" (WFA). The difference in the future will be that the elimination of WFA, will, for the first time, be taken seriously. The Feds won't be able to tax, tax, tax taxpayers, and borrow, borrow, borrow from the credit markets, to pay for the WFA that is rampant in the U S Budget, despite the multiple decades of talk to end it.

slide up button