Oct. 9 & Oct. 15: “Famed lawyer warns of conservative Supreme Court”

by John L. Micek Columnist USA Today Network

What do you do when you want to make sure someone understands the point you’re attempting to make? I don’t know about you, but I usually repeat myself. I make the same point a second or third time, even if I made it clear the first time. I try not to do it, but it just happens.

Did the Gazette just do the same? I had cut John Micek’s column out of the Oct. 9th Opinion page and put it in my stack of items to address in the future. The future just hadn’t come yet. (But I found it in my stack when I checked this morning.)

So imagine my surprise when I opened today’s Gazette to the Opinion page. There, on the left hand side of page, was a column by John Micak titled “Famed layer warns of a conservative Supreme Court”. I checked the column from the 9th and it was the exact same title. So was it exactly the same column? Almost, but not quite.

The differences between the two columns:

  • The 10/15/20 column has his picture cropped and John is listed as “Guest columnist” rather than “Columnist”. “USA TODAY NETWORK” is added.
  • They deleted “and follow him on Twitter @ByJohnLMicek” for his byline.
  • An additional paragraph starting “Pennsylvania’s senior senator, Democrat Bob Casey…” is added.
  • A paragraph starting “Barret already has said …” was deleted.

Other than that they are exactly the same column by the same “journalist”, with the same heading and on the same topic using mostly the same words.

It appears that the Chillicothe Gazette has “repeated itself” because they want to make sure you get the message. So here it goes a again:

“Famed lawyer warns of a conservative Supreme Court”. So one famed lawyer wants us to have a Supreme Court dominated by progressives. Isn’t there a famed lawyer that wants us to have a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives? Wouldn’t it have been fair to include a column about them? Or maybe the Gazette could have had side by side columns presenting each side’s position. But that’s not what we see.

Gazette editor we get the message. You support VP Biden, Democrats and progressives. We get the message. We’ve known it long before you ran the second column by John Micek. Or even before you ran the first.

Please believe me. You really don’t need to run a third version of John Micek’s column!

Oct. 14: “Barrett won’t commit to recusal in vote cases”

by Lisa Mascaro, Mark Sherman and Mary Clare Jaionick of the Associated Press under the USA Today banner

Does that seem like a strange heading for an article on Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Confirmation hearings? Does it sound unbiased?

“She declined to say whether she would recuse herself from any election-related cases involving President Trump,…”

The article states that “Trump has said he wants a full nine member court in place for any disputes arising…”. Is that a bad thing for him to want. There are an odd number of judges on the Supreme Court so it will be unlikely that the outcome on any cases would be a tie. We actually want the Supreme Court to come to a conclusion. So if Amy is confirmed and recuses herself, we’ll only have eight members on the court and the court could dead lock on any case.

This is the main topic of the article’s second paragraph. But why is the question only being asked of Amy? If she is confirmed before the election she will be one of three judges who will have been appointed to the Supreme Court by President Trump. Should all of them be asked to recuse themselves? And judges Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated when Biden was Vice President so should they recuse themselves too. So if Amy Coney Barrett should recuse herself, why not the other four who were nominated while the current Presidential candidates were in office. That would just leave four justices to make the decision!

We hope that presidents nominate individuals who, once they are confirmed, will make decisions based on what the Constitution says about the case. If that’s the case, then why would we suspect Amy Coney Barrett wouldn’t vote based the facts? Is it because she was nominated by President Trump? Or because she is a conservative?

Opinion: Biden and Pence both on page 4

The Gazette’s Tuesday Oct. 13th paper had stories about former VP Biden’s and current VP Pence’s visits to Ohio. They both appeared on page 4. But Biden’s visit was covered on page 4 of section A (News section) while Pence’s visit was covered on page 4 of section B (Sports and Other section). Why is that? Was it a case space? The story on Biden’s visit did take up more space, but much of that was because it included two pictures, while Pence’s only included one. So was it a case of importance? Why not have both on the same page? The add on the page with the Biden article could have been moved to page 4 of the section B.

The story on Biden’s visit to Ohio (Cincinnati and Toledo) starts off talking about Donald Trump and the COVID-19 virus. That sounds a lot like the Democrat’s talking points.

So could it be the Gazette placed the story about Biden’s visit in Section A and the story about Pence’s visit in Section B for a political purpose?

I wouldn’t put it passed them!

Oct.14: “Ohio tops 5,000 deaths caused by COVID-19”

by Max Filby of the Columbus Dispatch

Max starts off with “Ohio has lost more than 5,000 lives to the coronavirus. There were six deaths reported, pushing the store past the grim milestone.”

Usually there is a purpose for an article being written, so what might the purpose of this article be? You might get the idea from some of the “facts” that he reports.

“The 5,005 COVID-19 deaths is more than the entire population of West Jefferson… with an estimate population of 4,431…”

“The 5,000 Ohioans who have died of COVID-19 amounts to more than the number of military members from the state who died in the Vietnam War (2,997) and the Korean War (1,777) combined.”

“Ohio ranks 25th in deaths for every 100,000 people…”

“Ohio ranks 13th in the country in total COVID-19 deaths.”

Many of the quoted statistics are given with no context. So let’s take a look at them:

“Ohio ranks 13th”: According to an internet site (Wikipedia) Ohio is 7th in population with a population of 11,689,100. So the state ranks 7th in population, but only 13th in COVID-19 deaths. That’s good!

“Ohio ranks 25th in deaths for every 100,000 people…”: This puts Ohio right in the middle of the 50 states, not something Ohioans should be alarmed about.

“The 5,000 Ohioans who have died of COVID-19…”: The internet has a site that shows the normal deaths per state. It shows 117,750 deaths per year for Ohio. That seems low considering the stated population for Ohio, but means that COVID-19 deaths are less than 4% of the Ohio’s normal deaths.

“The 5,005 COVID-19 deaths is more than the entire population of West Jefferson…”: Max could have picked any town or city, so why did he pick a small town like West Jefferson? Why not Grove City (35,575) or Westerville (36,120) or even Chillicothe (21,901). Or how about Cincinnati (296,945). Only a small town makes the COVID-19 virus look devastating.

There were six deaths reported…”: While six deaths is sad, six deaths in a state of 11.7 million people is hardly something to panic about. I look through the Gazette on a daily basis and the normal number of deaths reported in the Obituary section ranges from 3 to 5. Yet we don’t panic with that level of daily deaths in Ross County, do we?

So why did Max write this article and write it in the way he did. It looks to me like this is just one more attempt to convince voters that COVID-19 is a terrible plague and Democrats are telling us that it is all President Trump’s fault.

Biden: Has claimed that all 200,000 deaths could have be averted if Trump had a plan to address the virus.

Harris: Claimed that Trump didn’t have a plan early on and still doesn’t have a plan in her pre-butal speech.

The Democrats have chosen COVID-19 as their number one campaign issue and it appears that Max is doing his part in helping them make their case.

Sept. 9, 2020: “Much separation in VP debate”

by Diedre Shesgreen, Phillip Bsiley and Caren Bohen of USA Today

The Chillicothe Gazette carried this article in today’s paper. It reports what they found to be the major points of the VP Debate. But there is no fact checking included in the article? Let’s take the following:

“Harris pushes back of fracking: ‘The climate is changing, we’ll follow the science,’ Pence said, before charging that Biden would… ban fracking. Harris said Biden will not ban fracking.”

This would seem like an important topic to fact check, but if it is, it will show that one candidate or the other isn’t telling the truth. But which candidate is that?

“Expanding Supreme Court: Pense tried to get Harris to answer a question that she and Biden have repeatedly sidestepped: Do they support expanding the Supreme Court as many liberals advocate?”

This would seem like an essential question for any candidate to answer BEFORE voters cast their votes. Biden is on recording stating he won’t because his answer would be the next day’s headline in every paper. Shouldn’t something that important be the headline?

“Expanding Supreme Court:” ” Harris went back to 1864, when she said Abraham Lincoln didn’t think it right to fill a vacancy 27 days days before an election.”

A group that works to maintain the memory of Lincoln included the following in a comment on Sen. Harris’ response:

“Not only was the Senate out of session in October when Taney died until December 5 making it difficult for Lincoln to move forward with the confirmation proceedings necessary for a new justice, but Lincoln also strategically delayed the nomination to ensure he had Chase and other potential picks’ political support through the November election.”

So Sen. Harris misrepresented why Lincoln “delayed” nominating Chase to the Supreme Court. Yet the article didn’t fact check her comment.

“Expanding Supreme Court:” “We particularly hope we don’t see the kind of attacks on her Christian faith that we saw before.” “‘It’s insulting to suggest we would knock anyone for their faith., she said”.

In her Appeals Court hearings some of the Democrats did express concerns about Amy Coby Barrett’s faith. So there is concern that it might happen again. This wasn’t covered in the article.

“Harris pushes back on fracking:” “She noted that Trump said ‘science doesn’t know’ when pressed about the role of climate change on wildfires in California”.

The fact is there is a lot of disagreement on “Climate Change”. Many scientists claim it is due to humans use of fossil fuels. Others like those at SEPP and the Heartland Institute dispute that fact. So it appears that science in general doesn’t know. Check out some of my postings under “Climate Change” in the menu categories to see some of my blogs.

So why no fact checking in the Gazette on this debate, just reporting, when there has been so much fact checking in the past?

Sept 6, 2020: Notice of Proposed Major Utility Facility

The Sept. 6th issue of the Gazette included a public notice on a solar farm in Ross and Pickaway Counties. This is the first step in getting approval for their 2,040 acre “solar farm”.

A couple months ago I read a story about an organization attempting to find 1,500 acres for a solar farm. I wondered where they might find that much acreage and whether it would be hidden from sight. So I had been waiting for more news. It came yesterday in the form of the notice. Unfortunately those who have canceled their Gazette subscriptions didn’t have the chance to see this notice. So I thought I should bring it to your attention.

The project is titled Yellowbud Solar, LL. It’s proposed site location is just west of OH 104 and south of the Pickaway County line. I drove up to the area and along the roads that border the project. What I saw was prime agricultural property currently planted in corn and soybeans. I also saw topography that allows one to see the acreage from OH 104. That means the project will be very visible to anyone drive north or south using one of the two major routes from Chillicothe to Columbus.

To get a sense of what it might look like, drive west of OH 104 on US 35. Pay attention to the power station on the right hand side of the road. It isn’t the pretty site in Ross County is it? Yet it is only a small fraction of the size of the proposed Yellowbud Solar project. Is that what we want in such a visible portion of Ross County?

The article identifies the ownership of the proposed project.

“Yellowbud Solar, LLC, a subsidiary of Geronimo Energy, LLC, a National Grid Company”

Geronimo Energy started in Minnesota and in 2019 was bought by National Grid Company. An internet search on National Grid Company shows it is a United Kingdom company that is investing in renewable energy projects, including ones in the US through a US subsidiary. So the solar project in Ross County is a venture by a British company? Why not a Ross County, Ohio or US company? Maybe AEP?

So why solar in Ohio? Isn’t Ohio known for its “gray” weather? I checked out the internet and found CurrentResults.com and found that they show the average amount of sunshine by state. Ohio ranks near the bottom of the 50 states. There are only four states (Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Vermont) with lower % of possible hours of sun which are sunny. Ohio (they used Columbus as the Ohio proxy) Sun % was only 50%. States like Arizona (85%), Nevada (79%), New Mexico (76%) and Colorado (71%) would all seem like better states for investing in a solar project.

As a side comment, “What happens if we have a summer without sun if most of our electricity comes from solar farms?” That sounds like a crazy question and something that could never happen, doesn’t it? But maybe you should check the following out:

1816: That year followed the major eruption of Mount Tombora in 1815 and the eruption of Mount Mayon in 1814. These eruptions were so large and put so much volcanic dust in the air that it had world wide implications.

In the spring and summer of 1816, a persistent “dry fog” was observed in parts of the eastern United States. The fog reddened and dimmed the sunlight, such that sunspots were visible to the naked eye. Neither wind nor rainfall dispersed the “fog”. It has been characterized as a “stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil”.[25]

536: Long called the Dark Ages because of the collapse of civilization it is now recognized as also a time when volcanic activity blotted out the sun making agriculture difficult. A historian of the time made the following statement when talking about :

“The sun gave forth its light without brightness.”

There are other years when volcanoes have had a negative impact on sunlight and agriculture. Imagine what impact they could have on electric output from solar farms, something that isn’t a problem when natural gas or coal are used. Maybe going 100% renewable might not be such a good idea? But if we are going to develop solar projects, why isn’t that occurring in states that have large undeveloped tracks of land unfit for agriculture and high level of sunshine rather than using very productive agricultural property in a state with low levels of sunshine?

Some how that sounds more rationale to me. How about you?

Send your thoughts to:

  • Ross County Commissioners
  • Union Township Trustees
  • Ross County Soil and Water Conservation District
  • Ross County Planning and Building Department
  • Greater Chillicothe and Ross County Development

A copy of the proposal for the Yellowbud Solar, LLC is available at the Main Library in Chillicothe.

Opinion: The Gazette and Covid-19

I received an email from the editor of the Chillicothe Gazette that stated the following:

“Thank you for your submission, but we will not be printing this column.”

This is not a big surprise. After having almost all my columns and letters to the editor while Marvin Jones and Mike Throne were the paper’s editors it has suddenly changed. Since Tonya Shipley has become editor she has chosen not to print half of my submissions?

The column fact checked the claims that Senator Harris and Vice President have been making about the Trump Administration’s handling of the Covid-19 virus outbreak. They both have made comments that “the Trump Administration had no plan early on and still has no plan”.

I went on to point out that for at least two months Fox News interrupted The Five at Five and Special Report to bring us the the Administration’s Covid-19 Task Force updates. We were introduced to the task force leadership, what they were responsible for and updates on what they had accomplished. To me this sounds like they had a plan and still do.

So why did the editor of the Chillicothe Gazette chose not to print this column? They have printed other “fact checking” articles on minor things that were incorrect to start with. They have printed outrageous columns by Dick Polman that criticize President Trump. And they have printed a column telling us that 1,037 Ohio voters identified Covid-19 as one of their two most important concerns. But they aren’t willing to print a column that tells voters that Sen. Harris and VP Biden are not telling the truth about the Administration’s plan to combat Covid-19. And we haven’t seen this covered by USA Today or other Ohio Gannett newspapers.

I think this tells us a lot about the Chillicothe Gazette, USA Today and Gannett News! That may be why so many residents of Ross County refuse to subscribe to the Gazette. Maybe advertisers should wake up too!

You can read the column here!

2020’s First “Presidential” Debate

I watched the debate and think I had pretty much the same reaction to what I saw as most people did. That is most people except those on “cable news”. But once the debate was over I was interested to see what the coverage would be in the Gazette. And boy was there coverage! Thursday’s paper four articles and a cartoon on the debate and an additional article related to the election. Fridays Opinion Page had to columns, a cartoon and an additional column about a topic covered in the debate, but not directly about the debate discussion on the topic.

I wasn’t really interested in what others thought about the debate or o[pinions on who analysts thought had won it, I was perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions. What I was very interested in seeing was any “fact checking” that was done. I’m still waiting for an article like that.

The debate covered some serious topics, though the responses to the questions were overshadowed by name calling and speaking over each other. Topics that I expected some “fact checking on” were:

Covid-19: Vice President (and his running mate) has been claiming that President Trump had no plan early on and still doesn’t have a plan. I wasn’t disappointed as he made those claims again. But what is the truth of the claims?

Without addressing whether the Trump Administration’s plan was timely or effective, there is no question they had a plan. I happen to watch Fox News and for what seemed at least two months we were subjected to daily Covid-19 Task Force updates. We were introduced to the leadership team, their responsibilities, updates on their progress and the latest Covid-19 statistics. While I could go into some of the details of their plan, that isn’t necessary to say that VP Biden’s statement that the Trump Administration had no plan and still has no plan is FALSE!

Climate Change: President Trump was asked if he believed in “climate change” and what he would do about it. He gave a lukewarm answer that he did and then claimed it was 37th on the list of things voters were concerned about. VP Biden went through a list of things the suburbs need to worry about if we don’t bring global warming under control. That was an obvious attempt to court suburban women voters. He then went on to include a pledge to make the Federal Government 100% Carbon Neutral during his time in office.

I was very disappointed in both candidates’ answers to the question. After all, the debate was being held in Cleveland! Less than 15,000 years ago what is now Cleveland was covered by a huge sheet of ice called a glacier. It had been in place for possibly 10,000 years. (The reached Chillicothe approximately 22,000 years ago.) That glacier is gone. And that glacial advance was the third in “recent” climate history. It is the reason why Michigan and Minnesota are “flat as a pancake” as is 2/3 of what is now Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and much of Wisconsin. So the obvious correct answer to the question is NO! Man’s use of fossil fuels is not the main factor in warming temperatures and rising sea levels. The climate has been warming and sea levels have been rising for around 20,000 years. Their answers were FALSE!

Condemning Extremists and Trump is a Racist: Once again President Trump was asked if he condemned extremists and he was accused of being a racist by VP Biden. I rate Trump’s response to the requirement to condemn extremists as a bit weak, but he did do it. However with the dozens of times over the last four years that he has made clear statements and the acts he has taken it seemed like a foolish question to ask. And as far as VP Biden calling President Trump a racist, it might be another case of a Democrat practicing “projection” considering his recent comments. It is strange that Chris Wallace didn’t ask Biden about them? Or is it?

So basically there has been no official “fact checking” the things they said in the debate covered in the Gazette? That’s strange considering some of the insignificant things they carried fact check articles on in the past!

Sept 2, 2020: “Biden OK to sidestep court question”

By Carl Golden; Guest Columnist of USA Today Network

I was a bit taken aback by the heading to this column, but after reading it found the column to be well written and thought out. Carl makes the case against packing the court (Supreme Court) with additional judges. His position is best wrapped in this paragraph:

“Demanding a reconfiguration of the court to meet their (vocal left) demands, however only serves to undermine public confidence in the judicial process and promotes the belief that a fair and unbiased application of the law and constitution has taken a back seat to an obsession with political victories.”

I certainly agree with those thoughts.

My only disagreement is with the following that he included: “Democrat leaders were privately aghast at the court packing scheme…”. After seeing Sen. Chuck Schumer’s and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comments on last night news it didn’t seem they were all that “aghast”. Instead it looked like they were threatening to do just that. Pack the court. And they are the Democrat’s leadership in the House and Senate. However that really doesn’t take away from Carl’s column.

However, I am left wondering who came up with the heading for the column. “Biden OK to sidestep court question.” No where in the column does he state that reflects his opinion. In fairness to his well written column, it seems to go against the position he states. If he is against “packing the court” because it would undermine the judicial process why would he think it was okay for Biden and Harris to sidestep the question? I doubt he would. It seems he would be in favor of insisting they take a position and hope it was against packing the court.

From my experience, headlines are not created by the columnist but instead are created by someone associated with the Opinion Page. It is usually the role of an “editor”. So is that who created the heading? Did they actually read the column before coming up with the heading? Often headings are what readers most remember. So it appears the heading was purposefully created to mislead.

We see deception too frequently in the Chillicothe Gazette when it comes to state and national news. The question is how are they held accountable so that it doesn’t happen in the future.

If you agree with my assessment you might want to drop them a note at: gaznews@chillicothegazette.com.

Sept. 30, 2020: “How rich Americans avoid high taxes”

By Nathan Bomey of USA Today

It might surprise some people to find out that in a recent tax year 33.4% of tax payers paid $0.00 in Federal Income Tax. In fact a significant number of them got tax refunds larger than the amount of taxes that had been withheld. Is this another case of the wealthy avoiding paying their fair share of taxes? No, it’s the result of the a tax code that includes an Earned Income Tax Credit, standard deductions and other opportunities made available to low income filers. In the latest information I came across (2016) the lowest 50% of filers by Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) paid only 3.04% of Federal Personal Income Taxes. That’s something that was never anticipated by those who first put forward the plan for a Federal Tax on Incomes.

I first became aware of the original income tax rates and formula when Steve Forbes’s organization, Americans for Hope, Growth and Opportunity, mailed out copies of the original tax forms. You can see a copy of the form on the Bradford Tax Institute website along with a brief history of the top tax rates.

The form was two pages long. The second page included a listing of the various types of income and a place to put the total for each. The first page included the seven rates and a way to calculate the amount of income each rate would be applied to. It is interesting to note that every citizen earning income was required to pay Federal Income tax. The bottom rate was 1% and it applied to income up to $20,000. There were six higher rates, each adding an additional 1%, making the top rate 7%. It was applied to income over $500,000 or over $11 million in today’s value. Those were the rates in 1913. Prior to 1913 there was no Federal Income Tax with the exception of during the Civil War. Prior to 1913 Taxing income was unconstitutional!

The low rates of the first Federal Income Tax didn’t last long with the top rate hitting 77% five years later in 1918. The top rate reached an all time high of 94% during WWII. Rates have varied since then in an attempt to encourage economic activity (lower rates) or to fund Federal spending (higher rates). Over this same period of time the two page tax form was increased to reflect new changes to the tax code. The changes reflected categories of income, deductions, allowances and credits reflecting various priorities of Congress. But those priorities often rewarded one at the expense of others. I offer two examples:

Mortgage Interest Deduction: This deduction was introduced to reward home ownership and spur the real estate market. The result of the deduction is those with large and expensive homes pay less in taxes than they otherwise would, while people who rent while saving for a home pay more than they otherwise would.

Child Tax Credit: The child tax credit was put in place to help families with children. Individuals who are saving to get married and eventually have families pay higher rates than those who have children. So do those who have previously raised children and are now saving for retirement.

One of the major issues over the years has been how to handle gains on the sale of assets. This includes the sale of one’s home. For many years selling your home could create a Federal Income Tax liability. The difference between what you sold your home for and what you paid (its basis) for it was called a “capital gain”. That required a home owner to keep an extensive set of records on what improvements they had made to their home because they could be used to increase the “basis” by being added to the original purchase price.

The term capital gain took on real consequences during the 80’s when we had high inflation. Inflation wasn’t considered in the formula so the capital gain you had on your home or other asset might only be the result of inflation, not a real inflation adjusted increase in value. Yet you still paid taxes on the increased value?

“It’s much harder to avoid taxes on your paycheck than on your investments.” This section of the article talks about the difference between wages and investment earnings and when taxes on both are paid. What it doesn’t address is how did the individual get the funds they invested. Typically funds for investment come from left over wages after the wages have been taxed. People make choices on what to spend their wages on. Some use it to pay for houses. Others for cars, vacations and lifestyle. Some opted for saving some of their wages for investment purposes. So if their original investment was made with money that was already taxed as wages is it fair for gains on those investments to be taxed? Especially since gains aren’t adjusted for inflation? Aren’t investments what spurs on our economy? Aren’t investment gains what helps many individuals have a successful retirement rather than depending solely on Social Security?

The article goes on to talk about “Unrealized Gains”. That is the amount an asset has increased in value since it was acquired. It implies that unrealized gains are somehow unfair. The solution to unrealized gains is to tax gains in the year they occur, rather than when they are realized (the asset is sold). There are two major problems with that. First taxing gains when they occur usually would require the sale of some of the asset(s) in order to pay the tax. One of the biggest sources of unrealized gains is land. So if farmers were required to pay for the increasing value of their land when it occurs, they most likely would have to sell some of their land to pay for it. Couple that with the fact that much of the increase in value of land is due to inflation and it would create real issues for them.

A second issue with taxing gains when they occur is investments go up and down in value. So a large increase in value one year may be followed by a decrease in value the following year. If you are required to pay tax on the increased value in the first year, where does the money come from to pay the tax? And what happens if it decreases in value the next? These are the reasons why taxes on investment gains are paid when the investment is sold, not as it occurs.

“Benefitting from death tax policies”: The basic question on “death tax” “is it fair to benefit from your ancestors’ decision to not spend all their wealth during their life time.” It is really important for business owners and farm families. If the heirs of business owners and farmers are required to pay taxes on the value of what they inherit will they have to sell the items they inherit to pay the taxes? But it applies to all of us when we die. If you decide to save some of the wages you earn, why should the government get it rather than your grandchildren?

The original income tax form required all individuals with income to pay at least some Federal Income Tax. We’ve come a far cry from that. Maybe it is time to go back to that simple formula. It would cost a lot of tax accountants their careers, but it would make the tax code much simpler and “fairer”. And it might cause voters to think differently about increased Federal spending.

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution allowed for a Federal Income Tax. It was passed in 1909 and ratified in 1913. While we can debate whether it was a wise policy to implement, one thing is certain. By not including, in the amendment, the actual rates that would be used and a formula for calculating the income the rates would be applied against, Congress was allowed to buy votes by proposing changes that favored one group of voters over others. We see that occurring in every election!

That, and the failure to have a Balanced Budget Amendment in the Constitution, will result in the downfall of our nation, just as the Founding Fathers predicted it would. That’s probably why they made it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to tax incomes!