PART 3 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

Commentary: On December 2, 2011 me and my blog were excoriated by a young "conservative" named Mike, who wanted to give me a hiding for my communist views on "unregulated" capitalism. He called me or more precisely my views "ridiculous" I'll let you decide who is ridiculous.

His tirade was quite lengthy so Im going to publish my response in nine parts under my:

"A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right: Dear Mike part 1-9.

Since his attack was full of vitriol I have taken off the gloves as I see no point of entertaining his bombastic rhetoric.

He started with my "Thought for the Day" which are intended as a tongue in cheek rebuff of current obtuse conservative thinking. That will serve as Part 1-4 of my responses.

Parts 5-9 are in-response to the object of his real distain—my critique of Adam Smith Re-examined.

I have color coded my blog post that he 'critiqued in red—his critique in blue—and my response to his critique in black.

PART 3 Dear Mike, "A Series of Letters from the Left to the Right:

Thought for the Day: If taxation of the rich is a “redistribution” of wealth?— What is cutting taxes on the wealthy with money borrowed from China?

I think Weber is really confused about what a tax cut is; he seems to have tax cuts confused with subsidies. Maybe it’s the terminology used: “giving a tax cut” sounds like you are giving something to someone, but what it actually means is gov’t is letting that entity keep what it already owns.

Dear Mike, Under the current monetary system which is corrupt and I believe unconstitutional the banks "own" the monetary system lock stock and barrel. Under the original Constitutional mandate—the Congress alone had control of the currency. Its printing and distribution. That money was and still is printed by the Treasury Dept. and is backed by the full faith and credit of government of the (taxpayers) people.

It is—NOT—backed by the full faith and credit of "the FED", and it is —NOT—backed any one particular individual citizen, or private bankers. The American dollar has value—solely because—it is—backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government—meaning the people.

Your assertion is that because an individual holds a dollar its his is absurd—without the collective power of America that dollar has no value to anyone you may as well wipe your butt with it.

Try putting your mug on a dollar and spend it, e pluribus unum, is on the dollar for a reason. The strength of the dollar lies in "One out Of Many" THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The government should take back control of the monetary system like it did under Lincoln. *see "History of the Moneychangers"

Your rather simplistic assertion makes taxes sound like the government is stealing "your" money—when in fact—the government is loaning you their credit worthiness and on tax day is sending you a bill for services rendered.

Finally Smith made his position on taxation crystal clear when he said:

”The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.” source Wealth of Nations Adam Smith

Which cuts the legs out from under your specious argument that the government is stealing from you—it can't steal what it is owed. No more than you billing for services rendered makes you a thief.

I've already said I advocate stopping ALL NON-ESSENTIAL CORPORATE SUBSIDES.

Finally, every dime taken out of the "system" must come from someone else—US Bonds—which are sold as debt instruments and are a promise to pay back the money lent plus interest, that money comes out of future tax revenue. Tax cuts for the wealthy are not revenue neutral—as you so smugly imply—they are real and they do come out of the pockets of the middle class to the benefit of the wealthy.

Or maybe you think the tooth fairy magical pays off those bonds.

This is the end of PART 3

The Truth About New American Tea Party

"On Monday morning, the 29th of November, 1773, a handbill was posted all over Boston, containing the following words: "Friends! Brethren! Countrymen!--That worst of plagues, the detested tea, shipped for this port by the East India Company, is now arrived in the harbor."

The event that triggered the Boston Tea Party, and that has been reduced a catch phrase—"No taxation without representation"—was at its heart the rejection of the British manipulation of the markets in favor of the East India Company by means of tax cuts for the only global corporation of that era.

The New Tea Party Patriots have taken a distant event and twisted its meaning to imply that it was all about eliminating taxes, which is a false conclusion. If their premise is true it would have been written into the Constitution NO TAXATION (period). How preposterous to presume that any government can operate without revenue. Yet that is what the leaders of The New Tea Party would have you believe. What the founders fought for was REPRESENTATION in the affairs that concerned them in their daily lives. What is truly ironic or moronic about the "tea baggers" adoption of that particular historical event is that it was triggered by a huge tax cut for the East India Trading Company who at the time was on the verge of bankruptcy, the colonist considered it an unfair tax cut that would put smaller independent traders out of business.

This is a reprint of an article by Mary Bell Lockhart written for OpEdNews.com

For OpEdNews: Mary Bell Lockhart - Writer

Does the ultra-right carry water for the ultra-rich?

To paraphrase the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz, "How 'bout a little truth, scare mongers?"

In my last article, I debunked the myth that our tax dollars are taken against our will and given to lazy people who refuse to work. Nevertheless, up popped a letter repeating that we're "immorally taxed against our will," which apparently has origins in libertarian doctrine. A corollary myth is that the only true purpose for the government is to "protect our freedoms" presumably meaning the military and police. These are poor readings of American history and a distortion of the Constitution and the government it established. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion here, but we're not entitled to invent facts.

For American revolutionaries, taxation was an issue, but it was not, as implied by current "tea partiers," an issue of high taxes. For the colonists, the issue was taxation without representation -- paying taxes when they could not elect voting representatives. Other economic issues, which led directly to the Boston Tea Party, were favorable treatment for the British East India Company and restriction on colonial trade with countries other than Britain.

The East India Company was perhaps an early capitalistic, multinational corporation. It was granted monopoly status by Britain and given preferences to supply the only tea colonists were allowed to purchase. So, colonists smuggled in tea from other sources and refused to buy British tea (even though it was cheaper). In 1773, they attempted to send tea back to Britain and, when that failed, dumped it in Boston harbor. There was reaction from Britain, counter-reaction from the colonists, and eventually the Declaration of Independence and war.

After throwing off one government, the Americans turned around and formed -- what? Another government more to their liking. The Preamble to the US Constitution gives the overall mission statement -- the purposes -- for the government. I've covered this in a previous article, but repeat that the mission to "promote the general welfare" includes a large number of activities that are appropriate, constitutional governmental roles.

Saving an economy in free-fall and aiding the least of us in our society -- the sick, the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, the children -- are entirely appropriate roles for government, as are financial, and environmental and safety regulation. Over the years, we have demanded that these roles be fulfilled. We love this most about our country: Here we care about each other.

American revolutionaries believed in government and accepted taxes set by elected representatives. And that's just what we have today. Whether born here or becoming citizens or legal residents by choice, we enjoy the blessings of this society and we have obligations to follow the laws and to pay taxes.

How is this coercion or taxing us against our will when we are free to live elsewhere? Without our government we would effectively have no income and our assets would have no legal standing or even a record. Without government we may think we have individual rights, but there is nothing to assure them, no one to truly "protect our freedoms.

With funding and misinformation from capitalistic, multi-national corporations, today's tea partiers (about 80% are Republican), libertarians and ultra-conservatives, wrap themselves in the "patriot" flag. However, ideologically they bear a stronger resemblance to the secessionist southerners than to American revolutionaries. They even talk of states' rights and secession. For the policies they advocate, they would be on the side of the British and the East India Company were we back in revolutionary days. They support the anti-tax, anti-government policies that serve the mega-rich. They protest high taxes when they, themselves, just received a huge tax cut enacted as a stimulus to the economy. Income taxes in 2009 were at an historic low

They claim, but have no evidence, that the government is intruding on their individual rights. On the contrary, it is these extremists who pose the greatest risk to individual rights. Where they have been able to gain power themselves, instead of solving real problems they have enacted laws that certainly do intrude on the Constitutional rights of millions. For example, Arizona's anti-immigrant law, Oklahoma's invasion of the doctor/patient relationship regarding abortion, and some state denials of equal protection under the law to all.

They complain that the deficit is too large, yet said nothing when most of the deficit grew by tax cuts for the wealthy and two unfunded wars. The portion of the deficit caused by recent spending was essential to turn around this deep recession caused by, you guessed it, the mega-rich. They don't see that we can more quickly pay down the deficit if we rebuild middle America and return to fair taxes for the wealthy than if we destroy the safety nets just to keep top tax rates low. Despite ample evidence that the stimulus did work to prevent economic free fall, they call it a failure.

They want to "take back" a country that they haven't even lost. Many are proud of their faith, some even proclaiming this is a Christian nation. How is it, then, immoral for us to be taxed but perfectly moral to eliminate our social programs that fulfill the "Golden Rule"?

Middle and low-income Americans have every reason to be angry these days. They have been dealt a raw deal; an unprecedented reduction in their economic wellbeing. But some are directing their ire in the wrong direction. It's not the government, workers, immigrants, or minority group members who have harmed us. It's the banksters, the Wall Street stalkers and "free-market" capitalists.

Yet those same capitalists use their billions now to feed back to the uninformed all the talking points of the ultra right. Their purpose is have us detest the government because that is the only force that can stand up to their unbridled greed. They want us to repudiate the mission of the government to care for the least among us just so they can avoid their fair share in taxes. And their vision for America's future is...what? Future? What's that? If it's beyond their next quarterly earnings, it doesn't matter.

Commentary: The only currency of value in a free society is truth, everything else is harmful.
The New American Tea party would have you believe that their skewed version of the original Boston Tea Party represents a valid, if not, thinly disguised argument for their fascist philosophy. They would do away our individual rights, while giving corporations sway over us by their predominant economic philosophy of globalization Taxation is a red herring. If their reading of history is wrong then the all of the philosophies—based on that misreading—they espouse are flawed and therefore suspect.