"The Buffet Rule" Should be Implemented by the Federal Government

My Opponents opening arguments defends three propositions and gives support for those defenses. First Government Spending Should Not be cut to the boneSecond Progressive taxation is preferable to flat taxation. Third The Buffett Rule will aid to the end of the first point. This will be a response to these propositions and their defenses. Proposition 1 & 3 – gov’t spending should not be cut to the bone and the Buffett Rule would aid to that end.To support his first point my opponent uses the general welfare clause. I would like to re-quote it because my opponent left out an essential portion from then end.Article 1 section 8 of the constitution states"The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; " – The article goes on to enumerate the specific things to which the general welfare clause applies. There are two things that are important to note. First, the use of semi colons instead of periods shows that the entirety of the section is actually one sentence. This establishes the context for the general welfare clause which is important because as HD pointed out, the clause does not establish a "Congress can do anything" precedent. In fact it specifically enumerates the things that congress CAN do, and nothing else can be extrapolated from this. To add to the 18 enumerated powers would in fact put us on a slippery slope to a “Congress can do anything” precedent. Every other argument must stop here, because even if HD can prove that the Buffett Rule can be used for some “good” these “goods” should not be within the purview of the federal gov’t and were not what the original framers intended the gov’t to do. If they had intended the federal gov’t to run schools, or offer healthcare or create a department of agriculture, it would have written it in there….they did not. The problem with the thought process is two fold. First the idea that we can take money from one class and give it to another is the same problem as with the idea of slavery. Namely that we can take one group and force them to give up the fruits of their labor for the benefit of others. Second it doesn’t help in the way it is intended. As a general rule of economics anything you subsidize you will get in surplus, and those things usually accompany a shortage of something else. An easy way to see this is food subsidies. There is an over abundance of corn, soy, wheat and sugar because of these subsidies. Because farmers are creating more of these healthier options are not as abundant as they would be absent the subsidies. This is why carrots cost more than Twinkies.However this does not stop with goods, this happens with many things. Gov’t subsidizes poor performing schools, and the number of schools that don’t perform well has increased. Gov’t subsidizes poor people through social programs and welfare and the number of poor people increases, and as a consequence, schools that perform well and rich people are in shorter supply than they would be absent those subsidies.My opponent’s other argument is that a progressive tax is fair and preferable to a flat tax. To which I say I agree. However I do not agree with how tax’s are levied now. Without arguing against the legality of income tax I will say that I don’t advocate one at all. In fact I would remove all tax’s and replace it with a consumption tax on all purchases. This would have the effect of progressively taxing the rich more than the poor. It would reduce the price of everything. The poor would be able to take home more money, and it would eliminate all tax shelters and loopholes. To close I would say that my opponent and I agree on the goodness of things like schools, however what we disagree on is the federal gov’t’s role on these “goods”. My opponent argues that if we can show that these things work in other countries then we should do them. I say, if it is not enumerated in the constitution we have no right to take other people’s money to do them and the decision should be left to the states. The federal gov’t’s roll is clear and if the reason for the Buffett Rule was to achieve one of those goals (like pay down the debt) then I would be more inclined to agree with it. But it does not, so it should not exist.