creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Walter Williams
Walter E. Williams
23 May 2012
Should Black People Tolerate This?

Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person.… Read More.

16 May 2012
Should We Obey All Laws?

Let's think about whether all acts of Congress deserve our respect and obedience. Suppose Congress enacted a … Read More.

9 May 2012
Leftist Race-baiters

MSNBC's Chris Matthews, in a recent debate with former Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, called … Read More.

Gullible Americans

Share Comment

National Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Deborah Hersman has called for states to mandate a total ban on cellphone usage while driving. She has also encouraged electronics manufacturers — via recommendations to the CTIA-The Wireless Association and the Consumer Electronics Association — to develop features that "disable the functions of portable electronic devices within reach of the driver when a vehicle is in motion." That means she wants to be able to turn off your cellphone while you're driving.

With very little evidence, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration claims that there were some 3,092 roadway fatalities last year that involved distracted drivers. Americans ought to totally reject Hersman's agenda. It's the camel's nose into the tent. Down the road, we might expect mandates against talking to passengers while driving or putting on lipstick. They may even mandate the shutdown of drive-in restaurants as a contributory factor to driver distraction through eating while driving. You say, "Come on, Williams, you're paranoid. There are already laws against distracted driving, and it would never come to that!" Let's look at some other camels' noses into tents.

During the legislative debate before enactment of the 16th Amendment, Republican President William Taft and congressional supporters argued that only the rich would ever pay federal income taxes. In fact, in 1913, only one-half of 1 percent of income earners were affected. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid 1 percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The 16th Amendment never would have been enacted had Americans not been duped into believing that only the rich would pay income taxes. It was simply a lie to exploit American gullibility and envy.

The fact of the matter is that the founders of our nation so feared the imposition of direct taxes, such as an income tax, that Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution says, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." It was not until the Abraham Lincoln administration that an income tax was imposed on Americans.

Its stated purpose was to finance the war, but it took until 1872 for it to be repealed. During the Grover Cleveland administration, Congress enacted the Income Tax Act of 1894. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1895. It took the 16th Amendment (1913) to make permanent what the founders feared.

Another camel's nose in the tent lie that's threatening the economic collapse of our country is the Medicare lie. At its beginning, in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee, along with President Lyndon Johnson, estimated that Medicare would cost an inflation-adjusted $12 billion by 1990. In 1990, Medicare topped $107 billion. That's nine times Congress' prediction. Today's Medicare tab comes to $523 billion and shows no signs of leveling off. The 2009 Medicare trustees report put the unfunded Medicare liability at $89 trillion. The 1966 Medicare cost estimate was simply a congressional and White House lie to get the American people to buy into their agenda. But not to worry; the real Medicare crisis won't hit the nation until today's beneficiaries and political supporters are dead. It's today's children who'll bear the burden of our profligacy.

But back to the proposed cellphone ban. NTSB Chairwoman Hersman said: "It's going to be very unpopular with some people. We're not here to win a popularity contest. We're here to do the right thing." C.S. Lewis warned us about people like Hersman, saying: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
Add to the list:
No kids allow in the car without duct taping their mouths and hands.
No radio allowed in the car.
Driver's mother-in-law not allowed in the car.
Blood pressure monitor required. A rise in BP shuts the car down. No more road rage!
.
I have little expectation that a cell phone ban is in our future. Too many people enjoy that convenience for it to be politically palatable to try to ban driver usage. The folks at the NTSB know that too.
One other observation: The ban on texting while driving probably does two things: 1. Reduces the number of folks texting. 2. Those who still text are much more dangerous because they now text from their laps where the cops can't see the gadget, but now they can't see the road as well as they could when they were holding the phone up at the top of the wheel.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:05 PM
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people." -Theodore Roosevelt

No administration has exploited this invisible government more than the current President.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Tom
Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:50 AM
The Nanny State is growing by leaps and bounds. After all, who knows what is best for us but those unelected experts, paid for by our taxes?

Every law or rule is a way to coerce people into behaving or believing what the current political elitist and their chosen mouthpieces determine what is for our own good.

We are told that it is always for: our safety, our health, or the children. Those three words have served the all-controlling government well the last half-century to woo us away from doing our own thinking and leaving it up to the government to take care of us.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Lanie
Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:47 AM
Re: Mark I wouldn't be too sure of that. Many states have passed laws banning the use of cell phones while driving, such as my state of Washington. You can be sure the Nanny States of liberalism have either done so or will.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Lanie
Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:49 AM
Dear Professor Williams:
Until the Pollock decision in 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court had never ruled that an income tax was a "direct tax" as that term in used in the U.S. Constitution. In Pollock, the Supreme Court ruled only that an income tax on income from property -- that is, rent income, dividend income, and interest income -- would be treated as a direct tax for purposes of the apportionment requirement. No federal court has ever ruled that a tax on compensation for labor (services rendered) is a "direct" tax in the sense used that such a tax would somehow be subject to the apportionment requirement. The Sixteenth Amendment simply overruled Pollock, by removing the requirement that had been imposed by the Court in Pollock -- that (where presented with a case on point) the courts consider the SOURCE of the income (eg., income from property versus income from services rendered) and DECIDE whether the income tax was required to be apportioned. After the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the question of whether a given income tax is "direct" or "indirect" is LEGALLY IRRELEVANT in determining whether that income tax is required to be apportioned. Stated another way: Because of the Amendment, no income tax is required to be apportioned. That's the state of the case law today (Feb. 2012).
I have never seen any credible evidence that the Founding Fathers were concerned about prohibiting the imposition of an income tax.
Pollock to the contrary notwithstanding, a "direct tax" for Constitutional purposes (that is, for purposes of the apportionment requirement) means only one of two things: (A) a head tax or capitation (eg., $100 per year per person), or (B) a tax on property by reason of its ownership (eg an ordinary property tax). Neither of those is an income tax.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Larry Williams
Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:29 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Walter E. Williams
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

24 Dec 2008 Global Warming Rope-A-Dope

17 Nov 2010 How To Control Congress

1 Dec 2010 Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly