Bad laws are a much easier target. As you're aware the House passed a bill to sunset the tax code. It failed in the Senate by only one vote. Our studies show that once Americans become familiar with the FairTax that 85% of them support it. It will be no problem to get two thirds of the states to ratify it.
I'll say it again: There's no way this passes in 2/3rds of the states. I live in the Northeast and I can't imagine our state even thinking about this, even with a Republican governor. We can't even pass a budget! Our government can't find a way to keep the 200 or so pieces of spam e-mail I get a day out of my inbox, but they're somehow going to pass a constitutional amendment with little political support in this state?
Passing a law and amending the Constitution are two distinct processes with very distinct ramifications. In fact, the process of amending the Constitution only modestly includes Congress and can proceed without Congress. Article V of the Constitution indicates that there are two ways to amend the Constitution. The first method is the only one that has been utilized to date. Under this method, a Member of Congress proposes an amendment, and should two-thirds of both bodies of Congress agree to the amendment, it is considered passed and is sent to the states for action. The signature of the President is not required. Once Congress has concluded action on the amendment and it has passed, three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment for it to become law. (Ratification by the states varies and depends on state law.) There is usually a time limit for the states to ratify the amendment.
A second method for proposing and ratifying a Constitutional amendment is discussed in Article V or the Constitution; however, this method has never been used. It allows a Constitutional Convention to be called when two-thirds of the legislatures of the states so desire. That Convention can propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. Again, this method has never been employed, and there is discussion in political science circles about how a Constitutional Convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
4. Every study has shown that FairTax is more regressive than our current income tax. The supposed benefit is that everyone will pay less taxes. I honestly don't see that happening, but I'm willing to state that it is possible.
I would like to see your studies. All dynamic studies have shown the FairTax to be progressive and beneficial to the poor. Even the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) dynamic study reported a net positive result for the poor. With your education I'm sure that you understand that static studies aren't worth the effort since they don't take into account changes in the entire economy. The PWC study assumed the worst-case scenario for Rep. Tauzin's sales tax plan. PWC never studied the FairTax, which includes a rebate.
I'll have to admit that I haven't seen (or heard of) the PWC report. I'll look for a copy of it, and review it. It may be the source of another story. Thanks for the tip.
Be sure to continue to page 3 for the next part of the letter.
