Time: Tue Sep 23 17:18:44 1997
	by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA23169;
	Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:39:33 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:39:12 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: H.R. 2490 -- Terminate the IRC of 1986

>>> H.R. 2490
>>> I don't know how to write or add to web pages (especially on short 
>>> notice) but PLEASE get the word out about Rep. (OK) Stever Largent's bill 
>>> to *terminate* (yes, "terminate" the  IRS code.  Read the bill that I've 
>>> copied from his web page which I got from searching HOTBOT for his 
>>> "person" only.  Maybe you can get Dr. Tavel to help with this also.
>>I'll send this to you in HTML as well, minus my commentary. 
>>If you want I can post it on my Web page.
>>> H.R.2490
>>> SPONSOR: Rep Largent, (introduced 09/17/97) A bill to terminate the 
>>> Internal Revenue Code of
>>> 1986.
>>> Rep Kasich - 09/18/97 
>>> Rep Chambliss - 09/18/97 
>>> Rep Forbes - 09/18/97
>>> Rep Hilleary - 09/18/97 
>>> Rep Hoekstra - 09/18/97
>>> Rep Jones - 09/18/97 
>>> Rep Manzullo - 09/18/97
>>> Rep Packard - 09/18/97
>>> Rep Redmond - 09/18/97
>>> Rep Thornberry - 09/18/97 
>>> Rep Wamp - 09/18/97 
>>> 105th CONGRESS
>>> 1st Session                                   H.R. 2490
>>>                                IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>>> Mr. Largent introduced the following bill; which was refereed to the 
>>> Committee on Ways and Means.
>>>                                     A BILL 
>>>                     To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 
>>>      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
>>> United States of America in Congress assembled,
>>>                                           OF 1986.
>>>      No tax shall be imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
>>>               (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2001, 
>>> and;
>>Well, well, I always wondered how they would word the code termination. No
>>tax imposed? Since was does a tax imposed = a tax liability, without
>>instating or removing any reference of liability in the text of the law.
>>>               (2) in the case of any tax not imposed on the basis of a 
>>> taxable year, on any taxable event
>>> or for any period after December 31, 2001.
>>Hmm, 2001? 
>>I wonder if they calculating, or aware of, the Y2K factor.
>>>      The Congress hereby declares that any new Federal tax system should 
>>> be a simple and fair system that-- 
>>But don't they realize that the present tax is already simple and fair.
>>That's what they have been doing for the past 80 years, making a little more
>>"fairer" here, a little "simpler" there, Till, wa la, we end up with the
>>present 6000+ monstrosity we have now.
>>>      (1) applies a low rate to all Americans, 
>>Yeah, like zero.
>>>      (2) requires a supermajority of both Houses of Congress to raise
>>How about a supermajority to only use taxes to promote the general welfare,
>>you know the real general welfare, like doing for the states what they can't
>>do for themselves. I think the concept is buried in some old document called
>>the constipation... constipulation ... con... consti... something or other.
>>>      (3) provides tax relief for working Americans, 
>>You want to provide tax relief for working Americans, stay the F*** out of
>>their pockets.
>>>      (4) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax collection
>>I love this. Protects the rights of tax payers. Are they admitting that the
>>current system doesn't? If so then when has it been in their authority to
>>protect our rights? In fact they were they not created to protect rights?
>>This is an interesting admission.
>>>      (5) eliminates the bias against savings and investment, 
>>>      (6) promotes economic growth and job creation, 
>>>      (7) does not penalize marriage or families, and 
>>When has it been in their authority, constitutionally, to penalize anyone?
>>>      (8) protects the integrity of Social Security and Medicare.
>>Protects what integrity? 
>>Puleeease, that's like saying that those who created it had/have
integrity to
>>begin with. I don't want the "integrity" of social security and Medicare
>>protected, I want them gone as well. Oh well, I guess one thing at a time.
>>Don't get me wrong, if there is a chance that we can get this Bill to fly,
>>and rid ourselves of one less scourge, then I'll do what I can to get as
>>to respond to it as is possible. But I can't let this equally deceptive
>>wording, as above, go unanswered. It's a shame the real deception of the
>>whole system will never be understood, except by a few.
>>Bill Watts

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail