Drop the I-Word?

There is a new campaign to dump the use of the term 'Illegal Immigrant' or 'Illegal Alien.'  Drop the I-Word (i.e. Illegal) proposes that such is a racial slur.  Here's an introductory bit on the webpage:

Drop the I-Word is a public education campaign powered by immigrants and diverse communities across the country that value human dignity and are working to eradicate the dehumanizing slur "illegals" from everyday use and public discourse. The i-word opens the door to racial profiling and violence and prevents truthful, respectful debate on immigration. No human being is "illegal."

I don't follow how calling someone who broke the immigration law an illegal immigrant is untruthful.  Failing to point that out is a lie of omission.  How about calling them criminal immigrants?  No, we reserve that for the ones who commit additional crimes.  How about going with unlawful immigrant?  Feel better now?

The group doesn't seem interested in changing the immigration laws, just changing the language.  Illegal, though true, gets to the heart of the matter instantly.  It is hard to have sympathy for criminals.  It is much easier to be sympathetic to undocumented immigrants, unauthorized immigrants (I love that one), or NAFTA Refugees.  More word games.  Much like how government now invests tax dollars rather than spend them.  The truth is uncomfortable so let's disguise it with less direct language.

The racial slur makes no sense either.  On the webpage, they have pictures of Asians, blacks, and Hispanics.  Is it a slur against all of them.  No, the page itself seeks to dodge the issue that the vast majority of illegals... unauthorized immigrants are Hispanic.  And the majority of those are Mexican.  The page doesn't spell that out but everyone knows that is the race to be profiled.

Changing the language influences the outcome of the debate.  That is the point here.  The anti-abortion movement calls itself Pro-Life for a reason.  Pro-Choice sounds a heck of a lot better than pro-abortion.  A well-chosen label can obscure the truth, and the truth is that NAFTA refugees broke US Law to get into the country.  Not only are they undocumented, they are here illegally.

Sell the Postal Service

There have been commercials lately that hype the US Postal Service.  One says that many small businesses count on the Postal Service to stay competitive.  Another declares that many people rely on the Postal Service to deliver prescription drugs.  And then there is talk of how many jobs would be lost if USPS is downsized.

The USPS has the great misfortune of being semi-private. It operates on the money it raises through stamps and postage but is subject to oversight by Congress. The Senate is strongly opposed to closing Post Offices to resolve the daily $25 million shortfall. Thus, it can't raise rates to cover the gap nor can it cut costs. This is what happens when government tries to run a business.

The market is speaking.  The US Postal Service is outdated.  If not for the fact that it is illegal to compete with the USPS, it would have gone bust years ago.  FedEx, UPS, and others would be glad to deliver the mail but federal law prevents them.  Though the Constitution does allow for the federal government to maintain a postal service, it doesn't require it to be a monopoly.  Competition will either make the USPS more efficient or drive it out of business, either of which will be good for the consumer.

Every private company seeks to get consumers to buy its goods but must compete for market share.  Hewlett Packard and Dell don't raise prices and lower quality to convince consumers to buy their computers.  No, they constantly seek ways to lower prices while improving quality.  Whichever one better achieves that goal will win more market share.  That's competition.  When there isn't competition, prices rise and quality suffers because the consumer has no other option.  Monopoly is bad and USPS is a monopoly.  Of course, so it public education but that's a blog for another day.

I would suggest that the government sell the USPS.  It would bring in some revenue that could go toward the ballooning debt.  Whomever takes over won't be getting the tax subsidies that currently exist, so tax receipts may rise.  Yes, privatization is the solution.

Respecting the Constitution

This is a reprint from my old blog, first posted 6 years ago.

In the 19th Century, the Temperance Movement gained considerable steam and worked its way through America.  The goal was to end the evils of drunkenness by banning alcohol.  After more than a century of effort, the various Temperance groups achieved great successes in towns, cities, counties, and even states but there was still work to be done.  It was time to go national.  However, there was a problem.  The Constitution offered no authority for the Federal government to outlaw or restrict alcohol; that was a state-issue.

The Temperance folks were not to be denied.  There was a way around that pesky problem and it was provided by Article V of the Constitution.  They could amend the Constitution.  The 18th Amendment was proposed in the summer of 1917 and ratified less than 2 years later.  Starting in 1919, the US government had the authority to restrict alcohol and Prohibition commenced.  Though alcohol consumption in the US was dramatically reduced (by roughly two-thirds if I recall correctly), the resulting crime of bootleggers – especially violence like the St. Valentine’s Day massacre – was viewed as an unacceptable price.  Thus, the 21st Amendment was ratified and the alcohol flowed again in 1933.

You might ask, "What's your point, Dave?"  The point is that in order for the Federal government to outlaw a substance - alcohol - it was necessary to amend the Constitution.  This all happened in the days prior to rampant judicial activism so the Constitution wasn't a "Living Document" yet.  So, my question is this: on what basis does the Federal government outlaw any other substance?  I find no amendments granting the Federal government the authority to ban marijuana, cocaine, or anything else.  Where did they get this new found power that required an amendment for alcohol?

The purpose of the Constitution was to limit the authority of the Federal government.  The Founders had experience with an overbearing monarch and didn't want a repeat performance.  They wrote the Constitution to give the Federal government a limited role, mostly with regard to foreign policy and interaction among the states.  In our era, we have forgotten this.  Government has stuck its fingers in pies where it has no Constitutional authority to do so.  However, since most people are ignorant of the Constitution, there are few who seek to hold government to account.

From my reading of the Constitution, I can find no authority for Social Security, Medicare, Education, Drugs, Media (e.g. NPR, PBS), et al.  Whenever I make this point, it is inevitable that the ‘General Welfare’ clause is cited as a catchall.  Well, let's see what James Madison, Father of the Constitution, thought of General Welfare: 

With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

It appears that James Madison is on my side of this argument.  The Temperance Movement respected the Constitution and made the effort to amend the document.  Now, we no longer respect the document and just amend it on the fly through judicial rulings.  It is clear that we have drifted from the belief that the Constitution was meant to limit government.  Today, the government does many things that the Framers never intended and the document doesn't condone except when read by activist judges and elected officials who neglect their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Federalism makes more Happy Citizens

I have many times argued that most domestic governing should be done at the state level rather than the federal level.  Some say it is better to do it at the federal level on the basis of efficiency and uniformity but that is exactly why it shouldn’t be done at that level.  Federalism allows good ideas to spread and bad ones to be abandoned since it is easy to compare results of policies from state to state.  A federal policy can be compared with nothing.  Opponents can forever argue it was bad policy but provide no solid proof while proponents can claim the policy is excellent without fear of contradictory results.

For simplicity, let us consider the United States of Alpha & Beta.  There are only two states, each of which has a population of 1 million.  70% of the population of Alpha is in favor of banning English Muffins.  Beta only has 35% of its population favoring such a ban.  Senator Able of the great state of Alpha proposes legislation to ban English Muffins.  700 thousand people from Alpha are for it while 350 thousand from Beta are in favor.  That makes a narrow majority of 1 million 50 thousand vs. 950 thousand.  The bill passes and the President signs it into law.  The result is that almost half the nation is unhappy with the English Muffin ban.

Let us try that again on a state level.  Assemblyman Anderson proposes a state ban on English Muffins in Alpha.  The populace is overwhelmingly in favor and the bill is soon signed into law by the governor.  Now, 700 thousand citizens of Alpha are pleased with the ban while 650 thousand citizens of Beta can continue to eat English Muffins.  Thus, 1 million 350 thousand citizens are happy.  And those who feel strongly one way or the other on the ban have someplace more to their liking.  This is a very important factor.  If Alpha discovers that a large number of its citizens flee to Beta on account of the muffin policy, the state might consider a repeal of the ban.

The states are meant to be laboratories.  A federal policy that covers all states makes such impossible.  Even if a federal policy was a truly brilliant and wonderful idea, the states would have adopted it one by one as they saw great results in neighboring states.  However, bad or wasteful national policies (e.g. the Mohair Subsidy) are unlikely to be repealed.  Or, to take a recent example, Obamacare is opposed by 26 states.  Why not let each of those 24 not opposed adopt a healthcare system rather than inflict an untested national solution on all 50.  If one of those 24 achieves brilliance, the other states can follow its success.  If the results are disastrous, the other 26 might be vindicated in their opposition.

A policy that might please most New Yorkers could infuriate a majority of Texans or vice versa.  Gambling is legal in some states and not in others.  Even prostitution is legal in one state but the others have not found it worth emulating.  Massachusetts has a healthcare law which has not been sufficiently successful to win converts from other states.  Therefore, is it not best for each state to see to its own populace and the federal government to concern itself merely with comity among the states?  That was the intent of the constitution.

The Debt

Several family members have pointed out that I used to hold that the debt didn’t matter. They also point out I was saying this as recently as George W. Bush’s presidency. Was it because a Democrat was president that I now had a problem with the debt? Let’s ponder the history of US Debt.

During the Clinton administration, the Debt to GDP ratio fell from 65% to 56%.

During the Bush administration, the ratio climbed above 70% for the first time since the 50s.

During the Obama administration, it has broken 100% for the first time since WWII.

During WWII, the driver of our debt was fighting a world war. In 1941, the debt ratio stood at 45% and rocketed to 122% by 1946. However, when the war ended, government spending plummeted. By 1956, the debt ratio was down to 62%.

Entitlements are the driver of our debt today. Unlike WWII, they have no end date. There will be no post-war government shrinking as we saw in the 1940s.

Certain levels of debt are not a problem and for most of my life, the debt was within reasonable limits. That is no longer the case. Between Bush and Obama, we have added $10 trillion to our debt in just over a decade. I thought Bush was a big spender and Obama has outspent him in less than half the time. The debt is wildly out of control and is now cause for alarm, maybe even panic. Regardless of who wins this year’s presidential election, I will still have a problem with the debt. Until it is on a downward glide path, we should all be concerned.

Obamacare and the 17th Amendment

When the Constitution was written, the Founders decided to have a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives was to be the People’s House, the number of members determined by population. The Senate was to give equal representation to each state, thus every state received 2 senators.

Senators were selected by the state legislatures, making them wholly answerable to those same legislatures for re-election. State legislators took a dim view of Senators transferring power from the state (them) to the federal government (someone else in a distant capitol). The 17th Amendment to the Constitution upended that balance. The Senate became a second People’s House with fewer members and a lower turnover rate. The state governments now had no representation in the federal government.

That brings us to Obamacare. Currently, 26 states are suing the federal government over a variety of issues with the health care overhaul and have requested the Supreme Court to overturn it. Those 26 states have 52 senators, not only more than the 40 needed to stop legislation but a majority of the senate. And yet Obamacare passed with 60 votes. Prior to 17th Amendment, the health care overhaul could not have passed with so much opposition from the state governments.

Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, there has been a steady transfer of power from the states to the federal government. Oddly enough, senators owe no allegiance to the governor or legislators of their state. It is a hard sell to say ‘I prevented the federal government from taking power from our great state and will continue to gum up the federal works if re-elected.’ It is much easier to say ‘I brought billions of federal dollars to our state and I’ll bring back even more if re-elected.’

Few things would do more to restore federalism and representative republicanism than to repeal the 17th Amendment. The federal government would have a much tougher time inflicting unfunded mandates on the states; there are more than 150 such mandates.

SpaceX to the International Space Station

SpaceX, the private space transport company, is going to the space station. Having won a contract from NASA to resupply the space station, SpaceX is sending an unmanned Dragon spacecraft on its first mission to do so. In December of 2010, the Dragon was successfully launched into orbit and returned to earth. This time, if all goes well, it will dock with the space station and deliver food and equipment. In the near future, it could become a competitor to the Russian Soyuz capsule that now has a monopoly on ferrying astronauts to and from the space station. America might get back in space, thanks to a private firm. The SpaceX website is great fun for the space enthusiast.

http://www.spacex.com/

The Dragon is an impressive craft, designed to transport up to 7 astronauts. It also has integrated rockets that can bring it to a safe landing in case of emergency, an improvement over the Launch Escape System of Apollo. It is strange to see a return to capsules after decades of shuttle launches. However, the capsule is both cheaper and safer, which might provide for a more robust space program at much lower cost. Let us hope.

All of the Above Energy Policy?

President Obama has said that his energy plan is an all of the above strategy. That sounds like a great strategy. We need energy and getting it from whatever sources are available is just what the economy ordered. But some of his policies seem to contradict his words. Let’s look at a few options for energy creation:

Coal: The Environmental Protection Agency has, thanks to the Supreme Court, been given the authority to regulate Carbon Dioxide. Therefore, the EPA ruled that new coal-burning plants must produce 43% less C02 than current plants. That’s quite a hurdle. Keep in mind that as the Chief Executive, President Obama has considerable authority over EPA but seems entirely content with stifling coal plants. As of 2008, Coal accounted for 51% of electrical power generation in the US.

Nuclear: Obama is supportive of nuclear energy. For the first time in more than 3 decades, permits have been approved for the building of nuclear power plants. In 2008, nuclear accounted for 21% of electrical power.

Natural Gas: Obama is supportive of natural gas, having recently issued an executive order to stream-line the various agencies that oversee its production. Hydraulic Fracturing – commonly known as Fracking – has had a dramatic impact on the production of natural gas such that the price is falling as more and more natural gas comes to market. In 2008, natural gas accounted for 17% of electrical power and 2% of transportation.

Oil: Obama is opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR is the size of South Carolina and the area that would be developed for drilling would require a little more than 3 square miles, 2000 acres out of 19 million. Still, the answer is no. Can’t drill. Then there is the moratorium on off shore drilling virtually anywhere, most notably the Gulf of Mexico since the BP spill. Obama nixed the XL Pipeline that would take Canadian Oil to the gulf coast of Texas. Moreover, though drilling in the US is up, permits on federal lands – where Obama has a say – are down by a third. In Colorado, where oil shale is plentiful, the Bureau of Land Management is hindering efforts to exploit them. If all that isn’t bad enough, Obama has regularly attacked oil companies and threatened windfall profit taxes and revocation of tax write-offs that all companies get. Taken together, this indicates Obama is hostile to oil. As of 2008, Oil accounted for 95% of the transportation energy needs.

Solar: Obama is extremely supportive of solar energy, having made billions of dollars in loan guarantees to a variety of solar companies. Solar accounted for 0.02% of electrical power in 2010, about a hundredth of what wind generated.

Fossil fuels (oil, coal, and gas) supplied 70% of US energy needs in 2010. Nuclear accounted for another 19%. The beloved renewable energies only managed 10%, and hydroelectric was 60% of that with wind turbines a distant second. Burning wood produced more energy than solar. Like it or not, fossil fuels power this economy and will for decades to come.

Though Obama may say all of the above, it is clear by the actions of his administration that he does not mean all of the above. He claims he wants to free us from our reliance on foreign oil but is extremely hostile to domestic production of oil. Switching from a fossil fuel economy is unrealistic so, when the economy finally takes off, look for oil imports to skyrocket and thus make us more dependent on foreign oil.

Government does not Invest

President Obama just loves to invest your money. He has invested your money in green energy (Solyndra). He has invested in GM & Chrysler. He has invested in infrastructure. He wants to invest more in education. If half of these investments pay off, maybe the government will be able to support itself through the returns rather than by taxing us. No? We'll still get taxed? He even wants to raise taxes on the best investors (e.g. Warren Buffet). If he needs more money despite his investments, it doesn't sound like he's making good investments. Perhaps he has a different definition of investment.

It turns out that spending is a very unpopular term when used by politians. Much as the word liberal has become an epithet and thus been replaced by progressive, investment has taken the place of spending. This is just a word game. When I invest my money, I expect to see a return. I want to get the pricipal back and a tidy return as well. When government invests, it has no expectation of seeing that principal again. That's spent money, never to be seen again. Nor does the government expect any return except for a nebulous and undefinable improvement in the economy. Even that is just a cover story. The real expectation is that the voters who got the money will re-elect the politicians who gave it to them. That's more like bribery. It is certainly not an investment as most would use the term.

When President Obama uses the word investment, it sounds more responsible and prudent than if he used the word spend. President Obama really is just spending your money - at an alarming rate - but it is much more reassuring when he tells you it's an investment.

The Buffet Rule

The president has become a broken record about the Buffet Rule. Used to be that he claimed Warren Buffet wanted to pay more taxes than his secretary. Now Obama tells us that Ronald Reagan would be on his side in this. I rather doubt that. There was talk of this as a deficit-reduction measure but then someone ran the numbers. The rule would - provided the targets didn't modify their behavior once the tax was passed - raise $47 billion over the next ten years.

Quick math: $47 billion divide by 10 years = $4.7 billion a year. The deficit is somewhere north of $1 trillion dollars, making this less than 0.5% of the deficit. $1.3 trillion becomes $1.295 trillion. Yeah, that's much better. The government is currently spending $3.5 trillion a year. A 0.5% cut (1 penny out of every $2) across the board would reduce the deficit by $17 billion a year, more than triple the impact of the Buffet Rule. Sounds like the Buffet Rule is an election year gimmick that will have no real impact but certainly fuels a class war.

Gimmicky tax increases will not resolve our fiscal problems. However, they might help Obama get re-elected. It serves as yet another distraction from the sputtering economy. There will be no end to the distractions because Obama cannot run on the state of the economy.

The War on Women

There is much talk of the Republican War on Women. When was this war declared? How did it come about? What kind of idiot politician declares war on half of his potential voters?

As part of the evolving healthcare law, the Obama administration announced that religious institutions would be required to offer birth control in the health insurance plans they offered. This, of course, is in direct opposition to the beliefs of these institutions. The government was saying that they must sin against their religion or be in violation of the law. This is clearly stepping on the First Amendment 'free exercise' provision. Unsurprisingly, the religious institutions complained. Republicans came out in defense of religious freedom.

Now the spin. Democrats cry out that Republicans have declared a war on women's reproductive rights. Republicans want to deny women contraception. Sandra Fluke testifies that her friends at a Catholic college are going broke trying to pay contraceptive bills. To make the story fly better, the administration provides for an 'accommodation' in which the insurance companies are required to provide contraception coverage at no cost.

It is a clever move. Suddenly, religious liberty is forgotten and now all the reports are about Republicans against contraception. It isn't true but it plays well in the press. The Obama administration started the conflict and then spun it after the fact to make it seem that it is on defense from a Republican attack. A cooperative media makes that possible.

The status of women and contraception would not change one bit with the Republican policy. They are standing for no change. It is Obama that wants change and his change is to deny religious freedom. The accommodation is a trick. Insurance companies can't supply anything for free so they will raise rates on all policies to pay for this 'freebie.' So, the religious institutions are still paying, it just doesn't show up on the bill.

Augusta: The Latest Distraction

How is it that a club that has a membership of 300 has become a national issue? Both Obama and Romney are going to waste time talking about who a private club should allow to join? Hey, how about the deficit? How about the failure of Congress to pass a budget in 3 years? Maybe we could discuss employment. Or Iran’s nuclear program. No, instead we’re going to discuss a golf course and who gets to play the links. Good grief. The whole point of this is to distract from the real issues, such as those I mentioned. Also, it has the benefit of fitting into Obama’s War on Women narrative.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Augusta sees the error of its ways and starts allowing women as members. And let us even suppose that half of the memberships become available in the next 4 years. How many people benefit? Well, that would be 150 women, all of whom will be among the vilified richest One Percenters. This is what the leader of the free world wants to accomplish?

On a related note, the First Amendment says, among other things, that Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble. This is often referred to as the Freedom of Association. The government has no business telling private individuals with whom they must associate. This right became a casualty of the Civil Rights Movement.

Romney is the Nominee

It is painfully obvious to all that, barring some titanic gaffe, Romney is going to be the nominee. Even a titanic gaffe could do no worse than result in an open convention that would probably still select Romney. That said, it is time for Santorum to drop out. He cannot win the nomination and it is extremely unlikely he can deny the nomination to Romney by collecting enough delegates. At this point, Santorum can only diminish himself, which he has already started to do. He's managed to rehabilitate himself from his disastrous loss in 2006 and should quit rather than risk a loss in Pennsylvania again. He is positioned to be the frontrunner in 2016 much as Romney's successes in 2008 made him the current frontrunner.

Newt was out weeks ago but has refused to recognize it. However, he has no illusions that he might get another chance so he doesn't have the same calculus as Santorum. His political career is at an end so when he suspends his campaign that will be it. What bargaining power he had to suspend his campaign is gone so he can't even benefit from bowing out. But it was fun while it lasted.

Ron Paul is going to the convention. Though he has the fewest delegates, he has some of the staunchest supporters and, unlike Santorum or Gingrich, he could take them with him on a Quixotic third party run. Romney will have to show Paul some deference. Yes, despite his consistent 4th place showing, he has serious pull. Agian, I love Paul's domestic policies but think his foreign policies are naive.

I've mostly reconciled myself to Romney. If necessary, he will make the effort to repeal Obamacare - though he will fail unless the Republicans get a 60 seat majority in the Senate. I'm certain he will reduce the deficit; he has been a proponent of Paul Ryan's budget. He is far from my ideal candidate but a vast improvement over what I've currently got.

Judicial Activism

Yesterday, the President said it would be an 'unprecedented' case of judicial activism if the Supreme Court were to strike down the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. There are a couple of problems here. First, the court regularly strikes down laws passed by Congress, so there is nothing unprecedented. Second, he and I differ on the definition of judicial activism.

Judicial activism is when the court legislates from the bench. For instance, a judge in Missouri ruled that taxes would be raised and how the money would be spent for a Kansas City school district. That was activism. In Roe v. Wade, the court not only struck down a Texas law but wrote a new abortion law in its ruling for the country which stands to this day. On the other hand, if the court simply strikes down a law, that is not activism. If Congress passed a law and the President signed it that all Americans must wear green clothes, would it be activism for the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional? Obviously not. Now, if the court struck it down and said all Americans must instead wear blue, that would be activism. Laws created by the court is activism.

This also gets to the issue of whether the whole law should be tossed or just the mandate. If one were to toss only part of the law, then the court is engaging in a degree of activism. How? Well, the remaining parts would constitute a law that Congress did not pass and the President did not sign. It would be a mongrel law crafted by the court, not the legislative body of the US. Consider the following sentence: "I am not a racist." The court decides to strike down 'not' but leave the rest intact: "I am a racist." Clearly not what was intended. Best to toss the whole thing and let the Congress, having been chastised for its overreach, try again.

Tax Rate doesn't Matter?

I had heard from some pundit that the tax rate didn’t matter. Regardless of what the tax rate is, the federal government collects approximately 18% of gross domestic product (GDP) in taxes. That didn’t sound right. The Laffer Curve states that beyond a certain tax rate, you start collecting LESS money. So, for instance, at a tax rate of 90% you might get a lot but at 100% you will get less since most people won’t work when their cut is zero. Though I have long accepted Laffer as axiomatic, the constant rate of returns didn’t sound right. There should be a curve, not a line. So, I decided to research this notion that the tax rate didn’t matter.

The chart shows the top marginal tax rate and the tax income as a percentage of GDP. Amazingly enough, despite a rate as high as 94% or as low as 28%, the portion of GDP collected in taxes is very consistent. But that forces a question: If high tax rates don’t bring in more money, what is the point? If government will collect 18% of GDP with a low tax rate or a high tax rate, why wouldn’t you keep it low? What is the benefit of high tax rate? It strikes me as needlessly punitive.

But what actually happens? The tax law is a protection racket. Congress writes exemptions and deductions for those who support them. If the tax rate was constant and unchanging, congress would have a harder time raising campaign cash. Also, the government wouldn’t have nearly so much power. Paul Ryan has proposed tax reform that will bring us back to a two rate system: 10% & 25%. Though our current top rate is 35% but with all the deductions in the complex tax law, the typical person in that bracket only pays 25%. People in the lower brackets generally pay 10%, so it makes sense to just simplify to those two rates which will bring in the same amount money but save millions of hours in tax filing. You can bet the tax accountants are opposed to Ryan’s plan.

On a related point, note the big jump in tax receipts from before World War II vs. Post WWII. It is no coincidence that withholding taxes were introduced during WWII. Taxpayers never saw the money and didn’t write a check to government at the end of the year. Moreover, they got a ‘Refund’ the following year. It is only through the withholding tax that the populace was tricked into carrying a heavier tax burden, a burden they carry to this very day.