WASHINGTON - - Just to show that Congress never sleeps (except when it is in session), a group of lawmakers has banded together quietly to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
I know this because I have a source on Capitol Hill who alerts me to all major developments.
But repealing the Sixteenth Amendment will never work, I told him. Nobody wants to return to Prohibition.
"That's the Twenty-First Amendment," he said. "I am talking about the Sixteenth. Surely an educated journalist with at least a high school degree knows which the Sixteenth Amendment is."
Uh, I said. Is that the one about quartering British Soldiers under the Stamp Act?
"Not even close," he said.
Lowering the voting age to 12? Repealing the Law of Gravity?
"The Sixteenth Amendment," he said, "establishes an income tax."
And now Congress is going to get rid of it? I asked. That's great news!
"Well, Congress has not exactly taken it up," he said, "But the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Bill Archer, a Republican from Texas, announced last week that he is stepping up its efforts to repeal it."
Hooray! I said. No more income taxes!
"That's right," he said. "Instead we will have a National Sales Tax."
A what? I said.
"A National Sales Tax," he said. "That is what Archer wants to replace income taxes with."
You mean like a few pennies added on to the price of everything we buy? I said. That doesn't sound too bad.
"Well, its more than a few pennies," my source said. "The National Sales Tax that most people contemplate would start out at 23 percent."
Twenty-three percent! I said. What would that mean?
"Simply put," my source said, "the price of everything in America would rise 23 percent overnight."
And this is progress?
"Archer thinks so," he said. "He said last week that a National Sales Tax 'would unleash the domestic economy, improve the value of U.S. exports, encourage foreign companies to build more factories in the United States, and save Americans $300 billion annually in money they pay to comply with the current tax code.' "
What does that mean? I asked.
"It means that the cost of everything would go up 23 percent," he said.
But isn't that unfair? I said. I mean wealthy people would get this huge tax break, because they would no longer pay tax on their income.
"Right," he said.
But poor people would have to pay 23 percent more for everything they buy.
"Yes, but they would have their income tax eliminated, too," my source said.
But they don't have any income! I said. Or very little. So they would get hit with huge increases in the cost of the basic necessities of life, but they would get very few benefits.
"Which just goes to show you," my source said.
Show me what?
"Show you how poor people don't have lobbyists on Capitol Hill," he said.
It also occurred to me that middle class people don't get that much out of this deal. Sure, they don't have to pay income taxes. But everything they buy, like cars and houses, for instance, would go up 23 percent.
"Oh, it's a little bit worse than that," my source said.
I can hardly wait, I said.
"Yes," he said, "because by eliminating the income tax, we also eliminate tax deductions."
Which means what?
"Which means that you wouldn't get the home mortgage deduction any more," he said. "Or the deduction you get for your children. Or any other deduction."
Oh, swell, I said.
He also said that the Wall Street Journal reported recently that the groups behind this scheme are about to launch a $90 million sales campaign to sell it to the American people by means of TV commercials.
Are those commercials going to show rich people using $100 bills to light their cigars while driving in their limousines to their yachts? I said.
"Probably not," he said. "But the plan is not heartless. The poor would get a monthly 'rebate' on things like food."
A monthly rebate? You mean you would collect the sales receipts and send them to Washington each month and then wait for a rebate check? And how would you live in the mean time? With the cost of all food going up 23 percent, where would you get the money to eat until your rebate check arrived?
"The details have not been worked out yet," my source said. "But look on the bright side, we would get to eliminate the IRS."
But who would administer all these rebate checks? I asked. Wouldn't it have to be an agency very similar to the IRS?
"Yes," my friend said. "But these guys in Congress see a National Sales Tax as a good campaign commercial. Their ads could say: 'We eliminated the IRS; we eliminated the Sixteenth Amendment, we eliminated the income tax!' "
I might go for it, I said, on one condition.
"Which is?"
If they eliminated Congress, too.