1. Without irrefutable scientific evidence, Global Warming, and all science, remains theoretical; even though the speculators and alarmists will continue on with their rhetoric.

2. Governments do not exist to profit; they are mere managers of the general tax-revenues, and are hired to prudently use those tax-dollars to serve the general citizenry. Well, since governments do not produce anything, or exist to profit, they have to count on the citizens to support their very existence. Thus, every penny the government (overhead) spends, it takes away money from the (profitable) productive part of society. Therefore, common-sense dictates, the less you tax the producers in society, the more the producers will be able to spend on producing and hiring; and subsequently, sending even more tax-revenues to the government.

The most basic concept behind Keynesian Economics is, during times of recession, you need to prime the economic pump with revenue. Well, when the government, arrogantly, and presumptuously, uses the tax-payer’s money, and starts picking winners or losers, it creates an unbalanced, political, and unpredictable economy. When tax-revenues are evenly given back to the producers in society, the economy is starting from a zero-sum point, and the winners and losers are decided by the free-markets.

Either way, the financial pumps are primed, only the people who generate revenues for the economy, are the ones who have a motive to profit and compete. With lower taxation, more marketing and spending occurs; more hiring occurs; and the general population proposers, as a result.
–
Going back to political parties:
I wouldn’t be surprised if the two philosophies were divided almost evenly across party-lines; however, even if Democrats know tax cuts are the better solution for our economic growth, they are less likely to cross party-lines and agendas, to say that. And again, political parties exist to serve (their platforms) themselves first, and the people second.
–
And going back to repeal:
This is another reason why, it is becoming a moral-imperative to do away with The 16th Amendment, once and for all; and put in place a tax system that encourages economic growth and freedom; while funding a government based on The Constitution, and what the states, and the people, consider proper and just, in funding a federal government.

With economics in government, you have these economists in D.C. claiming that government has to solve the economic crisis by expanding credit and applying Keynesian principles of economics.  Then you have 1000s of economists who know better and say that you need less government intrusion, less taxes, and credit contraction. 

“People in Washington just cannot comprehend the fact that when they over tax the rich and businesses…”

Jackie,
I think they do comprehend… I would find it very hard to believe, top officials, in our government, do not have access to the best economists in our country.

Sadly, what me and you would think of as common-sense, they would disregard in the name of political-realities. Think about it: if they don’t perpetuate the class-warfare, and beat up on the rich, then who else can they blame when trying to push through their ill-fated, and completely, ideological, policies? This is yet, another example of partisan-politics! Instead of one party, or no parties, following one Constitution, they need to create platforms, and scapegoats, in order to push through “their agendas.”

“Mr. Elbridge Gerry expressed the concern that the Constitution as it was written would lead to a civil war because it didn’t adequately protect republicanism.”

Elbridge Gerry was truly one the good ones; an early Republican, who insisted on extra Constitutional assurances, from our new Federal Government.

Sadly, barely 4 years after ratification, the worse form of evils did emerge, and that was the inception of political parties, when Hamilton formed The Federalist Party; in response, Jefferson formed The Democrat-Republican Party, one year later. In my opinion, political parties, do represent a terrible (quasi) form of pure democracy… they are in perpetual civil war; battling over the same government; and often seeking a majority, in order to usurp the rights of their opposition. Hardly what our founders had in mind, at time of ratification. I hold Hamilton solely responsible, as he appeared to be the manipulative one who was seeking to push our new system of governance, closer and closer, to a monarchy.

As long as we have organized, political parties, I see little hope in national unity again. I wish we could all reject party affiliations, and work toward getting back to how our founders intended it to be, according to The Constitution.

–
Please also see:
Jefferson on the state of party politics

You did a fine job of explaining The 17th Amendment; but unlike you, I don’t believe the chances of repealing it, are as remote as they have been in the past… As long as I can remember, state’s rights, and state sovereignty, have not been more of a public discussion then they are today. I don’t think it would be really hard to get a Constitutional Convention to begin the process, but getting Congress to approve, may indeed, be the challenge.

Whenever I hear about repeal, and state sovereignty, most people tend to bring up The 17th Amendment… I happen to believe, The 16th Amendment, is the worse of the two evils… While The 17th is critical to putting a barrier between the people of the states, and the federal government, The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to directly tax the people’s income, from every state; consolidating these tax-revenues into the hands of a central authority, in Washington D.C. … and as we have seen, this money is being used for purposes never before imagined, and against the will of a great majority of the citizens.

I believe a new system of taxation needs to be instituted; administered at state-level; and tax-revenues, remitted to the federal government, by each state, according to the census of each state. (Taxation, directly equal to our Congressional representation)

If we could repeal The Sixteenth Amendment, do away with The IRS, and get some sort of system in place, like I described above, I believe, we could certainly regain much of our state sovereignty… while still working to repeal The 17th Amendment. If we could get both repealed, in one Constitutional Convention, that would be outstanding!

Yes, in 1913, under The Woodrow Wilson administration, The 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified, and The Federal Reserve was established. It was a Progressive dream, and a very bad year for state sovereignty. The states must have been terribly naive, or seriously misled, to ratify those two amendments.