tarians gave cover for politicians to dornwhat they like to do most: transfer morernmoney from the private sector to thernpublic sector.rnAs astonishing as it sounds, the idea ofrnlowering the government’s total tax takernfrom its present level is gone entirely.rnThe lost revenue from targeted taxrnbreaks for children (even that’s still up inrnthe air) will have to be made up throughrnfree increases of other fiscal gimmickryrn(e.g., shifting rates around by changingrnthe way inflation is calculated). It’s hardrnto remember that in the early 80’s, everyonernseemed to agree that taxes neededrnto be lowered.rnWhat does Capitol Hill want besidesrnhigher taxes? It wants to change therntechnique by which we are taxed. For example,rnsome people want to implementrna flat tax you can file on a postcard, erroneouslyrnsupposing that we would preferrnefficient muggings to slow extortions.rnThe Social Security tax is “simple”rnenough to file on a postage stamp, butrnhow does that improve our lives?rnMeanwhile, the postcard method willrnrequire that the charitable deduction bernrepealed at the very time when cutsrnin the welfare state (which aren’t goingrnto happen) are supposed to be replacedrnby increased private charitable giving.rnYet who can deny that repealing thisrndeduction will lead to less giving? OnlyrnRichard Armey, who says it’s his “guess”rnthat we “won’t even miss it.” Is it possiblernthat when an economist becomes arnpolitician he forgets that people makerndecisions on the margin?rnAlso repealed will be the mortgage interestrndeduction, which common sensernmight suggest would devastate the highleveragernreal estate market. But no, saysrnMr. Armey, since his tax plan—all elsernbeing equal—will cause interest rates tornfall. His economist hat is back on, butrnthis time doing what economists arernworst at: predicting a future that is contingentrnon 1,000 unknown variables.rnHe’s “confident” that homeowners andrnthe real estate industry will support beingrntaxed more.rnIf you’re suspicious of these ideas, turnrnto the idea of “replacing” the current incomerntax with the national sales tax, arnshell game of fantastic proportions. Thernidea may appeal to people who are not inrnbusiness. But let’s look at some numbersrngenerated by economist Bruce Bartlett.rnWith no exemptions, it would be 51.9rnpercent; with food exempted, it wouldrnbe 37.7 percent; exempt food andrnmedicine, and it would be 49.3 percent.rnIn the end, the national sales ta.xes wouldrnprobably have to exceed half of the purchasernprice of all goods except food.rnWho doubts that such a tax would causernnationwide economic chaos?rnThere are other problems. In the transition,rnsavings would be disgorged intornconsumption to avoid the impendingrntax. Those who have saved for retirementrnwould be taxed twice. The collectionrnof the tax would be draeonianrnand deadly for rural businesses that havernthus far escaped the long reach of thernfederal government. It’s a wonder that arnnonsocialist would even consider such arnproposal.rnThe Republican leadership of the newrn”revolutionary” Congress has probablyrnconcocted other tricks to extract morernrevenue—to be announced in glowingrnterms in think-tank press releases. Ifrnonly the Republican leadership wouldrnapply its energies to solving one actualrnproblem in this country: not a lack ofrnfederal revenue but the declining incomesrnof middle-class Americans. Arngood place to start would be to reducernthe tax take of the federal government.rnThis Congress made a contract withrnAmerica; unless taxes are reduced,rnAmerica should put a contract out onrnthe Congress.rn]effrey Tucker is director of research at thernLudwig von Mises Institute in Auburn,rnAlabama.rnRecapturing thernConstitutionrnby Stephen B. PresserrnIn a landmark five-to-four decision lastrnspring, in United States v. Lopez, thernSupreme Court announced—for thernfirst time in almost 50 years—thatrnCongress had exceeded its interstaterncommerce powers. At issue was a federalrnstatute—the Gun Free School ZonesrnAct of 1990—which forbade the carryingrnof firearms within one thousand feet of arnschool. In the majority opinion, writtenrnby Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Courtrndeclared that since the regulation ofrnschools had traditionally been a subjectrnof states, and not the federal government,rnand since there had been norndemonstration that the implicatedrnfirearms had been involved in interstaterncommerce. Congress had no jurisdictionrnover the problem. As Justice Rehnquistrnargued, for Congress to invoke the powerrnto regulate matters internal to a statern(such as the carrying of guns nearrnschools), the activity in question wouldrnhave to be “substantially related” to interstaterncommerce. Since the activity inrnthis case had nothing to do with suchrncommerce, the Court declared thatrnCongress was without the power to regulate.rnMr. Alfonso Lopez, who had bornernsuch a firearm, could not be punishedrnunder federal law.rnFor the last few decades the rule of thernfederal government has been, “If itrnmoves, regulate it!” Ever since the NewrnDeal, it has been routinely argued thatrnvirtually everything “substantially affected”rninterstate commerce, and it was thisrnreasoning that supported, for example,rnthe civil rights laws of the I960’s. Thosernacts regulated public accommodationsrnon the theory that the food they served,rnor the customers who patronized them,rnhad been involved in interstate commerce.rnFour members of the SupremernCourt were still willing to adopt suchrna theory in Lopez. The newest Justice,rnStephen Breyer, wrote in dissent for himself.rnJustice Ruth Ginsburg, Justice JohnrnPaul Stevens, and Justice David Souterrn(the four now perceived as the SupremernCourt’s “liberal” block). Breyer explainedrnthat since firearms might harmrnor interrupt education, and since the interruptionrnor harm to education mightrnresult in a threat to economic prosperity,rnand since diminished economic prosperityrnof a particular state could result inrndiminished interstate commerce, thernrequisite nexus to interstate commercernexisted, and therefore Congress had thernright to regulate firearms near schools.rnEven liberal commentators were able tornsee that Brever’s reasoning (borrowedrnfrom the argument made by the Clintonrnadministration in trying to salvage thernGun Free School Zones Act) could supportrnany congressional regulation of anyrnactivity within a state, including marriage,rnchildrearing, or any other traditionalrnpreserve of state government.rnWhat could be going on here? Tornsome observers, the Lopez decision canrn44/CHRONICLESrnrnrn