The widely popular book: ” The Federalist Papers”, was written by what would be known today as the greatest thinkers of today’s America. John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and Samuel Adams created this document in hopes that it would shape the nation. But with astute observation, Alexander Hamilton’s views on taxes made Marie Antoinette’s alleged statement ” Let Them Eat Cake” seem like a verbal love tap. Although most “The Federalist” advocates are partial to the the mignons of Hamilton’s nationalistic wisdom, this historical icon truly was enamored and infatuated by the practices of corruption. In the Article titled ” Hamilton’s Financial Program” from the University of Houston’s ” Digital History“, Alexander Hamilton wanted his financial program to be followed by states like Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Virginia Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina , and Virginia took issue to this. They [ Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Virginia] had already ” paid off their debts, saw no reason why they should be taxed by the federal government to pay off the debts of other states like Massachusetts and South Carolina. Hamilton’s critics claimed that his scheme would provide enormous profits to speculators who had bought bonds from Revolutionary War veterans for as little as 10 or 15 cents on the dollar.” Alexander Hamilton, just like England had no representation for wanting Marlyand, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Virginia to pay the debt for the states such as Massachusetts and South Carolina. Hamilton’s critics had every right to question his motives. States are only responsible for themselves and their OWN well being. If a state like Maryland decides to help a state like South Carolina it only should be voluntary.
Alexander Hamilton’s tax desires didn’t stop there. It continued with Hamilton wanting to create the Bank of United States. According to ” Alexander Hamilton’s Financial Program”, Hamilton wanted it to be a replica of the Bank of England. The Bank of United States would ” collect taxes, hold government funds, and make loans to the government and borrowers.” One could infer that Hamilton’s peers [i.e. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison] thought that Hamilton’s tax policy would cause a court hearing. With great luck, a miracle came along, one decided to criticized Hamilton’s idea. According to the ” Alexander Hamilton’s Financial Program”, the article states that the one criticism was that Hamilton’s idea was “unrepublican”–it would encourage speculation and corruption. The bank was also opposed on constitutional grounds. Adopting a position known as “strict constructionism.” This was a brave criticism. The critic’s wasn’t trying to be glib, he was just being practical. Prior to the Revolutionary War, England’s correspondence with the Thirteen Colonies could be construed as “strict constructionism”. With things such as “taxation without representation”. After the Thirteen Colonies won the Revolutionary War, they [The Thirteen Colonies] did not want King George 2.0 in charge of any tax system. The ” Alexander Hamilton’s Financial Program” later on talks about how Thomas Jefferson and James Madison felt about Hamilton’s idea by stating that they,” … charged that a national bank was unconstitutional since the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to create a bank.” Although in 1791, according to ” Alexander Hamilton’s Financial Program”, the then U.S. Congress ” passed a bill creating a national bank for a term of 20 years, leaving the question of the bank’s constitutionality up to President Washington. The president reluctantly decided to sign the measure out of a conviction that a bank was necessary for the nation’s financial well-being.” Even though that the bill passed, perhaps Jefferson and Madison had a understanding that Hamilton’s ideas and intentions would re-create the type of tyranny some the Thirteen Colonist died from in battle. Hamilton had a rebuttal according to the ” Alexander Hamilton’s Financial Program”, by stating that “Congress had the power to create a bank because the Constitution granted the federal government authority to do anything “necessary and proper” to carry out its constitutional functions.” Necessary and proper in Hamilton’s idyllic universe was in which corruption was at the fingertips. What Jefferson and Madison also feared was this idea that once they were dead and years passed would the same liberty principles be withstanding. One could make judgement by saying that they were afraid that Hamilton would wreck what Jefferson and Madison were trying to build. Things didn’t need to be ” necessary and proper” they needed to be “free from tyranny”.
Alas, Hamilton was still adamant on his beliefs in regards to taxes . Within ” The Federalist Papers”, Hamilton’s essay titled “N0.30 Concerning The General Power of Taxes”, Hamilton felt that “minor objections to power of taxation considered”. Minor objection of taxes during the post revolutionary mindset of the Thirteen Colonies would unleash the tyrannical cycle all over agin. What Americans realize now is that it is incumbent and their best interest to give major objection towards any new federal tax that they feel is unjust. Hamilton desired that a federal government would decide what values would go up and what values would go down. One could infer that the problem of the government running the bank doing a borrowing/tax collecting, loan making , and government fund holding , is truly against the desires of the market. The federal government being in charge of a banking system and tax system could provide the false base assumption that the businesses/markets would not be able to run the banks. F.A. Hayek said so gallantly in his opus ” The Road to Serfdom” by stating that ” authority directing all economic activity would control not merely the part of our lives which is concerned with inferior things; it would control the allocation of the limited means for all our ends. And whoever controls all economic activity controls the means for all or ends and must therefore decide which are to be satisfied and which not. This is really the crux of the matter. Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of means for all our ends. And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower..” Hamilton desires for an all powerful government in which the central banking system isn’t liberty but more of “controlling our means to an end” and “determining which values are to be rated higher and lower”. The issue with Hamilton’s financial system was that it was way too lofty. In which the Congress would end up being the one that hurts us with their thirst for power. Economic control doesn’t put the country into a progress swing. It actually depletes the esteem of the citizens.
Alexander Hamilton’s ideology although impressive in a time when the nation only had 13 states. What we need to understand is that the word federalist has a negative connotation to it. Especially after, federalist organizations such as the IRS who in their eyes think that they are helping America when in actuality they are hurting us. Hamilton if he were alive today and he heard about an Internal Revenue Services he would’ve loved the prospect that a service would collect statewide taxes but once he found out about how the current federalist have been running the IRS program, he would be shocked to find out that those who believed in his ideology have turned against him. This betrayal happened during 2012 during the run up to the presidential election, the IRS scandal broke out in the most inappropriate time. The ” Washington Times” journalist Joseph Curl who has covered the White House for decades and politics, wrote the article called ” CURL: Obama Tells A Whopper on IRS scandal” Curl entailed accounts that the IRS was turning into Ceausescu when it came to tax groups by iterating that the IRS had “targeted conservative and tea party groups requesting tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. ” Those belonging to these groups felt violated. Once this scandal was in the public zenith many IRS staff resigned and showed their cowardice by not facing the music. This also showed how destined they were to make Obama president again that they were going to attack tax groups. If this happened with Romney, it would’ve been an eruption. With in Joseph Curl’s article ” CURL: Obama Tells A Whopper on IRS scandal” that Rep. Darrell E. Issa, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform lost it after IRS chief counsel William Wilkins failed to answer his questions properly during the IRS scandal hearing. All that Mr. Wilkins said was ” I don’t recall” over an estimated 80 times. Firing back Rep. Issa said ” Your memory consistently failed when you were asked about information you shared with the Treasury Department…your failure to recollect important aspects of the Committee’s investigation suggests either a deliberate attempt to obfuscate your involvement in this matter or gross incompetence on your part.” It is scary that when there was overwhelming evidence against Mr. Wilkins and the IRS program in its entirety that all Mr. Wilkins could say was ” I don’t recall”. This was the prediction that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had. The notion that a nationalized service would birth corruption and tyranny at large intervals. Although Alexander Hamilton is an important historical figure, with the overwhelming evidence against him, Hamilton is more a traitor to the very country he helped build.