What are tactics and what is strategy?

From dictionary.reference.com:

tac·tics

[tak-tiks]

noun

1.  ( usually used with a singular verb ) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.

2.  ( used with a plural verb ) the maneuvers themselves.

3.  ( used with a singular verb ) any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.

4.  ( usually used with a singular verb ) Linguistics .

a.  the patterns in which the elements of a given level or stratum in a language may combine to form larger constructions.

b.  the study and description of such patterns.

And from the same source:

strat·e·gy

[strat-i-jee]

noun, plural strat·e·gies.

1.  Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.

2.  the use or an instance of using this science or art.

3.  skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson's strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer.

4.  a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.

Using just the dictionary style reference, I would disagree with strategy item #3 example as a salesman is employing a tactic in pursuit of the strategy of a sale.  I'll use die.net to show how a prior generation examined these two words:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Tactics \Tac"tics\, n. [Gr. ?, pl., and ? (sc. ?, sing., fr. ? fit for ordering or arranging, fr. ?, ?, to put in order, to arrange: cf. F. tactique.]

1. The science and art of disposing military and naval forces in order for battle, and performing military and naval evolutions. It is divided into grand tactics, or the tactics of battles, and elementary tactics, or the tactics of instruction.

2. Hence, any system or method of procedure.

And strategy:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Strategy \Strat"e*gy\, n. [Gr. ?: cf. F. strat['e]gie. See Stratagem.]

1. The science of military command, or the science of projecting campaigns and directing great military movements; generalship.

2. The use of stratagem or artifice.

Both of these items involve planning, but their scales are very different given the problem to be addressed.  Tactical decisions are typically battlefield decisions with goals set on the battlefield as guided by overall strategy.  Thus an operation to 'take a hill' to divert the enemy and feign an attack in one place so as to distract from the main thrust is a tactical decision of the best way to carry out the larger theater tactical or theater strategic goals.  A theater of war is one that encompasses a number of areas, so that there was a European Theater of Operations in WWII as well as a Pacific Theater of Operations in that same war.  Each Theater of Operations had its own set of goals set by the Theater of Operations Strategic Objective.  Individual battles were tactical instances of utilizing force to achieve the larger set of objectives set in the Theater of Operations.  In the European Theater of Operations there was an over-arching Grand Strategy above the Theater level that required that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany be defeated. 

At the Theater Level this required a series of operations starting in Africa, to dislodge the Afrikacorps and Italian forces from there so as to remove pressure on British shipping.  For a time that was the only part of the European Theater of War that was operable for the Allies, beyond a basic defense of the UK.  To achieve the end of the Theater Strategy required Theater Tactics on the deployment of troops, their numbers, types, amounts and logistical support without which the operation would have failed and the Theater and Grand Strategy set back.  All of the subsequent battlefield tactical decisions, the stuff you see so many programs about, are all in pursuit of the larger goals.  There are different skill sets and approaches required for these different areas of operation, and one must discriminate between them so as to ascertain just what the strategy is and which tactics are suitable.

And this quote sums up the applicability of strategy and tactics as concepts to diplomacy:

All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means.
- Zhou Enlai

That is why the US State Dept. has different areas of responsibility or Theaters of responsibility to it, and what diplomats seek to gain is the advantage for their Nation by finding agreement with other Nations.  It is much, much better if everyone agrees with each other's requirements and things can be done in a peaceful manner because you lose far fewer lives and have a lower cost (perhaps even a mutual cost reduction or net benefit!) via diplomatic agreements than you get via warfare.  In the early days of warfare, when produced items and agriculture were relatively primitive, one could gain great riches by going to war and plundering one's enemies.  Today that is much less the case and mechanized warfare has a high cost to it that goes higher the more sophisticated the equipment comes.  Diplomats, then, are the first wave of troops and commanders you send overseas to see if you can find some agreement amongst Nations: they are the shock troops that employ a set of tactics that do not, typically, involve killing others.  Diplomats are servants to the Grand Strategy of the Nation State, which is set by whoever is put in charge of that stuff, but it is usually an Executive function of a Nation State (although there are exceptions like the Republic of Venice and its Council of Doges).  It is that Grand Strategy that guides the Nation State and it is executed by diplomats and by the military of a Nation that takes into account when diplomacy fails.

Diplomatic failure does not always lead to war as that is situation dependent, so that a minor faux pas with a friendly power is something to snicker at, while the same faux pas with an antagonist might lose you the diplomat, the Embassy and put the Nation State into a war without any preamble to it.  The back-up plan for the first wave of effecting a Grand Strategy is the military might of a Nation.  Failure of diplomacy is not always something a diplomat can do anything about, particularly if a belligerent Nation cuts off diplomatic ties and accepts no behind-the-scenes talks.  At that point, when diplomatic means are refused at all levels, it is the responsibility of the military to pick up the slack and begin preparing for a hostile Nation to go into an active state of hostilities.

Diplomacy is part of a spectrum of warfare and George Washington underscored that point while as President by making all diplomatic efforts part of the War Dept.  Because any minor failure, with even a modest foreign power no matter how distant, might mean disaster for the trade and survival of the young United States, the diplomats all understood the gravity of their situation by going through a military command structure run by the military.

Can mere tactics create strategy?

Yes, it can.  The best case in point is the set of tactics described between WWI and WWII by B.H. Liddel Hart in his book Strategy in which he described how mechanized warfare would work and the necessary change in Strategic approach it required not just in warfare but in the logistics behind warfare.  A series of papers between the World Wars described just how armored and mechanized mobile troop units would create a new style of warfare and that Nation States would need to adjust not only their tactics but their strategies to accommodate this new warfare.  He was not alone in this review of how mechanized mobile armor platforms would change everything about how war was fought (just as the machine gun did for World War I, though very few pre-WWI strategists recognized the importance of this tactical innovation).  World War II and the post-WWII era saw the bulk of those insights come to pass and we now live in a world where the foundational understanding of warfare is mechanized and mobile warfare in all venues of all theaters of operations.

From World War I also came a modernized reprise of chemical weapons attacks done on a large Grand Tactical scale on the Fronts during the war.  Grand Tactical is a set of arms or methodology for deployment of troops and arms that are employed across all Theaters of War.  Chemical and Biological Weapons pre-date the modern era and were used in the siege of castles and the subduing of cities going back to an era that predates riding horses into battle.  This class of weapons only gain the Weapons of Mass Destruction moniker when they can be produced on a scale large enough to turn the tide of war when an enemy has no defenses against it.  As such these tactical devices in the CW and BW areas can only meet the WMD tag when used against those without defenses, but are little different from other mass forms of arms utilizing conventional forms of attack.  Nuclear devices gain the WMD tag by destroying a mass in an instant, and that effect is a large scale one, hence weapon of mass destruction in both size, scope and effectiveness.  CW and BW arms do not meet those criteria of size, scope and effectiveness, even when all the stars are aligned for use of them.  Against the defenseless these sets of conditions are easier to meet, yes, but nature will have her way with them in the way of wind, humidity and a number of other factors that will limit or negate the use of them in a way that nuclear devices are not prone to.  Fallout is an effect of a nuclear device, not the reason you use one, thus how nature moves a cloud of radioactive fallout is secondary to the use of the device itself, while spreading chemical or bio components in a direction of the wind that is not wanted thwarts the primary intent of the weapon, itself.

This now moves us to the present and what President Obama wants, or doesn't want, in regards to Syria.  I'll take a part of a piece by Miriam Elder in BuzzFeed on 01 SEP 2013 on the topic of Strategy and what President Obama wishes to do in Syria:

“The results of this mystifying lack of preparedness have been abysmal,” he wrote, calling Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval for the strikes “constitutionally sound, but strategically appalling” and suggesting the White House find “an objectives-based strategy.”

Hof struck at what, for those who spend their time thinking about grand strategy and not domestic politics, is the heart of the matter. The administration has consistently separated the goals it hopes to achieve with a military strike — punish Assad, send a warning to similar states, restore U.S. credibility — from the objectives it hopes to achieve politically: to reach a negotiated peace in Syria with Assad no longer at the country’s helm. In terms of strategic planning, the separation of the two is almost a rookie error.

I do understand that Miriam Elder may not be up on the differences between strategy and tactics, as the middle ground of the two realms can be hazy even to those on the inside of the operational spheres in question.  However, with analysis, it is possible to separate what is strategic and what is tactical from her review.

First is the lack of preparedness cited by Frederic Hof, and that is an easy thing to designate as a tactical error.  Being unprepared to enforce a policy decision, which is a part of the overall Strategy of the United States, is a tactical error by a President.  I do agree that seeking the approval of Congress is not just sound, but a necessity so as to gain the necessary funds to supply the military for doing anything with regard to Syria.  And when a President seeks to perform offensive operations that expend logistical supplies, equipment and possibly lives, that means that Congressional approval can show support for the policy decision.

That policy decision is one that drives objectives, and here Mr. Hof states that the strategy is objectives-based.  Objectives are to be driven by strategy from policy, and when those get reversed it demonstrates that you have no policy and no strategy at work.  Thus an 'objectives-based strategy' is no strategy at all as objectives are driven out by strategy.

As seen previously tactics can drive strategy and, perforce, change objectives, but that only comes from the understanding of the change in tactics.  An 'objectives-based strategy' that does not clearly and succinctly say what the larger strategy framework is to drive out those objectives actually is, then gives the appearance of having no larger based strategy at work.

The goals as outlined are multi-fold and deserve some examination to determine if they are just goals or if they are tactical or strategic plans.

First is to 'punish Assad', presumably through military strikes.  Yet this can be achieved through non-military means like has been seen in the case of Iran, Cuba and North Korea, through diplomatic sanctions, seeking to cut off aid in the form of banking to the regime, or through other non-military means.  Indeed, even though Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, a President can go to the other CWC signatories and point out that their lack of action with regards to Saddam Hussein has now led the world into a realm where terrorists are now getting their hands on CWs via the means of civil war.  The goals given in the CWC is to prevent such spread and proliferation from happening and the CWC signatory Nations should have it pointed out to them that they have an obligation to act to their stated Foreign Policy goals that they voluntarily signed up for via diplomatic means.  A much wider array of Nations could be asked to either put up and support what they signed up for, or to walk away from the CWC saying that they cannot support it any more.  If punishing Assad and the Syrian regime is a goal, it is questionable if it is best served by any military strikes by the US without gaining the backing of a treaty group that said they wanted to curb if not end such activities. By pointing out this venue there are also other treaty venues outside of the UN to go through to 'punish Assad' through diplomatic means, and they might actually be effective and save lives, and curb the spread of CWs.  All of this can start with a simple policy statement that the US has no interest in the outcome of the civil war in Syria, but that we deplore the use of WMDs and will seek agreement amongst all those Nations with similar foreign policy goals to start achieving those ends.

When translated to a military level, then, 'punish Assad' is a tactical goal in service to a stated Strategy.  Yet, when it is a 'goal-based strategy' that is effectively saying that the goal is the only thing in the strategy and that there is no larger framework to the goal.  It is a goal in service of itself, which is not just irrational but can have long-term consequences when the aftermath of trying to reach the goal, or failing to do so, happens.  And it will happen once the goal is stated and achieved or not achieved because it has been stated as the goal of the Nation of the United States.

Second is 'send a warning to similar States'.  This can be achieved through multiple means, as well which I outlined in the first goal area: cutting off banking, seizure of accounts, cutting off US trade with such regimes, working with the CWC treaty organization of Nations... all of that done without a single shot fired by the US.  In fact that would be a much clearer warning that the US is fed up with such things than a military attack, as it would be done quickly as part of a stated foreign policy with objectives to stop the proliferation of WMDs at the Nation State level.  Of course that would take actually having that as a policy.  That can only be done by the President as he is the one who creates much of the foreign policy execution and how it is done, without having to go to Congress.

When translated into the military realm this concept of 'sending a warning to similar States' is nebulous.  There are many ways to achieve this when given a military set of conditions and not all of them deal with actually trying to destroy or eliminate the weapons themselves.  As a goal it must have a framework of what is to be achieved, and simply curbing the use of such weapons in Syria can be done by such things as destroying infrastructure, attacking shipping, or dropping lots of small arms to the civilian population with a note on each piece asking nicely if they would 'take care of this tyrant for their own safety' in a way similar to dropping Liberator pistols in occupied France during WWII to help the Underground Resistance there.  That is something that would be guided by conditions and by Congress, if there can be an actual foreign policy statement given to this 'goal' that puts it in service to some larger strategic framework.

The third goal to 'restore US credibility' means that the US has already lost credibility in this case.  That is due to the lack of having a foreign policy that can be stated as a Grand Strategy: there is no Grand Strategy at work to drive out policy and, from that, goals and instances of objectives in service to the Grand Strategy.  Without having a Grand Strategy that can be clearly and succinctly stated, this cannot be achieved.  It does not have to be a great foreign policy statement and the US has gotten away with rather short ones in its history:

- Walk softly and carry a big stick.

- Keeping the worlds worst weapons out of the hands of its worst people.

- Confronting an Evil Empire and calling it to reform.

- Carter Doctrine of Blood for Oil.

- Monroe Doctrine to keep foreign powers from the Western Hemisphere.

You don't need something fancy and convoluted to hang a foreign policy on and, in fact, the shorter and easier it is to remember the better off you are.  Each of these drove policy not only for the Administration that stated them but were an influence on future Administrations and the direction of the Nation as a whole.  The simplest way, then, to restore US credibility is to have a foreign policy that can be clearly stated as a Grand Strategy for the Administration.  That doesn't take ANY military maneuvers and can be accomplished by one man and one man only: the President of the United States.

The political objective that all of this is supposed to tie together is to reach a negotiated peace in Syria and end up with Assad out of power.  That should actually be a foreign policy objective tied to a Grand Strategy.  By trying to make it a political objective, to score 'points' by showing you can 'get something done' which has as its goal bolstering the status of the occupant of the Office.  Without having any real planning on the foreign policy or military side, the result of even achieving this objective is put in doubt as, without any pre-planning for success, others can step in to define it for themselves and actually snatch success away and for themselves.  That would be contrary to the stated objective, and is a result of a lack of any foreign policy to drive out goals and objectives which then puts the entire State Dept. and Dept. of Defense into the picture to help understand what the aftermath of such an objective is before you even attempt to achieve it.  That then creates not just a foreign policy failure but a political failure, as well, plus damages the credibility of the US still more.

In fact going through this entire procedure without a stated Grand Strategy for foreign policy damages the credibility of the US.  One way to not damage the credibility of the US is not to go through this procedure in the first place and have the President understand that some failures have a single father and that for the good of the Nation his personal credibility must be sacrificed. 

Yet he could just figure out a foreign policy Grand Strategy and avoid all this, while using the non-military options to show how that Grand Strategy will play out.

For as much as this President talks, he can't appear to say what his foreign policy Grand Strategy is.  Instead he gives us a few objectives that don't even require a military response, but that is the first thing he goes to.  And that loses him credibility far faster than choosing anything else he could choose.

No good shall ever come of that.

Gun safe selection

On previous posts I went about the process of Selecting a gun safe and then Narrowing gun safe selection, which gave my criteria for what a safe must have, should have and be nice to have.  What I wound up with is from

and is their Marksman II safe at 72" x 40" x 28" which I was able to get a few minor features added on to meet my minimum specs.  I didn't go for any of the major upgrade features for thicker steel on the exterior or interior since I knew that it would have to be on a non-concrete floor.  Home interior stair steps are rated at approx. 1200 lbs. per tread, which is not a minor consideration for safe procurement.  For the square footage the floor is rated for dead weight at 2500 lbs,

Delivery I had done by a local firm that specializes in safe moving and it took a total of three crewman and their boss along with a stair climber to get the safe into the house.  It was larger than the standard gun safes they deliver from the well known, big box companies and much heavier as well.  There was no way that a less experienced crew could get it in.  As there is no way for me to know where the major support members are for the floor under carpeting without doing some major exploratory work in the basement, I had to go with the basic measurements and knowledge of where those members are in relationship to the basement ceiling and transpose those to the main level floor.

As delivered, here it is:

This is the matte black color scheme and I asked for them to kill the gloss as much as possible for it as I don't need a spare mirror in which to comb my hair.  The exterior details are good, although the manufacturer's logo appears to be a decal, as does the pin striping.  That lock is a S&G type and it is one where you have to basically get the number dead-on with the lowest variance from it in either direction.  During delivery I, somehow, got it open the first time with ease, almost like I knew what I was doing.  Re-opening it after locking it... that was another thing, entirely.  If I had known that it would be a bit of a pain to operate I would have gone with one with a bit more slop for getting the numbers, as it is patience and concentration are necessary to get it right.  A lot of patience.  A whole lot.

Now onto the interior:

This is one of three standard configurations with the other two being all long shelves (basically a huge handgun safe or standard safe for collectibles/valuables) and a tri-divided bottom.  I was very tempted with the triple arrangement, but decided on this for various reasons, with the primary one being that I have more long guns than would fit in 1/3 of the bottom.  Also a couple of those are Mosin-Nagants at 48 1/2 long.  As you can see this is a full carpet interior that is hook & loop (i.e. Velcro) compatible, so that if you have pouches or anything else that you can get hook material on (you know the stiff fibers that grab, not the soft loop side) then you can just stick them onto the carpeting.  VaultPro uses Fossshield which is added to the fibers to help prevent mold, mildew and other organic growth on them.  A handy feature, that.  The interior is adjustable using Knape &Vogt pilaster standards and #256 supports.  The carpeting is attached to the smaller shelves using an adhesive of some sort, to the larger boards with small staples and to the interior it appears to be mostly adhesive, save for the sides which must have wood backing to support the pilasters, which appears to be the staples again.

A word on the adhesive used and this goes with any safe interior: if you are allergic to new car smell, or have any problems with the VOCs used to attach carpeting via adhesives then it would be wise to ask for a low VOC adhesive to be used.  In fact if you can get the safe manufacturer to air out the carpeting in sunlight for a week, that would be even better.  This has been the single major problem of purchasing a new safe and makes the refurb/used market very appealing as an older safe will have gone through all of that stuff within a few months after delivery when it was new.  For me the safe delivery came when I was already getting an upper respiratory tract infection and, a few days into that getting treated, I got food poisoning which has killed all of JUL 2013 and the first part of AUG 2013 for me.  Dealing with the off-gassing of the safe interior (the exterior is great, no fumes at all) has been a major hassle and has delayed getting it finally anchored and migrating equipment into it during this period.

How I've dealt with the off-gassing... first airing out the interior boards on the back deck for a week.  Fresh air and sunshine help a lot, but do nothing for the safe interior as there is no way to move that sucker so as to vent fresh air into it nor to get sunlight into it.  Because of that it has been 'better living through chemistry' time.  Oh, joy.  Oh, rapture.

After sunshine and fresh air here are products I've used to varying degrees of success:

1) Baking soda!  Get a cheap, old fashioned dusting plant sprayer... you know the type that is part bicycle pump and part hvlp paint sprayer?  The kind with the bottle by the nozzle.  Get one new, that hasn't been used for anything else and fill the bottle portion about half full with baking soda.  It is hard to get an even, fine dusting out and I would end up with major amounts coming out now and again, but I was able to get every surface covered with fine to small heaps of baking soda.  Let stand one hour and sweep up with vacuum cleaner.  It works, to a degree, and was one of my last resorts.

2) The Bad Air Sponge.  This is weird stuff but effective, at least for the stuff in the air.  Basically just open it in a room with bad odors floating around it, let stand until you start to get the smell of stuff from the container (not obnoxious and not a perfume, just chemistry) and let that react out in the air.  When its done you should have a decent smelling room again.  Repeat as necessary with longer openings for places that have really bad fumes... like my workshop.  This baby has done more to get rid of some of the old smells used in finishing woodworking than anything else I can name.  For the gun safe close it up on the inside overnight (8 hours or more) and then open the safe, close the canister and ventilate the room if possible as you now have a concentrate of that stuff in the air.  This has done wonders for the gun safe and is better than waiting a few months for the VOCs to react out, that's for sure.

3) Zero Odor – In the 8 oz. trial size.  This was the first stuff I used to just be able to access the safe and it did a good job getting rid of the stuff in the immediate air, but less of a job with the continuing off-gassing.  For that brute-force, 'must get there within the hour' deal it can't be beat.

4) Expel – Another of the 8 oz. trial size bottles and this one did a basic job of allowing me to actually get the interior out to the sunlight.  A very good job on the immediate surface gasses coming from the carpeting/adhesive and without it who knows how long it would have taken me to get this far.

Each of these products has its place in the removing VOC and other organic chemical smells from carpeting in a gun safe, and they are each role players in that effort.  The baking soda can't be completely removed from the carpeting although another go-around with the vacuum might get more of it out.  As it isn't a salt I'm less worried about it than about, say, some of the chemical moisture removers.

At this point there safe is now far enough along to actually secure it to the floor and I was nearly dead-on with one of the support beams, hitting it square with one lag bolt and just a bit off-center with another, which as put that one in a direction that will resist motion along that long axis.  The other two are in the floorboards.  Lag bolts with washers and lock washers plus a ratchet with a deep socket did the trick after drilling a small pilot hole.  The safe itself is resting across two support beams but the holes can only line up for a single one, which is what I can get without having some major work done to floor and basement ceiling.

Next comes lighting!  It is dark in that safe and you just can't imagine how bad it gets in there, even during daylight hours.  Thus I looked and looked for an all American Made lighting system or at least a lighting integrator from the US and came up with a solution at Inspired LED.  As I believe a safe should have as few holes in it as possible and should have no added features that do fun things like put live voltage inside a safe.  Yes, I do know about MTBF and equipment that shouldn't fail to a short...and those are just nice ways of saying that the odds are on your side for a few years and you guarantee you will swap out equipment that isn't fully up to snuff and before it hits MTBF... I reduced those odds to zero and got a DC battery solution.

For this I have a battery pack with two sets of 8xAA batteries in parallel along with a normally closed reed switch for the door, plus all the wires that utilize 1.3mm DC coaxial male ends between everything.  Working with Inspired LED I got a basic package together along with battery pack solution to get the safe lit up.  Now this is just a test situation to make sure everything works and to get the safe to where it could at least accept Mosin-Nagant rifles, which is that long rifle in its Browning sleeve on the right.  Because I removed one long shelf, that meant that I had down-lighting for the long gun area and a spare light that I put along the right hand interior to shine into that part of the safe.  This was about two weeks after delivery and in the midst of moving shelves to the outdoors for airing out.  I used the two spray products to allow me to work on the safe and get it this far.

That is a really snazzy lighting system, don't mind the wires drooping all over the place as it is just a test configuration.

That vast expanse of doors loop space cries out for something to make it serve as storage.  Here is where you'll find that on other safes that have things like gun racks on the door you lose some interior space to those racks.  This safe has a small amount of clearance between the door and the interior, which means you have to get creative and arrange door storage to suit the interior.  And if you ever think you might shift the interior around, a modular doors system would be ideal.

Say, I did a few write-ups about this sort of thing for packs and equipment... wouldn't it be great if someone made a huge MOLLE panel for a gun safe?  I mean I could stitch one together, maybe, over 8 or 9 months... and have it look amateur made, and probably need a new sewing machine to boot... but if someone made them...

Why it's the MOLLE Safe Panel from Wilde Built Tactical!

Geeze, isn't that handy?  And all it really needs is, say, something to hold a couple of long guns so that they would fit into the open space in the safe interior between the other guns...

Why it's the Eberlestock A4SS Tactical Weapon Carrier I picked up a couple of years ago!  Amazing!  I'm utilizing ITW GrimLoc carabiners for this, not webbing stuff.

Now on the interior is something that I rigged up out a MOLLE vehicular panel that has been sitting in the closet begging for use:

It doesn't come with hook material strips on the back, I added those from some that I picked up online and used Beacon Adhesives Fabri-Tac to put on three strips of 2" black hook to the back of the panel.  Apply in thin beads and do it outdoors because the smell of that stuff will knock out a charging rhino.  Sets quickly and the smell disappears rapidly, and within a half-hour your piece is good to go.  I can think of 1,001 uses for that and it is in what would normally be 'dead space' behind barrels of long guns.  Just look at that big pocket begging for cleaning supplies!  And after the first two rows of MOLLE you get something to put documents into, a huge pocket for that sort of thing just sitting there.  Wouldn't it be nice to have a place to put those thin repair manuals?  Look for those in surplus stores... I found that one a few years ago at one for something like $30 and now it is worth all of that and much, much more.  Plus you can always take it out and put it on the back of a car seat, like it is supposed to be used.  Geeze wouldn't that be handy for a 3-Gun event?

Mind you this is still in the interim 'see what fits before it all has to be stripped out again' phase.

Today is the first phase of doing the final install and using foliage green hook (foliage green is a good match for the gray interior) to start hiding all those unsightly wires:

This may or may not be the final arrangement.

I added in two more LED panels to the under side of the rifle upright shelves and only have a bit of dead space over the top of the half-shelves.  I might get a document drawer or two for that, or just use it for storage of manuals.  VaultPro sent me some touch-up paint for the exterior and I asked them for a strip of interior cloth to finish the top of the half-shelf support (so that you can't see the particle board used for it) and then made a couple of quick placement round covers for the bolt holes and removed those shelves.  I'll probably take some spare foam padding and put it under the long gun side.

And that is the gun safe excursion.

A few more days with The Bad Air Sponge ought to clean up the last of the VOC problems and make it something I can actually keep open for longer periods so I can get the equipment into it.

Passively implicit

The following is a cross-post from The Jacksonian Party.

When looking at the US Constitution I take a view of it as a structuralist, that is to say that the form of government is given as a structure that has a number of interlocking parts that are defined, limited and created to serve a purpose.  Structural analysis means that you take the words as they are presented in the context of the English language.  I laid this out in Structural analysis of Amendment II, and that rests on the work that I looked at earlier by Nicholas Rosencranz who laid out how the sentence structure of the English language creates the structure of government in the Subjects and Objects of the Constitution.  The lineage of the US Constitution starts with agreements outlined in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and King Alfred all the way through to Bill of Rights put in place with James II, which I went over in Roots of constitutional government.  For this article I'm going to be building off my article on Taxation via sales.

Taxation was part of the trigger for the US Revolution and it is understood that the Founders and Framers both had a view that taxation is a necessary evil to run the organ of society known as government.  As a necessary evil it must be limited so that it does not over stress the body which is society that requires the functioning of government to do the few and necessary things to allow for the individuals to be free.  With that said taxation takes many forms and the US Congress gets some particular types taxation in Art I, Sec 8, in part:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If Congress was getting the complete taxation power with this clause then there would be no need to put in Duties, Imposts and Excises, now, would there?  In fact it took an Amendment for Congress to get the income tax, and even that Amendment has been misused as it nowhere indicates that Congress may levy different taxes on different income levels.  The Progressive Income Tax requires not just the Income Tax part, but a specific exemption of the Privileges and Immunities clause and Amendment V and Due Process of Law which is to be applied equally to all citizens.  Be that as it may, later in Sec 8 is a clause that indicates what the scope of the Taxation power actually is:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Duties, Imposts and Excises are generally taxes aimed at the National level and at international trade.  Thus the regulatory or regularizing power of Congress writing law in support of Treaties or, in cases where there are no trade treaties, setting the Nation's tax policy towards importation of goods to sustain trade, thus are complementary to the Duties, Imposts and Excises previously mentioned.  That is to say there is an explicit venue given for the Taxation power that is complete for Congress for international trade modified by Treaties.  Thus even where it is a complete power it is one that has limitations via Treaty.

Next is Sec 9 where one tax power is restricted and then modified by Amendment:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

This is the first outright restriction to the Taxation power and now limiting it.  Do note that this is a passive clause and that it does not mention Congress nor does it mention any other branch or any other government.  Thus this applies to all governments and all branches of all governments in the United States.  Remember in Sec 8 there is the language 'The Congress shall have...' is an explicit grant of power and as all of Sec 8 is a single sentence with many semi-colons, all of that is covered under that.  There is no need to repeat it per line as the separate grants are broken up for clarity's sake, for readability, and to let someone catch their breath if they had to read it as a single sentence.

In Section 9 each clause is a single, stand-alone sentence, complete in and of itself.  These sentences are not started by explicit and active restrictions upon, say, Congress, but are passive and general in nature.  The Framers were more than capable of starting a sentence 'Congress shall make no law...' but these clauses do not start with that beginning.  As the Constitution is about the organization of the United States and what the role of the States shall be, when States require separate coverage they are mentioned, as in Sec 10, and I'm coming back to Sec 9, but here is the language on Taxation in 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

With 'No State shall...' we are given a definitive subject and then a set of Objects with modifiers.  It is this language that is absent in Sec 9 and without an actual Subject that is defined then the generalized Subject is being addressed to all levels of all governments.

Imposts and Duties on Imports or Exports is a linking of topics in Sec 10 and due to that linkage these powers are addressed to those objects.  That explicit language and linkage then gives proper definition to the prior Congressional power on Imposts and Duties: Imports and Exports.  If a State wants a special exemption it must go to Congress and that only for the necessary execution of inspection laws.  By making those funds go to the US Treasury this is seen as a federal power granted to Congress and is for Imports and Exports.

Now back in Sec 9 there is the final clause and one that clearly de-limits powers and it is this:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

As with the prior prohibition this one is given a passive voice and does not state 'Congress shall make no law...' nor does it start 'No State shall...' but, instead, addresses Taxation as a whole.  This is a restriction on the Taxation power, itself.  By not having either Congress or the States as the subject, as with the previous passive and standalone clause, this clause then addresses all governments in the United States.

This is an implicit restriction on taxation of goods moved from State to State on goods exported from one State to another State.  No government may do this in the United States.

Now lets flip this around into a different arena and ask: what is the form of this restriction on an international scale?

The States of the United States are seen as Sovereign entities and actually have an escape hatch from the US Constitution embedded within it in Sec 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This language also shows up later in the Constitution in Art IV:

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

In Art IV, Sec 4 the guarantee of a Republican Form of Government is to the States, which are signatories to the US Constitution after ratification by the people of that State.  The protections against having this subverted are to protect the States against Invasion and domestic Violence.  In Art I, Sec 10 there are a set of powers that a State recovers if the United States does not support this and it is the ones they agree to set aside outside of these specific causes.  When you examine that list you get the conception of the broad headings that the States recover in full upon invasion, imminent threat of Danger or having their government threatened with being overturned via non-Republican means are broad and sweeping.  These powers are what we call the Foreign Policy power and the Military power, not just the defensive Militia power which is due to all men, but the assertive and external Military power.  Also it regains all the taxation powers and the powers to build new military fortifications and equipment to guard itself.

In International Affairs a State with the full Foreign Policy, Military and Taxation power is known as an independent Nation State: a country.

Thus the States must have these powers to set aside in this agreement known as the US Constitution, as you cannot recover what you did not have to start with.  That is simple logic.

Taking the US Constitution as a TREATY DOCUMENT and examining what the form of Taxation is we then come to a conclusion of the limitation on the Taxation power that is startling due to the understanding that is underlying it.  It is the scope and form of Treaty that many who have argued on the necessity of unburdened trade have used at the International scale and has its full form seen with an organizations of States that agree to this view so as to have a coherent Nation amongst them.

What is a trade agreement that unburdens trade amongst equals and limits the power of an oversight group so that it may not burden such trade via direct taxation?

What is a trade agreement that sets up a system whereby sellers in one State that is signatory to the Treaty cannot have its goods or services taxed by a recipient State and its citizens?

What is the form of trade agreement that abolishes duties, imposts and excises save for necessary inspection and then those funds applied only to those inspections to ensure that agreed-upon legal trade is all that is going on between States?

Why this does have a modern term, doesn't it?

This is known as a FREE TRADE AGREEMENT.

Right there, in the US Constitution, powerfully stated by not being explicit, not a direct power grant, but by restricting all the governments involved, including the agreed-upon oversight body.  It is one of the most subtle and yet powerful statements on the positive value of trade between States to knit a Union together and to allow that free men when trading with other free men in States that all fall under the Treaty shall have NO TAXATION applied to that direct sale from individual to individual, State to State.

And that means no 'Value Added Tax', 'Sales Tax' or any other thing not directly related to quantity, amount or hazard of a given good.  Taxation for tonnage is also removed unless it has safety or verification inspections involved.  The federal government can tax per gallon, per carton of cigarettes, or by any other gross weight and measure so long as it involves upkeep of infrastructure due to those particular items in the way of hazard or safety.

What no government can do is tax by VALUE of the trade involved.

Thus a nickel per gallon on tax is there without regard to the actual cost per galloon.  It is there if it is a penny per gallon and it is there if it is ten thousand dollars per gallon: the quantity is what matters, not the value.  And do note that is for interstate sales, only, so that in-State sales remain the realm of the State government.

Governments will always seek new sources of revenue and tax the hell out of anything they can get their hands on and yet still be unable to balance their budgets.

A free people have an 'out' from onerous taxation: our fellow citizens in the other States under this Free Trade Agreement embedded in the US Constitution.  As a remedy to overburdening of taxes this is one of the most sublime resorts that the ordinary citizen has to escape taxes, become closer with his fellow citizens and support the Union between the States.

Because that is the realm of the Preamble of the US Constitution and note who is invoking it and what we promise to do:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Taxation via sales

Arthur B. Laffer, of the famous Laffer Curve, puts forth that e-commerce sales taxes could be used to cut income taxes in a 17 JUL 2013 USA Today article.  But this brings up the question of not only is this a smart thing to do (and there is no guarantee that governments will curb spending so as to allow for a cutting of income tax to do this) but if it is Constitutional.  In Art I, Sec. 8 is part of the answer to the Constitutional question:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That would apparently be it, right?

An interesting case sheds some light on this, and that is National Bellas Hess v. Dept. of Revenue – 386 US 752 (1967) (Source: Justia) that involved a mail order house in MO getting charged for taxes to be collected in IL by their Dept. of Revenue.  In the conclusion there was this:

Held: The Commerce Clause prohibits a State from imposing the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or by mail. Pp. 386 U. S. 756-760.

And going to the referenced section, the support for this is as follows:

National argues that the liabilities which Illinois has thus imposed violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and create an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce. These two claims are closely related. For the test whether a particular state exaction is such as to invade the exclusive authority of Congress to regulate trade between the States, and the test for a State's compliance with the requirements of due process in this area are similar. See Central R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 370 U. S. 607, 370 U. S. 621-622 (concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE BLACK). As to the former, the Court has held that

"State taxation falling on interstate commerce . . . can only be justified as designed to make such commerce bear a fair share of the cost of the local government whose protection it enjoys."

Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U. S. 249, 329 U. S. 253. See also Greyhound Lines v. Mealey, 334 U. S. 653, 334 U. S. 663; Northwestern Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U. S. 450, 358 U. S. 462. And, in determining whether a state tax falls within the confines of the Due Process Clause, the Court has said that the "simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return." Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 311 U. S. 444. See also Standard Oil Co. v. Peck, 342 U. S. 382; Ott v. Mississippi Barge Line, 336 U. S. 169, 336 U. S. 174. The same principles have been held applicable in determining the power of a State to impose the burdens of collecting use taxes upon interstate sales. Here too, the Constitution requires "some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax." Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U. S. 340, 347 U. S. 31 345; Scripto,

Page 386 U. S. 757

Inc. v. Carson, 362 U. S. 207, 362 U. S. 210-211. [Footnote 9] See also American Oil Co. v. Neill, 380 U. S. 451, 380 U. S. 458.

In applying these principles, the Court has upheld the power of a State to impose liability upon an out-of-state seller to collect a local use tax in a variety of circumstances. Where the sales were arranged by local agents in the taxing State, we have upheld such power. Felt & Tarrant Co. v. Gallagher, 306 U. S. 62; General Trading Co. v. Tax Comm'n, 322 U. S. 335. We have reached the same result where the mail order seller maintained local retail stores. Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359; Nelson v. Montgomery Ward, 312 U. S. 373. [Footnote 10] In those situations, the out-of-state seller was plainly accorded the protection and services of the taxing State. The case in this Court which represents the furthest constitutional reach to date of a State's power to deputize an out-of-state retailer as its collection agent for a use tax is Scripto, Inc. v. Carson, 362 U. S. 207. There, we held that Florida could constitutionally impose upon a Georgia seller the duty of collecting a state use tax upon the sale of goods shipped to customers in Florida. In that case, the seller had

"10 wholesalers, jobbers, or 'salesmen' conducting continuous local solicitation in Florida and forwarding the resulting orders

Page 386 U. S. 758

from that State to Atlanta for shipment of the ordered goods."

362 U.S. at 362 U. S. 211.

But the Court has never held that a State may impose the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or the United States mail. Indeed, in the Sears, Roebuck case, the Court sharply differentiated such a situation from one where the seller had local retail outlets, pointing out that "those other concerns . . . are not receiving benefits from Iowa for which it has the power to exact a price." 312 U.S. at 312 U. S. 365. And in Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U. S. 340, the Court held that Maryland could not constitutionally impose a use tax obligation upon a Delaware seller who had no retail outlets or sales solicitors in Maryland. There, the seller advertised its wares to Maryland residents through newspaper and radio advertising, in addition to mailing circulars four times a year. As a result, it made substantial sales to Maryland customers, and made deliveries to them by its own trucks and drivers.

In order to uphold the power of Illinois to impose use tax burdens on National in this case, we would have to repudiate totally the sharp distinction which these and other decisions have drawn between mail order sellers with retail outlets, solicitors, or property within a State and those who do no more than communicate with customers in the State by mail or common carrier as part of a general interstate business. But this basic distinction, which, until now, has been generally recognized by the state taxing authorities, [Footnote 11] is a valid one, and we decline to obliterate it.

Page 386 U. S. 759

We need not rest on the broad foundation of all that was said in the Miller Bros. opinion, for here there was neither local advertising nor local household deliveries, upon which the dissenters in Miller Bros. so largely relied. 347 U.S. at 347 U. S. 358. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of commercial transactions more exclusively interstate in character than the mail order transactions here involved. And if the power of Illinois to impose use tax burdens upon National were upheld, the resulting impediments upon the free conduct of its interstate business would be neither imaginary nor remote. For if Illinois can impose such burdens, so can every other State, and so, indeed, can every municipality, every school district, and every other political subdivision throughout the Nation with power to impose sales and use taxes. [Footnote 12] The many variations in rates of tax, [Footnote 13] in allowable exemptions, and in administrative and recordkeeping requirements [Footnote 14] could entangle National's interstate

Page 386 U. S. 760

business in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions with no legitimate claim to impose "a fair share of the cost of the local government."

The very purpose of the Commerce Clause was to ensure a national economy free from such unjustifiable local entanglements. Under the Constitution, this is a domain where Congress alone has the power of regulation and control. [Footnote 15]

The judgment is

Reversed.

Yes you really do need that entire section although it comes to a sweet and easy conclusion, the justification of it is important.  The SCOTUS is reversing itself within the entire thing, and invalidating a system that it held to be Constitutional at one point.  Thus the US Congress could impose a separate sales tax, not based on local sales taxes due to the undue burden trying to comprehend the vagaries of local sales taxes entails.  This rests upon the power domain of Congress in the realm of Interstate Taxes and the requirement of due process for collection.

What the SCOTUS has invalidated is the 'fair share' of taxes by local governments for the protection of commerce that the interstate commerce goes through.  You can't do that as a local or State government, and attempting to impose that from the federal level incurs the exact, same problems of domain and due process.  The power domain to capture any such taxes from direct Interstate Trade is due to the federal government alone.  And the same conditions for catalog sales are directly analogous to Internet sales: it takes place via common carrier, there is no physically present operation of the seller in the buyer's State or jurisdiction unless it is within the State, then all State laws apply, and there can be no taxation to help support coverage of the infrastructure by a State or local government.

Thus via the Constitution the Congress would be able to impose a separate sales tax, applicable only to interstate commerce which would then flow into the federal coffers.  This would put the US federal government as having an interest in the transactions involved and would allow the full power of the federal government to get information from such transactions.  The actual wisdom of that, given what the NSA, DoJ and IRS are doing at present is questionable, at best.

Now in 15 USC 10B there is Sec. 381 that looks at State net income tax for those people doing interstate commerce and stops the State from doing that.  That would be a roundabout way to get a State 'sales tax' via the interstate derived income put under the guise of an income tax, and you can't do that.  This protects those who are not incorporated and acting as individuals from getting socked by this sort of thing by the States.

Going on to Sec. 391, you come to an actual interstate sales item: electricity.  And States can't tax out of State producers of that commodity, either.

There is a problem with 15 USC, just at a glance.  There are 110 Chapters to it covering everything from Armored Car Industry Reciprocity (Ch. 85) to Sports Agent Responsibility And Trust (Ch. 104) to Pool And Spa Safety (Ch. 106) to Hobby Protection (Ch.48).  If you want to know about Interstate Horseracing, Switchblades and Global Change Research, you can find Chapters for them, too.  You would think that something like business taxation would be held under it, wouldn't you?  No that's under 26 USC, with the taxation stuff... but if you want an exemption, give-away, freebie or other such stuff then you gotta be in 15 USC, apparently.  And, yes, since everyone who tries to make an interstate sale will then have an interest in getting an exemption for this or that, you can expect 15 USC to explode in size.  It used to go to 19 Misc., but we passed that ages ago.  If Mr. Laffer thinks you can get an equal code to apply to all people without some trying to get special carve-outs, then he is living in a different dimension on a different world and one that is, apparently, altruistic in nature.

In 26 USC 1, Section 11 you can find Taxes on Corporations.

Now how do corporations get their money?  Do they find it buried under trees in their back yards?  Do they suddenly come upon oodles of cash laying on their doorstep every morning?  Or do they get it through, oh, the sales of goods and services?

Hands up if you answer anything other than sales, unless you are thinking of charities, certain non-profits with their hats out, religious institutions, or that ex-Governor of New Jersey who fleeced people and has never been charged with anything for it.

Now they can get revenue from other sources and those are covered as well:

(2) Certain personal service corporations not eligible for graduated rates

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the amount of the tax imposed by subsection (a) on the taxable income of a qualified personal service corporation (as defined in section 448(d)(2)) shall be equal to 35 percent of the taxable income.

(c) Exceptions

Subsection (a) shall not apply to a corporation subject to a tax imposed by—

(1) section 594 (relating to mutual savings banks conducting life insurance business),

(2) subchapter L (sec. 801 and following, relating to insurance companies), or

(3) subchapter M (sec. 851 and following, relating to regulated investment companies and real estate investment trusts).

Yes, that is starting to leave you with that goods and services stuff.

You can have a sales tax run by Congress or you can have a sales tax run by Congress.  If you are very, very unlucky you will get both, because, according to the US Constitution, Congress can tax you on sales and income if you are a corporation and I bet that these regulations will go down to individuals on EBay as well.

Isn't it swell that Mr. Laffer thinks that business income taxes would go down if you get a sales tax in interstate commerce?

Is there a problem with this?

Oh, yes, there is.

First – Just on the Income Tax as a proposition and I'll give you its Amendment:

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Where is a progressive income tax allowed in this?  That is to say: where is Congress allowed to treat different amount of earnings differently encapsulated in this Amendment?  It speaks to source and getting it without the old apportionment via population bit that was used up to 1919, but where does it allow Congress to put in different and graduated tax rates?  Because, you know, it doesn't, and via the prior texts all citizens are to get equal treatment under the law.  No favorites.  No scapegoats.  I'm starting to think that there is a test case in all of this.  And, via Instapundit, James Huffman seems to have an idea on this.

Secondly there is Art I, Sec. 9, in part:

[..]

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Hmmm... well that is interstate trade, now, isn't it?  And if you are trying to tax the sales of something being exported from a State, which is what interstate trade is, then no Tax or Duty may be laid upon it.  Period.  By any government.  This would include Impost Taxes, which Congress gets as well, which are normally considered for foreign trade and Excise Taxes, which are for inland trade.

As the US already had VT and NH, which had some trade with Canada but no ports to speak of, the Framers knew about the idea of inland trade and appear to have put a stop to trying to tax it by anyone.  There are fees for interstate transportation and inspections which are allowed, yes, but not a tax on the actual trade itself beyond those tolls, fees and other sorts of things necessary to ensure trade amongst the several States.  Excise taxes are commonly placed on commodities, like gasoline and its tax, which is done per gallon, not per amount of sales.  Similarly tobacco and alcohol can get an Excise Tax based on per unit or per volume distribution that is a set amount and not variable by the actual cost of the item involved.  As each of these taxes are for items by type, not by cost, and are regulated by graduation for that item (gallon, per number, or similar) and used to specific purposes for that Excise Tax that is not general revenue, they are allowable.  It is not a sales tax, as such, but one on the amount of a commodity purchased to cover the cost of its transportation, safety, or other clearly defined public problem to which it contributes.

Impost Taxes usually are put into the customs and trade realm, where a percent of the value brought into a Nation is then levied against the goods, and that levy must be paid so they can be accepted into the trade of a Nation.  This is a tax to support the overhead of government to run the Nation from foreign trade and used to be a major way the US government generated revenue before the era of Free Trade.

Third – The major sticking point is that the federal government is already collecting a form of sales tax on the total revenue of a corporation.  It is covered with that, by definition, and since Congress has made that a part of the definition of 'income' it can decide if it wants to tax total corporate income or only interstate trade sales income as a separate item.  Individuals selling to individuals, however, might suddenly find themselves with a State exemption for interstate income, but suddenly liable for a federal tax on them via this, if it isn't already considered a part of normal income.  You'll need to consult 26 USC 1 Ch.1 on that.

So would a NST be viable?  Not really, particularly the Art. I, Sec. 9 piece that specifically prohibits it from State exports.  States are prohibited from taxing them as well save for inspections and such in a part of Art I, Sec 10 that I don't use that often:

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

So no one can tax sales between the States, as such, save to count it as income for corporations.  That 'No tax or duty...' is a passive clause of the US Constitution and by not specifying who it applies to in the realm of power domains (federal or State legislative, judicial, executive) it then applies to all of them without exception.  This is not a 'Congress shall not...' sort of deal, but a full and broad prohibition that was absolutely intentional by the Framers.

Alexander Hamilton put it like this in Federalist #12:

In America, it is evident that we must a long time depend for the means of revenue chiefly on such duties. In most parts of it, excises must be confined within a narrow compass. The genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise laws. The pockets of the farmers, on the other hand, will reluctantly yield but scanty supplies, in the unwelcome shape of impositions on their houses and lands; and personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the inperceptible agency of taxes on consumption.

If these remarks have any foundation, that state of things which will best enable us to improve and extend so valuable a resource must be best adapted to our political welfare. And it cannot admit of a serious doubt, that this state of things must rest on the basis of a general Union. As far as this would be conducive to the interests of commerce, so far it must tend to the extension of the revenue to be drawn from that source. As far as it would contribute to rendering regulations for the collection of the duties more simple and efficacious, so far it must serve to answer the purposes of making the same rate of duties more productive, and of putting it into the power of the government to increase the rate without prejudice to trade.

The relative situation of these States; the number of rivers with which they are intersected, and of bays that wash there shores; the facility of communication in every direction; the affinity of language and manners; the familiar habits of intercourse; -- all these are circumstances that would conspire to render an illicit trade between them a matter of little difficulty, and would insure frequent evasions of the commercial regulations of each other. The separate States or confederacies would be necessitated by mutual jealousy to avoid the temptations to that kind of trade by the lowness of their duties. The temper of our governments, for a long time to come, would not permit those rigorous precautions by which the European nations guard the avenues into their respective countries, as well by land as by water; and which, even there, are found insufficient obstacles to the adventurous stratagems of avarice.

And then they put in the things to make it difficult to exact a price for that trade in personal property that governments will seek because their hunger knows no limits, and thus it must be limited at the start.

You want an NST?

Do you really want to let the IRS have that sort of information about who buys what and when, how much was paid and so on?  Because it will want an itemized list, you know?  Just to make sure.  And the IRS is so safe and secure, non-threatening and non-partisan, right?

In any event the Framers gave us Art I, Sec 9 to deal with the question.

We don't need another tax.

We need a smaller government that can be held accountable to the TAXPAYER.

We don't have that now.

And an NST doesn't get you there, either.

Jobs that don't go away

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.  - Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love.

I do appreciate the sentiment of the quote, but there is a problem with it, for me, in that I grew up in a socialist household and it was preached at me that an hour's work is worth an hour's work, no matter what you do.  That came from the conception of communism and collectivism that put forward a bucolic view that all work was equal and that a man should have equal results from spending a day where he fished for a couple of hours, then tended his garden, mended his clothes, shoed his horse and then went and did an hour of real work and yet would receive recompense for the entire day doing things.  Karl Marx railed against the breaking down of work into smaller processes that could be specialized and each sub-process done quickly by an individual who only had to learn one skill to work for a wage.  This is called a 'division of labor' and Marx hated it as it divorced humans from the world where they should be able to do anything they wanted and have equal recognition for that work.  As much as a number of people adore Heinlein, I hate that quote as it speaks to the division of labor and what it has allowed the world to accomplish.  It has a mistaken belief behind it that any human can turn their hand to any task and be equal in performance, results and pay.

And yet that is just not the case, is it?  You should be able to turn your hand at various things in your life, yes, but your results will vary. 

I'm a generalist, believe me on that.  Being able to turn your hand to any task requires a mindset, an attitude and an aptitude to accept failure and that failure is an indictment of lack of skill, by and large, not a lack of trying.  You don't get paid for trying, you get paid for doing.

In America, today, we have an unemployment problem and it has nothing to do about unemployment and lots to do about how our society has changed its evaluation of work.  Since the start of the Progressive Era, the one that would try to make those who went through school as unlike their parents as possible, there has been an inculcation of the meme that 'to get ahead you need a diploma' or that 'a college degree means you will make more at any job you do'.

These are lies.

I saw that directly as I took up geology in university and the US had just hit the 'oil patch': the place where geologists from the small oil companies, some with multiple degrees under their belts, were flipping burgers just to get by.  A degree, higher education as a pathway to a good job are lies.  At the same time as I was getting a degree in geology, I was putting enough course work in to nearly minor in computer science, my second early love, and that proved to be a rewarding combination.  Note that these are not areas in the 'humanities' or ones that have a racial or ethnic or gender hyphen to them: math is required.

So are labs.

The lab work is that extra credit hour that goes with the main course and without which you don't get a grade.  A putative one hour lab never lasts one hour... and it doesn't matter if they only get the room for one hour or not unless it is the strictest form of lab where you must hand in your observations and results right there at the end of one hour.  I had, exactly, one of those.  Physics, of course, show all work and hand it in as far as you can process it through because methodology means more than results: do the right method and the results should follow.  A lab for seismic prospect, however, could eat up the minimal lab time and then, as you got to keep the results to keep on working at them, you could spend untold hours after the actual lab to get results.  There, in the drilling for oil and gas realm, results matter and your methodology better be correct.  Those labs are ones where you could easily spend ten or twenty hours and be working right up to the hand-in time... and only then find out the professor didn't give out enough information at the start... yet, even for the wasted time, you learned a lot.  Ditto the chemistry labs and labs on things like sedimentation where you could get one wrong sieve in place and lose a week's worth of work that you just don't have time to go back and complete because time and gravity determines how quickly sediment settles.

You can't BS your way to lab results.  Period.  And yet lab work is just a reflection of how gathered material and information are examined, and in geology that means you get field work to do the initial gathering.  Gathering data by something other than remote sensing and actually doing 'ground truthing' can lead to jobs that take you to the middle of absolute nowhere and then involve mucking around in soils, sediment, rock, rivers and streams, and then know that the tent you brought with you is your only real form of life support and comfort.  At the end of every long, winding dirt road is something a geologist wants to look at... or at least that is the way it seemed during field camp.

What you get from the sciences, engineering, technology and machinist world is one in which your political viewpoint doesn't get results.  Results are done through procedure, process, verification and testing.  If you think just because you are of some race, gender, ethnicity or that you are 'special' in any way, shape or form: try doing some work in the fields where education only matters in getting results via proper method, not good feelings.  At the height of the insanity in the old USSR there was the actual belief... taught understanding... that Communist science was different from Capitalist science.  That what you believed would offer you an entirely different set of Natural Laws.  Scientists outside the USSR came up with a term to describe this sort of thinking (I mean that is what those in the sciences do, after all, is discriminate and define... not attempt to define and then force the world to work to the definition) which holds for the entire field of 'good feeling' above hard results via methodology:  Lysenkoism named after Trofim Lysenko.  Lysenkoism believes in predetermined results and then doing everything to prove the results, including adulterating lab results to fit the predetermined schema.  Luckily Lysenko got Stalin to believe in this process and it set Soviet genetics back by decades, which is very lucky as it set their bioweapons programs back by the same amount.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a form of Lysenkoism.  Anything that shows contrary to the predetermined belief that the globe is warming due to mankind's industrialization, like temperature readings showing that the globe has been cooling for a few decades, is thrown out in favor of the predetermined result.

Now with students graduating with tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for their higher education, we are seeing that the predetermined belief that a college education gets you a decent job... and therefore a good life... is a lie as well.  It is Lysenkoism in service of Progressivism, and when you can tell them apart, let me know, wouldya?  The result of making sons and daughters as unlike their parents as possible is the destruction of the work ethic and the understanding that there is no such thing as a bad job.  That took me awhile to understand growing up, as I also had that belief, but after temping out doing all sorts of jobs, I learned differently.  And with college graduates with hyphenated degrees, degrees in the 'humanities' that have little to do with human nature and more about political indoctrination, we now find ourselves with a decaying infrastructure and little to no appreciation of what it takes to actually have a civilized, modern world.

Mike Rowe started out with about a single seasons of Dirty Jobs to do at the Discovery Channel, and figured that would be it.  A nice program to fill up some time  after he had quit being an opera singer because, really, he was an understudy and would probably always be an understudy.  I'm sure there are films about how all you need is one Big Break of the Star Performer having laryngitis, getting a broken leg, etc. for the understudy to come forward and shine... but those are movies for Hollywood, not real life.  In real life, results matter.  Mike Rowe has a great voice for TV and his voice-over narratives on shows like Deadliest Catch, amongst many, gave him a way to feed himself while he looked for other work he could do.  Dirty Jobs let him explore that 'other' work... and then the fans kicked in for seven more seasons of the program's material.  At Profoundly Disconnected there is a graphic that sums up the decades of lies comparing the poster at the guidance counselor's office and what Mr. Rowe has learned about the world:

Photo courtesy: Profoundly Disconnected

Because of the glowing belief of the 1970's that children should be aspiring to the sheepskin and not to the factory floor, we are now at a point where the jobs of actually cleaning and maintaining our modern infrastructure is putting civilization at risk.  Our way of life depends on jobs that include: welders, pipe fitters, ditch diggers, masons, sanitation workers, and much, much more.

Julie Kantor at the HuffPo, and that is a leftist, progressive rag if they actually printed the thing, but since it is done with electrons and semi-conductors you don't get bird cage liner, was out doing her bit to help create some livable space for monkeys and ran into Mike Rowe:

Rowe with his signature baseball cap and jeans pointed out that in the '70s, colleges created a poster campaign that told us to work smarter not harder, and the campaign was spectacularly successful! Rowe also shared his view that this campaign was the worst advice ever given. Why?

Because...

Out went vocational education and skills-based learning for jobs.

In came college, college, college-bound, NCLB, college loans, and over a trillion in debt.

We shifted focus off of skills and trade and the great equalizer of our country became to get kids college bound and degreed.

We became a country where testing scores are currency and not whether a child can show up on time, a positive mental attitude, focused resume and a work ethic to become an expert in a craft or skill.

We forgot how to just make something that America could sell and many 'dirty jobs' were viewed as beneath us in our quest to work smart but not necessarily hard.

Mike and others have pointed out time and time again to us that most jobs require a two-year degree (yeah, community colleges!) or less, and technical training and certifications. Also pointed out is that many of these jobs, especially if technology or engineering are involved, can start with salaries in the late 40's and 50's. The U.S. Department of Labor shares that only 18 percent of jobs require a 4-year college degree.

"We must be prepared with the skills for America so America will be prepared," said the dynamic youth president on the podium at opening night. The event resembled a Junior Olympics or rock concert with "America Needs Me" posters abound.

I spoke to him afterwards and he would like very much to be a STEM teacher in Automotive Technologies for a few years once he finishes his two-year degree and he plans to continue his education from there.

Rowe suggests that the new motto should be to 'Work Smart and Hard.' That's a campaign we can all get behind. Whether you go to a 4-year college, or a 2-year college, or get some vocational training, know what the jobs you want requires education-wise and what jobs pay to help you map out your decisions and training. Now that's smart!

I hope you will also be touched for the very first time by SkillsUSA and groups like 4H, Girls Scouts, DECA, YearUp, Invent.org, Youthbuild, NFTE and more that teach real deal skills.

And companies... if you haven't already and your struggling to hire...

The estimates vary, but there are between 3 and 5 million dirty jobs in the US going unfilled.  These jobs impact getting construction work done, maintaining roads and bridges, replacing water mains and sewer systems, maintaining and replacing the current electrical grid... none of this is glamorous, none of this is what you would call high tech, but each and every single item in our infrastructure will not last without maintenance and repair work.

We have changed from where being a politician was a job, to one in which it is a career... and yet politicians build nothing, create nothing, and only act as parasites within the organs of the civil body.  They stick around too long with ideas that are outmoded and seek a predetermined end.  Politicians love to classify things into jobs that require government... and they can and do build edifices and those are the warning signs that we must regard, today.

As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day.

It was, however, sacked in three.

What is the amount of time it takes to go from civilized society to being uncivilized?  Three days.

We are missing hundreds of thousands... millions... of jobs by teaching a generation that they are 'special' and that everything they do is 'special' and that Big Brother Government will always take care of them when they fall down.  From our history we can see that Rome also stood on a similar precipice, where the freeman was marginalized by the slaves and freedmen who were connected to the rich, while the citizens of Rome became marginalized.  Yet the Eternal City would not fall completely, even after sacking... that would take a later invader who understood that the aqueducts allowed Rome to be the size it was, and destroyed them.  For its day that was a complex system, and yet in mere years, Rome shrunk from Imperial Capital sized to modest town by a river size.

What killed Rome wasn't the sacking, but the aqueducts being destroyed at key points.  The sacking of Rome was a mere warning sign on the road to barbarism, and yet it was not seen as such.

That is where our civilization now stands: awaiting some key failures for vital infrastructure that we have no one to deploy to repair.  We have seen the acts of barbarism but do not understand that they are symptoms of a disease, at best, not the thing, itself.

Imagine the main water system and supply of any major city not undergoing a terrorist attack, but just failing at so many points due to neglect that the entire system begins a cascade of failures that turns a major metropolitan area into something that only the surface carrying capacity of the water and ditches can support.

The Progressives grew out from Marx's ideas.

If you adore Heinlein you are looking to become a generalist.

I'm letting you know that the good skills necessary to support yourself and others aren't hard to get... Mike Rowe understands this... but you are only special when you are doing a function that is necessary to the support of civilization. 

From Gods of the Copybook Headings by Rudyard Kipling:

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

If you don't work, you die.

Plan for a job and a life, first.  Then figure out what you need to get it.

Not the other way around.

And if you have no idea what you should do... pick up some welding skills.  Carpentry.  Brick laying.  Pipefitting.  Electrician.  Plumber.

And if you can't decide, just start doing jobs and picking up skills as they come by.  For while specialization builds a civilized society and infrastructure, the generalist survives its collapse.  That collapse is always just three days away.  You can still do other things when being a specialist on the job... I heartily recommend it!  Do not let your job define you.  You must define yourself and your job is just something you do.

The skills are way cheaper than a four year degree, and won't leave you with a mountain of debt.  And you should be able to find a job in THIS ECONOMY to start your life.  Decent pay.  Debt free.  Good job.  Do you really want more out of live.

Temp out if worse comes to worse, and get a cross-section of skills: refuse nothing from cleaning out old warehouses to setting up pools on windy days to going out in the field to collect soil samples from waste dumps.

Oh, illegals aren't doing these jobs NOW and won't be doing them if they become legalized, just so you know.

'Lose the suits, grab some boots and get a Dirty Job.'

- Mike Rowe and the unofficial theme song of Dirty Jobs.