Governor McDonnell Continues Commitment to K-12 Education Reform in FY 2015/2016 Budget

Governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell speaking at CPAC. Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

RICHMOND - Building on his commitment to ensure that every child in Virginia, regardless of their zip code, has access to a top quality education, Governor Bob McDonnell today announced that his FY 2015/2016 budget will include $582.6 million in increased funding for the biennium for K-12 and pre-kindergarten education.  Funding is increased by $268.8 million in FY2015 and $313.8 million in FY2016.  This funding includes $38.0 million in anticipated additional Lottery profits each year, for a total of $76.0 million for the biennium. 

 Speaking about the new funding for K-12 education, Governor McDonnell said, “It has been said that providing high quality schools for all children, and thus greater access to the American Dream, is the civil rights issue of our time.  We have made great strides over the last four years to ensure that all students are able to get a world class education.  This started with increasing educational opportunities through college lab schools, charter schools and virtual schools.  We then focused on raising standards for schools and teachers, reducing mandates on local school divisions, enhancing teacher quality, and worked to end social promotion by providing reading intervention for students in third grade.  This year, we established the Opportunity Educational Institution to focus on turning around chronically failing schools in Virginia.  We implemented A-F school report cards so parents can better understand how their child’s school is doing.  We provided the first pay raise in five years and strategic compensation for teachers, authorized Teach For America in the Commonwealth and reduced red tape for school divisions.  Additionally, over the last four years we have directed more money into the classroom, where instruction occurs.  We are seeing the results of our reforms.  Nearly nine out of 10 ninth graders who entered high school in the fall of 2009 earned a diploma within four years, a 7.8 percent increase since 2008.  The statewide dropout rate fell to 5.9 percent for the class of 2013, compared with 6.5 percent for the class of 2012.  And, reading skills for Virginia’s fourth graders have greatly improved, with 43 percent of fourth graders reading meeting or exceeding the National Center for Education Statistics proficiency standard – almost 10 percent more than the national average.”

 Governor McDonnell continued, “My FY 2015/2016 budget continues our commitment to education reform.  Until every child has access to the high-quality education they deserve, our work is not finished.  That is why I am proposing $582.6 million in new funding over the next biennium for K-12 education.  This amount with targeting toward instruction operations moves Virginia from 61 percent to 64 percent of all education dollars going to the classroom over the past four years – just shy of the goal of 65 percent.  The new money includes $20 million to bolster and protect the Literary Fund for school construction loans so that our schools are equipped with the tools our children need to succeed.  Recognizing that math and reading are critical building blocks to success down the road, we will also invest over $4 million to help schools not meeting accreditation requirements by providing additional math and reading specialists and other professional support.  Finally, we will provide more than $500 million over the next biennium to local school divisions.  This funding provides support for the costs associated with rebenchmarking the Standards of Quality, accounting for the growth in student enrollment and increased teacher retirement costs.”

Specific programs and initiatives supported by this funding include:

·         Direct Aid to local school divisions – $233.2 million in FY 2015 and $282.1 million in FY 2016 is provided for the increased costs of the Standards of Quality and related incentive and categorical education programs.  This amount includes support from the increased Lottery profits of $38.0 million per year.

·         Support for school construction loans - $20.0 million in general fund support is provided over the biennium to replace literary funds used for teacher retirement, which has drawn down assets in the Fund.  The freed-up Literary Fund revenues will be used for its intended purpose of school construction loans in order to support the school renovation and construction needs of school divisions.  In addition, the budget continues the 2013 initiative of $6.0 million per year in authorized debt to provide grants to pay for upgrades to security at schools.

·         Pre-kindergarten programs - $7.4 million over the biennium to continue the state’s support of pre-kindergarten programs and an additional $2.0 million to implement kindergarten readiness assessment programs.

·         Opportunity Educational Institution - $600,000 per year to staff the Institution, whose mission is to help unaccredited schools improve the education provided to its students. 

·         Math and reading specialists - $4.3 million over the biennium to help schools not meeting accreditation requirements by providing additional support for math and reading specialists, as well as professional guidance on how to improve their academic outcomes.

·         Community support - $2.8 million to expand effective and innovative programs such as Communities in Schools, PluggedinVA, GReat Aspirations Scholarship Program, Virginia Center for Excellence in Teaching, and the positive behavioral interventions and supports initiative. 

K-12 Accomplishments During McDonnell Administration

·         In 2010, Governor McDonnell’s “Opportunity to Learn” package was highlighted by measures to facilitate the expansion of high quality charter schools in the Commonwealth, and further utilize and incorporate virtual and college laboratory schools into Virginia’s public school system.

·         Building on his “Opportunity to Learn” education reform initiatives that passed the General Assembly with broad bipartisan support in 2010, Governor McDonnell continued to work to expand educational opportunities for students in every corner of the Commonwealth in 2011.  The initiatives included a proposal to implement a groundbreaking performance pay incentive pilot program that provided competitive grants for school divisions identified as hard-to-staff. The Governor also advanced legislation which established a tax credit for companies donating to nonprofit organizations that provide scholarships to help lower income students attend nonpublic schools. 

·         The governor’s 2012 “Opportunity to Learn” K-12 education reform agenda focused on raising third grade reading standards for children, increasing incentives for schools and teachers, reducing mandates on local school divisions, expanding educational options like tuition tax credits, charter schools, and virtual schools for Virginia students, and funding for critical education and training programs.

·         The game-changing “All Students” 2013 K-12 education reform agenda generated numerous successful bills and policies focusing on increasing teacher pay, improving the ability to reward good teachers and increasing accountability for poor performing teachers, establishing the Governor's Center for Excellence in Teaching and the Governor's Academies for Excellent Teaching, creating a Teacher Cabinet, bringing Teach for America to the Commonwealth, creating transparent school report cards to provide parents and educators with clear A-F grading measures, reducing red tape for local school divisions, supporting teacher innovation and staffing, guaranteed long-term support for students to achieve key learning milestones in reading and mathematics to strengthen their education, helping students stuck in chronically failing schools by creating a turnaround entity to ensure schools dramatically improve and reach accreditation, providing parents with more public school choice, and continuing to recognize that excellent teaching is key to a great education.

The governor commends House Majority Leader Kirk Cox and former Secretary of Education Jim Dyke and many other legislators and constituent groups for their leadership and hard work in improving public education in Virginia.

Related articles

• Governor McDonnell's Biennial Budget to Continue Commitment to Improving Virginia's Prisoner Re-Entry and Restoration of Rights Processes
• Governor McDonnell's Biennial Budget to Include Significant New State Funding for Fort Monroe Authority
• Governor McDonnell To Propose New Funding to Help Ongoing Efforts to Reduce Homelessness in Virginia
• Over 60% of Virginia Schools Could Potentially Benefit in Years Ahead From Change to Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit
• Virginia 4th Graders Among Nation's Best Readers
• State Board of Education Approves A-F School Grading System

FDA Pertussis Vaccine Study Shatters Illusion of Vaccine-Induced Immunity

Bordetella pertussis on Charcoal Agar - detail (Photo credit: Nathan Reading)

By Dr. Mercola

Recent vaccine research again reveals the gulf between what you’re told about vaccines—how they work and how effective they are at preventing infectious disease—versus what is truly known about naturally acquired and vaccine acquired immunity.

Nearly a century after the release of the whooping cough (B. pertussis) vaccine, mounting evidence suggests that widespread mandated use of the vaccine could potentially be doing more harm than good in the long term—in addition to having been found lacking in the effectiveness department. As reported by The Washington Post:1

“The research suggests that while the vaccine may keep people from getting sick, it doesn’t prevent them from spreading whooping cough — also known as pertussis — to others.

‘It could explain the increase in pertussis that we’re seeing in the US,’ said one of the researchers, Tod Merkel of the Food and Drug Administration...

Last year was the nation’s worst year for whooping cough in six decades— US health officials received reports of more than 48,000 cases, including 18 deaths... Some studies have concluded the newer vaccine doesn’t last as long as the old one. But the study by Merkel and his colleagues offers a new wrinkle.”

New ‘Wrinkle’ Busts Major Hole in Pro-Mandatory Vaccination Argument

The “new wrinkle” revealed in the featured FDA baboon study is that while the vaccine can cut down on serious clinical disease symptoms, it doesn’t eliminatetransmission of the disease.2 This busts a major hole in the entire argument that vaccines achieve herd immunity, which is used as justification for mandatory vaccination campaigns.

According to the Washington Post:3

“'[I]t was thought that people only spread the disease when they had coughs and other symptoms,' said Dr. Erik Hewlett, a University of Virginia whooping cough researcher who was not involved in the FDA study but has collaborated with Merkel.

Health officials have sought to protect small children by vaccinating the people who are in contact with them such as grandparents and baby sitters— a strategy called ‘cocooning.’ But that may not work as well as hoped if infected people who don’t show any symptoms can still spread it, the research suggests. ‘This is a whole new way of thinking of the problem,’ Hewlett said.”

Whooping Cough Vaccination Makes You an ‘Asymptomatic Carrier’

The study, titled: “Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model,”4 used infant baboons to test the hypothesis that "current acellular pertussis vaccines fail to prevent colonization and transmission" of B. pertussis.

The acellular pertussis vaccines that were licensed in 1996 for infants to replace reactive whole-cell pertussis vaccines contain lower levels of certain toxins (such as endotoxin) as well as purified antigens instead of all the components of whole killed B. pertussis bacteria.

The study concluded that infant baboons given Sanofi DTaP (Daptacel) vaccine at two, four, and six months of age were protected against developing outward clinical symptoms of pertussis after being exposed to B. pertussis at seven months of age, but they were still able colonize and transmit B. pertussis to other baboons.

The baboons that were vaccinated with whole cell pertussis (GlaxoSmithKline's Infanrix) also colonized B. pertussis upon exposure to B. pertussis, but they cleared the infection much faster than the acellular pertussis vaccinated baboons—in 18 days compared to 35 days.

Now, the researchers did not say that DTaP vaccine causes vaccine strain pertussis infection. B. pertussis vaccines (both whole cell DPT and acellular DTaP/Tdap) are inactivated vaccines and do not cause vaccine strain infection the way some attenuated live virus vaccines can—such as live oral polio (OPV) and varicella zoster (chickenpox) vaccines.

However, the lead author Tod Merkel did comment to the New York Times5 that when exposed to B. pertussis after recently getting vaccinated, you could be an asymptomatic carrier and infect others, saying:

“When you’re newly vaccinated, you are an asymptomatic carrier, which is good for you, but not for the population.”

Pertussis Vaccine May Not Curb Transmission of Illness

According to the researchers, acellular pertussis vaccine (Daptacel) induces high antibody titers, which is used to measure efficacy. Whole cell DPT (Infanrix) and natural B. pertussis infection also induce high antibody titers.

But, while acellular pertussis vaccinated baboons did not develop serious clinical disease symptoms—such as loss of appetite and cough—when they were directly challenged with B. pertussis (meaning exposed to the B. pertussis bacteria), they still colonized B. pertussis in their throats and were capable of transmitting the infection to other baboons.

Since acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccines are the only type of pertussis vaccines now given to American children at the ages of two, four, six and 15-18 months, as well as between the ages of four and six years and at 11-12 years, the researchers said:

"These data suggest that cocooning is unlikely to be an effective strategy to reduce the burden of pertussis in infants. However, it is important to note that our data in combination with human data show that vaccination with acellular pertussis provides excellent protection from severe pertussis.

Therefore, any short-term plan for addressing the resurgence of pertussis should include continued efforts to enhance acellular pertussis immunization. However, to protect the most vulnerable members of the population and achieve optimal herd immunity, it will be necessary to develop a vaccination strategy that effectively blocks pertussis infection and transmission."

What You Need to Know About ‘Herd Immunity’

The issue of “herd immunity” as it pertains to vaccinations is a widely misunderstood subject. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases describes vaccine-induced herd immunity (also labeled “community immunity” by public health doctors) as follows:6

“When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as ‘community immunity.’"

What many people don’t realize is that there is such a thing as natural herd immunity. The problem is that public health officialsassume that vaccines will work the same way. However, vaccines do not confer the same kind of immunity as experiencing and recovering from the natural disease.

The science clearly shows that there's a big difference between naturally acquired herd immunity and vaccine-acquired herd immunity, even as scientific knowledge about the biological mechanisms involved in naturally acquired and vaccine acquired immunity is incomplete. These facts are usually ignored because to openly acknowledge them opens the door to some very unwelcome questions about the overall effectiveness of mandatory vaccination programs.

Vaccines are designed to trick your body's immune system into producing an immune response that includes making protective antibodies that are needed to resist future exposure to the infectious viral or bacterial microorganism. However, your body is smarter than that. The artificial manipulation of your immune system by vaccines containing lab altered bacteria and viruses, as well as chemicals and other ingredients, simply does not exactly replicate the response that your immune system mounts when naturally encountering the infectious microorganism. This is one reason why vaccine policymakers say you need to get “booster” shots because vaccine acquired immunity is only temporary and wears off, sometimes rather quickly.

The featured study also provides evidence of this fact, showing that a vaccine-induced immune response differs from the immune response when naturally encountering the B. pertussis organism. The FDA researchers further suggested that there are also differences in immune responses to whole cell DPT vaccine, which contains the whole B. pertussis bacteria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, which contains lower levels of toxins and uses purified antigens. They said “Vaccination with wP [whole cell pertussis vaccine] and previous infection induced a more rapid clearance compared with naïve and aP[acelullar pertussis[-vaccinated animals.”

As reported by Medical Daily:7

“The researchers also found something revealing when they looked at the specific immune response of each group of monkeys. 'Although all vaccinated and previously infected animals had robust serum antibody responses, we found key differences in T-cell immunity,' the authors wrote in PNAS.

Specifically, previously infected animals and whole-cell-vaccinated animals both exhibited the same kind of boost in immune response while the acellular pertussis vaccination elicited a response that was slightly different. 'The observation that acellular pertussis, which induces an immune response mismatched to that induced by natural infection, fails to prevent colonization or transmission, provides a plausible explanation for the resurgence of pertussis...'"

Although the FDA researchers say they found differences between immune responses to the whole cell DPT vaccine acellular DTaP vaccine, they also admit that “neither vaccine was able to prevent colonization as well as immunity from a previous infection” and that “relative protection afforded by Th17 or Th1 responses in vaccinated or convalescent baboons or humans is not known.”

Bottom line: there are huge gaps in scientific knowledge about both B. pertussis vaccination and B. pertussis infections.

Which Is More Ideal—Permanent or Temporary Immunity?

To learn more, I urge you to listen to the following video, in which Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses the concept of herd immunity. In it, she brings up some very important questions that need to be seriously considered and answered through rigorous scientific investigation—investigation that has so far been largely ignored:

" In most cases natural exposure to disease would give you a longer lasting more robust qualitatively superior immunity because it gives you both cell mediated immunity and humoral immunity... The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body's natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind's biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.

The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body's natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind's biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.

... [I]s it better to protect children against infectious disease early in life through temporary immunity from a vaccine, or are they better off contracting certain contagious infections in childhood and attaining permanent immunity? Do vaccine complications ultimately cause more chronic illness and death than infectious diseases do? These questions essentially pit trust in human intervention against trust in nature and the natural order, which existed long before vaccines were created by man."

Download Interview Transcript

What We Don’t Understand Can Hurt Us

My main point of contention with those who insist that vaccines are the best answer for disease prevention, without regard for constitutional differences between people, is that the science is still grossly lacking when it comes to safety. We simply do not know if vaccination is an ideal choice for all people, all the time—even though that’s what public health officials and others promoting one-size-fits all mandatory vaccination policies would like you to believe. The evidence weighs rather heavily againstsuch a blanket position, in my opinion.

Take the recent news of healthy teenagers dying following flu vaccination for example. In January of this year, a 14-year old Carly Christenson passed away from complications from influenza type-A, despite being vaccinated against the flu.8

Most recently, healthy 19-year old Chandler Webb became violently ill the day after receiving a flu shot—the first flu shot he had ever received.9, 10 His symptoms included violent shaking, headache and vomiting. He was hospitalized with encephalitis (brain inflammation). As the swelling of his brain progressed, Chandler’s doctors frantically tested him for various infectious diseases and treated him with broad spectrum antibiotics. Apparently, they did not think to consider whether he’d been recently vaccinated. His brain became so inflamed that doctors told his mother the massive swelling crushed his brain stem. He died 28 days after his first and last dose of influenza vaccine.

Chandler’s mother wants to raise awareness about the potential of vaccines to cause serious complications like brain inflammation and is urging medical personnel to consider vaccine reactions when searching for potential causes and treating encephalitis and other possible vaccine-related health problems. In this case, the doctors are now claiming they were not able to confirm the cause of Chandler’s death, and are declining to comment because they say they are legally prohibited from making any statements about the case.11

Main Take-Home Points and Limitations of the Latest Pertussis Vaccine Study

To recap, FDA researchers conducting the featured baboon study found that the whole cell pertussis vaccine (GSK's Infanrix DPT), the acellular pertussis vaccine (Sanofi's Daptacel DTaP), and natural pertussis infection all induced high antibody titers in infant baboons. High antibody titer after vaccination is currently the gold standard for proving that a vaccine confers “immunity” and inability to colonize or transmit infection.

However in this study, high B. pertussis antibody titers after vaccination did NOT correlate with immunity and inability to colonize or transmit B. pertussis infection to other baboons—effectively challenging the idea that high antibody titer following vaccination is evidence that vaccination will prevent infection in the vaccine recipient and the recipient will not be able to infect others. Furthermore, the study authors found that:

• Baboons vaccinated with a whole cell pertussis vaccine (DPT) colonized B. pertussis upon direct challenge but cleared infection almost twice as fast as animals vaccinated with an acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP)—which is the type used by American children since 1996. This suggests that children recently given DTaP vaccine, who are exposed to B. pertussis may be astymptomatic carriers and transmitters of the infection for a longer period of time compared to children who get the older, more reactive whole cell DPT vaccine and clear infection more quickly.
• Previous B. pertussis infection prevented colonization with B. pertussis in baboons better than having received either whole cell pertussis (Infanrix) or acelullar pertussis vaccine (Daptacel). In short, natural immunity offered greater protection against the ability to become infected and transmit infection after exposure to B. pertussis than either of the two vaccines.

That said, the researchers acknowledged the baboon study had limitations and among them were the fact that:

• Baboons are not humans and the study authors admitted that "relative protection afforded by Th17 and Th1 responses in vaccinated or convalescent baboons or humans is not known."
• Only one type of whole cell DPT and one type of acellular DTaP vaccine was used in this study but there are many different kinds of DPT and DTaP containing different components. Considering the known variability of measured efficacy and effectiveness of DPT and DTaP vaccines in clinical studies, the FDA study conclusions can only be limited to those two specific DPT and DTaP vaccines.

The Illusion of Vaccine-Acquired Immunity

The concept of vaccine induced herd immunity is built on the assumption that vaccination does protect the vast majority of vaccinated persons in a population from becoming infected with- and transmitting infection to others in the same way that naturally acquired immunity in a population protects acquisition and transmission of infection. The featured FDA research suggests this is not the case and offers a clue as to why whooping cough outbreaks have been occurring and spreading primarilywithin the vaccinated population. To quote NVIC’s Barbara Loe Fisher:

“In my opinion, this study in infant baboons suggests that pertussis vaccine-acquired immunity has been an illusion. Although the vaccines may protect against severe B. pertussis clinical symptoms of the disease—such as paroxysmal coughing—they do not prevent colonization of B. pertussis bacteria and transmission of the infection to others.

In this study at least, recovery from previous B. pertussis infection was more effective in preventing colonization with B.pertussis upon direct challenge than either whole cell DPT (Infanrix) or acellular DTaP (Daptacel) and that suggests transmission of the infection to others after exposure to B pertussis would also be less likely when there is a history of naturally acquired immunity.”

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact. It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your Smart Phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:

• NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
• If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
• Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor who treats you with compassion and respect, and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

Related articles

• FDA Pertussis Vaccine Study Shatters Illusion of Vaccine-Induced Immunity
• Our Efforts to Prevent Heart Disease
• Alzheimer's Advances; Early Detection Test Using Peanut Butter
• WebMD Pockets Millions to Stimulate $1 Trillion in Drug Sales
• Tree Nuts, Chockfull of Healthful Fats, May Help You Live Longer
• FDA Sued, Forced to Remove Safety Status on Trans Fats

Federalist Papers No. 32. The Same Subject Continued (Concerning the General Power of Taxation)

From The Independent Journal. Wednesday, January 2, 1788.

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

ALTHOUGH I am of opinion that there would be no real danger of the consequences which seem to be apprehended to the State governments from a power in the Union to control them in the levies of money, because I am persuaded that the sense of the people, the extreme hazard of provoking the resentments of the State governments, and a conviction of the utility and necessity of local administrations for local purposes, would be a complete barrier against the oppressive use of such a power; yet I am willing here to allow, in its full extent, the justness of the reasoning which requires that the individual States should possess an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise their own revenues for the supply of their own wants. And making this concession, I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they would, under the plan of the convention, retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution.

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT. I use these terms to distinguish this last case from another which might appear to resemble it, but which would, in fact, be essentially different; I mean where the exercise of a concurrent jurisdiction might be productive of occasional interferences in the POLICY of any branch of administration, but would not imply any direct contradiction or repugnancy in point of constitutional authority. These three cases of exclusive jurisdiction in the federal government may be exemplified by the following instances: The last clause but one in the eighth section of the first article provides expressly that Congress shall exercise "EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" over the district to be appropriated as the seat of government. This answers to the first case. The first clause of the same section empowers Congress "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises"; and the second clause of the tenth section of the same article declares that, "NO STATE SHALL, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except for the purpose of executing its inspection laws." Hence would result an exclusive power in the Union to lay duties on imports and exports, with the particular exception mentioned; but this power is abridged by another clause, which declares that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State; in consequence of which qualification, it now only extends to the DUTIES ON IMPORTS. This answers to the second case. The third will be found in that clause which declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States." This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE.

A case which may perhaps be thought to resemble the latter, but which is in fact widely different, affects the question immediately under consideration. I mean the power of imposing taxes on all articles other than exports and imports. This, I contend, is manifestly a concurrent and coequal authority in the United States and in the individual States. There is plainly no expression in the granting clause which makes that power EXCLUSIVE in the Union. There is no independent clause or sentence which prohibits the States from exercising it. So far is this from being the case, that a plain and conclusive argument to the contrary is to be deduced from the restraint laid upon the States in relation to duties on imports and exports. This restriction implies an admission that, if it were not inserted, the States would possess the power it excludes; and it implies a further admission, that as to all other taxes, the authority of the States remains undiminished. In any other view it would be both unnecessary and dangerous; it would be unnecessary, because if the grant to the Union of the power of laying such duties implied the exclusion of the States, or even their subordination in this particular, there could be no need of such a restriction; it would be dangerous, because the introduction of it leads directly to the conclusion which has been mentioned, and which, if the reasoning of the objectors be just, could not have been intended; I mean that the States, in all cases to which the restriction did not apply, would have a concurrent power of taxation with the Union. The restriction in question amounts to what lawyers call a NEGATIVE PREGNANT that is, a NEGATION of one thing, and an AFFIRMANCE of another; a negation of the authority of the States to impose taxes on imports and exports, and an affirmance of their authority to impose them on all other articles. It would be mere sophistry to argue that it was meant to exclude them ABSOLUTELY from the imposition of taxes of the former kind, and to leave them at liberty to lay others SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL of the national legislature. The restraining or prohibitory clause only says, that they shall not, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, lay such duties; and if we are to understand this in the sense last mentioned, the Constitution would then be made to introduce a formal provision for the sake of a very absurd conclusion; which is, that the States, WITH THE CONSENT of the national legislature, might tax imports and exports; and that they might tax every other article, UNLESS CONTROLLED by the same body. If this was the intention, why not leave it, in the first instance, to what is alleged to be the natural operation of the original clause, conferring a general power of taxation upon the Union? It is evident that this could not have been the intention, and that it will not bear a construction of the kind.

As to a supposition of repugnancy between the power of taxation in the States and in the Union, it cannot be supported in that sense which would be requisite to work an exclusion of the States. It is, indeed, possible that a tax might be laid on a particular article by a State which might render it INEXPEDIENT that thus a further tax should be laid on the same article by the Union; but it would not imply a constitutional inability to impose a further tax. The quantity of the imposition, the expediency or inexpediency of an increase on either side, would be mutually questions of prudence; but there would be involved no direct contradiction of power. The particular policy of the national and of the State systems of finance might now and then not exactly coincide, and might require reciprocal forbearances. It is not, however a mere possibility of inconvenience in the exercise of powers, but an immediate constitutional repugnancy that can by implication alienate and extinguish a pre-existing right of sovereignty.

The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States. The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.

PUBLIUS

Learn More About American History.  Visit either Jamestown or Yorktown living history museums and Colonial Williamsburg.

Related articles

• Federalist Papers No. 31. The Same Subject Continued (Concerning the General Power of Taxation)
• Federalist Papers No. 30. Concerning the General Power of Taxation
• Anti Federalist Papers No. 30-31 - A Virginia Anti-Federalist On The Issue Of Taxation
• Federalist Papers No. 29. Concerning the Militia
• Federalist Papers No 28, The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered (3)
• Federalist Papers No. 27.The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered (2)

Gloucester, VA County Employees Continue To Abuse Taxpayers

6:45 AM Monday morning, December 9th, 2013 this county auto was seen at McDonald's.  The giveaway that it's a county employee?  The license plate.

8:30 AM.  Parks and Recreation vehicle number 67.  Monday morning December 9th, 2013.

We will give some credit, county employees have slowed down being found where they do not belong, but they are still doing this on a daily basis.  We have been out every week and we see them every week.  We are not always able to get photos though.  Mr Happy Meals on Wheels from the county school system has been seen at 7-Eleven and McDonald's numerous times but has managed to evade our cameras.

Last Monday, December 2nd, 2013 This deputy no sooner goes on duty that he decides that he needs breakfast.  It's McDonald's in Hayes by Farm Fresh.  Now to be fair, these guys do need to eat and they, without question, are stuck in their vehicles throughout most of the day.  It's a very tough job no matter what anyone thinks.  The issue however is grabbing food just after you get on duty?  You could not eat before going to work like everyone else has to?  If we are to look to these people for examples, what are the examples being set?

  We said it before, as long as county employees are out violating the law, we are going to continue to catch them and show everyone how our tax dollars are being wasted.  It is very clear that we have no leadership in the county.  None of the officials have the backbone to stop this waste and abuse and clear violations to the public trust.  Taxes are going up and here is part of the reason why.  We have been reporting on this since April of this year.  That's 9 months now and it's still not under control?  We only report these issues when we have the actual photographic evidence.  Like we said, we have caught plenty of other county employees but they got lucky and managed to avoid our cameras.

  Maybe the new members of the Board of Supervisors will put a screeching halt to all of this come January.  We expect they will.  We have some good people coming in and we are expecting some solid management coming in and moving forward.

Related articles

• Gloucester, VA Judges Private Vehicle Chambers Pushed Off Til Later Date
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting Video Nov. 2013
• Gloucester, VA Judges Requests Private Chambers For Personal Vehicles At Taxpayer Expense of Course
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Consider Ordinance To Cheat The IRS?
• Gloucester, VA Officials Violate Anti Trust Laws In Illegal Gun Fraud Scam?
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's Meeting Video for December, 2013