<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: McCain&#8217;s 3/5ths Plan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://acandidworld.com/2008/09/27/mccains-35ths-plan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://acandidworld.com/2008/09/27/mccains-35ths-plan/</link>
	<description>Democracy in America</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 05:50:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ames</title>
		<link>http://acandidworld.com/2008/09/27/mccains-35ths-plan/#comment-6621</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ames]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:05:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acandidworld.net/?p=2289#comment-6621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ah, sorry about that :). I think the potential of it actually being passed is so slim that it amounts to grandstanding: the plan would require a constitutional amendment, and those things just don&#039;t happen, really. And even if it did get passed, I&#039;m not sure it would have much effect. Most taxes - as far as I understand it, and I might be wrong - pass as part of must-pass omnibus legislation. Which is to say, they pass by super-majorities, and a 3/5 requirement wouldn&#039;t make much of a difference.

Apart from that, 3/5 is a bad number to put back in the Constitution...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, sorry about that :). I think the potential of it actually being passed is so slim that it amounts to grandstanding: the plan would require a constitutional amendment, and those things just don&#8217;t happen, really. And even if it did get passed, I&#8217;m not sure it would have much effect. Most taxes &#8211; as far as I understand it, and I might be wrong &#8211; pass as part of must-pass omnibus legislation. Which is to say, they pass by super-majorities, and a 3/5 requirement wouldn&#8217;t make much of a difference.</p>
<p>Apart from that, 3/5 is a bad number to put back in the Constitution&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://acandidworld.com/2008/09/27/mccains-35ths-plan/#comment-6622</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jonathan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acandidworld.net/?p=2289#comment-6622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m not well versed in these sorts of legal matters, but I am interested. Would you mind elaborating on your point?

On the face of it, it doesn&#039;t strike me as a terrible idea to require a broader consensus to raise taxes, though I suspect a rule that cuts both ways would be better. Do you feel 3/5ths majority is too high? When you say you&#039;d be worried if McCain made this a major issue, is that because you think it&#039;s a bad idea; or that you think it would make him a more desirable candidate; or is it simply a that of passing an amendment with &quot;uncertain effects&quot; is troubling.. which is certainly is?

Anyway, it&#039;s not clear to me what you&#039;re trying to get across, and I would love to be enlightened.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not well versed in these sorts of legal matters, but I am interested. Would you mind elaborating on your point?</p>
<p>On the face of it, it doesn&#8217;t strike me as a terrible idea to require a broader consensus to raise taxes, though I suspect a rule that cuts both ways would be better. Do you feel 3/5ths majority is too high? When you say you&#8217;d be worried if McCain made this a major issue, is that because you think it&#8217;s a bad idea; or that you think it would make him a more desirable candidate; or is it simply a that of passing an amendment with &#8220;uncertain effects&#8221; is troubling.. which is certainly is?</p>
<p>Anyway, it&#8217;s not clear to me what you&#8217;re trying to get across, and I would love to be enlightened.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

