None of the founding fathers ever saw the U.S. growing to the population it is now, nor did they foresee how the world would change. For our current size, there aren't enough lesser taxes that the federal government would be able to levy and still support itself. Government could be downsized, but only to a limit. Therefore, without an income tax, State taxes would need to be raised with a portion of those taxes being sent to the federal government to support it.

The Constitution allows the federal government to levy taxes, a lesson learned from the years under the Articles of Confederation. In fact, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution mentions the reasons for which Congress may levy taxes. This was later expanded and clarified by the 16th Amendment which states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Being a Constitutional Amendment, this had to pass each House by a 2/3 majority, and then be passed by 3/4 of all the State Legislatures. Passing an Amendment is no easy task, as the Framers of the Constitution intended. Therefore, to claim the income tax "unconstitutional" is absurd. The Federalists may not agreed with the idea, but that power was never banned in the original Constitution. The 16th Amendment is simply a clarification of Congressional power based on the debts incurred by Reconstruction. Therefore, having the federal government be primarily funded by a percentage of State taxes is unconstitutional since it undermines the the authority of Congress.

The problem with Article I, Section 8 is that it does not grant the government the power to support a standing Army. It does allow for a standing Navy. This all changed during the American Civil War by Executive Order which did away with militia system (which was eventually replaced by The National Guard and The Reserves). However, no Amendment was ever passed allow Congress to fund the maintenance of a standing Army or Air Force. Modern warfare necessitated a standardization of training and conditioning for soldiers, and the American Civil War is recognized as the first modern war because of the role technology played. Therefore, rather than pointing to this as an abuse of Congressional or Executive power, this is merely a portion of the Constitution which requires updating. (The Article only allows Congress to raise and fund a standing Army for a term of 2 years....but it does not prevent Congress from renewing the 2 year term each time it expires, hence the loophole the government has used.)

The American Civil War, World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II forever changed the economics of our federal government. Do changes need to be made? Of course. But the federal budget cannot be reduced to a skeleton without damaging the economic structure of our country. Much of what the federal budget pays for actually stabilizes our economy - a lesson learned during the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war. These programs need to be left intact while excessive spending is brought under control. Contractors who milk the government for every penny, pork barrel projects that only benefit a few, fuel costs for the military (let's face it....we need to find fuel alternatives but corporations have been resisting it), etc. There are plenty of ways to reduce the budget. The Income Tax is necessary at this point, but this can be done. To lessen the shock, and to ease the pain, the cuts must be done over the course of perhaps a Presidential term. (I believe Bill Clinton used a 5 year plan.) The first step, however, is to SIMPLIFY government. That's where a Flat Rate Income Tax comes in. It is the quickest, simplest, least painful radical change the federal government can make to help strengthen our country again.

This may be true, but I am not sure to what extent. After all, the same policy didn't work nearly as well for Stalin during the same time-span. In any case, that portion is history isn't my forte - I would have to look into it more.