Well, since you do not see what federal taxation has to do with representation, the rule of apportioning both direct taxes and representation was part of the “Great Compromise” which was struck during the framing of our Constitution and made its ratification possible.
Our founders intentions behind the rule of apportionment was to insure that if indirect taxes which are voluntarily paid were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenses and Congress resorted to a direct tax to meet the deficiency, that each state’s share of a total sum being raised would be proportionately equal to their voting strength in Congress, i.e., ___Representation with proportional financial obligation.
Progressives and the friends of big government hate the rule of apportionment because it makes those States with the biggest mouth in Washington when voting to spend federal revenue to be responsible for a share of the tax burden proportionately equal to their big fat mouth. California is one of those states with a big fat mouth when spending federal revenue. Do you now get the drift? Progressives and the friends of big government love to spend money from our federal treasury, but when it comes time to filling the federal treasury they run and hide and shift the tax burden on America’s productive citizens. But instead of my continuing, let our founders educate you on the rule of apportionment.
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
And see:***“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”***3 Elliot’s, 243,***“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax”*** 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.
Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, ***“they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public.”***3 Elliot, 255
And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states with the largest representation in Congress are to contribute the lion’s share of any direct tax, Mr. PENDLETON says:
***“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”***3 Elliot’s 41
Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.
And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well connected in Washington.