Funding Social Programs?

Posted by Moonage on 06 Feb 2006 | Tagged as: Fed Policy, Polls

President Bush just released his fiscal year ‘07 budget.  A lot of social programs don’t fare very well in them.  However, he is generous to Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.  There will be a ton of debate on this budget as Bush seems to be responding to the criticism he received of being fiscally irresponsible for huge increases in those areas over the last few years.  However, I have one basic question I’d like to toss at Webdream readers:

From Section 8 of the Preamble to the United State Constitution:

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;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

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

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that our government is responsible for the social welfare of its citizens.  Only through very liberal translation of some parts of the Constitution does it even allow for collection of taxes to fund those programs.  I think I can put my point across in the form of a poll better than any other way.  Shall we?

Technorati Tags: ,

3 Responses to “Funding Social Programs?”

  1. on 06 Feb 2006 at 6:34 pm 1.American Phoenix said …

    You are correct that it was only through some very liberal interpretations of portions of our federal Constitution that we came to fund federal welfare programs at all. The general welfare clause of Article I, Section 8 was only addressed by the Supreme Court in US v. Butler in 1936. The Court adopted a very broad Hamiltonian view of the spending power. The Court’s reasoning was that taxes would never “accomplish the objects for which they were collected, unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax.” The problem with this reasoning is that it works in reverse too. The power to tax is enlarged when the power to spend is increased.

    Federal welfare programs have done more harm in the last few decades than the good they were intended to do. For example, before welfare reform they increased the disintegration of families by paying single women to have babies, who then grew up with no father. For a male child, in particular, that kind of “family” configuration is very damaging.

    Welfare works best when individuals are personally involved, know the people whom you are helping and those you are working with.

  2. on 06 Feb 2006 at 8:19 pm 2.Moonage said …

    Excellent points. But, I knew you’d be on top of this one real quick. In light of the expected political spin of cutting prograqms, I’d like to see a national debate over whether it’s the federal government’s responsibility in the first place.

  3. on 08 Feb 2006 at 4:12 pm 3.Moonage Political Webdream said …

    2007 Budget and the markets

    I put my economic opinions here under politics because federal and international politics has a very real and direct impact on the economies of the United States. For instance, the day before yesterday, Bush released his 2007 budget proposal. Critics

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

  • Medicaid Impasse
  • Faith Based Initiative
  • Minimum Wage Increase
  • Minimum Wage canned again
  • Baggage
  • How Not To Save Social Security
  • Moon’s Social Security Reform
  • Social Security Scare Tactics
  • Merck bows to compulsory STD/cancer programs
  • Nancy Pelosi’s destroying the country
  • Fixing Social Security
  • 100 hours and minimum wage, who’s paying for it?
  • Bush has told some whoppers about Social Security
  • Supporting Privatized Retirement Accounts
  • Notes on the US Financial Report
  • Social Security, solvency and political spin
  • Budget deficit drops, again
  • The Stem Cell Ban
  • The Future of the Democrats
  • On David Walker
  • « Stopping Mexican military drug runs

    Patrick Leahy’s Concerned for Quakers? »