It's the Constitution, Stupid!

We’re having the wrong argument about spending. Of course, we can’t afford the trillions being blown in useless and outright destructive government programs. But, that line of reasoning suggests that when they economy is smokin hot, we really should be paying for self esteem classes for child molesters.

Most government spending is manifestly unconstitutional. Our Founders, in their wisdom, delegated just a few powers to the federal government–essentially, those functions that nobody else could do.

Defending the country, for example, is a legitimate function of the government. Naturally, defense is the only spending liberals are ever willing to cut.

The same people who cannot find a right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the 2d Amendment are resolute in their delusion that a constitutional right to tax payer funded abortion on demand exists.

Liberals are bleating about protecting their pet programs, be it cowboy poetry or imaginary Planned Parenthood mammograms; Republicans keep getting sucked into debates about the worthiness of the program, ignoring the fact that the Constitutional doesn’t allow funding for any of it.

Maybe the world is a better place for having a cowboy poetry festival. Fine. Have it. Just don’t force the taxpayers to surrender their hard earned cash to finance it.

Or kindly point me to the part of the Constitution that allows the government to confiscate money from the citizenry to pay for pig odor analysis.

Whether or not we can pay for all of this nonsense is irrelevant. What really matters is that it is unconstitutional.

Good piece. If we would stick to what is actually in the constitution, there would be much less debt and much, much less spending.

The first question which should be brought up on any legislation is, "Where in the enumerated powers (not the introduction) of Article 1 Section 8 did grant Congress the power to enact this legislation."

However, I wouldn't say that cost is irrelevant. For anything that fails the Article 1 Section 8 test, cost is irrelevant. For things that are authorized by the Constitution, like defense, some roads, post offices, etc., the next question should always be, "OK, so we are authorized to do this, do we actually have the money to spend on this item?"

Congress must:

Act only within the limits of Article 1 Section 8
Within that, live within our means and not keep charging things on the national credit card while only making the minimum payments.

While the first will help a whole lot with the second, it's still possible to waste money and live beyond our means even within the limits of Article 1 Section 8.

“Arguing over the amount makes it almost impossible to argue over substance.”

That pretty much says it all. It’s about principles and not just money. Below see adaptation of piece I wrote for WND a couple years ago.

The Republican Party spends most of its effort promoting the Democrats and their agenda. No matter who is in power, the federal government, its power and expenditures, continue to grow with little chance of reversal.

The Democrats propose a “generous” increase in the minimum wage. The Republicans either oppose an increase and opt for staying at the current level or counter with a more modest increase. The Democrats say that we need to increase the school lunch program by x million dollars. The Republicans answer by offering an increase of one third x. Democrats say that the government needs to spend a lot more subsidizing housing and Republicans say that the current level is adequate. Democrats say that more people should be made eligible and Republicans defend the status quo.

So the predictable dynamic is that the Democrats fight for an increase in spending for some government program and the Republicans either oppose any increase or counter with a proposal for more modest growth. What impression of the Republican Party does this give? What is the one principle that people are able to discern from Republicans’ policies as stated above? That the Republicans are cheap and uncaring. Some may manage to construe it as fiscal responsibility but what it comes down to is withholding funds from worthwhile programs. Thus ultimately withholding help from those who need it.

If the Republicans agree to spend two billion dollars on a program they are inherently saying that it is good and just and worthwhile. Why else would they agree to spend such a massive amount of money on it? If people who position themselves as fiscally responsible spend that kind of money, it has to be for something good. Something right. Something necessary. And here they cede the moral high ground to Democrats, liberals, leftists by validating their policies, programs and agenda. It’s Democrats who are fighting for all of these good and righteous schemes and the Republicans who are dragging their feet.

Every time Republicans say yes but not so much. They are saying that the Democrats are right and they, the Republicans, are cheap. The Democrats are looking out for the needy and the Republicans are looking out for the cheap and stingy. We are cheap! Hardly an inspiring philosophy. Hardly a winning strategy.

We all know that the best defense is a good offense. The GOP has turned that truism on its head. Their only offense is a pathetic defense. And no matter how good your defense if you have no offense you will eventually lose. It’s inevitable. After the 1994 elections swept the Republicans t control of Congress, many anticipated the extinction of a few federal agencies. Many even a department or two. Dare to dream. Then we were told that Rome was not built in a day so don’t expect it to be dismantled in a day. Well we are still waiting for those first few bricks to be knocked loose.

Sure the left has moved us to a gargantuan and ever-growing welfare state on step at a time, or make that one billion a time. That is the only way it could have happened. Anyone who one hundred years ago tried to propose what we have now would have been run out of town. Any American town. As per the above it may be impossible to move in the opposite direction by increments. When you propose to spend less than the left wants the only principle that you are standing on and promoting is cheapness. Not a very compelling platform. Rather a recipe for long term defeat.

Being second-rate Democrats has been a disaster. Even when Republicans win elections. Agreeing to spend a fortune on Democrat social programs and wealth transfer schemes only validates those schemes. And makes conservatives-or what passes for conservatives these days-look bad. So virtually everything the Republicans do validates Democrats and make themselves look bad. A guaranteed formula for disaster.

So what’s the alternative? How about taking a stand. How about acting on principle? A principle other than cheapness. Will it be easy? The question is what are your principles and what do you want to achieve. If you want to be liked by the establishment intelligentsia then you definitely need to keep up with leftists. Just keep in mind that you will have to go further and further year after year. They keep raising the bar, moving the goal line. What “moderates’ are advocating and supporting now would have been radical a few decades ago. Trying to keep up will always mean that you will always be second-rate and always fall short.

The only was to go, which makes it the easy way, is to stand on principle. Without compromise.

I have argued before that the proper funding level for bad programs should be $0, though your pornography analogy is even better. If one is going to adopt a fiscal responsibility stance, though, standing firm for spending $0 on bad programs is better than compromising for spending a reduced amount, even if one is overruled and the program passes for the full amount. If the Democrats get all the money they want for a program and it fails, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Meanwhile any Republicans who fought the program completely can point to their record and say that, as they always said, and contrary to what the Democrats had said, the program is a fundamentally bad idea. By contrast, if the Republicans agree with funding the program, but by a reduced amount, then any failure can be blamed on the Republicans.

Of course, whether a particular politician regards that as a good or bad thing may not be clear. A lot of politicians who run on the Republican ticket are really liberals in disguise and have no objection whatsoever to things that would make conservatives look bad.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.