mcswan
Regular Member
- Oct 18, 2007
- 894
- 117
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Because we've allowed ourselves to become polarized. Everyone has a different definition of "wasteful spending" and everyone thinks theri definition is 100% right. Nobody has the humility to say "I think I'm mostly right, but I could be wrong, so let's all work together to find the right answer."
There's an easy way to determine which spending is wasteful, and which is not. It should be required of every spending bill that an addendum be adding citing the article in the US Constitution which grants the authority for that spending. If no such authority is found, that spending is not only wasteful, it's unconstitutional. Most of what our federal government does today is both wasteful and unconstitutional.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45
With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. - James Madison
the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. - James Madison
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798
"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." - Thomas Jefferson in letter to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824
(Prophesying the modern Democratic party?)
Excerpts from President Grover Cleveland's veto of relief aid for Texas farmers:
"I return without my approval House bill No. 10203, entitled "An act to enable the Commissioner of Agriculture to make a special distribution of seeds in the drought-stricken counties of Texas, and making an appropriation therefor."
"...I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose."
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people."
"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
Upvote
0