Extremely accurate and objective analysis. Thanks.

There is another matter, that of the gross incompetence of the federal bureaucracy, and its inability to maintain even a facade of fiscal responsibility, but let’s stick to the constitutional issue for now. James Madison was the architect of the Constitution. His words carry great weight in the interpretation of the document. Madison said the following, regarding the general welfare clause:

“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, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831

If, when you said “when the government doesn’t take as much from the private sector” you meant tax rate cuts rather than revenue reduction, then there’s no contradiction between your two points, and I withdraw my suggestion that there was. That was a throwaway point anyway, quite subsidiary to the rest of what I had to say. I stand by everything else in my posting of 03.11.05 @ 7:29 pm.

Respectfully,

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: 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 …

Clause 18: 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.

What spending bills Congress should or should not pass is a political question, but it is not typically a constitutional question.

You wrote, “Relief from a natural disaster isn’t the same as wealth trasfer as a normal course of daily business.”

I don’t think that someone who owns vacation property in a part of the country known to be at risk of tropical storms is more deserving than a twelve-year-old child trying to cope with seventh grade, whose mother is trying to get a job, and whose father suddenly ran off.

Despite the myth of the welfare queen, the fact is that even before the welfare reform of 1997, the most typical welfare recipient was a single mother of one or two preschool children whose partner had run off without paying child support. That’s why the old welfare program was called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and why the current program is called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

You wrote “But even in the case of horrible tragedies, there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to provide such relief.”

Article X of the Bill of Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Supreme Court has never held that this was intended to prohibit federal natural distaster assistance, and I think such a Supreme Court ruling would be highly unlikely. Disaster assistance is covered by I.8.1 and I.8.18. I believe Article X was intended to amplify on the other rights of in the Bill of Rights, that the federal government should basically leave people alone. (That doesn’t mean no taxes; the Constitution provides for taxation in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 and in Amendment XVI.)

Respectfully,

You attacked/accused me of trying to have it both ways but by cutting taxes during a recession revenue to the government has a high probability of increasing. You didn’t understand what I was saying nor do you understand economics which got you into trouble. But I don’t mind. Others did understand that you put your foot in it.

When the government does cut taxes for ALL WORKING AMERICANS it is only going to be true that when the bottom 50% of income earners only pay less than 4% of the federal income taxes that the tax cuts are going to go to be seen by the top 50% of income earners as a percentage.

And when that happens the economy does better and the revenue into the government increases.

You continue to insist that the tax cuts were the reason for the deficits even though the revenue into the government dropped and drops entirely on the basis of the strength of the economy (earnings and profits that can be taxed).

And THANK the Lord we have a president who understands economics just like Ronald Reagan (who was the a president who had a degree in Economics – schooled on supply side economics)

Ano. Let me suggest to you one thing. Please don’t be disrespectful and I won’t be back.

YOU WROTE, “First Baklava suggests that revenue reduction (”when the government doesn’t take as much”) is good for the private sector.”

THIS one quote Ano, shows how little you understand about economics. Let’s dissect. You actually act like I was suggesting that “revenue reduction” (when the govt doesn’t take as much) is what I was talking about when I tried to explain to you (others already understand) that tax rate reductions (the government not taking as much) are beneficial to the economy. Why? Because the individuals who earn money are taxed a lower rate giving them more of their own money to spend (this also applies to businesses. When people and businesses have more money to spend and do spend then more goods and services are purchased. When more goods and services are purchased more people need to be hired, more profits are had, and raises are earned. The economy does better. When the economy does better more revenues FLOW INTO THE GOVERNMENT.

It is that whole sequence that shows that when I dissect your assinine statement acting as if I was suggesting “revenue reductions” not “tax rate cuts” as being beneficial to the economy. Because it isn’t a revenue reduction to lower tax rates.

Revenue streams flow into the government entirely on the basis of how well the economy is doing, how many people are earning income and paying taxes and how well businesses are doing. A cut in rates helps the economy.

Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

Anomalocaris, we’re talking about two different things. Relief from a natural disaster isn’t the same as wealth trasfer as a normal course of daily business.

But even in the case of horrible tragedies, there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to provide such relief. State governments are not similarly restricted, and can allocate funds to disaster victims if the citizens of the states, through their elected representatives, decide to do so. I’m quite sure the states would step up, except for the fact that we’re all so used to Uncle Sam doling out massive wads of cash that the states see no need.

This benevolence on the part of Washington is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, and is in direct violation of Article 10 of the Bill of Rights. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, stated: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Thomas Jefferson weighed in with: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

But then, the Constitution has been manipulated, beaten, shoved, bent, twisted, mauled and trampled upon so much in the last century that the federal government’s sugar daddy status quo isn’t the least bit surprising.

I also favor capitol punishment for unruly children

Do you seriously believe that the decency of premarital sex is a matter of good citizenship? As La Shawn has pointed out, there are countries where premarital sex is considered a citizenship issue, and I don’t think any of us want Iranian-style law enforcement in America.

Thank you for your work in the 1960s to help bring civil rights to all Americans.

When is a government program “forced wealth redistribution” and when is it just the right thing to do? There were three devastating tropical storms that hit Florida in 2004, followed by billions of dollars of “forced wealth redistribution” to help people put their lives back together. In 1991, nineteen evil men commandeered four jet planes and crashed three of them into office buildings. This was followed by billions of dollars of “forced wealth redistribution” to help people put their lives back together.

Like you, don’t believe that people should become dependent on government assistance as a way of life, but I do believe that it is appropriate to provide limited and temporary assistance to help get people back on their feet. That’s why we helped out New York after 9/11 and that’s why we have Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

Respectfully,

I did, in fact, change my spots. In the ’60s I was caught up in the false promise of liberalism. Due to being an idealistic young man with a brain not yet fully formed, I believed that liberalism had the answers to racism, social justice and economic opportunity.

Thankfully, as I matured and the rational frontal lobes began to overpower the more primitive and impulsive parts of my brain, I was able to pull aside the veil of leftist deceit and see the error of my ways.

The solution to those social ills is not more interference by government, but less. The solution is not forced wealth redistribution, but rather promoting opportunity for all to succeed. The solution is not to divide the nation against itself by ethnicity or wealth, but to unite all of us as a nation, all rowing the boat the same direction.

Liberalism is the curse of defeatism, and conservatism is the promise of opportunity.