Picking Winners and Losers based on 2 Words
The Federal Budget proposed by the current administration totals a whopping $3.8 Trillion US Dollars. Wow! What a staggering large number you say! Numbers aside there's something worse - more insidious and shameful than all the largess ... and it's all based on 2 words.
Read this article from Yahoo! and U.S. News & World Report and see if you can see what I mean.
Did you read it? Do you notice how the report focuses on the winners and losers? Does this outrage you as it does me?
Well, I went scrmabling for the Constitution to find out where in the Constitution it says that Washington can pick the winners and losers. I could not find it. My colleague said "What about the General Wlefare" clause? We have lots and lots and lots of welfare programs, and this is just more personal and corporate welfare isn't it?
Just what is "General Welfare" ... so I looked it up on Wikipedia here. It redirected me to "Common Good" - which is a Progressive term. Hmm. Not what I was expecting, so in my naive hope of finding out more, I looked up the original clause in the Constitution here. The context was "to promote the general welfare" ... but just what did that mean?
It seems that at the time of writing the Constitution, James Madison thought it should mean that the government could only spend money on everyone's behalf on the specific things the government was empowered to do - defense, interstate commerce and such. However, Alexander Hamilton represented a more broad view that the government could spend money on other things not specifically already stated in the Constitution provided the money being spent didn't favor one group or another.
Contrasting that view with the article from U.S. News shows just how far we've strayed from the limits on government found in the Constitution. We hang the majority of $3.8 Trillion dollars of spending on a broad interpretation of two words "General Welfare".
That's $1.9 Trillion per word. Incredible.
Known as the succinct nzsvz9