America Can't Be Made Great Unless We Nationalize Housing

While a socialistic approach might seem the right way to solve problems in society, it always causes more problems than it solves. I will make several points here that would help solve the problems my opponent seeks to eliminate. However, these solutions will be based on either increasing the benefits of private enterprise, or reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government. First off, the federal budget currently has an deficit of $587 Billion. The highest deficit was in 2009 at $1,413 Billion. (1) This deficit could be eliminated completely if we eliminated the Cabinet level positions and departments that are unConstitutional. Those departments and their individual budgets are Agriculture $134.12 Billion, Labor $137.97 Billion, Health and Human Services $879.20 Billion, Housing and Urban Development $40.53 Billion, Transportation $73.20 Billion, Energy $24.10 Billion, Education $45.40 Billion, Homeland Security $40.00 Billion, and Treasury $19.56 Billion. (2) These total $1,394.08 Billion. If we eliminated all of these departments, we would have had a budget surplus of $604.38 per year over the last ten years. (As an aside, I think it is disgraceful that we spend more on Health and Human Services ($879.20 Billion) than we do on Defense ($651.16 Billion). ) Now you might say that we need those departments and programs. That might be true, but we don't need them at the federal level. According to the US Constitution, the federal government is granted only the powers specified in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the States or the people of the States. There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to exercise any of the powers of the cabinet positions listed above (and some of the ones that I left out are questionable). Second, any time you give a government agency power and authority to handle a problem, you must allocate money to them to handle the problem. Of necessity, you will always spend more money through the government than you will through private enterprise, because all government expenses are "third person" expenses. First person expenses are made with your own money and you are going to use the item purchased. That means you are concerned with cost and quality. Second person purchases are made with your own money, but you will not use the item purchases (like a gift). You are concerned with the cost, but not necessarily with the quality. Third person purchase are made with someone else's money and you will not use the product. Government does not make money; it takes money in the form of taxes, and then purchases items that will be used by the populace. This, by definition, is a third person purchase. Because it is not their money, they are not worried about how much things cost (so they waste money all over the place (not to mention corruption)), nor are they worried about the quality of the purchased items, because they won't be (in this case) living in the housing. Finally, I would ask my opponent what he thinks made America great in the first place. Was government responsible for our becoming great? Or was it the personal industry of the individual who was allowed to prosper through his own efforts, who committed himself to success, and overcame the obstacles to create a successful business out of nothing? I submit that the more freedom we have in America, the more we will allow the individual to succeed. We are not all supposed to end up at the finish line at the same time. We are all supposed to start at the start line at the same time, and based on our personal effort cross the finish line when we get there. America is not great because we guarantee a minimum lifestyle to every resident. We are great because we offer a level playing field upon which you can build a shack or a mansion based upon your own effort. References: 1. . http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... 2. . https://en.wikipedia.org...