From: degroff@IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff)
Subject: Re: Federal Government and the US Constitution (was Re: deficit/debt)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:47:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.051314.1700@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> A number posters and mail respondents to the thread: Confronting the
|> Deficit/Debt Boogyman, have taken issue with my occassional comments
|> that what we need is to get the federal government back within its
|> Constitutional powers. Others have made statements that demonstrate
|> confusion about the structure of our federal government (de jure and
|> de facto).
|> uninterested in the legality of the federal government with respect to the
|> US Constitution, PLEASE, read no further.
|> 
|> On the other hand, if you are interested in understand the true nature
|> of the federal deficit/debt, you must first understand who and what is
|> in debt.
|> 
|> 
|>       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.
|> 
|> are quite clear in this regard. The federal government has no power, for
|> example, to administer education. Therefore education administration is
|> left to the states respectively or to the people in their individual
|> capacity. It is not up to the congress or the president to decide what
|> powers to take and what powers to leave to the states or to individual
|> Americans.
|> 
|> The bulk of federal powers are granted to congress in Article I, Section 8.
|> 
|>       Section 8. The Congress shall have power
|>       To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the

|>    debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Looks to me like part of the big mistake was putting that weasely term
in there.... Lots of dead trees and spent electrons to argue how far
"general welfare" can be stretched.  This i fact has been the discussion
point ever since the signing.    
|> 
 the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be
|>    uniform throughout the United States;
? Has any one ever gotten to the Supreme Court on this one vs graduated
income tax?

|>       To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
In isolation, we might read Nothing here about how it spends, wastes the
monies borrowed on the credit of the US?

|> Now, lets look at what the federal government is spending on:
|> 
|>     31% Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement benefits
|>     23% Defense
|>     14% debt interest.
|>     14% agricultural programs, environmental pgms, education assistance,
|>         job pgms, bank insurance, NASA, assisted housing
|>      7% Medicaid, food stamps, AFDC, etc (matched by the states)
|>      5% Health research, public health, public housing, social services
|>      2% veterans benefits
|>      2% law enforcement and general govt
|>      1% foreign affairs
|> 
 A lot of the added stuff has been justified Constitutionally as necessary
to the "General welfare" with the big surges during and after the Depression,
and WWII. Certainly the "risk of internal revolution/communists" was used
as propaganda all the way through the process, many officials believed it.
 
 It can be interesting to contrast and compare the Depression 
with the past 5 or 10 years economic news and realize, we may be 
seeing a depression as it happens with many of the precautions established
after then last one in action...the banks are failing but little to no 
runs and virtually no catastrophy for small account holders...major
unemployment buffered by unemployment, farmers and some industries
sheilded by government subsidies or garentees....So NOW what happens
with a ?strong? central government taking on much of the systematic
imbalance by issuing debt and promises.
   As Ed appears to have good grasp of economic concepts, the constitutional
powers and statistics...what's a feasible time table to deinstitutionalize
the "unconstitutional" parts of the government?  Certainly a dumping of
several million employees and cutting off tens of million Social Security
recipiants is not feasible. This of course is the classic cop out that I
have been watching with Presidents for the last 4 or 5...we will balance and
cut back in just a few...by end of this term, Gramm Rudman....... 
Our tax load and redistribution is still not quite up to some European
models  but the big economic question is "How far can it go?, How will
it break?".   Les DeGroff  (degroff@intellicorp.com)
  
Xref: sparky sci.econ:3809 misc.taxes:2291