Greg H., I think we can agree on a few basic truths. First, the government is always going to take a portion of the earnings of individuals and corporations. This is not a new, or novel, concept and goes back as far as recorded history. If you're religious, it's even ratified by Jesus (give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's).
If we agree on the first point then it leads to the second, if the government is going to take the money they are obviously going to spend it. In how the money is spent is what leads to most divides in this country, much more so than the actual taking, although people will get bent on the amount taken, either too much or not enough.
So if we agree that the government is always going to take money and then is always going to spend money, what is the best way to spend it? I am a fairly strict Constitutionalist and believe the government should only spend money on the 7 things set forth in the Constitution. The problem in that is defining things like "promote the general welfare of the citizens". Do infrastructure improvements that promote economic activity, social interaction, improve the quality of life, etc. meet the definition of promoting the general welfare?
If this project doesn't meet your criteria, how about something like federal tax dollars paying for sewer and water infrastructure?
If I had my way, I would significantly reduce federal government and have it as the Constitution intended with the power with the states. Of course you have to acknowledge that if that happened the net tax effect would be minimal. State tax rates would have to increase substantially because the state would have to take ownership of the programs now administered by the federal government (as it should be). Of course you have to keep in mind that a move like that would kill a state like WV because there is no way they could generate enough tax revenue to meet the needs of their residents.
Banker. We agree somewhat. Although I view the US Constitution as the best plan of government ever devised, it does not form the basis of my political philosophy, as it appears to do with you????? (not sure). A few things. First, the Caesar line is a lot of crap. It's about adherence to the law, not a Biblical mandate to put up with whatever pile of b.s. the government heaps on us. Second, I know there are always going to be taxes, so I view that explanation as just a bit insulting. The devil is in the details. See my explanation that the force should only be used to defend or protect
individual rights. Never for the "common good."
As for the "general welfare," this clause is not one of the enumerated powers in the US Constitution. It is in the preamble to Article I, Section 8. It is "prefatory" language to the 18 enumerated powers that follow. That means it explains the reasons those powers are being set forth in Article I. The general welfare clause does not confer any power at all on the US Government, as has been explained by dozens of people who were there at the time or who were in our government in the years before it spun totally out of control (see the Federalist papers, Jefferson, et.al.).
I am absolutely opposed to federal dollars for all of the things you describe. None of them are enumerated and all of them can be performed with much greater accountability by local authorities. That's the beauty of Federalism. Many of them, like economic development projects, should NEVER be done by government precisely because they use force to take money from some people and give it to others to their benefit, not protect or defend the rights of the person who paid the taxes. Some exceptions, like major sewer projects (at the municipal, never state or federal levels) are things I can support because they deal with legitimate and very serious health concerns that effect absolutely everyone within a municipality.
My Libertarian friends would differ with that last sentence. I'm not as "pure" as them. Another example is roads, which I have no problem with government building, but they ought to be built by local authorities in almost every case.
Again, my issue is the absolute maximum liberty that can be afforded while still maintaining an ordered society. Where GOVERNMENT is concerned, I don't give a rats ass about development, the poor, the elderly or any of the other "problems" our government deals with. Those are for private hands because ANY TIME the government acts, it deprives individuals of liberty. Yes, some things will go undone. Some people will suffer, etc. But that is all true now, even with ever-growing and obnoxious government that seriously undermines personal liberties every day. I'd rather have the loss of comfort than the loss of liberty.
War is another matter. I'll save the details, but we fight (and lose) way too many wars. It's obscene.
Home
Help
Members
View the memberlist
Search For Members
Login
Register