Democrats elect a flaming moderate as majority leader

[Bruce Carriker]

And despite a 149-86 margin of victory, Speaker-elect Pelosi called Steny Hoyer's victory "stunning". I'm not sure who she has counting votes for her, but I sure hope they do a better job on the House floor than they did in the party caucus. :fav18

Hoyer won handily over John Murtha, who was rejected by some of his colleagues as "too polarizing". Let's hope that's a sign of things to come.

[Stan Hall]

Let's hope so. It's hard to tell who's moderate when the media label anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy as a "moderate" and all Republicans are considered "far right."
I am hopeful that the growth of federal spending will subside. While government spending has increased steadily since the Eisenhower administration, it grows less when opposing parties control Congress and the White House. In the last 50 years the smallest growth occurred in the Clinton administration (with a Republican Congress) and the Eisenhower years (with a Democratic Congress) when spending actually decreased.

Stan

[Bruce Carriker]

Let's hope so. It's hard to tell who's moderate when the media label anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy as a "moderate" and all Republicans are considered "far right."
I am hopeful that the growth of federal spending will subside. While government spending has increased steadily since the Eisenhower administration, it grows less when opposing parties control Congress and the White House. In the last 50 years the smallest growth occurred in the Clinton administration (with a Republican Congress) and the Eisenhower years (with a Democratic Congress) when spending actually decreased.

Stan

So you DO understand how those of us anywhere to the left of Rush Limbaugh feel when we are labled "radical leftists" by the "moderates" here.

While I tend to agree on the government spending issue, other than the last six years when it has ballooned at a record pace, didn't government spending increase most during the Reagan administration, when we also had divided government power?

[Stan Hall]

I don't recall anyone on this board calling anyone to the left of Rush a "radical leftist," nor do I recall anyone calling you a "radical leftist." I certainly wouldn't characterize you that way. You appear to be to the left of center but IMHO, nowhere close to radical.

And no, it doesn't appear that spending grew most during the Reagan years.

Sorry, I posted a chart here but the formatting didn't work on the forum so here's a link.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0

Stan

[Dave McClung]

I don't recall anyone on this board calling anyone to the left of Rush a "radical leftist," nor do I recall anyone calling you a "radical leftist." I certainly wouldn't characterize you that way. You appear to be to the left of center but IMHO, nowhere close to radical.

And no, it doesn't appear that spending grew most during the Reagan years.

Sorry, I posted a chart here but the formatting didn't work on the forum so here's a link.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0

Stan

Stan

Thanks for posting the chart. I like it when people respond with facts. I can relate to "real" numbers a lot better than to broad statements.

[Bruce Carriker]

And no, it doesn't appear that spending grew most during the Reagan years.

Sorry, I posted a chart here but the formatting didn't work on the forum so here's a link.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0
Stan

If I'm reading that right, the highest federal spending as a percentage of GOP in our history occurred in 1985, right smack in the middle of the Reagan administration.

As I look at figure 2, the highest point on the chart (until you get into the projections of 2025 and beyond) is somehwere between 1975-2000. Again, halfway between those two years puts you in 1987...the Reagan Administration.

And yes, I have been called a radical leftist on these boards; but I'm in some very good company.

[Stan Hall]

I believe you're right about the highest spending, Bruce, but I was paying most attention to the greatest increase. That was between 1965 and 1970; Johnson and Nixon. There was a noticeable increase from 80-85 (Reagan). That was mostly in defense spending to undo the decimation of our military under Carter. Also note that the end of the Reagan years and into Bush I, spending went down.

[Bruce Carriker]

I believe you're right about the highest spending, Bruce, but I was paying most attention to the greatest increase. That was between 1965 and 1970; Johnson and Nixon. There was a noticeable increase from 80-85 (Reagan). That was mostly in defense spending to undo the decimation of our military under Carter. Also note that the end of the Reagan years and into Bush I, spending went down.

Even so, by 1990 (mid-Bush I, tenth year of Reagan/Bush administration), spending as a percentage of GDP was still the second highest of any year measured on your charts.

There's no math that makes this truth go away: Ronald Reagan gave us HUGE, then-record deficits. I didn't have a problem with it, and I still don't, because he had an end state in mind and he told us what it was, and we bought into it: Defeat the Soviet Union.

The problem is, once we defeated the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War, we didn't really adjust the defense budget at all. We cut troop strength, but overall spending kept right on going up. Adjusted for inflation...and even without the war, most of which is being paid for "off budget"...defense spending sets new records every year.

[Stan Hall]

I agree that defense spending is way too high. But at least the defense of our country is authorized by the Constitution as a proper function of the federal government. Most of the rest of federal programs, agencies and functions are not.

[Hans Deventer]

I agree that defense spending is way too high. But at least the defense of our country is authorized by the Constitution as a proper function of the federal government. Most of the rest of federal programs, agencies and functions are not.

That's an interesting point. Agreeing on defence, what else would be the proper duty of the federal government?

I would say at least foreign policy and representation, 50 embassies in each country might be impractical.

In general, I think issues need to be dealt with at a national level, when big differences at state level would create problems for the people. Since the American society is very mobile, you need to look beyond the state borders.

[Bruce Carriker]

That's an interesting point. Agreeing on defence, what else would be the proper duty of the federal government?


Here's the really ironic thing about Stan's argument that national defense is one of the few things specifically provided for in the Constitution:

The same article (Article 1, Section 8) which authorizes the Federal government to provide for national defense IS THE VERY SAME ARTICLE which authorizes the Federal government to provide for the general welfare of the citizenry.

Now, understanding that the meaning of words can change over time...and especially over nearly 250 years...here's how the 1828 Webster's Dictionary defines welfare:

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity; or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.

SO...the very Article and Section of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to "...lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises..." to provide for the common defense (which conservatives LOVE to quote); also gives Congress the authority to lay those same taxes, etc, to provide for the general welfare (which conservatives are loathe to admit).

[Stan Hall]

You're quite right Hans. Representation of the US to other governments (embassies and such) is part of the function of the federal government.
Bruce the Constitution does mention General Welfare. Clearly this refers to the General welfare of the country. Providing welfare to individuals by taking property by force from other individuals hardly promotes or provided "general" welfare. Especially when the bureaucrats take a large percentage in the process.

Also you seem to have missed the rest of the article. The statement you refer to is the general. Following that is a list of specific functions which explains what the general statement is talking about. Here it is:

*********************
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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

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.

*************
Where does it say "To take the fruits of the labor of some to give to others"?
Where does it say that government should control and regulate businesses?
Where does it say that government should run education?
Where does it say that government should take away our freedoms to protect us from ourselves?
Where does it say that government should run health care?
Notice even that the government is to promote science not by funding it, but by providing for copyrights and patents to protect intellectual property.
Where does it say government is to fund art?

What the founders meant by general welfare is clearly seen in the list of functions specified.

Stan

[Bruce Carriker]

Where does it say "To take the fruits of the labor of some to give to others"?

The power to tax implies the right to "take the fruits of the labor of some to give to others". You just don't like the "others" when it's not DoD or the Department of Homeland Security.

Where does it say that government should control and regulate businesses?

To regulate international trade and interstate commerce...there are very few businesses today that don't engage in either interstate or international trade. But I would agree with you on this. To the extent that there are stand-alone business that have nothing to do with interstate or international trade, they should not be subject to federal regulation.

Where does it say that government should run education?

It doesn't, and they shouldn't. If Mississippi wants to be the dumbest state in the country, that's Mississippi's business.

Where does it say that government should take away our freedoms to protect us from ourselves?

That's what ALL laws do, to some degree or another. The alternative, as we've discussed ad nauseum other places, is anarchy.

Where does it say that government should run health care?

That pretty clearly falls under the general welfare clause. The fact that we continue to ignore it doesn't mean it's not there.

Notice even that the government is to promote science not by funding it, but by providing for copyrights and patents to protect intellectual property.

Again, the promotion of science fits quite easily under the general welfare clause.

Where does it say government is to fund art?

It doesn't, and it shouldn't.

What the founders meant by general welfare is clearly seen in the list of functions specified.

You contend that the subsequent list clarifies the first statement. If that were so, then grammatically (and our Founders WERE literate), the first clause should end with a colon or a period, not a semi-colon. The first clause is merely the first clause listed, with a bunch more following.

[Stan Hall]

The power to tax implies the right to "take the fruits of the labor of some to give to others". You just don't like the "others" when it's not DoD or the Department of Homeland Security.
You're mistaken about what I "like." It's not a matter of what I or anyone else likes. The Constitution provides for taxes to support certain legitimate functions of government. BTW, I'm against the Dept. of Homeland Security. That's what the military is for. We shouldn't need yet another bureaucracy for that.

To regulate international trade and interstate commerce...there are very few businesses today that don't engage in either interstate or international trade. But I would agree with you on this. To the extent that there are stand-alone business that have nothing to do with interstate or international trade, they should not be subject to federal regulation.
We agree on this. Unfortunately Washington has managed to regulate just about everything whether it falls into that category or not.

Education: We agree on this. Universal federal mandates on public education stifle innovation and encourage mediocrity which is quite evident in our public schools. Look up John Stossel's 20/20 segment on education.

Laws to protect us from ourselves.
That's what ALL laws do, to some degree or another. The alternative, as we've discussed ad nauseum other places, is anarchy.
I disagree. That's certainly NOT what all laws do. Many laws protect us from others who would usurp our rights, not protect us from ourselves by prohibiting our choices. That's what laws should do. And that's not anarchy.

Health Care
That pretty clearly falls under the general welfare clause. The fact that we continue to ignore it doesn't mean it's not there.
I disagree with this also. Government health care is some people paying for the health care of others. That's not general welfare, it's welfare for some at the expense of others. And we aren't ignoring it. Government is taking more and more control of health care which means it's controlling more of our economy and more of our lives. While a person's health is dependent on many factors including heredity, it is most dependent on how one lives one's life; the choices one makes. Do you smoke, drink, eat a balanced diet, exercise, get enough sleep etc. When we give government control of health care, we give government a vested interest in controlling how we live and our personal choices. I submit that freedom is better.

Again, the promotion of science fits quite easily under the general welfare clause.
I think this is a bit "iffy," but I still stand by my statement that promotion should include providing for the protection of intellectual property (copyrights and patents) but forcing others to pay for it.

And we agree on the art thing.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Bruce.

Stan

[Bruce Carriker]

Thanks for the civil response, Stan. We can at least disagree agreeably.