DIYbanter - View Single Post

(Doug Miller) wrote:

I have no objection to paying for national security, a stable government, the
delivery of mail, and the construction of roads (all of which are authorized
by the Constitution). My objection is to being forced to pay for a bunch of
income redistribution programs _not_ authorized by the Constitution that
result in giving somebody _else_ a free lunch _at my expense_ .

The whole business of free lunches is a relative issue. Nobody likes
the idea of a lazy welfare recipient. On the other hand, I've seen a
proud bricklayer crushed because he had to accept food stamp
assistance. It didn't look like he was getting a free lunch to me.
YMMV.

My point exactly. I am very much in favor of shrinking government so
that we can all afford tax cuts. But borrowing lots of money to pay
for bigger government (as has been done under Bush) is reckless in the
long run.

Check the Constitution: spending bills originate in the House of
Representatives. Bush bears blame only to the extent that it's his signature
on the bills; the actual spending authority lies with Congress, and not with
the President.

No, on the contrary ... the President is responsible to submit the
budget, and his budget proposal begins the Congressional budget
process. In addition, he must either approve it or veto it. There's
a good summary of the responsibilities for the budget process at
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...df/RS20175.pdf