(Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:
(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.

Nothing "relative" about it -- when someone is given something that he has not
earned, it's a free lunch. And there is *nothing* in the Constitution that
authorizes the government to take money from the pocket of one American, and
give it to another American. Nothing.

The relative part is simply that the value of the benefit depends on
whether or not you are receiving it. Of course you only want to pay
for the services you actually use, who doesn't? Of course you don't
like the idea of "welfare bums" -- who does? But the harsh reality is
that if you lost your job and if you had a serious illness (say
cancer) then you'd be darned glad you could get Medicare. Because the
"evil gubmint" would keep you from dying in a gutter somewhere. So,
relatively speaking when you don't need it, then it's worthless
welfare -- but if you did need it then it's a different story. That's
why it's relative.

Don't get me wrong -- I am *not* arguing for bigger government. In
fact I would love to see smaller, more efficient government. What I
am arguing is the original point that "it's not the government's
money." In fact people ought to understand that they have an
obligation to pay for the services they receive from the government,
just like they have to pay for everything else. If you want to see
smaller government and reduce the "free lunches" then vote for someone
who will do that (of course Dubya hasn't been exactly stellar in this
area).

You are quite right that there is nothing in the original Constitution
that allows for a federal income tax. It's instead covered in
Amendment 16. Of course, the Constitution itself, without all the
Amendments, is void of a lot of things that we now take as common
sense (for example, the Bill of Rights of course comprises the first
10 amendments).

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

Again -- check the Constitution. It does *not* require the President to submit
a budget

The link clearly points out the law requiring the President to submit
a budget proposal that starts the budget process in the House. This
refutes the original posted point that Congress, not the President, is
responsible for originating the budget.

Now if you want to say that only the items that are in the original
Constitution are valid points of law, I think you would be on very
shaky ground. How about the Bill of Rights? The Electoral College?
Abolishing slavery? The right of women to vote?