Inserting the Constitution into the Budget Debate
By Melancton Smith • Saturday August 20, 2011 6:54 PM PDT • 9 Comments
In recent weeks, Americans have been debating issues related to the national debt and current budget. One camp calls for higher taxes while the other urges spending cuts (or at least a reduction in the rate of growth). What’s been missing from the debate is any conversation about the appropriate powers of the national government or constitutional limitations.
According to numbers provided by usgovernmentspending.com, the national government’s spending breaks down as follows:
Defense 25 percent; Education 3 percent, Health Care 23 percent, Pensions (social security and employee pensions) 21 percent, Welfare 13 percent, Interest on the Debt 5 percent, Protection (prisons, police, etc.) 2 percent, Transportation 2 percent, and General Government 1 percent.
Being very charitable, only about 35 percent of the the budget (items in ital above) has a firm or arguable basis in the Constitution. Most of what the national government does has no constitutional authority. The main culprit is the use of the so-called spending power which is part of the General Welfare Clause: “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.” This Clause is interpreted to permit Congress to spend on any matter it believes is for the general welfare of the nation. The Anti-Federalists warned that this broad language would be subject to abuse, but Madison and others assured them that their fears were misplaced because an enumeration of powers followed the Clause. Madison thought it clear that any spending would have to be pursuant to a delegated power, but his interpretation was eventually rejected.
Thus we have a national government in which at least 65 percent of its spending is for extra-constitutional purposes, i.e., objects outside of Congress’ delegated powers. Seen in this light, is there any wonder we are on the verge of a financial collapse?
If elected officials are serious about pulling our financial ox out of the ditch, they need to reexamine the constitutional limitations on federal power. So long as any object asserted to be for the “general welfare” is free game for Congress, our debt will grow. Rather than arguing about higher taxes or slowing the rate of spending growth, Congress should turn to first principles for the answer to our national ills.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, Constitution, Economics, Nanny State, Power, The State 
The sad fact of the matter is that Americans don’t really want Constitutional government; they want free stuff. Enter the politician. His job is to get elected (and then re-elected).
The easiest route to power and prestige is to promise free stuff to the masses. Lots of it. Trillions of dollars of it. Don’t worry about properly funding for the stuff. That’s for future generations to ponder.
It’s Ponzi economics on a national scale. That system is mercifully coming to an end, and when it does, the free stuff ends. What will those receiving this stuff do when their welfare checks vanish? Hmm...
Steve Hogan | Aug 20, 2011 | Reply
Steve....... I couldn’t agree with you more, except for one thing. The checks will not vanish, they will go out just as before but just won’t buy anything. That’s because the money will be worthless.
Libertarian Jerry | Aug 21, 2011 | Reply
That 35% estimate is extremely charitable. The so-called “defense” budget far exceeds anything envisioned by those who ratified the Constitution.
As it says in the 2nd Amendment, a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
The National Guard is not a militia, in the sense understood in those days. Militia members own their weapons and bring them, upon request, to defend a free state.
An un-free state cannot bear the risk of a free, armed population. It relies instead upon a small “professional” cadre whose loyalties are to the government itself, not to the people. The militia and the people, by contrast, are one and the same.
terrymac | Aug 22, 2011 | Reply
Interesting post. I’m not sure if really matters what the framer’s of the Constitution listed. You draw some incredible conclusions that aren’t supported from your post such as:
1. So long as any object asserted to be for the “general welfare” is free game for Congress, our debt will grow. Perhaps you mean our spending will grow. Debt will grow if we insist on financing the growth in spending.
2. “Seen in this light, is there any wonder we are on the verge of a financial collapse?” I don’t see that we are on the verge of financial collapse.
You folks been reading the Washington Post and watch FOX News?
John Donnelly | Aug 22, 2011 | Reply
It’s an interesting thesis, but doesn’t hold up for several reasons. First, if we are on the edge of financial collapse (and I would argue we’re not), it’s due to malicious self-infliction. Using CBO numbers, projected revenue and spending align if Congress “does nothing”: the Bush tax cuts expire, the Medicare doc fix is repealed or paid for in the next 70 years, and the ACA is implemented and achieves its targets. That doesn’t include ending the current wars and reducing the defense budget to 1997 levels (for a start.) Second, the notion of originalism is quaint but fairly useless. The Constitution is a platform that supports positive law and subsequent judicial interpretations; the Founders would be horrified to think that we are now discarding 220 years of law and precedent. Finally, it is correct to say that Madison’s interpretation was “eventually rejected”, but more accurate to point out the Hamilton pretty much trashed it during the Washington administration. The “new order” was agreed upon by the Founders themselves.
We certainly have a fiscal crisis on our hands, but it’s not rooted in the Constitution or our debt obligations. Rather, our crisis is the cowardice of not charging people for the things they want, and failing to exercise rational public policy (e.g., squandering budget surpluses on tax breaks, waging ridiculous wars, borrowing to pay for social programs.) The answers are pretty straightforward, if only our leadership would listen to what their constituents are saying.
Michael Miles | Aug 22, 2011 | Reply
30% is VERY charitable indeed... the Constitution only allows for a standing navy, not a standing army... The Constitution only allows to raise an army to fight our wars... The Constirution only allows us to go to war with a declaration of war... we have not had a declaration of war since WWII... At least during the Korean and vietnam wars the politicians paid lip service to the Constitution by denying that we were at war. Those were “Police Actions” those of us old enough to remember will recall. G.W. was the first to openly commit treason on that issue by actually using the word “War”...
So yes Virgina, there may be a Santa Clause, but there is no Constitution... Not that anyone seems to care...
joe4liberty | Aug 25, 2011 | Reply
The simple fact that Obama continued the Bush tax cuts blows my mind and is one of the main reasons we’re in this crisis.
Ryan loves Santa Letters | Nov 5, 2011 | Reply
Reason for America’s economic downfall is that the American government is expending many battle grounds, the money which should spend on people is been spent on army expenses. The Chinese economy is booming despite that they have issues with Taiwan. They don’t want war — just to stable and improve their people’s lives.
Zaf | Mar 9, 2012 | Reply