A Novel Idea For The Budget Debate

Posted By on April 11, 2011

I’m going crazy listening to the unending diatribe in the media, the Congress and from the White House regarding the ongoing budget crisis created by the lack of an annual budget. From the side of the liberals we hear how the conservatives are going to cut programs that have been in place for years, even decades. For their part the conservatives speak of the pressing problem of our overwhelming, unimaginable national debt and how the problem is not a taxing problem, it is a SPENDING problem.

My question is, “when are the Congressmen, Senators and the President going to fulfill the words of the oath they swore upon taking office?” When are they going to “support and defend the Constitution”? When are we going to hear these men and women citing the Constitution to provide the impetus for the spending cuts, or the continued spending? We hear hyperbola, hype, innuendo and mud-racking, but rarely do we hear anything about the Constitution.

Here’s a novel idea, cited the Constitution when attempting to justify a spending increase or cut. How about when giving an interview in the press we hear our representatives state, “this program is being cut because we have no authorization in the Constitution to spend, or undertake the efforts associated with it”? Wouldn’t it be nice to hear someone say they are cutting Planned Parenthood from the budget because the Constitution does not authorize this type of expenditure? Wouldn’t it be nice to hear someone say NPR is losing its funding because we have no Constitutional mandate for it? How how about, we are defunding the Department of Education because it is outside of the constitutionally imposed limits on the federal government?

This type of justification would cut through a ton of counter-arguments opponents may level, and they would fall in line with the primary focus of the Tea Parties, the 9-12 groups and the other various grassroots organizations which have sprung up in the past couple of years.

BUT the biggest argument we would hear is, “our founding fathers couldn’t think of everything and we have to change the way we look at government and the Constitution.” The basic premise of this argument is absolutely correct, yet the end result is so far off base it has been used to justify the uninhibited expansion of the federal government. Our founding fathers, and specifically the framers of the Constitution were not so arrogant, or so shortsighted to assume there would never be the need for changing the Constitution, and as a result the government. This is specifically why they included Article VI within the body of the Constitution, and gave us the ability to amend it IN WRITING and through COMMON CONSENT.

So, you want a Department of Education, amend the Constitution. You want to fund social programs with federal tax dollars, amend the Constitution. You want to provide a massive amount of foreign aid, amend the Constitution. You desire to help the poor through government handouts, amend the Constitution. You want to assist in funding a bridge, or highway, or port, or rail system, amend the Constitution.

If you don’t want to seek an amendment, or can’t then don’t tell me it is the federal government’s responsibility to do these, AND 70% of the activities it has undertaken. Congressmen and Senators, let us hear you standing up for your Oath of Office, and tell us how the Constitution can be brought into the discussions, the debates and your very public stances.

In short, if the expenditure is not authorized by the Constitution DEFUND it, or offer us an amendment to the Constitution to approve by ratification of the States as allowed for in Article VI. NO AMENDMENT, NO FUNDING!

About the author

Comments

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: