Budgeting Our Way to the Poorhouse
Whenever our federal (and some state) elected politicians talk about reducing spending, they are quick to divide the budget into two categories, “discretionary” and “nondiscretionary” spending. So-called “entitlements” fall in the “nondiscretionary” category. These definitions are phony and are used by politicians only to shield themselves from criticism for their out-of-control spending. After all, how can they be criticized if they have no control over “nondiscretionary” expenditures or “entitlements?”
Phooey! Ask yourself, who voted to establish these funds in the first place? The fact is there is no such thing as “entitlements.” The Constitution in Article I, Sec. 8, grants Congress the “Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” and defines, but does not require, 18 specific actions Congress may take for which such taxes may be used. While certain of the defined actions government is permitted to take may require expenditure of tax dollars, the amount of those expenditures is still “discretionary.” In addition, nowhere in the Constitution will you find any mention of the words “nondiscretionary” or “entitlement.”
Sadly, the public has by and large bought into this budget charade, even as we spend our children’s and grandchildren’s patrimony and virtually indenture ourselves to China as we spend and borrow our merry way to bankruptcy. And to all our liberal friends out there who have the perfect way to continue our spendthrift ways, I say, no, no and no.
Taxing all the mean-spirited millionaires and billionaires out of existence will not provide enough cash to keep us free of the poorhouse doors. Limiting government and the money it spends is the only way.
More like this story