Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Breaking News: Water Still Wet, US Federal Spending Still Out of Control
Here’s another good site on a very bad thing. Namely, on the US debt: USGovernmentSpending.com.
Try scrolling down to that nifty pie chart. Then try clicking the “Federal Pie Chart” button to see which unconstitutional federal government functions outspend national defense.
If you scroll down to the part about Federal Deficits, you’ll see how much more money the country is still spending than it takes in. Is anyone surprised that under good ol’ Scranton Joe, who’s done so much work to get the debt under control, the deficit is going to be even worse in 2023 than it was in 2022?
Anyone surprised? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
This is very bad indeed.
Published in Domestic Policy
U. S. Federal Spending Still Out of Control
Budgets? We don’t need no stinkin’ budgets!
Minor quibble. That graph that loads is total for federal, state, and local. When one gets the federal-only pie chart, education spending is much less, and there are only two un-Constitutional items outstripping defense. (Still bad, though.)
Thank you. Will try to correct.
There is a federal-only pie chart with the button right there, too.
Which takes one here:
[Facepalm.] Why, so there is! Thank you. Post clarified.
I’m not sure why you think certain spending is unconstitutional. The Constitution grants a very broad spending power to Congress, with no stated limitation.
I’m reminded of Justice Scalia’s quip that judges should be given a stamp that says “stupid but Constitutional.”
Constitutional amendment: Any year where Congress runs a deficit, all members of Congress and their staff forego their salary for one year, and/or will be indebted at 10% interest if they leave Congress before payment is completed.
Because of reading Article I?
It’s called the Tenth Amendment.
To sum up, what the Tenth Amendment means is that anything the Constitution doesn’t enumerate powers for is left up to the states and to the citizens.
Is Social Security unconstitutional? Currently no. Shortly after it was passed, several sections of the Social Security Act were challenged as unconstitutional and reached the Supreme Court in 1937. In the case of Helvering v. Davis, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, sustained the constitutionality of the Act as an excise or income tax under the general welfare provision of Article 1.
Yes.
And I should agree with them why?
The power to tax is not the same thing as the power to construct a massive bureaucracy to (supposedly) care for the elderly. The Tenth Amendment applies.
You might try to work this massive program in under the “necessary and proper” bit at the end of Article 1, Section 8, but . . . you’d be wrong; and it would still be backwards thinking, since the tax is necessary to fund the program, not the program necessary for having the tax.
Well, no. I mean, that’s what the Tenth Amendment essentially says, almost, but the spending power of Congress is specifically enumerated. There is no limitation placed upon it. So the Tenth Amendment doesn’t override it.
Technically, the Tenth Amendment doesn’t say that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved “to the states and to the citizens.” It says “to the States respectively, or to the people.” It’s “or,” not “and.” This covers the possibility that some states might limit the power of the state government, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.
It was not a 5-4 decision. It was a 7-2 decision. Here.
Well, yes, it does limit spending that does things that aren’t enumerated.
And when the Court agrees with you, it will be unconstitutional. Until then, it IS constitutional….whether you like it or not.
The Constitution grants limited spending power to the government, and the government has decided that this means unlimited. Just ask them — they’ll tell you. But it wasn’t always this way.
And so forth. General Welfare and Commerce Clause are indeed vague, but their intent can be discerned as at least in keeping with the rest of the tone of the document, rather than the free-for-all that the government has decided places no restrictions upon itself.
In fact, Social Security shouldn’t be part of the discussion regarding the current debt level. Remember, Social Security has both Revenue generating as well Expenditure components. And, to date, the SS program as a whole has generated a surplus of about 2 Trillion dollars. That surplus is invested in US Treasury securities. So the current Federal government debt would be the same whether or not SS ever existed.
Now, this situation won’t last. Once the surplus in the SS Trust Fund is exhausted, one possible option is to make up the difference between SS tax revenue and SS expenditures by borrowing more money. THAT would add do the debt. But, so far, SS has not contributed to existing debt.
Which is like looking at a Chinese real estate conglomerate (Evergrande, Country Garden, others) and saying sure, it’s a Ponzi scheme that the bottom has already fallen out of, but we’re still making payroll on current projects. This is acomplished by not actually purchasing supplies for future projects, all of which are already paid or being paid for for by customers who will never see get an apartment in a building that will never exist.
The obligation exists now, even if it isn’t due now. It’s a liability, just not a current expense. Or something like that.
Whether or not it’s a Ponzi scheme (it is IMO) is not the question at hand. The OP is about debt. And so far SS hasn’t added to the debt. That’s just a fact. And there is no future obligation – at this point – that would contribute to the debt. As things currently stand, the program is prohibited by law from disbursing amounts in excess of revenues. That’s why, in a few years, benefits paid out will go down by 20-25%. That’s all that can be supported by the projected revenues.
50% of the GOP debate should focus on this.
Suicide notes make good sound bites.
Precisely incorrect. I pre-refuted you here.
Fair enough, insofar as technically correct. Not sure where to find the numbers. I know the debt’s a problem, but I don’t know a lot of details.
The 1040 instructions are an easy place to remember to check for things–page 108 for the 2022 instructions. Together, “Social security, Medicare, and unemployment and other retirement taxes” take in about 0.76893 trillion dollars, and “Social security, Medicare, and other retirement” spending is about 1.99578 trillion.
But none of that means you’re wrong.
Maybe it’s a debt in the sense that the Social Security IOUs – T-bills, whatever – have to be redeemed to pay those obligations?
Man, I hates gettin’ prefuterated.
Spending power is power. The BoR has some things to say about powers the feds don’t have.
Additional explanation: The power to spend money on something is power to control that something. The power granted by the constitution to do that is not so broad.