[MaterDei]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36060

The Minority View
Walter Williams

Let's do some detective work

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 10, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

I'd like to enlist the services of my fellow Americans with a bit of detective work. Let's start off with hard evidence.

The Federalist Papers were a set of documents written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to persuade the 13 states to ratify the Constitution. In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James Madison wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
If we turned James Madison's statement on its head, namely that the powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite and those of the states are few and defined, we'd describe today's America. Was Madison just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before making our judgment, let's examine statements of other possibly misinformed Americans.

In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims saying it was neither the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve such spending "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland was the king of the veto. He vetoed literally hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often given reason was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Today's White House proposes and Congress taxes and spends for anything they can muster a majority vote on. My investigative query is: Were the Founders and previous congressmen and presidents, who could not find constitutional authority for today's bread and circuses, just plain stupid and ignorant? I don't believe in long-run ignorance or stupidity, so I reread the Constitution, looking to see whether an amendment had been passed authorizing Congress to spend money on bailouts for airlines, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of similar items in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment.

Being thorough, I reread the Constitution and found what Congress might interpret as a blank-check authorization – the "general welfare clause." Then I investigated further to see what the Framers meant by the "general welfare clause." In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The Constitution's father, James Madison said: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

My detective work concludes with several competing explanations. The first is that the great men who laid the framework for our nation were not only constitutionally ignorant but callous and uncaring, as well. The second is it's today's politicians who are constitutionally ignorant. Lastly, it's today's Americans who have contempt for the Constitution, and any congressman or president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit would be tarred and feathered.

[TallPine]

We no longer have a Constitutional Republic

we have a Socialist Democracy

[WilderBill]

I'm of the opinion that if the founding fathers saw what the U.S. is like now they would be appalled and confused.
Speaking from personal experience, I can safely say that spending more than you are taking in always leads to fiscal problems.:p
Our government would do well to rethink this business of being involved in everything, everywhere, all the time. We can't afford it!

[N3rday]

Yeah, that 87 million was a little more than I think we should be spending...cmon, we are over 6 TRILLION dollars in a debt that we are probably never going to repay...

[Bruce H]

The road to financial disaster started the day FDR was inagurated. We will be done within twenty years at best.

[Pilgrim]

All of us are in a race to the grave. It is just a question of who will win, us or the country?

Pilgrim

[Destructo6]

N3rday, just for the record, that is 87.5 billion not million.

[Angus MacDuff]

George has spent $157 000 000 000.00 ON the Iraq war. If he continues to start wars without international support we will have a huge fianacial burden that our children will be paying down for years to come.

I never knew how good we had it, until Clinton left office.

[Lone_Gunman]

The amount spent on the Iraq War is insignificant compared to the amount that will be spent on the Medicare/Drug Benefit bill that recently was signed into law by our liberal president.

At least were killing some of the bad guys in Iraqi. We are making more old people for the public dole every day in the USA.

Part of our problem is that the House, Senate, and Presidency are all controlled by one political party, so the politicians are actually able to pass laws instead of just bicker with each other.

[telewinz]

"The Great Crash of 78", "The Great Crash of 82", and the "The Great Crash of 89". As long as the Chicken Littles keep buying the books, they will keep "perdicting" gloom and doom!

[mrapathy2000]

I never knew how good we had it, until Clinton left office.

oh yeah clinton really did alot. lets see when he left the bubble on the dot com erra burst and people were losing jobs which has not stopped till what 2003! the united states under clinton erra was a joke. he sold the USA out to the chinese, anyone recall the theft on nuclear and rocket secrets? how bout clinton getting millions from the chinese for his run in the elections?
are country took terrorist attack after terrorist attack and the best clinton did was deployed a team to get osama and fired a few cruise missles from hundreds of miles away. he had 12-13 attempts to end osama's troubles but did nothing! when iraq gave the UN teams the boot in violation of UN resolution where was the army to invade Iraq?

yeah clinton was so great he sure did this country alot. with friends like that who needs enemies.

china now has nukes,nuclear reactors,rockets that can go into space and matter of time before they upgrade theyre nukes to reach continet United States. they also have computer processors which can withstand emp and radiation which united states corporations sold to the chinese amazingly none of them held accountable as they are not for export which occured under clintons damned erra.

who cut the military budget and closed down bases? clinton.

chinese goods anyone?

1993 nafta?

1994 Assault Weapons Ban aka brady bill? yeah that will stop crime,pff HA!.

how did a chinese triad member get onto the guest list for a white house dinner?

its nice some people have selective memory. is bush better no but atleast he has the balls to do something.

one complaint I have bout bush is the lack of work on the US border with canada and mexico especially mexico which has drugs and thieves coming across the border daily. even the border states dont do enough and some make the situation worse by helping the illegal imigrant thieves.

the national debt is crazy, and the environment is not getting any better with bushes policies. still I wouldnt vote democrat unless the group of democrat clowns change before the coming elections.

leftwing,rightwing,goodguy,badguy I dont care I am the guy with the gun and the rope. now who wants to play hangman? --me

money all I know is its like toilet paper. someone makes and someone flushes it away. --me also

[Lone_Gunman]

1994 Assault Weapons Ban aka brady bill? yeah that will stop crime,pff HA!.

Isnt it a tad contradictory to fault Bill Clinton for the AWB, but not also fault GW Bush for it also?

[longeyes]

You can add this to the bad news:

WASHINGTON - U.S. and Mexican officials are discussing an agreement that would allow
millions of Mexicans to return home and still collect U.S. Social Security benefits.

The controversial proposal that could transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in Social Security
payments south of the border has riled some Republican lawmakers. They worry that it could
reward scores of undocumented Mexican immigrants with a U.S. pension, draining the country's
Social Security trust fund at a time when its future solvency is in doubt.

"Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration," said GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. "How many
more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for
life?"

Supporters of the proposal argue that Mexican immigrants, documented and undocumented, pay
millions, if not billions, of dollars in payroll taxes and have the right to claim Social Security
benefits.

"Let's be honest, there are millions of Mexican immigrants contributing to the Social Security
system and the U.S. economy," said Katherine Culliton, an attorney with the Washington, D.C.,
office of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. "It's only fair they get back a
benefit they deserve that will keep them from dying in poverty."

Final approval of any U.S.-Mexican "totalization" agreement is up to the Republican-controlled
Congress. The Bush administration supports such an accord as a way to improve U.S.-Mexican
relations.

And Mexico is prepared to administer an agreement, Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne
Barnhart told lawmakers at a congressional hearing earlier this year. U.S. officials said they are
satisfied that the two countries could exchange information easily on potential Social Security
recipients. Details of how to put the agreement into effect still need to be worked out.

Under a totalization agreement between two countries, workers could accumulate enough credits
to qualify for Social Security benefits in either country.


20 other accords


The federal government began pursuing such agreements in 1977 to help make Americans sent
abroad by their employers eligible for Social Security benefits. Today, the United States has pacts
with 20 countries, mostly in Europe. Congress has never rejected an agreement.

In 2001, the federal government paid out $173 million in Social Security benefits to about 89,000
foreigners living abroad, a fraction of the $408 billion distributed the same year to 45 million U.S.
residents.

But a U.S.-Mexican agreement would dwarf the accords with other countries, critics of the
proposal say. They point out that the combined number of recipients from those 20 countries is
tiny compared with the potentially vast number of Mexican citizens who could become eligible for
Social Security.

"None of those countries have public policies that encourage illegal immigration to the United
States," said Republican Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana, chairman of the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims.

Social Security Administration officials estimate that about 50,000 Mexicans would collect $78
million in the first year of a U.S.-Mexican agreement. They predict that by 2050, 300,000
Mexicans would collect $650 million in benefits a year.

But a recent General Accounting Office report said those numbers failed to account for the
presence of many potentially eligible, undocumented Mexican immigrants and their families.

Census figures show that the United States is home to 9 million Mexican citizens. More than half,
about 5 million, reportedly are in the United States illegally, according to federal estimates.

Barnhart assured lawmakers that undocumented immigrants do not get Social Security benefits.

"That's a myth," she said. "As is the case with our existing agreements, a totalization agreement
with Mexico would not alter current law on this issue."


Proof of eligibility


That's true, but a provision in the Social Security Act allows undocumented immigrants to get
Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.
Those immigrants would have to prove they had paid into the U.S. system.

Former undocumented immigrants also could become eligible if they later become legal residents.
A recent investigation by the Office of Inspector General at the Social Security Administration
found two such cases.

In one, a Mexican man who used his father's Social Security number for nine years in the 1970s
claimed after becoming a legal resident in 1989 that he was owed benefits. He began collecting
benefits in 1999.

And a Mexican woman who worked illegally under an invalid Social Security number for six years
in the 1990s later petitioned for credit. She began receiving disability benefits in 1999.

"(The agency) does not consider the work-authorization status of the individual when they earned
the wages," the inspector general's report said. "It only considers whether the individual can prove
he or she paid Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes as part of this work."

To qualify for Social Security benefits, Mexicans must prove they worked in the United States at
least 18 months. Payments are made on a prorated basis, depending on years worked in the
United States. Those who work at least 10 years automatically would qualify for full benefits.
Those who also worked in Mexico for a specific period of time could collect benefits in their home
country, too.

U.S. companies and their American employees working in Mexico also would benefit under the
agreement. By not having to pay Social Security taxes to the Mexican government, Social Security
Administration officials estimate American workers and their employers would save $134 million
each year.

David John, a Social Security expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation said he's
disappointed the proposed agreement with Mexico has been twisted into an emotional debate
over U.S. immigration policy.

"Sadly, this whole thing has been hijacked by people on both sides of an issue that must be
resolved in a totally different arena," he said. "It shouldn't be part of the discussion in putting
together a boring technical agreement between two countries."



Sergio Bustos is a reporter for The Arizona Republic and Gannett News Service. Reach him at
sbustos@gns.gannett.com.

[Gary H]

I disdain Clinton, but Bush is anything but a fiscal conservative. All the Democrats need to do in order to get him out of office is to find a conservative to do a Ross Perot and Bush's conservative base would partially evaporate.

George has spent $157 000 000 000.00 ON the Iraq war. If he continues to start wars without international support we will have a huge fianacial burden that our children will be paying down for years to come.

I gather that you consider support as the United Nations. After all, we do have many other nations helping us. Perhaps we should put our security in the hands of the U.N. After all, they have such a fine track record in protecting individuals in many countries.

[MrAcheson]

I have no problem with Bush spending money on the war. Its a freaking war after all! On the other hand Bush's domestic policy is a shambles co-opted mostly from the democratic party. Not good.

[chaim]

Are you a fiscal conservative? Then join the Concord Coalition if you haven't already: http://www.concordcoalition.org/

I've been a member since 1992 (the year they were founded).

[Jonesy9]

yes. we are headed for fiscal disaster. I never thought it would be the GIOP that would bring us to the edge of the cliff though.

[Russ]

You will drive yourself crazy if you care about this. The US has been going down the toilet financially as long as I have been alive. It has made little difference in my quality of life. It's of like the BIG ONE ( earthqauke) in Southern California. They predicted that the BIG ONE could happen any minute ever since I have been alive. That was 45+ years ago and it hasn't happened yet. Same with the US going down the drain financially. If the US goes down, the rest of the world goes too. Don't worry about things you have no control over. Life is short enough as it is.

[longeyes]

We are already IN fiscal disaster. And that is part of the master plan.

[Bill Hook]

If there were any such democrat as a conservative democrat, on the national level (Zell Miller doesn't count), I might vote for him to let the less-socialists in the Republican party know they can't take me for granted.

Government handouts are the death of personal freedom and democracy, since one party must compete with the other to give these or face losing votes and power. The ultimate outcome is a class of dependents who trade away liberty for "bread and circuses" and they vote. :cuss:

[Baba Louie]

Depends on who you believe... :rolleyes:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul146.html

The inescapable truth is that the value of the U.S. dollar has fallen over 30% in the past year, which to most people would not seem indicative of strength. There are several reasons for this decline, but the single biggest factor has been Mr. Greenspan’s relentless increase of the money supply. There are roughly sixteen trillion dollars in worldwide use today, five trillion more than when Greenspan became Fed chair. The law of supply is immutable: When dollars are abundant they are also cheap.
There's more worthy of cutting and pasting but follow the link.

Problems? Just print up a few trillion more and borrow against tomorrow. Who cares if OPEC is now using the Euro as their basis, having dropped the Dollar? Or if China is now urbanizing and can flex a little more financial muscle. Give them 50 years to be top dog... they just need Siberian resources now that they've got US Technology.

Meanwhile, back in the US, overweight disenfranchised subjects are glued to their TV sets, watching meaningful reruns of Friends & Frasier and the NBA...

I need to go buy some more ammo... might be needed for bartering booty soon.

Adios

[longeyes]

Want to see the future? Look at how many engineers American is turning out compared to how many the Chinese are. While our kids fantasize about rapping their way to stardom, the Chinese are addicted to the higher power of Reality. We have a population that is largely ignorance of the big picture, including what sustains their wealth and prosperity. Unfortunately, our leadership is too corrupt to do much useful educating, so never is heard a discouraging word.

[Bill Hook]

One thing longeyes, which is that China, India, etc. have a larger pool of potential engineers to draw on in the first place.

[Gary H]

Bill Hook:

They also have much greater motivation..poverty. Also, Chinese & Indian cultures supports studying first.. fun later. Our best hope is that they adopt our degenerate ways and fall prey to the same non-productive vises. Hollywood and MTV are our only hope.

[longeyes]

You're right, moral corruption may prove to be our most profitable export. If we apply ourselves really hard, the Al-Qaeda will go soft on us long before the American people decide fighting to defend Western Civilization isn't really worth interrupting their shopping agenda.

[longeyes]

It's true, the Chinese and Indians have bigger populations to draw on, and they are hungrier. Our main problem is we've lost not only the fire in the belly that used to be seen in a nation once full of inventors and tinkerers and daring entrepreneurs but any taste for danger, risk, and derring-do. Kids are taught they need not aspire, they are already quite perfect, and hard stuff that makes you feel bad and isn't easily accomplished probably isn't worth doing anyway and will only make you stand out too much from the kids who don't give a damn. Risk today is just an opportunity for vigilant lawyers. It looks as if soft living and prosperity are killing us, but we no longer have oceans to protect us and the big head start after WW II to take advantage of. Someone should tell the twentysomethings that we are not guaranteed prosperity, much less hegemony.