The debate in Congress over the extension of the Bush tax cuts has obscured the issue of government spending. After all, it is because members of Congress love to spend money that isn’t theirs that we “need” an income tax to begin with.

Government spending is out of control. The federal budget is fast approaching $4 trillion. The budget deficit is over a trillion dollars. The national debt will soon top $14 trillion, as it rises by billions of dollars each day.

This crisis is not just because the Democrats are in power. Under the Bush presidency for eight years and a mostly Republican Congress for six of those years a $150 billion surplus in 2001 turned into a $1 trillion deficit in 2008. The federal budget increased by over $1 trillion. The national debt doubled. And during the last six years of the Clinton presidency, it was the Republicans that controlled both the House and the Senate.

The fact that the Republicans recently regained control of the Congress won’t mean anything when it comes to reining in government spending since in their “Pledge to America” the Republicans promise to “protect our entitlement programs for seniors and future generations” and only call for a reduction in government spending to the level it was during the Bush presidency.

All the statist proposals in the Democratic and Republican parties to rein in government spending are nothing more than bandaids: baseline budgeting, a Balanced Budget Amendment, automatic across-the-board spending cuts, sunset provisions, spending increases limited to the rate of inflation, spending caps based on GDP, deficit reduction targets, budget enforcement rules, elimination of earmarks, deficit commissions, elimination of unnecessary spending, temporary freezes on certain categories of spending, rollbacks to some previous level, non-binding public voting on spending cuts, and, of course, cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.

The only way to rein in government spending is by the wholesale elimination of departments, agencies, commissions, administrations, corporations, councils, boards, and bureaus with all of their programs and personnel.

Of the sixteen executive branch Cabinet-level departments, a limited Constitutional case could be made only for the departments of State, Treasury, Justice, and Defense. Any legitimate operations of the Departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs could be subsumed under the Department of Defense. This means that the functions and bureaucracies of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and Transportation should be eliminated in their entirety. The original four departments (Justice, State, Treasury, and War) might conceivably serve some useful purpose — but only if they were scaled down considerably, and especially the Defense Department, which spends most of its budget on empire and offense.

Next to go would have to be the alphabet soup of government agencies like the SEC, DEA, FEMA, FTC, FCC, OSHA, EPA, BATF, NASA, FDA, EEOC, LSC, TVA, NEA, FHA, NEH, CPB, SBA, NIH, NLRB, USAID, and NTSB.

This means no more funding for income redistribution schemes like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIP, food stamps, WIC, TANF, housing subsidies, foreign aid, refundable tax credits, Head Start, the National School Lunch Program, unemployment benefits, and farm subsidizes.

This also means no more funding for science, education, medical research, or climate change.

Oh, and there should be no office of surgeon general or drug czar, AIDS czar, or faith-based czar.

In other words, strictly limit government spending to only what is constitutionally authorized — just like James Madison, Grover Cleveland, and Davy Crockett believed.

When Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, Congressman Madison objected, saying: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

President Cleveland vetoed a bill passed by Congress to provide financial assistance to farmers suffering from a drought. In his veto message Cleveland stated:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

Get the New Book Today!

And Congressman Crockett responded to a congressional attempt to help the widow of a naval officer:

I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

Just a cursory reading of article I, section 8, of the Constitution, where the powers of Congress are enumerated, is enough to see that Madison, Cleveland, and Crockett hold the solution to the problem and every member of Congress that defends the welfare/warfare state — that is, every member of Congress except Ron Paul — is part of the problem.

Government spending must be reined in, by dismantling the illegitimate functions of the federal government. It is possible, it is necessary, and it is time.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and The Revolution that Wasn’t. His newest book is Rethinking the Good War. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2010 Future of Freedom Foundation

Last week politicians in Washington made a few things clear about how they really feel about the state of the union. First, they are beginning to hear the growing discontent with the size and scope of government and the broken promises that keep piling up. Certain events in Massachusetts recently made that statement loud, clear and unavoidable.

In the face of those events, the powers that be made the determination that some populist rhetoric was in order, and the idea of a spending freeze in Washington was proposed, albeit with several caveats. These caveats to the proposed spending freeze ensure that we are not at any real risk of actually doing anything about spending.

First of all is timing. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2011, which allows plenty of time to increase spending levels quite a bit before they are frozen.

If the administration really understood and cared about our spending problems they would not freeze spending a year from now, but cut spending immediately and significantly. But, spending cuts almost never happen in Washington, and they are not likely now or a year from now – if the politicians have anything to say about it.

The second caveat is the huge areas of the budget that are shielded from this freeze. The entire State Department budget is exempt, as are all entitlements, all military industrial spending and almost all foreign aid.

Fully 7/8 of federal spending is excluded from this freeze, and some areas to be frozen were actually set to decrease, which means a freeze actually guarantees a higher level of spending.

Especially insulting is the idea that in spite of our own fiscal problems at home, taxpayer dollars will continue to be sent overseas in the form of foreign aid where it often does more harm than good. When need is demonstrated to Americans and they can afford it, they can be counted on for a tremendous outpouring of private, voluntary charity to worthy aid organizations, as we recently saw in Haiti.

By contrast, government-to-government aid is taken from the poor by force and too often enriches the corrupt. It is counterproductive and wasteful. But the idea of eliminating, freezing, or reducing foreign aid is not up for serious debate any time soon.

The third caveat is what is included in the freeze that would make it politically impossible to pass Congress, for example air traffic controllers salaries, education, farm subsidies and national parks.

I do not necessarily want a cut in spending in this country – I just want to change who does the spending. The spending should be done by the people who earn the money, if they choose, and on what they choose, without any government interference. That is what makes the economy work.

Politicians should stick to the very limited roles given them by the constitution instead of allocating such a sizeable portion of our capital and intervening through regulations and tax policy. But because politicians have disregarded the constitution, and the people have no idea what rule they will break next, there is already a very real spending freeze underway in this economy, by the people.

If government would stick only to what it was authorized to do, and leave the rest to the people, most of these problems would resolve themselves.

Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas

I have either been involved in or closely observed some level of government for almost ten years. In that time I have studied a series of local, county and state government entities, as well as an array of government public trusts.

I have spent a good deal of time listening to those groups argue about why they needed to continue receiving taxpayer largesse, need more taxes and fees, or want approval for new debt spending. I cannot recall one single time when a representative of any government group admitted to having too much money and suggested that the money be returned to the taxpayers from whom it was taken.

A naive person who did not maintain a healthy sense of skepticism would quickly adopt the point of view that almost all elements of government are terribly underfunded and much good would be accomplished with higher taxes and more debt spending.

Those who advance the notion of more government spending usually do so in a smooth and professional manner but every once in a while, a bureaucrat mistakenly reveals the true state of affairs. This was illustrated when I recently attended a meeting in which a group government officials listened to a very professional presentation by a representative of a government entity. The presentation communicated the need for money faced by the agency and was not unlike any number of similar presentations I have heard over the years.

Following his sales pitch, the presenter introduced to the group a high ranking official in his agency. Apparently unaware that a few state representatives where in the room, that official announced that he had been very busy lately because his agency was nearing the end of its fiscal year and his boss had apparently discovered a few extra hundred thousand dollars and had tasked him with quickly spending the money before the fiscal year expired. After all, the agency wouldn’t want elected officials to discover they had overfunded the agency, and certainly the agency did not want to run the risk of facing reduced funding.

To hear a high ranking official make this comment was shocking in and of itself, especially following the recently concluded sales pitch of his subordinate. However, what I found to be the most discouraging was the reaction of the audience. Instead of expressing shock or disgust at this obvious waste of taxpayer dollars, several of the government officials met the comments with applause and laughter.

Their reaction created the distinct impression in my mind that those who celebrated these comments support taking from the taxpayer even when it is unnecessary to do so. This speaks to the fact that they no longer consider their positions to be positions of trust in which their foremost duty is to guard the taxpayers’ money.

Incidents like this illustrate the importance of tax reduction and much greater transparency. To this end, I look forward to drafting and sponsoring an aggressive schedule of legislation during the upcoming session that both cuts spending and brings about greater transparency than ever before. The taxpayers must have the easy ability to see how, where and when the government bureaucrats are spending our money.

Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, represents House District 31, which encompasses all of Logan County and a portion of northern Edmond. Murphey also owns and operates WebTeks CMS. He may be reached via e-mail at jason.murphey@okhouse.gov.

The size of government, particularly at the federal level, is expanding greatly. But this also has a trickle down effect on Michigan. In order to qualify for federal dollars, states frequently have to pass laws that expand their reach and authority. And they often need to continue to pay for new programs after federal funding is phased out. Short run money that appeared “free” often ends up becoming a long run obligation to state taxpayers in the end.

This is an important consideration as Michigan approaches its October 1st budget deadline, especially with the large role federal stimulus money could play in how things are balanced. It would be easy to plug too many budgetary holes with stimulus dollars, leaving us worse off in the future. It is my belief that we should have a small government, but what it does do, it should do well.

Instead, most government tries to do too much and ends up doing nothing particularly well. But the current economy will force us to make necessary decisions: what kind of government do we want, what kind of government do we need, and ultimately what are we willing to pay for?

Government shutdowns and furlough days are all signs that government is trying to do too much and more than it can handle. By definition, government can not be effective if it is not up and running.

People often ask me if I am committed to doing everything I can to avoid a government shutdown this year. The reality is that as of September 4th we will already have had six shutdown days in the form of furloughs. This is an emergency stopgap measure we can not continue to rely on if we wish to have effective government.

I am therefore introducing legislation to limit the use of furlough days to no more than six a year. Once we reach that mark, it is obvious that we need to be looking at more permanent solutions such as accelerated retirements to reduce the number of state employees while we reorganize and keep the programs that matter most up and running.

We also need to commit to ensuring taxpayers can’t be ticketed, fined, or otherwise penalized because of furlough days or an unbalanced budget. As an example I have introduced HB 5277 to make sure people aren’t fined for not renewing their licenses on furlough days that have forced the Secretary of State’s office to be closed.

HB 5230 ensures that no one has to pay money for a tax tribunal hearing more than once. I’m also working on a bill to increase the amount of interest the state pays taxpayers who are owed a refund.

An effective government has to be kept up and running, and it shouldn’t be allowed to penalize taxpayers for its own inability to right-size government.

State Rep. Paul Opsommer [send him email] was elected to a second term in the Michigan House of Representatives in November 2008.  He represents the residents of Clinton and Gratiot counties.

This year, hundreds of thousands of citizens have met in Tea Party rallies across our nation and have given a voice to the Jeffersonian tradition. The crowds support the reduction of federal power and an end to undisciplined government spending. This approach to government is the philosophy advocated by our third president, Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was one of the early proponents of the “strict constructionist” view of the Constitution. This view affirms that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, should be reserved to the states and to the people. This is the essence of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was part of the Constitution Jefferson swore to uphold in his oath of office.

Jefferson defended the rights of the common man over the prerogatives of the state. His view on the subject is stated succinctly in a letter to Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the U.S. Constitution and one-time governor of Massachusetts. The letter was dated 1799, a year before Jefferson was elected president.

“I am for preserving to the States the powers not yielded by them to the Union, & to the legislature of the Union [Congress], its constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all the powers of the States to the general government, & all those of that government to the Executive branch.”

In his first Inaugural Address, Jefferson also touched on this subject when he listed his “essential principles of our government.”

“…the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies…”

Jefferson would start another revolution were he alive today, for what he opposed occurred in the twentieth century. The federal government assumed more and more authority in every area of government policy, from building roads to educating children. Jefferson would have left these matters to be handled at the state level; he would not have enlarged the federal government to administer them in Washington.

Executive branch departments and so-called independent agencies control the program delivery systems and administrative rule-making powers that define federal policy today. Meanwhile, state officials must go to Washington, D.C. and beg for federal money and federal programs.

The states should tell the Feds to keep their programs and their money, but that would be difficult politically and financially. States would have to raise state and local taxes to make up for the loss in federal funds and the federal government would lose control over the states and the populace.

Of course, this would mean the federal budget could be balanced and the national debt retired, over time. This is the program of reform that Congress would enact if it really wanted to serve the people and carefully steward the taxpayers’ money.

Jefferson’s strict constructionist view put him at odds with Alexander Hamilton, who advocated the opposing doctrine of implied powers, which gave the federal government a much more expansive field of authority.

Jefferson and Hamilton were both members of the Cabinet during George Washington’s presidency. The two men sharply disagreed over the question of public debt. Hamilton saw it as a positive tool that could be used to establish credit for the United States, while Jefferson saw public debt as an affront to the liberty of the citizens.

Hamilton believed a national debt to be a blessing. Jefferson, however, was of a different mind. He wrote to James Madison in 1789 regarding the nation of France, “. . . would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years?”

In his 1799 letter to Elbridge Gerry, Jefferson commented on frugal government and eliminating public debt.

“I am for a government rigorously frugal & simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers & salaries merely to make partisans, & for increasing, by every device, the public debt, on the principle of its being a public blessing.”

In getting Congress to accept all Revolutionary War debts at face value, Hamilton obligated the government to pay for years on the principal and interest. In order to make payments on the debt, several new taxes were necessary. These taxes included tariffs or import duties and excise taxes on such things as alcohol, refined sugars, auctions, and licenses. Once in office, Jefferson and his allies in the Congress worked to repeal the excise taxes.

During his presidency, Congress, at Jefferson’s request, abolished the internal revenue service, which had been established to collect the excise taxes. This branch of the Treasury Department should not be confused with the modern Internal Revenue Service.

The agency in Jefferson’s day consisted of about five hundred employees who were involved in collecting excise taxes. (The income tax had not yet been established.) With the excise taxes repealed, there was no need for this tax-collecting agency. Jefferson and his Treasury secretary also persuaded Congress to cut government spending and make substantial payments to reduce the war debt.

According to Americans for Prosperity, a free-market advocacy organization, our government has already spent trillions in its attempt to solve our economic problems. This is more than the cost of World War II. In addition, the government has committed to spend trillions more over the next few years, which will bring the grand total to an unbelievable $11.6 trillion in new spending – more than 26 times the size of the New Deal.

It is time for citizens to engage their public servants and demand a stop to this madness. It is time for the Washington liberals to wake up and do what common sense demands. Fiscal responsibility is a big key to solving our problems. Now is the time to make the changes that will re-establish American liberty.

Jim Jess has participated in politics as an activist, writer, and nonprofit organization leader for 30 years. He worked in the office of Governor Sonny Perdue and is a member of several conservative groups. Jim writes for Examiner.com and maintans the website ConstitutionalEducation.org.

One of the things most abhorrent to us sovereignty-seekers is the incredible amount of bloat in Washington, D.C.  While some of us are coming around to seeing that Washington, D.C. is killing this country on a non-partisan basis, the following chart illustrates this fact.

What the chart above shows is that, had the federal government grown in proportion to the U.S. population over the past 60 years, Uncle Sam would have spent approximately $2,621 per person in 2008.  However, our all-wise and powerful government spent a whopping $9,828 per person in 2008.  And given the magnificent packages passed this year, 2009 stands to be a real whopper!  (All of the dollar amounts in the chart are inflation-adjusted to 2008 dollars per capita of federal spending.)

This means that the federal government has grown 3.75 times faster than our population.  This is no trifling figure.  At that rate, how much longer can this trend continue to last?  Quite interesting is that the longest-standing decline in spending occurred from 1992-2000.  Of course, taxation (revenues) still increased during that period.

What this means is that there is a long, long tradition on the part of both of the predominant parties to grow Washington at an irresponsible rate.   So, the question must necessarily follow:  “Can turning the government back over to Republicans be viewed as a potential remedy to a government bloat that threatens the fiscal soundness of our entire nation?”  The answer would appear to be a clear “no.”  The track record over the last 60 years proves this.

If history is to serve as a lesson, then, it should be entirely predictable that when Republicans regain control over Congress and the administration, they will inherit a yet larger government and continue to grow it further.  We should begin seeking solutions from sources other than our traditional parties.  Perhaps the Libertarian Party should be given a chance.

It is admittedly difficult to forsake the Republican Party at the potential expense of leaving the Democrats in power for perhaps years to come.  However, to stay true to the Republican Party is to vote to continue the trend over the last 60 years.  It is definitely time for a change.

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is an attorney living in Houston, Texas.  His current projects include the website SovereignStates, and the forthcoming organization, The National Taxpayer Takeover.

America is broke. Wall Street is going out of business. The government is borrowing and bailing like there is no tomorrow. Americans anxiously await the full impact of a second Great Depression. And we all are longing and looking for solutions and saviors.

Well, have no fear. Our founders are here.

Yes, it’s official and public news for the whole world to see: Government is the worst run business on the face of the planet. We’ve known it for a long time – we’re just now facing the monetary music. We’re going under, fast. And the government’s remedy is to return to its cycle of treasury vomit – spending money it doesn’t have by borrowing money it can’t pay back. But the cat’s costs are out of the bailout bag, too. Fannie May, Freddie Mac, AIG insurance, etc., are all birth pains of greater taxpayer burdens to come. The Fed’s rescue plan will cost Americans another $1 trillion dollars – for those doing the math, that’s roughly $3,600 each in taxes.

But most Americans’ pocketbooks are barren wastelands – with maxed payments, mortgages and consumer credit. So where will the Fed get another trillion dollars when it already holds a $9 trillion dollar deficit? From the same black hole it got the preceding $9 trillion. We make more money and lessen the value of the dollar; we borrow more money and lose our grip on our nation. America is up for sale. And foreign entities and powers are buying up our debt to own a large piece of the pie called America. We are literally mortgaging our land and liberties – and our children’s future. And our government is not only doing nothing to stop it – it is the bureaucratic broker arranging the deal!

Who will save us from our certain financial despair and ruin? The president? The secretary of the Treasury? The Federal Reserve? Congress? An ad hoc committee of Harvard MBAs? Some of America’s best and biggest financial moguls? A new president?

America, it’s time to wake up and fight for our future! When Congress pays 1.26 cents per penny and 7.7 cents per nickel – and wastes $100 million a year in doing so – it’s time to make major changes in government. But the changes we need are not those that come with empty political promises to provide universal health – which is guaranteed to accrue billions more in debt every year. A presidential candidate pledges to lower taxes for 95 percent of the people and increase taxes for the other 5 percent, but that can’t be done when only 70 percent of Americans pay taxes and 30 percent pay no federal taxes at all.

It’s true that we can’t repeat the last eight years of government. But it’s even more clear that we can’t repeat the last 38 years of government financial mismanagement, especially when only four of those since 1970 have not been deficit-building years. The fact is, electing the same old Republican and Democrat money-management methods will do nothing more than bury us deeper in the quick sands of government spending and debt. What we need is to turn back the financial clock 200 years and return to the fiscal prudence of our Founding Fathers.

Call me altruistic – say the plan is oversimplified. But even mom always taught me when I was young, “If you get in a pinch, go back to the basics.” It works in martial arts. It works in the movies. It works in marriage. It works in financial markets. And it worked for our Founding Fathers.

With small variances, our founders agreed on five basic approaches to fiscal management, which I describe in far more detail in the third chapter (“Stop the nightmare of debt”) of my new New York Time’s best-seller (as of Sept. 28), “Black Belt Patriotism,” in which I address eight major problems facing America with our founders’ solutions. If we’re going to reawaken America from her economic slumber, then we must go back to those who discovered and established the American dream. Their financial principles were:

1. Keep spending within constitutional limits. The Tenth Amendment restricts the size of government, and that should always bear out in the federal budget and spending. That means understanding income and export taxes were unconstitutional to our founders, which if applied today would be two of the greatest economic stimulus packages.2. Don’t bail out debt with more debt. George Washington wrote in 1799 to James Welch, “To contract new debts is not the way to pay for old ones.” Thomas Jefferson similarly admonished Samuel Kercheval in 1816, “To preserve [the] independence [of the people], we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

3. Return to a pay-as-you-go government. If we don’t have the money, we don’t spend it. Period. No more debt. No more bailouts. No more spending. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote to Fulwar Skipwith in 1787, “[T]he maxim of buying nothing but what we had money in our pockets to pay for …[is] a maxim, which, of all others, lays the broadest foundation for happiness.” (Some are quick to point out that Thomas Jefferson financed the Louisiana Purchase with government loans, but they overlook the fact that Jefferson’s administration lowered the federal deficit by nearly one-third in his eight years in office.)

4. Tax for imports, not exports or anything else. Our earliest government’s primary tool to raise revenue was from tariffs. Obviously, we can’t raise all the monies our government now needs by imports alone (because of its excessive taxation dependence through the decades), but we need to return to our founders’ simple taxation system. That is one reason why I say abolish the unconstitutional IRS and implement a Fair Tax. Early Americans did not pay income taxes, export taxes, capital gains taxes, estate and property taxes, corporate taxes, social security taxes, gas taxes or any of the rest of them we pay. However, our founders did build revenue by requiring import taxes from those who wanted to sell us their goods. The fact is, most of our taxes are unconstitutional and would therefore be illegal to our founders. We must appoint only elected officials who want to scrap the present tax code and return to a fair or flat (consumptive) tax system, which doesn’t penalize productivity and will bring American manufacturing back within our borders. As James Madison said in his “Address to the States” in 1783: “Taxes on consumption are always least burdensome, because they are least felt, and are borne too by those who are both willing and able to pay them; that of all taxes on consumption, those on foreign commerce are most compatible with the genius and policy of free States.”

5. Get over the greed. We’re in this financial mess because of greed. Why is government spending out of control? Greed. Why do we as individuals and as a nation keep falling deeper into a pit of debt? Greed. We need, we want and we have to have it. We can’t afford it, but we can’t say no. So we charge it, deferring the penalty. We can’t blame it all on the government, because we appoint our representatives and many of us struggle with greed just like them. If not, then what is it exactly we’re expecting our future presidential choice to do for us, and how is he going to pay for it? Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury, believed a government that could use greed to motivate its people would become powerful and wealthy. Unfortunately, he was correct. We’ve become a nation that confuses our needs and greeds – and we’ve got to get back to the basics if we’re ever to understand and overcome the heart of this financial crisis.

Many of the founders warned about America’s potential fiscal woes under the power of a central bank. Thomas Jefferson was one of Hamilton’s biggest opponents, almost prophesying as president in 1803 to Albert Gallatin, “This institution is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution. … I deem no government safe which is under the vassalage of any self-constituted authorities, or any other authority than that of the nation, or its regular functionaries. What an obstruction could not this Bank of the United States, with all its branch banks, be in time of war? It might dictate to us the peace we should accept, or withdraw its aids. Ought we then to give further growth to an institution so powerful, so hostile? … Now, while we are strong, it is the greatest debt we owe to the safety of our Constitution, to bring its powerful enemy to a perfect subordination under its authorities.”

What we need today is far more men and women in government with our founders’ financial forethought and cautiousness. But that is not what we have. That is why I’ve joined the voter revolution across this land, to oust political and congressional corruption and stalemate. If you’re ready to join millions of other Americans in that commitment, then give me three steps: (1) Make a pledge to bring about political and congressional change in future elections; (2) Recall unconstitutional congressional incumbents; (3) Rise up and elect above-reproach, non-greedy selfless representatives who aren’t afraid to stand up to governmental status quo and corruption, will vote for constitutional restrictions of government, reduce big government (deficits, budgets, spending, and taxes), reform the tax code (by providing a Fair Tax or its equivalent) and fight for a constitutional amendment for a mandated balanced federal budget.

America is in the biggest financial fiasco since the Great Depression. And while we can put anesthetic on her financial injuries via temporary government bailouts, we’re heading for another economic earthquake that will ultimately widen and deepen her wounds. But it’s not too late, especially if we follow the sound fiscal advice of experts, including our founders.

Recently Congress sent the latest Farm Bill to the president. The bill features brand new federal programs, expansion of existing subsidies, more food stamps and more foreign food aid. This bill hits the taxpayer hard, while at the same time ensuring food prices will remain elevated. The president vetoed the bill, citing concerns over its costs and subsidies for the wealthy in a time of high food prices and record farm income. Nevertheless, this over-reaching, government-expanding Farm Bill will soon be law.

The truth is most farmers simply want honest pay for honest work. However, if the government is providing competing farms with advantages, and one wants to remain a farmer, one must seek a proportional advantage from government. It is a difficult position for the farmer. Some are better at qualifying for taxpayers’ largesse than others as evidenced by the fact that more than 60% of the subsidies go to just 10% of recipients, edging out the small family farm. This entire system is unfair and demoralizing. It disproportionately benefits big agribusiness at the expense of struggling family farms.

Third world countries also lose with these continued government manipulations. Agricultural subsidies lead to overproduction, which leads to foreign food aid as a form of dumping. By “dumping” government-created agricultural surpluses, agrarian economies are artificially kept in a constant state of economic depression. The would-be third world farmer cannot compete with “free” grain, thus he and his countrymen remain perpetual beggars rather than competitive producers. Also, by keeping food prices high, we keep more of our own citizens dependent on government food stamps, instead of paying fair market prices for food.

Free trade helps farmers and consumers much more than this convoluted system of subsidies, surpluses and central planning. Newly opened markets would create increased demand for what we produce. There is absolutely no reason we trade with China , yet not with Cuba . With energy and transportation prices as high as they are, opening up trade with a country as close as Cuba just makes sense. The recent power shift from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul, and the somewhat positive steps he has taken, provides an opportunity to lift the embargo.

Removing unreasonable, confiscatory tax policies would also make good farm policy. We need to permanently repeal the estate tax, which would again take a devastating 55% cut of family farms upon death of an owner. This tax will force the sale of many family farms, and further huge corporate agriculture.

Those who believe federal farm programs benefit independent farmers, should take note that after 70 years of this type of government intervention, small farms continue to struggle while large corporate farms control an ever-increasing share of the agricultural market. Subsidies for agribusiness should be stopped and the free market should be allowed to work. With commodity and food prices on the rise, Congress had an opportunity to scale down government controls and taxpayer funding of agriculture. Instead, despite the warning sent by an 18% approval rating, Congress stubbornly opted for more of the same.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

Here’s an excerpt:

The US government has no business providing disaster relief to Myanmar, food relief to poor countries, or humanitarian aid of any kind. The purpose of government is supposed to be to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the people who form it. The fact that all governments eventually deviate from their stated purpose is irrelevant. And besides, there is a calculation problem here. How much aid should the US government provide? What type of aid should be given? What strings, if any, should be attached to the aid supplied? How long should aid be maintained?

Even worse is the use of the military to provide foreign-aid services. The purpose of the military is to defend the country from attack or invasion, not to deliver food and spread good will and cheer. Yes, it would be better if the US military delivered bread and butter instead of bombs and bullets, but that is not the issue.

There was a time in this country when it was recognized to be improper for the federal government to provide humanitarian relief even within the United States. President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill in 1887 that would have provided seed for farmers in drought-stricken Texas. In his veto message, he wrote that aid from Washington only “encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.” The Texas farmers ended up getting ten times as much in private assistance as they would have received from Uncle Sam.

Read more here

In principle, Vance is right on the mark. Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. The US Constitution was written under what is referred to as “positive grant.” In short, what this means is that the federal government is authorized to engage in only those activities specifically authorized by the Constitution. Positive = authorized activities. Grant = specifically listed.

Just to make sure this principle was legally codified, the Tenth Amendment was included:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There is no authorization to pay for relief in Myanmar. There is no authorization to prop up dictators in places like Pakistan with your money. There is no authorization to spend your money on “military assistance” for other countries. There is no authorization to funnel money through the CIA to support regime changes. The Constitution was written in plain English – there is nothing there which authorizes the federal government to take your money and give it to foreign governments. For any reason.

But don’t take my word for it. Try reading the Constitution to see if you can find authorization to engage in such activities for yourself.

This week, as the American economy continued to suffer the effects of big government, the House attempted to pass two multibillion dollar “emergency” spending bills, one for continued spending on the war in Iraq , and one increasing spending on domestic and international welfare programs.  The plan was to pass these two bills and then send them to the president as one package.

Even though the House failed to pass the war spending bill, opponents of the war should not be fooled into believing this vote signals a long term change in policy.  At the end of the day, those favoring continued military occupation of Iraq  will receive every penny they are requesting and more as long as they agree to dramatically increase domestic and international welfare spending as well.

The continued War in Iraq and the constant state of emergency has allowed Congress to use these so-called “emergency” bills as a vehicle to dramatically increase spending across the board–including spending that does not meet even the most generous definition of emergency.

For example, the spending proposals currently being considered by Congress provide $210 million to the Census Bureau and $4 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  $4.6 billion is requested for the closing of military bases, but not any of the more than 700 bases overseas – but bases here at home!

Another $387 million would go to various international organizations and $850 million more just in international food aid – all this when food prices are skyrocketing here and American families are having a hard time making ends meet.  Because this spending will be part of “emergency” measures, it will not count against debt ceilings, or any spending limits set by Congressional budget resolutions, and does not have to be offset in any way.

Explosive growth of government is just another tragedy of this war.  The “bipartisan” compromises made in Washington are at the expense of the taxpayer, not in the interest of fiscal responsibility, or peace.  The taxpayer loses and government grows.

The bottom line is that our dollar is falling, the economy is in rough shape, and government spending is wildly out of control.  Congress argues over relatively minor details, instead of dramatically changing our flawed foreign policy.  We need to bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan , but from South Korea , Germany , and the other 138 countries where we have troops stationed.

Our foreign policy of interventionism is not only offensive to others, inviting further terrorist attacks, but it is ruining our economy as we tax, borrow and print the money to pay the bills of our empire.  The economy and ultimately the American people suffer because Washington is refusing to adopt more sensible and constitutional policies.

Squabbling between those who favor increased welfare and those who favor increased warfare has giving the American people a temporary reprieve from having to bear the burden of yet another dramatic increase in government this week.

However, as early as next week a compromise could be reached that expands both government warfare and welfare. As congressional approval ratings drop to 18% according to a recent Gallup poll, the American people are telegraphing that Congress is taking the country in the wrong direction.

Our government must stop bankrupting the country so that we can get back on track to a peaceful, prosperous future.