In the various lawsuits brought by states to challenge the validity of ObamaCare, an over-arching issue concerns the limit, if any, of Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause.  However, there are more arguments in play.  One of them deals with Congress’ power to tax.  This issue has been discussed in Virginia vs. Sebelius by way of the federal district court’s Memorandum Opinion on Defendant’s (Sebelius’) Motion to Dismiss.

In the case, Virginia asserts that Congress is not Constitutionally-authorized to enact ObamaCare.  Sebelius filed a motion to dismiss against Virginia, on the grounds that Virginia’s complaint does not state a valid cause of action.  While the Commerce Clause issues are more widely-discussed, little discussion has been dedicated to the taxation issue which is equally important in the decision as to whether or not ObamaCare is Constitutional.

There is no doubt that Congress has the power to levy taxes.   However, as to the Commerce Clause, there are many who doubt that Congress, for example, has the power to direct that people must, pursuant to its Commerce Clause authority, put on both socks before putting a shoe on either foot.   If Congress cannot force people to do this pursuant to the Commerce Clause, then, perhaps it has another means at its disposal – this being its power to levy taxes.   So, the argument goes, based on a long line of cases from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Suppose Congress passed a law “levying a tax of $50.00 against each person, for each instance in which said person fails to don both socks before donning the first shoe.”   (Okay, I know this is a very hyperbolic example, but read on).  While such attempts to regulate would be, we hope, impermissible under the Commerce Clause, what about Congress’ power to tax?  After all, this hyperbolic measure is, indeed, a tax-raising mechanism.

This taxation argument is very much in play in the challenge to ObamaCare.   Its mandate assesses penalties on individuals who fail to obtain approved health insurance policies, and toward this end, it is being argued that it is a revenue-raising mechanism authorized pursuant to Congress’ power to levy taxes.

Throughout our history, there has been an on-going conflict in doctrines between Congress’ general power to tax and the limitations of its regulatory authority under the Constitution.   These competing doctrines are anything but novel.

In 1950, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. vs. Sanchez.   At issue was a federal tax on marijuana.   A transfer tax was imposed of $1.00 per ounce if the transfer was authorized in writing by the Secretary of the Treasury, and if the transfer was not so authorized, then, the tax was to be $100 per ounce.

The Sanchez opinion delves into the tension between Congress’ taxing power and the limitations of its regulatory authority.   Discussing this tension between the doctrines, the Court wrote:

It is obvious that [the statute], by imposing a severe burden on transfers to unregistered persons, implements the congressional purpose of restricting traffic in marihuana to accepted industrial and medicinal channels. Hence the attack here rests on the regulatory character and prohibitive burden of the section as well as the penal nature of the imposition. But despite the regulatory effect and the close resemblance to a penalty, it does not follow that the levy is invalid.

First. It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed. Sonzinsky v. United States, 1937, 300 U.S. 506, 513-514, 57 S.Ct. 554, 555-556, 81 L.Ed. 772. The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously negligible, Sonzinsky v. United States, supra, or the revenue purpose of the tax may be secondary, Hampton & Co. v. United States, 1928, 276 U.S. 394, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624. Nor does a tax statute necessarily fall because it touches on activities which Congress might not otherwise regulate.

In essence, the proposition was thus put forth that, even though Congress might not have authority to regulate marijuana pursuant to its Commerce Clause power, it has a more general power to tax.  And if the effect of the tax incidentally has a regulatory effect over something Congress may not regulate, this regulatory effect will not impair Congress’ general authority to levy taxes.  Thus, in essence, Congress has been deemed to have an indirect power to regulate through its power to prescribe tax policies.

However, compare the Sanchez case to U.S. vs. Butler, a 1936 case where the Supreme Court struck down the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, noting that it created a tax for the purpose of regulating that which Congress had no power to regulate – namely intrastate agriculture (think “pre-Wickard vs. Filburn and the switch in time that saved nine”).   In Butler, the Court wrote:

In the Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20, 42 S.Ct. 449, 66 L.Ed. 817, 21 A.L.R. 1432, and in Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44, 42 S.Ct. 453, 66 L.Ed. 822, this court had before it statutes which purported to be taxing measures. But their purpose was found to be to regulate the conduct of manufacturing and trading, not in interstate commerce, but in the states-matters not within any power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution-and the levy of the tax a means to force compliance. The court held this was not a constitutional use, but an unconstitutional abuse of the power to tax. In Linder v. United States, supra, we held that the power to tax could not justify the regulation of the practice of a profession, under the pretext of raising revenue.

Get the New Book Today!

These two opinions provide a general summary of the state of the law, as held by the Supreme Court, with regard to whether or not Congress may effectively regulate beyond its jurisdiction by using its taxing power.   The rule of law is:

• Congress’ power to tax cannot justify the regulation of matters beyond its regulatory authority under the pretext of raising revenue, and
• A tax statute by Congress will not necessarily fall because it “incidentally” regulates activities which Congress might not otherwise be empowered to regulate.

Confused?   Don’t be.  This is not rocket-science.  The language is clear – yes, even in both cases.   What is really happening is that the Supreme Court is making up sh….tuff as it goes.   You cannot have a Constitutional rule of law with inconsistent, flexible rules like these.

And so, I ask, why is it of any use to rely on anything the Supreme Court says?  There is no mysticism there.  No greatness.   No awesome enlightenment.  Just pure sh….tuff.

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is a practicing attorney in Houston. He graduated from the University of Texas, School of Law in 1993 and was licensed that year.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author and this website is given.

With the nation in the midst of an economic crisis, many groups and individuals are questioning the massive spending and so-called economic stimulus bills recently passed by Congress. This includes bailouts and appropriations known as earmarks and pork-barrel spending. Since the constitutionality of federal spending is never part of the debate, we need to re-visit Congress’ power to tax and spend.

The Taxing and Spending Clause

Congress’ power to tax and spend is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America. This Clause 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.”

Constitutional Purposes of Taxation

Pursuant to this Clause, Congress can only impose taxes for three purposes. First, to “pay the debts…of the United States.” This provision was inserted, primarily, to give the federal government the ability to extinguish the existing debts of the United States and was not intended to grant Congress the discretionary power to dream-up ways to incur new debts. Second, to “provide for the common Defense…of the United States.” This provision enumerates the primary purpose of the federal government and grants Congress the power to raise the needed revenue. Third, to “provide…for the general Welfare of the United States.” Since most federal spending falls under the third clause, which is commonly known as the General Welfare Clause, it will be the focus of this article.

Definitions of “General” and “Welfare”

In order to accurately examine the general welfare provision, it is necessary to establish the meaning of the words general and welfare.

“General. 1: involving or applicable to the whole. 2: involving, relating to, or applicable to every member of a class, kind or group.”

“Welfare. 1: the state of doing well, esp. in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being or prosperity.”

The word welfare is derived from the words “well” and “fare” and means a “state of faring well” or “well being.” When the Framers used the word welfare in the Constitution they were using it in this context. They were not referring to government give-a-way programs for the poor, disabled, disadvantaged, etc. These programs were virtually unknown to the Framers and would have been classified, in the language of the day, as a form of poor relief.

From the above, the common definition of the general welfare phrase, as used by the Framers in the taxing clause is: “the whole group’s well being.”

Since the general welfare phrase is annexed to the words “United States,” the whole group being referenced is a group of States called the “United States of America.” Thus, this Clause grants Congress the power: “[t]o lay and collect taxes to provide for the well being of the States in their united or collectively capacity.”

Alexander Hamilton confirmed this in Federalist Essay No. 83:

“The United States, in their united or collective capacity, are the OBJECT to which all general provisions in the Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer.” [Emphasis not added]

The Original Controversy

Following the close of the Federal (Constitutional) Convention of 1787, a controversy arose over the meaning and scope of the general welfare phrase. The Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification of the proposed constitution, were vehemently opposed to this provision because they believed it was an abstract term and Congress alone would determine its scope and meaning. They also asserted this provision amounted to an unlimited grant of legislative power.

The Federalists asserted that the Anti-Federalists had misconstrued the construction of this provision. James Madison, who is recognized by some as the father of the Constitution, argued that the general welfare phrase was a qualifying term, not an independent grant of power. He claimed the general welfare provision could not be construed as an unlimited grant of legislative power because it was followed by an enumeration of particular powers. Since the federal government was a government of limited powers, Madison asserted the power to tax and spend was confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to Congress by the Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court

Following his election in 1932 and the implementation of his so-called New Deal policies, much of President Franklin Roosevelt’s legislation was challenged as unconstitutional. A majority on the Court, who had been appointed by Republicans, began declaring cornerstones of the New Deal unconstitutional in 5-4 decisions. This infuriated Roosevelt and he threaten to pack the Court with justices who would be more sympathetic to his New Deal legislation.

In 1936, in the case of U.S. v. Butler, the scope of the General Welfare Clause indirectly reached the United States Supreme Court in a challenge to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Even though the Court again ruled against the New Deal in a 5-4 decision, it laid the foundation for Congress to exercise additional taxing and spending power through the General Welfare Clause.

A little over a year after the Butler decision, the Supreme Court decided a case that dealt specifically with the General Welfare Clause. This case involved a challenge to various provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935. Since there was no constitutional authority for this type of scheme, the federal government had to find a way to bring it under the umbrella of a clause in the Constitution. That provision was the General Welfare Clause. Citing the Butler case as precedent, the Court, in Helvering v. Davis, sustained the constitutionality of the Social Security Act in a questionable 5-4 decision:

“Congress may spend money to aid in the ‘general welfare.’ There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision… The conception of the spending power advocated by (Alexander) Hamilton and strongly reinforced by (Supreme Court Justice Joseph) Story, has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents (supporters).” [Bracketed words added for clarification]

Even though the Court’s ruling, in the author’s opinion, was erroneous and can be refuted in whole or in part, this analysis will focus on the views expressed by Hamilton and Story because their interpretations, if they were being followed, would render the majority of all federal spending programs, including earmarks and pork-barrel spending, unconstitutional.

NOTE: The opening clause of the Social Security Act states it is: “An Act to provide for the General Welfare.”

Hamilton’s Broad Interpretation

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton asserted the general welfare provision conferred a power separate and distinct from the specific grants of legislative power contained in the Constitution. He also claimed the specific grants of legislative power did not qualify or limit the meaning of the general welfare phrase. Therefore, Congress, according to Hamilton, had an independent and unspecified power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare.

Even though Hamilton asserted the appropriation of money for the general welfare is totally within the discretion of Congress, he cautioned there are several limitations on their power.

First, Congress cannot use this provision as a pretext to legislate for the general welfare generally. It can only tax and spend for the general welfare of the United States.

Second, the appropriation must be applied to the whole (general) and cannot be local or particular.

“That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.”

Third, Congress cannot use the power of appropriation to do things “not authorized in the Constitution.”

“No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.”

When the States adopted the Constitution they agreed to unite specially – not generally. As stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Essay No. 32, the Constitution would only establish a “partial union” between the States. A limited union equals limited powers. In other words, the States are only united within the scope of the limited powers delegated to the federal government. Thus, this provision cannot be construed to grant Congress the power to tax and spend to do things “not authorized in the Constitution” because the States are not united outside of the delegated powers and the general welfare provision is restricted to the States in their united capacity.

Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution

Joseph Story was a Justice on the United States Supreme Court from 1811-1845. In his 1833 commentaries on the Constitution, which the Court adopted in 1937, Story supported Hamilton’s assertions concerning the general welfare provision.

Story agreed with Hamilton that the general welfare provision was a component of the taxing power and not a grant of legislative power:

“The power to lay taxes is a power exclusively given to raise revenue, and it can constitutionally be applied to no other purposes. The application for other purposes is an abuse of the power; and, in fact, however it may be in form disguised, it is a premeditated usurpation of authority.”

He also supported Hamilton’s assertion that appropriations must be general:

“A power to lay taxes for any purposes whatsoever is a general power; a power to lay taxes for certain specified purposes is a limited power. A power to lay taxes for the common defence and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them. If the defence proposed by a tax be not the common defence of the United States, if the welfare be not general, but special, or local, as contradistinguished from national, it is not within the scope of the constitution.”

Things not Authorized in the Constitution

If Congress cannot use the power of appropriation to do things “not authorised in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication,” then where would one look to find a basic blueprint so this rule can be followed?

Ironically, that would be a Federalist Essay written by James Madison. In Essay No. 45, he distinguished the external powers granted to the federal government from the domestic powers reserved to the States:

“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.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger, those of the State governments in times of peace and security.”

As stated by Madison, the powers of the federal government pertain, for the most part, to external or foreign affairs and do not extend to the life, liberty or property of the people of the several States. This constitutional principle, standing alone, disproves any assertion that Congress was granted broad authority under the General Welfare Clause. It also negates any claim that Congress was granted the authority to establish and fund domestic social programs under the guise of the general welfare. Thus, any appropriation to fund these programs is unconstitutional irrespective of whether it meets the general (apply to the whole) test.

In his analysis, Justice Story stated the federal government had not been granted the authority to meddle with the “systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws, of the states.” Yet, Congress is using the general welfare provision to encroach in all of these areas despite the fact that it does not have the constitutional authority to do so under any provision of the Constitution.

Since the federal government was not granted any general authority over social or domestic issues within the several States, Congress is unconstitutionally taxing the American people “to do things not authorised in the constitution.”

Justice Story also addressed the appropriation of money for foreign purposes:

“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mohammedanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles.”

Despite this limitation, Congress is using the general welfare provision as its constitutional authority for appropriating billions of dollars for foreign aid programs like those mentioned by Story. Congressional abuse has become so pervasive that Congress taxes the American people to build homes and fund birth control programs in foreign countries. As stated by Story, this type of spending is “wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles.”

NOTE: The Founders would have categorized Social Security as a form of poor relief. Thus, as stated by Story, the federal government never had the constitutional authority to tax and spend to establish this program in the first place. Yet, the Supreme Court adopted Story’s interpretation of the general welfare provision and then used it to declare the Social Security Act constitutional.

Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending Defined

After doing an online search to find some easy to understand definitions, I settled on the ones found on Wikipedia because they are accurate and touch on the constitutional rules placed on Congress’ power to tax and spend under the general welfare provision.

EARMARK: “a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects…Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.”

PORK BARREL SPENDING: “government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative’s district…benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers.”

The reader will note the use of the words local and particular in defining the scope of these terms. Since congressional spending for the general welfare cannot be local or particular, these appropriations are, in the words of Justice Story, “not within the scope of the constitution.”

Here is an easy to understand example of how this type of spending works and why it is unconstitutional. At the present time, Congress imposes a general gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon throughout the United States. When Congress writes a spending bill and a powerful member of Congress wants to buy some votes from the folks back home, he places an earmark in the legislation to have a 3 million dollar bicycle trail built in his home State or congressional district. The money for the project is appropriated from the general fund of the United States where the gasoline taxes were deposited with other taxes of a general nature. Thus, taxes from the general fund were used to finance a local or particular project within an individual State. This is unconstitutional. The project was not for the welfare of the States in their united capacity. This is unconstitutional. Since building bicycle trails in the States is “not authorised in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication,” the appropriation failed this test and is unconstitutional.

In other words, Congress cannot impose a general tax throughout the United States, put the money in the general fund of the United States, appropriate money from the general fund of the United States, and then spend the money for a local or particular project.

Summary of the Rules for Taxing and Spending

Every tax and appropriation that is not to pay the debts or provide for the common defense of the United States is constitutionally governed by the following rules.

1-The tax and appropriation must be for something authorized in the Constitution. If this rule is met, then the second rule comes into play.

2-The appropriation must be general, i.e., apply to the States in their united or collective capacity. Congress cannot tax and appropriate money for local or particular projects.

Every dollar contained in every spending bill passed by Congress for the “general Welfare of the United States” must meet both of these requirements to be constitutional. When these rules are applied, we find the majority of all federal taxes being imposed by Congress either fund programs and projects not authorized in the Constitution or are for local or particular projects. Thus, the majority of all federal spending, outside of the general operating expenses of the federal government, is unconstitutional because these two rules are either ignored or violated by Congress.

Conclusion

When federal taxation and spending is placed under a constitutional microscope for examination, we find the document has been infected by a wealth-eating virus called “members of Congress.” These individuals, who took an oath to support the Constitution prior to taking office, have disregarded the interpretations and limitations expressed above and unconstitutionally adopted a new interpretation of the general welfare provision. Their interpretation deletes words, disregards words, changes the meaning of the words “general” and “welfare,” and is absent of any of the limitations expressed by the Founders. In short, members of Congress claim they have the unlimited power to tax, spend, and legislate, as long as they cite the general welfare as the constitutional authority for the legislation.

And to add insult to injury, congressional appointees in the federal judiciary have constructed an obstacle course that makes it almost impossible for the American people to use the legal system to stop Congress from  taxing them to fund programs not authorized in the Constitution.

Now that we know the Congress of the United States has been violating the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution for decades and pushing the nation to the brink of economic ruin, the question is: what are we going to do about it? Our children and grand children are waiting for our decision.

Bob Greenslade [send him email] is a regular participant in Tenth Amendment Center comments and has been writing for  http://www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.

Taxes were on the forefront of many Americans’ minds this week as they scrambled to meet the April 15th deadline to file their returns.  Tax policy in this country hurts taxpayers twice – once when they pay taxes, and then when the government spends the money.  Americans are sick and tired of the financial burden and the endless forms to fill out.

To add insult to injury, after collecting this money the government does some very detrimental things to the economy.

The burden of complying with the income tax is tremendous.  Since its inception in 1913, the tax code has gone from 400 pages to over 67,000.  The Tax Foundation estimates that around $265 billion dollars and 6 billion hours are spent just on compliance.  That expense amounts to about 22 cents of every dollar the IRS collects.

Imagine the boon to the economy if we spent that time and money expanding our businesses and creating jobs!

Aside from the direct loss of money and productivity, the funds from the income tax enable the government to do some very destructive things, such as vastly over-regulating economic activity, making it difficult to earn money in the first place.  The federal government funds over 50 agencies, departments and commissions that formulate rules and regulations.  These bureaucracies operate with little to no oversight from the people or Congress and generate around 4,000 new rules every year and operate at a cost of about 40 billion dollars.

There are some 75,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register that Americans are expected to know and abide by.  Complying with these governmental regulations costs American businesses more than one trillion dollars per year, according to a study by Mark Crain for the Small Business Administration.  This complicated system drives production to other countries and shrinks our job market here at home.

Big government is destructive when it takes your money and when it spends it.   There is no economic benefit to supporting a government sector as massive as ours.  In fact, this country thrived for well over 100 years without an income tax.

Today, if you took away the income tax, the government would still have revenue from other sources equal to total government spending in 1990, when government was still too big.  $1.2 trillion should be more than enough to fund a government operating within its constitutional confines, and that is exactly what we need to get back to.

I have introduced legislation many times to abolish the IRS and the income tax.  It is fundamentally un-American to require taxpayers to testify against themselves and be considered guilty until proven innocent.  Abolishing the IRS altogether would trigger an avalanche of real growth in the economy.

With these financial hard times only just beginning, this would be the most efficient and logical way to get our economy growing again, and Americans would need not dread the 15th of April every year.

As reported by the AP (vis CBS News):

Spending to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year will total nearly $200 billion, according to a budget request the White House will take to Congress next week, making 2008 the most expensive year of those conflicts to date.

The news was first reported by the Los Angeles Times, which cited unnamed Pentagon officials.

The Bush administration has earlier this year said it would need $147.5 billion for fiscal 2008, but the estimates have been raised by another $47 billion. This request is in addition to the Pentagon’s nearly half-trillion annual budget, which omits war spending but covers routine costs, including training, payrolls and weapons procurement.

To keep it simple – that’s over $16 Billion – every single month.  $16 billion that’s taken from you by force and given to the merchants of death – the weapons makers, the contractors, and the like.

A war that can continually be funded through the coercive method of taxation is one that’s not easy to end.

Yet another reason why the income tax needs to go.

President Bush’s faith-based initiative is a signature program of his administration. But not all Americans share the president’s belief that the government should work in close partnership with religious organizations willing to perform nonreligious public services, like running homeless shelters or drug counseling programs.

Wednesday, the US Supreme Court takes up a case that examines to what extent those opponents have legal standing to file federal lawsuits alleging that the White House’s faith-based initiative amounts to unconstitutional entanglement of church and state.

The case stems from a 2002 lawsuit filed by a Wisconsin-based group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Members of the group filed the suit as taxpayers who objected to having their tax money used to support religion.

Although the lawsuit brings up important issues of government involvement in religious organizations, it’s still missing the most important point. What’s avoided is the essential issue; the constitutionality of the American welfare state. And, no matter what the Supreme Court rules, the growth of government power will continue unchallenged.

Let it be clearly stated: Whether or not government funding gives rise to federal support of religion is an important, but secondary issue. The primary concern is the force used to support the funding in the first place.

Just like Bill Clinton, George Bush advocates new governmental intrusions into charity, education, health care, and other welfare programs with appeals for “compassion.” The faith-based initiative is openly a Bush-Republican project, yet it only repackages and grows the socialist concept of welfare. It’s called “charity” but it’s simply welfare under a different name. The politicians and pundits who promoted these initiatives were “conservatives,” but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in any form of welfare or charity.

Forcing people to be generous isn’t compassionate or moral, and nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to levy taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens.

As the welfare system has grown and grown in the past four decades, we’ve been exposed to countless problems and massive financial waste associated with it. Repeatedly, politicians have claimed that they know just how to make the welfare system better. We’ve seen new names and countless “reforms.” And, over and over, we’ve been told of great individual successes – always highlighting how the government is supposedly making people’s lives better.

But, despite all the highly-touted programs, the number of welfare recipients doesn’t really decline; the cost doesn’t seem to do anything but grow — and the epidemic of homelessness, drug use, teen pregnancies, family breakups, and crime — continues unabated.

The only reform deserving any real attention is that which will get the federal government out of welfare completely, as mandated by the Constitution.

Taxing, spending, borrowing, and printing of money does not lead to a prosperous society. It didn’t work in places like Russia, Japan and Germany, and it isn’t working in America either. At first, these actions seem to revive the economy, but they eventually become the source of the problem.

This is not a Republican Party issue, and it’s not a Democratic Party issue. It’s a problem of government power; the power to intrude into your life and force you to donate money to other people, whether you believe in their cause or not.

The notion that the federal government can best solve the problems of drug use, poverty, and homelessness by putting every private church and charity under the umbrella of government funding is completely delusional and economically ruinous.

Therefore, instead of continuing the expansion of the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should immediately return the responsibility and control over charitable giving to the American people. How can this be done? It’s simple — by quickly reducing our tax burden to an absolute minimum.

If we want to improve the job we’re doing of helping the needy — the poor, the hungry, the homeless — the federal government should promptly stop taxing the American people so much. Then you’ll be able to give your own money to groups you support, and groups that know how to use your money wisely.