by Bob Greenslade, The Price of Liberty

After President Bush put forth his proposal to “partially privatize” Social Security, newspapers across the country inundated the American people with editorials and articles defending the present system. The Chicago Sun-Times called Social Security “the most successful government program ever to be invented.” Since most Americans, including the staff at the Sun-Times, blindly assume that the federal government was granted the constitutional authority to establish this so-called retirement/insurance program, the origin of Social Security is rarely discussed. In the author’s opinion, if the media was functioning as government watchdogs, as opposed to government lapdogs, it would be asking a question that goes beyond any proposal to partially privatize Social Security. Was the federal government granted the constitutional authority to establish Social Security or is it just another usurpation of power?

When Franklin Roosevelt and his New Dealers were contemplating Social Security in the early 1930′s, they were faced with a problem. Roosevelt, then governor of New York, identified this problem several years earlier in his “States Rights” address of March 2, 1930:

“As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the states are all of those which have not been surrendered to the national government by the Constitution or its amendments.”

After asserting that Congress had the power to legislate concerning Prohibition because that power had been given to them by the 18th Amendment, he continued by stating:

“[T]his is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare, and of a dozen other important features. In these Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.”

The reason the federal government “must not be encouraged to interfere” was because it lacked the constitutional authority to interfere. Not only had the States not surrendered these powers, but they did not vest the federal government with any general authority over them.

After becoming President, Roosevelt quickly changed his tune and pushed for an unparalleled expansion of federal power.

Following his election in 1932 and the implementation of his New Deal policies, much of Roosevelt’s legislation was challenged as unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court. A majority on the Court, who had been appointed by Republicans, began declaring cornerstones of the New Deal unconstitutional in 5-4 decisions. The New Dealers were frantic. In 1934, Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins expressed concern to Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone that the social security system they were devising would be declared unconstitutional. Stone replied — “[t]he taxing power of the Federal Government, my dear, the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need.”

Justice Stone was not referring to the Sixteenth Amendment, the so-called income tax Amendment. He was referring to the taxing provision found at Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. This provision grants Congress the power “[t]o 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.”

At this point, you are probably asking yourself a question. If Social Security is a legitimate retirement/insurance program as the politicians and the media claim, then what do taxes “to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” have to do with the constitutionality of Social Security?

The answer can be found in the opening clause of the Social Security Act of 1935. It is entitled as “[a]n Act to Provide for the General Welfare.” Since the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to compel the people of the several States to participate in a federal retirement or insurance program, Roosevelt and his New Dealers had to structure Social Security as an excise tax under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. They inserted the general welfare verbiage to make it appear as if the federal government was exercising a legitimate constitutional power. [Note: excise taxes fall in the class of indirect taxes and are synonymous with privilege taxes. As such, they can be avoided by not taking the privilege. This means that excise taxes are voluntary taxes]

Immediately after the Social Security Act was passed, various provisions of the Act were challenged as unconstitutional and reached the Supreme Court in 1937. In the case of Helvering v. Davis, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, sustained the constitutionality of the Act as an excise or income tax under the general welfare provision cited above.

Based on the Social Security plan devised by the New Dealers, employees would not making contributions into a retirement or insurance program. They would be paying a “special income tax” which would be deducted from their wages and paid to the federal government by the employer. This excise tax is imposed on the employee for the so-called “privilege” of being employed by an employer. Under Social Security, working as an employee for an employer became a federal privilege and subject to taxation.

A similar standard was applied to employers. Under Social Security, employers would not be making matching contributions into a retirement or insurance program for their employees. They would pay a separate excise tax for the privilege of having employees in their employ. Thus, under Social Security, the act of employing employees was made a federal privilege and subject to taxation.

Under the Helvering v. Davis decision, the Court basically declared that Congress has the subjective authority, unrestrained by the judiciary, to declare what constitutes the general welfare irrespective of whether that determination corresponds to the specific legislative grants of power contained in the Constitution. Not only was this contrary to the principles of limited government and enumerated powers, which are the foundation of the Constitution, but it was also contrary to the constitutional meaning of the general welfare phrase.

In the author’s opinion, the Supreme Court, in 1937, was simply looking for a way to expand federal power and escape FDR’s threat to restructure the Court. Since the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the constitutional authority to define the extent of the powers granted to the federal government or amend the Constitution from the bench by changing the meaning of words, this matter remains, in the author’s opinion, unresolved. Therefore, it is important to re-examine this issue and establish the true meaning of the general welfare phrase as it relates to Social Security.

In sustaining Social Security under the general welfare provision, the Court failed to perform a basic function. It neglected to establish the constitutional meaning of the words contained therein. A review of a standard dictionary shows that the words “general” and “welfare” are defined as follows:

“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 social aid programs like Social Security. 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.” Thus, the common definition of the general welfare phrase, as it was used in the Constitution, was “the whole group’s well being.”

The other words that need to be put in constitutional context are the words “United States.” These words, as they appear in the founding documents, do not refer to a geographical territory or a single nation. The phrase “United States” was the name of the compact or union that was established between the several States when they adopted the Articles of Confederation. When the Framers drafted the present Constitution, they retained the term because the document was a continuation and expansion of the old constitution. Thus, the words “United States” specifically refer to the several States in their united or collective capacity. [i.e., the States united]

If the words “general welfare” and “United States” are put in their proper context, then the general welfare provision grants Congress the power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… group well being of all the United States.” The “entire group” being referenced is not the people, as comprising a single nation, but the several States in their united capacity. Since the Constitution is a compact or contract between the several States, and the States are only united within the scope of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, this composition of the general welfare provision is in totally harmony with the intent and construction of that document.

Alexander Hamilton sustained this fact in his writings on the Constitution. In Federalist No. 83, he reduced this principle to a single sentence:

“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 general welfare clause, being but a part of a general provision of the Constitution, applies solely to the States “in their united or collective capacity.” If the Constitution had established a social compact or union between the American people, and they were the object of the general powers delegated to the federal government, then it would have been an absurdity to reference the States, in their united capacity, as the object of the general welfare phrase. In addition, if the Constitution had been established for the well being of the American people, then that same people would have been the “whole group” referenced in the general welfare phrase.

Based on the above definitions, Social Security should have been struck down because Congress used a provision of the Constitution that applied to the States, in their united capacity, and unconstitutionally applied it to the people. When Congress inserted the words “[a]n Act to Provide for the General Welfare” at the beginning of the Social Security Act, that body took a clause that granted Congress the power “[t]o lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… group well being of all the United States” and twisted it into a power that granted Congress the power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare generally. This was a gross usurpation of power.

The American people should never lose sight of the fact that the individual States are not united generally. They are united specially. In other words, the States are only united within the scope of the limited powers delegated to the federal government. When the States are operating within these powers through their agent, the federal government, they are identified as the United States and the general welfare provision applies to them collectively. The opposite applies when the States are not operating within the delegated powers. Outside of the delegated powers, the States are known as the several States and are independent sovereign entities. Thus, Congress cannot have broad power to declare what constitutes the general welfare because the States are not united generally.

There are other facts that disprove a broad interpretation of the general welfare provision. In order for Congress to have extensive and indefinite power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare, the federal government would first have to have been granted total power over both domestic and foreign affairs. In Federalist Essay No. 45, James Madison, who is recognized as the father of the Constitution, provided a blueprint of the Constitution when 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.”

Since the constitutional powers of the federal government are few and do not extend to internal or domestic affairs, the federal government cannot have unspecified and indefinite power to tax and appropriate money for the general welfare. That government has no general legislative authority to do anything concerning the life, liberty or property of the people of the several States. Thus, domestic social aid programs like Social Security are nothing but a usurpation of power because they violate these constitutional principles.

In Federalist Essay No. 41, Madison, in discussing the limited powers delegated to the federal government, stated that they could be reduced to 6 categories of powers:

“That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be more conveniently done they may be reduced into the different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.”

Since Social Security cannot be placed into any of these 6 categories of power, to sustain this domestic social aid program as a valid exercise of power under the general welfare provision was nothing short of an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

Even Supreme Court Justice Story, whose 1833 commentaries on the Constitution helped form the basis for the 1937 decision upholding Social Security referenced above, recognized that the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to establish these programs. In his analysis of the general welfare provision, Justice Story stated that 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.”

Get the New Book Today!

If the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to institute domestic social aid programs like Social Security in 1833, as acknowledged by Justice Story, and did not have the authority in 1930, as acknowledged by President Roosevelt, then how could Congress have acquired this power in 1935? Since the Constitution had not been amended, there can only be one conclusion. The federal government, acting through its political appointees in the Supreme Court, simply opened the door for a new interpretation of the general welfare provision that deleted words, changed the meaning of the words, and was absent of the basic limitations incorporated into the Constitution by the Founders. In short, the Court re-wrote the Constitution from the bench and handed Congress almost unlimited power to tax and spend so long as it cites the general welfare provision as the constitutional authority for the legislation.

The present debate over President Bush’s plan to “partially privatize” Social Security is nothing but a debate over which usurpation of power is best for the federal government. The method will be different but the result will be the same. The American people will continue to be taxed for the so-called privilege of working as an employee or employer under the guise of contributing to a constitutionally authorized retirement/insurance program. Since the federal government’s power under the general welfare provision applies to the States collectively, not the people generally, taxing the American people to fund this unconstitutional social aid program is just another usurpation of power.

Originally published March 3, 2005 at www.thepriceofliberty.org

Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.

Foreword to Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State

Sheldon Richman’s Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State is precisely the type of scholarly work needed to wake up the American people to the dangers posed by the welfare state. Richman demolishes the popular myth that the welfare state was a natural outgrowth of the Founding Fathers’ conception of individual liberty. In fact, the ideology behind the welfare state is a 180-degree turn from the individualism embraced by the Founders.

The men who led the American Revolution and drafted the Constitution understood that people flourish best under conditions of freedom – and that a centralized state has neither the legitimate authority nor the competence to care for the needy. Instead, the Founders realized that a state which attempts to provide security will end up destroying both liberty and the economic prosperity necessary to enhance individual security.

In contrast, the theoreticians of the welfare state believe that people are incapable of improving their condition and would ultimately become little more than pawns of the “greedy capitalists” without the support of a wise and benevolent state. Of course, while redistributionism and its nasty cousins – socialism, communism, and fascism – have created many shortages, one thing it has produced in abundance is power-hungry politicians eager to protect the people from the forces of private greed!

In fact, as Richman points out, one of the prime motivations of Bismarck, who created the prototype of the modern welfare state, was to use taxpayer monies to bribe the citizens into supporting his imperial regime. The use of the welfare state to cement popular support for the incumbent government remains intact. As a United States congressman, I regularly see how prevalent the welfare state mentality is among elected officials who use the tool of redistribution as a means to “buying votes” with the taxpayers’ own money.

One of the most powerful arguments used by those who would expand the welfare state is that absent government-provided welfare the lives of the poor would be “nasty, brutish and short.” Richman demolishes this argument by showing how voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.

Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. Many private charities have become seduced by the siren song of taxpayer funding into becoming little more than appendages of the welfare bureaucracy.

One of the most disturbing trends of recent years is the attempt by many so-called conservatives to entice the remaining independent charities into government dependency under the guise of expanding access to “faith-based” institutions. Of course, entanglement with the dependency-fostering welfare state will destroy the very attributes that make these institutions effective – freedom from government infiltration and regulation.

While freedom charities promote self-reliance, government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.

As effective as this book is in showing the harm done by our current welfare policies, it would be a mistake to lump Richman in with those writers who condemn the welfare state’s cost and corrosive effects on society in order to build a case for making the welfare state more “efficient.”

Unlike many policy analysts Richman does not ignore the fundamental immorality behind the welfare state, which is, after all, built on theft. If it is wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul, how can it be right to levy taxes on Peter to pay Paul?

By tracing the history of the welfare and detailing how redistributionism damages both taxpayer and the recipient of government “aid,” Sheldon Richman has produced a book that is essential reading for any American wishing to understand how the welfare state is incompatible with constitutional government and a free society.

Such understanding is the first step toward reclaiming liberty. For only when the American people fully understand how damaging the welfare state is to both the nation’s economy and its moral character will the welfare state join other forms of statism on the ash heap of history.

All lovers of freedom have reason to be grateful to Sheldon Richman for his excellent work and to the Future of Freedom Foundation for publishing it.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

Copyright © 2008 Future of Freedom Foundation

President Obama signed an executive order last week continuing the faith-based initiatives program created by former President Bush.  When the program was created, I warned that giving taxpayer money to private religious organizations would eventually lead to political control and manipulation of them.  This week has provided some evidence that this was a justified concern.

The logic behind funding faith-based initiatives seemed reasonable to some.  Private organizations are much more effective in charitable endeavors than government programs and bureaucracies.  Therefore, why not “outsource” some of the government’s welfare-state activities to these worthy organizations? 

This appealed to many conservatives, especially after the follow-up executive order exempting recipients from discriminatory hiring laws, which assured many that taking federal funds would not jeopardize their control over their own operations.  But beware the government program started under an administration you like, for it may look a lot different under the one you don’t.   Exemptions that Bush gave, Obama can take away.

But now, dependencies on federal money have been set, operations have been expanded accordingly, and many charities are waiting breathlessly for the administration to tell them what new conditions they will have to meet.

With the stroke of a pen, religious charities might not be able to take into consideration a job applicant’s faith, sexual orientation or lifestyle if they wish to remain eligible for that taxpayer money that was so enticing a few years ago.  Similarly, if FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) is passed, will Catholic Church hospitals be forced to offer abortion services to retain their federal funding?  Can they remain solvent without it?

This is the major problem with basing a private business model on the receipt of government funds.  This money does not come without control, or the future possibility of control.  We are seeing parallel control grabs in industries that have recently been the recipients of taxpayer largess.

Government officials are now discussing executive compensation on Wall Street, banking, and in the auto industry.  How much is too much to pay someone?  When is a bonus deserved?  But because politicians have bought their way into these industries, these are now political decisions.

It is easy to utilize class envy to whip up public support for these interventions, but government always slides down the slippery slope.   Politicians are also discussing other aspects of these businesses in which they are not expert, such as, what should lending standards be?  What sort of cars should we direct the auto industry to make?  Once government money infiltrates a balance sheet, “taxpayers” meaning “politicians” have a say in how you operate.

Money is the Trojan horse that government uses to infiltrate and infect organizations.  Funding that, on the outset, is designed to strengthen and support, will bureaucratize and regulate in the end.  It is sad to see charities now having reason to focus on lobbying, regulatory compliance and paper pushing to get and retain money taken by force, rather than beefing up private, voluntary fundraising activities.

Those tempted to join Washington’s ongoing bailout bonanza should instead take the famed advice of former First Lady Nancy Reagan on the acceptance of harmful and addictive substances and “Just Say No” to government money.  This is the best protection from government control.

Ron Paul is a republican member of congress from Texas.

Matt K makes a good observation in his Esse Quam Videri blog:

First Amendment, Second Amendment, maybe even Fourth and Twenty-First Amendments, are all of the Bill of Rights that most people hear and care about. But does anybody remember the Tenth Amendment? It’s been basically a dead letter since Reconstruction, but it goes a little something like this:

“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.”

One of the best (or worst) recent examples of a complete disregard for the 10th Amendment’s limitations on federal powers was from none other than “magic bullet” Arlen Specter.

For some time, he’s been wasting time, and your tax dollars investigating something that the feds have no authority over whatsoever -  professional football.

Recently, he made an announcement that he’d stop pushing for more hearings on this so-called “NFL spygate” case, which appeared to be good news.

But, as Daniel Matthews points out, the good news wasn’t good at all – instead, it turned out to be much worse

I was much more interested in something hidden in the bottom of the release…check it out here. He says that he is now going to look in to public financing of stadiums.

You read it right.  Instead of wasting money on investigating the pro football, he’s now going to take your money under the threat of imprisonment, and use it to build stadiums.

The outrage from Daniel Matthews is quite understandable:

Well, there is this little thing called the tenth amendment in the constitution.  It essentially says that any power not expressly given to the federal government should be retained by the states.  So, I re-read the Constitution…turns out that the power to control financing of stadiums isn’t in the Constitution.  Funny, I always thought it was.

Daniel, you’re absolutely right.  There’s not a word about football in the Constitution.

Or NFL, or stadiums, or sports.

Either Arlen hasn’t read the Constitution – or more likely – he’s hoping that most of us haven’t read it.

But, sadly, this is the way Washington works.  They count on the reality that people don’t know that the Constitution was written as a limit on federal power – not as a way to promote favored businesses.

Daniel explains this pretty well:

You see the Constitution wasn’t written by politicians to protect the government from people…It was written by level headed guys with names like Ben and Thomas, and a John or two.  They wrote it and offered it to the people for approval…It is the people’s document…not the government’s.  It was written to protect the people from the government.  It gives the people power…not Washington.

Ben, Thomas, and the Johns would be up in arms if they were alive these days.

Hope still shines, though.  It’s good to see that a few people like Daniel and Matt still understand the purpose of, and the need for, the 10th Amendment.

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.

When I write my congressman or senator and ask them to please stop sending money to foreign governments, they write back to me as though I do not know what I am talking about. They “know” what is best for this country and believe the foreign expenditures are justified.

Then, they “thank me for writing”.

The American public is so disenfranchised it is pathetic.

I am convinced that if the US stopped sending money to foreign countries, we could balance the budget in less than 10 years. It is hard to tell, one cannot get the true amount sent to foreign countries.

Our nation needs a completely transparent government. One that has to post daily on the internet, all the monies collected by the federal government and all the monies spent by the federal government. This posting should be in detail so one can discern where the money is really going.

Maybe then, just maybe, the American public would see the truth and begin to send Independents to be their leaders in Washington.

Congress is poised to pass the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid.  The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President’s requested amount.

It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.

Much of this aid will run through government-to-government channels and will be vulnerable to corruption.  Some of the aid will be sent to faith-based organizations who, along with accepting government largess, will now be subject to governmental controls and will soon become more dependent on taxpayer funding than private funds.

If they accept the aid, they must be careful of the vague language regarding what types of programs they can run.  For example, the requirement that 33% of any funding received must go toward abstinence-only programs has been dropped and replaced with a 50% requirement toward behavior change.

Many humanitarian organizations are incensed by the politicized requirements placed on their work, and feel they are being forced to continue failed programs at the expense of more effective ones.

The obvious question remains:  Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa ?  And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund –for example – family planning facilities that perform abortions?

In fact, Afrobarometer, a leading source of data on public attitudes in Africa asked Africans what their main developmental concerns were.  They found that Africans are much more concerned about jobs, agriculture and basic infrastructure than they are about health issues like AIDS.

Africans should decide what is best for Africa .  American taxpayers should decide what charities deserve their money.

Forcibly taking money from the United States and sending it overseas is unconstitutional and immoral.

The energy that lobbying groups and celebrities expend for charitable causes here on the Hill could be better put to use actually addressing problems.  It is sadly symptomatic of the trend toward bigger government that instead of private fundraising efforts, people put their hand out to Congress.

It is unfortunate that some activists prefer funding taken by force, to donations freely given.

These efforts, though well-meaning, are misguided.  The truth is all the foreign aid in the world will not transform Africa into a thriving, healthy continent.  The economic growth of Africa depends on African entrepreneurs, liberalized trade policies, and political and economic freedom.

The best thing we could possibly do for Africa and for our own country, is to stop sending misguided aid, and stop protectionist trade practices that prevent African farmers and producers from competing in our markets.

Perhaps then Africa’s leaders would focus less on how to get aid out of the United States , and more on the economic vitality of their own countries.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.  First, which demographic segment has the best voting record?  Meaning, of any age group, which group votes more regularly than any other?

Old people, right?  Retirees, seniors…old people.  No offense intended.

So if you wanted to propose a government entitlement program and your goal was to be elected to four terms in the White House, you would want to make the beneficiaries of this newly proposed program…old people, right?

Well if your name is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that would be your proposal.

In Social Security we see the United States’ shift from the Constitution to Socialism begin by proposing that the government “pay” seniors a retirement benefit that, at the time, none had paid into!  So an entire generation of “old people” have received their benefits, have died since, and have left the rest of us shackled down with an entitlement program that is both outdated, ineffective, and all but bankrupt, while an entire generation of Americans has been shackled down with the tax burden of paying for our forbearers retirement.

Oh, and did I mention the part about unconstitutional?

Now, throwing out the ‘U’ word is kind of harsh on first reading, but consider the facts.  The Constitution guarantees individuals the unalienable right (from the Declaration of Independence) to “the pursuit of happiness,” previously known as “the pursuit of property.”  In other words, our government guarantees me the right to pursue personal wealth!

Note:  Nothing in the Constitution guarantees that I, myself, personally, will achieve personal wealth, only that I am able to pursue wealth.  Property.  Toys, if you will.

Now, if I am amongst the unfortunate few who are unable to retire because I spent all of my income on toys, partying, or my seven wives, well, then I kind of did myself in.  Imagine what life might have been like had I settled at three wives and invested the alimony that I paid the other four.  I would retire a millionaire.

Now refer to the Constitution on this matter.  No such Power of the United States to “get your back” if you don’t – or can’t! – retire because you don’t – or can’t! – save!  The first rule of Finance is “consumption forgone equals investment.”  In other words, what you don’t spend, you can save and invest!  And in general, if done intelligently, investment generally grows.

So if growing one’s personal wealth involves, 1.) Earning an Income, 2.) Saving an excess, and 3.) Investing that excess, then it begs the question – can an individual out-invest the government?  In other words, can I outpace the Social Security program’s approximately 4% rate of return by investing in my own personal IRA or 401 (k) account?

Well, I have the last two years!  I have averaged approximately 20% growth in my personal retirement plans the last two years.  For those of you who know anything about investing in the market, you know that is not only good, it is great!

Inflation creeps along at about 3 to 3.5% per year, which means that at best your Social Security “investment,” also known as taxes, actually only increase at about ½ % per year.  If salaries increased at that rate we would see Revolution in the streets.  All the while, including inflation, my personal investing is increasing at above a 15% clip very comfortably.

Then you take into account the devaluation of the dollar and the fact that I am heavily invested in foreign funds and learn that my MBA in Finance (including International Finance) is paying for itself in about three ways!

And now we start hearing from Republican candidates for President on their proposed solutions for the future of the Social Security system and they are heavy on later retirement ages, lowered benefit amounts, and hybrid personal investment accounts.

The problem boils down to this:  The Constitution does not delegate this Power to the Congress, nor to the Federal Government.  The Power to pass the ‘Social Security Act’ and set up an entirely new organization within the Federal Government is not even granted to the Congress and the Government to enact.

Did you note that?  Go back and re-read the previous paragraph.

Once again, if you know anything about our Constitution, you know that it is a limited Constitution.  That means “The United States,” meaning the national government, did not set itself up.  It did not just spring forth from the ground one day.

The United States was instituted in the Declaration of Independence, and its government’s powers were enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.  Only those Powers delegated to the various branches of the federal government are given, and none of those includes the power to determine its own powers.

Our limited Constitution does not delegate the Power to pay retirement benefits, and it does not delegate the Power to delegate the Power to pay retirement benefits.  Note the distinction.  Our national government is not given the Power to determine what its Powers are.

Its Powers are explicitly enumerated, and in some cases implied as in the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” but in no way can the rational mind justify the trend towards Socialism that we began under Roosevelt and have continued all the way into the present, where elected Representatives who refuse to grant that which is not theirs to grant, namely S-CHIP, or children’s healthcare benefits, are reviled as some hideous beast for refusing to violate the Constitution.

Neither is it in the Powers of the government to engage in giving away healthcare insurance, nor is it in the Powers of the government to engage in the investments or retirement industries.  There are for-profit industries set up to provide these services, whose profits are taxed, and whose business it is to provide such services.

It is not the Power of our government to engage in business.  The concept of the “pursuit of happiness,” or property, entails that the government gets out of the way and allows individual creativity and drive be awarded by engaging in business.  Government has shown in every way at every opportunity a decided inability to engage in efficient business practices in areas that are necessary to carrying out the every day task of running the bureaucracy such as accounting, human resources, and payroll.  These tasks are even beginning to be outsourced to for-profit industry in order to streamline the government’s business practices.

Yet we expect an entity that cannot even pay its own employees efficiently to engage in for-profit areas effectively?  There is a reason its Powers are limited.  And if we want to add to those Powers, it is not left to the Federal Government, or its candidates, but to the Amendment process.

I suggest that we recall this, and quickly.

David Smith is gearing up for a run at the US House of Representatives.  His hot-button issue is States’ Rights. See more of his writings at his blog, http://silvertrombone.townhall.com

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.