 The Basis Of My Politics |
|
SCShamrock  |
Posted: 01-Aug-2010, 11:07 AM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,180
Joined: 22-May-2004
Zodiac: Vine
Realm: Gamecock Country
|
| QUOTE (wiramc @ 01-Aug-2010, 09:23 AM) | The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8;
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" |
The phrase "and general welfare" being in bold, I assume you are using it to bolster your point that compulsory support for social programs is justified in the US Constitution. If so, how do you figure that the wording "general Welfare of the United States" in any way references individual welfare?
--------------------
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.
~Mark Twain
|
|
|
| wiramc |
Posted: 01-Aug-2010, 01:40 PM
|
Peasant
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 12
Joined: 27-Mar-2004
Zodiac: Birch
Realm: South of Santa's Workshop
|
I would probably bungle the explanation, so if you'll forgive a lengthy quote, I'll present the reasoning for my interpretation. Sources are footnoted at the bottom. I put the summary in bold.
The grant of power to “provide ... for the general welfare” raises a two-fold question: how may Congress provide for “the general welfare” and what is “the general welfare” that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”581 The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted,582Congress has not acted upon it and the Court has had no occasion to adjudicate the point.
With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause;583 Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self-support.584
From an early date Congress has acted upon the interpretation espoused by Hamilton. Appropriations for subsidies585 and for an ever increasing variety of “internal improvements”586 constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson.587 Since 1914, federal grants-in-aid, sums of money apportioned among the States for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient State, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to its use, have become commonplace.
The scope of the national spending power was brought before the Supreme Court at least five times prior to 1936, but the Court disposed of four of the suits without construing the “general welfare” clause. In the Pacific Railway Cases588 and Smith v. Kansas City Title Co.,589 it affirmed the power of Congress to construct internal improvements, and to charter and purchase the capital stock of federal land banks, by reference to its powers over commerce, post roads, and fiscal operations, and to its war powers. Decisions on the merits were withheld in two other cases, Massachusetts v. Mellon and Frothingham v. Mellon,590 on the ground that neither a State nor an individual citizen is entitled to a remedy in the courts against an alleged unconstitutional appropriation of national funds. In United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway,591 however, the Court had invoked “the great power of taxation to be exercised for the common defence and general welfare”592 to sustain the right of the Federal Government to acquire land within a State for use as a national park.
Finally, in United States v. Butler,593 the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: “Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”594
By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare,595 and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable.596
FOOTNOTES
581 3 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 147–149 (Library Edition, 1904).
582 See W. CROSSKEY, POLITICS AND THE CONSTITUTION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (1953).
583 THE FEDERALIST, Nos. 30 and 34 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) 187–193, 209–215.
584 Id. at No. 41, 268–78.
585 1 Stat. 229 (1792).
586 2 Stat. 357 (1806).
587 In an advisory opinion, which it rendered for President Monroe at his request on the power of Congress to appropriate funds for public improvements, the Court answered that such appropriations might be properly made under the war and postal powers. See Albertsworth, Advisory Functions in the Supreme Court, 23 GEO. L. J. 643, 644–647 (1935). Monroe himself ultimately adopted the broadest view of the spending power, from which, however, he carefully excluded any element of regulatory or police power. See his Views of the President of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements, of May 4, 1822, 2 MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 713–752 (Richardson ed., 1906).
588 California v. Pacific R.R., 127 U.S. 1 (188).
589 255 U.S. 180 (1921).
590 262 U.S. 447 (1923). See also Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 (1938). These cases were limited by Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968).
591 160 U.S. 668 (1896).
592 160 U.S. at 681.
593 297 U.S. 1 (1936). See also Cleveland v. United States, 323 U.S. 329 (1945).
594 United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65, 66 (1936). So settled had the issue become that 1970s attacks on federal grants-in-aid omitted any challenge on the broad level and relied on specific prohibitions, i.e., the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971).
595 Id. at 207 (citing Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640, 645 (1937)).
596 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 90–91 (1976); South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 n.2 (1987).
|
|
|
| MacEoghainn |
Posted: 01-Aug-2010, 02:09 PM
|
Fear-leanmhainn an Rìgh
Group: Founder
Posts: 2,961
Joined: 18-Jan-2004
Zodiac: Hazel
Realm: Cape Coral, Florida, USA, Planet Earth
|
| QUOTE | | No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78 |
| QUOTE | | “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” -Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332 |
| QUOTE | | Until some amendments can be made, we are stuck with the confusion and the financial burden of the welfare state. Let us hope it does not end with national financial collapse. |
--------------------
MacEAKA Steve EwingI know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. Job 19:25 "Non sibi sed patriae!" Reviresco (I grow strong again) Clan MacEwen motto Audaciter (Audacity) My Ewing Family Motto (descendants of Baron William Ewing of Glasgow, born about 1630) "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." from "Epitoma Rei Militaris," by Vegetius 
|
|
|
| Antwn |
Posted: 01-Aug-2010, 02:12 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
Zodiac: Birch
Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry
|
| QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 01-Aug-2010, 12:07 PM) | | QUOTE (wiramc @ 01-Aug-2010, 09:23 AM) | The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8;
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" |
The phrase "and general welfare" being in bold, I assume you are using it to bolster your point that compulsory support for social programs is justified in the US Constitution. If so, how do you figure that the wording "general Welfare of the United States" in any way references individual welfare?
|
Perhaps wiramc was simply trying to answer MacE's question. I don't see at all where wiramc made the point that the Constitution justifies Congressional support for compulsory social programs, consequently I don't think h/she has any Constitutional position to defend. Most likely h/she just looked through the document to find a section which answered MacE's question.
I don't think anyone here is a Constitutional scholar, though many have strongly held views usually conforming to the strict literal interpretive argument, which sometimes either ignores or minimizes 200 years of judicial precedent and often eschews what they deem to be interpretations while at the same time making interpretations themselves apparantly without acknowledging any contradiction.
Secondly the term "general welfare" is so utterly vague that it could conceivably include social welfare programs. I'm not saying this as a justification for the Constitutional sanction of welfare programs. I'm not a Congressional scholar either. While the term doesn't explicitly endorse anything, its vagueness leaves it open to interpretation and justification anything that could appropriately fit under the umbrella term "general welfare". Just sayin'. The Constitution in order to be flexible enough to adapt to any future historical events, which include malleable social attitudes, must contain general terminology to fit the needs of an unforeseeable future as a living document, or one which is applicable in any historical period.
Much has happened since the late 18th century. How could the founders have conceived of social welfare programs as we have them today? How can the Constitution be expected to specifically stipulate every possible need or anticipate contingencies 200 years into the future. Perhaps that's why terms like "general welfare" were included. Naturally debate ensues as to what general welfare includes, and that's healthy, but to demand strict adherence to Constitutional language when only guidelines are provided is an aspiration impossible to achieve in my opinion. There have always been interpretations because there can only be interpretations of vague phrases, thus there will continue to be interpretations.
I've expanded this post to take into consideration attitudes expressed in past posts by forum members as well as those of this particular thread, so its somewhat but not exactly off topic. Sorry if that bothers anyone.
--------------------
Yr hen Gymraeg i mi,
Hon ydyw iaith teimladau,
Ac adlais i guriadau
Fy nghalon ydyw hi
--- Mynyddog
|
|
|
| Patch |
Posted: 09-Aug-2010, 05:31 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
Zodiac: Ivy
Realm: America, Mid West
|
When SS was first put in place it was a "widow's pension." Men did not live long enough to draw it. Eventually it became a retirement pension, although a poor one, as people began to live longer.
I can remember when farmers could be included. My grandfather was 64 years old, already beyond the average male lifespan. I listened to the discussions among the family members at the time and all decided that it was a way to provide a bit of extra money for my grandmother as she would likely get the initial investment all back plus some. An in important consideration for a group of people of Scot descent! My grandfather signed up, paid his money (several hundreds of dollars) and a little over a year later began drawing his stipend. Grandma followed a couple of years later and grand dad outlived grandma drawing monthly SS checks for almost 20 years. It was set up by politicians for politicians (extra money to use) and it has been mismanaged since day one.
As a teenager with wheels my father drafted me to do deliveries and provide transportation for the recipients of the township aid program. He was a trustee.
Though I did not realize it at the time, Dad was teaching me. I learned work ethic and sharing with those in need at an early age, I learned compassion and to use discretion. I learned that I was no better than any other person and no other person was better than I. I learned to respect the rights person and property of others.
I have since accepted responsibility to help those in need as best I could. My children all do the same.
A government agency set up to do anything is the least efficient wat to get the job done. I believe our forefathers realized that. When govt provides charity, there is also an expensive infrastructure in place to collect and distribute the money. Think about that for a while!!!!
I believe my religion supports the idea of offering a helping hand but NOT with other peoples money.
In my opinion we are going about this in the wrong manner.
Slàinte,
Patch
|
|
|
| Jillian |
Posted: 10-Aug-2010, 04:53 AM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Brittany
Posts: 703
Joined: 29-Jun-2008
Zodiac: Oak
Realm: Pennsylvania
|
Speak of the devil...this article adds to what Patch was stating.
| QUOTE | Grassley: Medicare Waste, Fraud, Abuse Costing Taxpayers Billions
Sunday, 08 Aug 2010 03:08 PM Article Font Size
They don't seem that interested in hot pursuit. It took private sleuths hired by Medicare an average of six months last year to refer fraud cases to law enforcement.
According to congressional investigators, the exact average was 178 days. By that time, many cases go cold, making it difficult to catch perpetrators, much less recover money for taxpayers.
A recent inspector general report also raised questions about the contractors, who play an important role in Medicare's overall effort to combat fraud.
Out of $835 million in questionable Medicare payments identified by private contractors in 2007, the government was only able to recover some $55 million, or about 7 percent, the report found.
Medicare overpayments — they can be anything from a billing error to a flagrant scam — totaled more than $36 billion in 2009, according to the Obama administration.
President Barack Obama has set a high priority on battling health care fraud and waste, hoping for savings to help pay for the new law covering millions now uninsured.
Medicare's private eyes don't seem to be helping much.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, questions whether taxpayers are getting good value from for-hire fraud busters. His office, which is investigating the contracting program, obtained Medicare data for the last four years on how long it took to refer cases to federal agents.
"Medicare is already a pay-and-chase system when it comes to fraud, waste and abuse," said Grassley. "Providers are paid first, then questioned if there's a problem. Add to that mix contractors who sit on cases of ongoing fraud when they should be referring them to law enforcement, and you have a recipe for disaster."
As ranking Republican on the Senate panel that oversees Medicare, Grassley is trying to find out why it takes the contractors so long, and how much the government is currently paying the companies. In 2005, taxpayers paid them $102 million.
At least seven private companies Medicare calls "Program Safeguard Contractors" are working to detect fraud, part of a program that dates to the late 1990s. They oversee specific areas of jurisdiction, and some have more than one contract with Medicare.
The contractors investigate allegations of wrongdoing, acting as scouts for the government's criminal investigators. And they're also supposed to conduct "proactive" analysis to spot emerging fraud trends. For instance, they can use sophisticated computer models to scan millions of Medicare records for suspicious patterns to identify dishonest providers.
In practice, their performance has been uneven. The contractors have widely different track records. One identified $266 million in overpayments in 2007, while another found just $2.5 million, the Health and Human Services inspector general said in May.
Earlier, the inspector general found gaping differences in the number of new cases the contractors generate for law enforcement. Some had hundreds of cases, while others were in the single digits. Most were doing a poor job at spotting new fraud trends, with "minimal results from proactive data analysis," the inspector general concluded.
The Obama administration says it's aware of the problem and is close to completing a reorganization of the contractors, to consolidate their work, define their jurisdictions more clearly, and help them coordinate better with claims processors and law enforcement.
The private sleuths will now be called "Zone Program Integrity Contractors" — or ZPICs for short.
"By using these new contractors that can review claims across multiple providers and benefit categories, we will be better able to identify cases of waste, fraud or abuse," said Medicare spokesman Peter Ashkenaz. "And, we will be better able to monitor both the ZPICs' overpayment and collection efforts to make sure that they are performing their own oversight responsibilities."
In fairness to the contractors, the low collection rate may not just be their fault. Investigators say that when Medicare notifies a provider about a disputed payment, the fraudulent ones often just close up shop and move on.
© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|
My goodness what we could do with the money wasted...
Jillian
|
|
|
| Patch |
Posted: 10-Aug-2010, 12:47 PM
|
Celtic Guardian
Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
Zodiac: Ivy
Realm: America, Mid West
|
| QUOTE (wiramc @ 01-Aug-2010, 10:23 AM) | The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8;
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" |
The constitution states "for the general welfare of THE UNITED STATES." The UNITED STATES as a group make up the government. Until SS only state and local provisions for "widow's pensions were available as public assistance and very little of those. Neighbors took care of neighbors. The Amish still do that today and the system works great. That method of assistance does not promote fraud and generations of milking the system.
Medicaid is breaking state budgets now and the proposed bail out of states and education unions will come in large part from the food stamp program. The states will have to cover that short fall too. If I understand correctly money will be taken from one program that the states will have to make up and put in another non funded government mandate to the states. Sort of like the manner in which GM paid back the govt!
You have to love "creative accounting."
Slàinte,
Patch
|
|
|
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 Pages: (2) 1 [2]
Track this topic
Receive email notification when a reply has been made to this topic and you are not active on the board.
Subscribe to this forum
Receive email notification when a new topic is posted in this forum and you are not active on the board.
Download / Print this Topic
Download this topic in different formats or view a printer friendly version.
|
Gotta love it. 
