Gov't helps you help yourself

By the way, I also think its notable that the military budget sucks up more then many of the social programs all put together, save Medicare and Social Security.

You can see the facts for yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/budget.html

This site shows it all, for those who care about the facts instead of coffee table hear-say talk.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html
Department of Defense: $401 billion (does not even cover all the civilian costs, veterans affairs, and extra private contracts to military contractors - that number swells to just over $1 trillion, much of it coming from other departments)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/va.html
Department of Veterans Affairs - $30 billion


http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/homeland.html
Ironically, Homeland Security is only worth $33 billion. So many non-funded domestic security programs, makes me wonder.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/ssa.html
Social Security - administrative operations - $9.1 billion

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/hud.html
Department of Housing and Urban Development - $31 billion

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/education.html
Dept. of Education - $57 billion. And this is a cut, in FY 2004 the budget was $59 billion

The 2004 Education budget is found here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/budget/education.pdf

Requires a PDF reader.

Anyway, browse at your own discretion. Amazing how our priorities are: cutting education, spending $87 billion more on top of the already large defense budget; while not spending enough to pay our troops who actually do the job. The majority of that money is wasted through sweetheart corporate no-bid contract deals.

Many of those contracts are for weapon systems that never get off the ground. There are better ways to spend our money.

Very interesting article and sites!

The federal government is not designed to give out hand-outs to individuals. That's the problem . It is something state governments should really be doing. Providing defense is the federal government's primary task. Defense should be he #1 thing the government spends its money on. Sadly, it is a distant 4th.

Whoa there cowboy, I agree a strong national defense is very important, but since the United States spends more on defense than any other nation, I think we spend enough on defense. Als, the "primary" job of the federal government is spelled out in the constitution.

Cheers

It's been awhile since I read the Constitution, but, I can clearly remember that it states how the federal government will protect all the states, but I don't remember anywhere where it said anything about providing monetary support for the needy. The primary job of the federal government is to protect the country (military) and lay general rules for the states to work off. I have to agree that state government would be a better place for assistance than federal.

The problem with government assistance is that money is used for what it shouldn't be. Social Security isn't used for just retirement, for example. There is too much corruption in the system. If the states handled it, they would have a better grasp on it because they would be dealing only with their individual state. The US is just too big to have the federal government be responsible for all that it currently does.

It has been awhile since you read the constitution, however, you are right that it doesn't say anything about caring for the needy. It also doesn't say anything about maintaining a national highway system, it does provide for a national post, which is now in the hands of a governmental corporation and not the US government. Oh, and if the US is too big for it's own government to be responsible for it, then it wouldn't exist, would it?

Whoa there cowboy, I agree a strong national defense is very important, but since the United States spends more on defense than any other nation, I think we spend enough on defense. Als, the "primary" job of the federal government is spelled out in the constitution.

I am not arguing that we should spend more on defense. Just less on everything else. The only reason why we're paying a third of our income to the government is because now we have to fund various welfare programs (social security, medicaid, medicare are all welfare programs -- think of them as "co-pay" welfare).

 

jeb - the contitution mandates that the government will aid in interstate trade. Which, sadly, has been morphed into meaning a ton of things. Equating highways to giving money to individuals is a huge stretch though.

A lot of roads are funded by state and local taxes. Such as: counties collect taxes to plow the highways and freeways in there county. Can you imagine if the Fed. government had to micro manage that? But, that is my point. The government isn't insufficient for what it was intended to do. But, it now has to take on all these other duties that should actually be in the hands of the states. States are really like little countries banded into the Union of the United States. the federal government was never intended to have ultimate power or responsibility. That's why there are all the provisions for the states.

jeb - the contitution mandates that the government will aid in interstate trade. Which, sadly, has been morphed into meaning a ton of things. Equating highways to giving money to individuals is a huge stretch though.

Unfortunately the United States settled the issue of States Rights 139 years ago. It may be a huge stretch, it may even be unconstitutional, but I can guarantee it will never be repealed.

A lot of roads are funded by state and local taxes.

Yup, that's why I stated quite clearly the Federal highways. Which aren't.

government isn't insufficient for what it was intended to do.

Actually, I believe your point was just the reverse. Further, the federal government was intended to have ultimate power and responsibility, that's the reasons there are provisions for the states. You are, unfortunately, thinking of the Articles of Confederation, a remarkably good idea, but an incredibly bad governing document. Also, see the above comment about States rights.

The US is just too big to have the federal government be responsible for all that it currently does.

The government isn't insufficient for what it was intended to do

No, that was exactly my point. If it were only doing what it was intended to do, then it wouldn't have the issues that it does. However, it now has responsibility of all the social programs and whatnot, which is not a good idea and is not handled well by the federal government.

I think that we are agreeing on the same points, but you are not seeing it. I guess a clearer picture would be:
The Federal Government should go back to what the Constitution said it should do and have the states take care of the rest. This would put roads, schools, social projects, etc. in the hands of the states instead of the fed.

Ahh, but the states don't have the money either. Nor do they really want to take care of it. Besides, as you sort of pointed out before, and as I will elucidate, the percentage of the money put towards roads, schools, not social projects in general, but healthcare, mental health, etc., by the federal government is actually much smaller than that put forward by the states. The easiest way to find this is by taking the federal budget put aside for schools (I don't have the numbers with me) and divide it by the total number of schools in the united states receiving some federal funds (most public schools do). It ends up being a vanishingly small number. So, I guess the deal is whether you want people fleeing one state because of bad social projects? Oregonians don't. We had enough of that problem when all the "californicators" came here in the sixties and seventies. What, at least Brad, is arguing for, is the complete, or at least mostly, shutting down of all social projects since they only benefit the poor. (By the way Brad, rich, old people collect social security checks too). As I said, the United States, long ago closed the door for states rights. The civil war, which was partially about slavery, was also about the United States deciding it was one nation, with, to use the modern numbers, 50 states, instead of fifty states, that just happened to come together when convenient.

Cheers

Oh, and by the way, I agree that giving money to the needy isn't part of the constitution. However, there are a lot of things not in the constitution, which we, in our modern era, want so dearly. For instance, the right to privacy, the right for electronic media or video media to be copywrited, something I'm sure Brad can appreciate. Those are just a few

Cheers again

Unfortunately the United States settled the issue of States Rights 139 years ago. It may be a huge stretch, it may even be unconstitutional, but I can guarantee it will never be repealed.

The civil war did not sellt the issue of states rights. It settled that a state may not secede from the union. I'm not aware of a constitutional amendment stating that states no longer have the power to make their own laws anymore.

Social security, medicaid, and medicare represently nearly 60% of the federal budget. They are, effectively, welfare programs. Welfare programs that we co-pay into that everyone gets something out of but welfare programs none the less.

You are aboslutely right. Read the end of my post:

The civil war, which was partially about slavery, was also about the United States deciding it was one nation, with, to use the modern numbers, 50 states, instead of fifty states, that just happened to come together when convenient.

So, while states are allowed to make their own laws, they are not sovereign and therefore do not have certain responsibilities given to sovereign nations.

This includes, minting money, having a debt, having a house like the US senate in their legislature, etc.

The civil war didn't decide any of those things. States weren't permitted to print their own money and plenty of states have bicameral legislatures.

BTW, one example: Virginia: http://legis.state.va.us/Senate/Senators.htm

Virginia, as you probably know, was one of the states that left the union.  It has both a senate and a house of representatives (house of delegates in their case).

The Civil war really had little affect in terms of states rights legally outside of the seccession issue.

::sighs:: Yes, they have bicameral houses, however, both houses are proportioned by population, unlike the US senate. The Articles of Confederation, and indeed the "constitution" of the confederacy allowed states to print their own money. Ask any Southerner and they'll tell you that the Civil War was about States Rights Brad.

Cheers