I suppose the Democrats will whine about this. Instead of cutting, they like to raise taxes. I guess it’s not okay for them to live within their means, particularly when you have the power to take. I wonder if they are as irresponsible with their personal budgets as they are frivolously spending our money and disregarding our budget.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI-1) and the GOP have a plan that will be revealed tomorrow that will cut 4 trillion dollars from the budget which in actual money is still less than Obama & the Democrats have managed to squander over the last few years.

A few highlights include:

• Freezing the budget at 2008 levels

• A “premium support system” for Medicare. In the future, older people would choose plans in the marketplace and the government would subsidize those plans

• A statutory cap on actual discretionary spending as a percentage of the economy

• Pro-growth tax changes, including lower tax rates

Of course. You’d expect this. Before the details have even been laid out in full, a Democrat is already whining:

Democrat Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia was skeptical that Ryan’s proposal could achieve its targets without damaging social programs.

What Mark Warner is oblivious to is that “social programs” are unconstitutional. All of them. If you ask me, every last one of them should be eliminated. Including social security. As usual, Democrats don’t give a rip about the constitution as evidenced by Mark Warner.

Charity was known not to be an enumerated power nor one reasonably implied by the “necessary and proper” clause and therefore considered unconstitutional. Yet around the time of the New Deal, government began overlooking this clear unconstitutionality.

In the words of James Madison:

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

Or, Thomas Jefferson:

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

How about Alexander Hamilton:

“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.”

Let’s try President Franklin Pierce:

“[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy … I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

President Grover Cleveland:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”

And lastly, Congressman Davy Crockett (yes, that Davy Crockett) addressing the House:

“Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.  We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks.”

By violating the constitution, you can plainly see the big trouble this country is in today. It never would have happened if the constitution were followed.

I’m on board with Congressman Ryan. Cut the budget at least 4 trillion dollars over the next decade. Try and get it up to 6 trillion if that’s possible, and I’m sure it is.

Source