This is definitely a situation where we should go back to the constitution and enforce that no such provisions were made in the constitution. Serving in such an elected capacity was not supposed to be a *job*! (therefore you shouldn't be able to retire from it)
Certainly this has failed to encourage ancient politicians to retire! Why retire when you can continue to loot the system?
My employer is one of the more generous ones that provides 401k matching up to 4% and for some of us also provides a pension (should end up being a whopping whole $500 a month). However for what used to be an upper middle class career (which now feels like poverty) this is *nothing* compared to the figures you stated for politicians!
I find it interesting how so many scream out against our Founders, calling them "racist slave owners", among other things. Yet, they enjoy the liberty and freedom to speak out like that BECAUSE of those men and the fight they took on, AND WON, for all citizens, including future generations, so they COULD without the governing body chastising them for it. (Think "violent speech" or "misinformation")
And, if we were to TAKE BACK the authority these elected "representatives" have given themselves, and returned to the original blueprint, they could enjoy even MORE freedom. They wish to relinquish there freedom and let government dictate how they should live their own lives. It's beyond sad, it's pitiful.
There are many luxuries our "public servants" have bestowed upon themselves at the expense of We the People. "Pension" plans that rival many self-made millionaires; health benefits no blue-collar worker could EVER afford, much less be offered; expense accounts on top of their exorbitant salaries; all of this and more at the taxpayer's expense. They live like royalty (which is what we fought a war for freedom from) while the common folk live like paupers. I think the worst part of it all is that We the People sat back and ALLOWED it to happen. We did not stomp our collective foot and say "NO!" ALL of these luxuries being paid out for jobs that were intended to be PART TIME, and extremely limited in power and scope. The great American experiment went terribly awry many moons ago. I try to stay hopeful that it can be recovered, but I'm not sure at stage of the game.
At this point, how much they get out of the fund doesn’t seem as crucial to me as what we the people pay in. That, IMO, is the travesty here especially when so many struggle just to make ends meet - never mind actually saving for retirement.
Concerning retirement, there are times when savings can and will be wiped out due to unforeseen circumstances. We experienced one of those catastrophic events in our lives, but through it all, Yahweh is faithful. We trust that He will rebuild, and we have seen the start of it. But government officials and bureaucratic bloating living off the backs of Americans will be the eventual undoing of the Republic. And just why is the federal government the largest employer in the nation?
In the beginning, this wasn’t a job - they already had jobs. This was something you did on top of your job. It was a privilege and an honor to serve in Congress, but was treated Almost like a National Guard position.!! a double vocation.
I am a retired Federal employee, and found your column to be, shall we say, somewhat slanted. You add a couple of asterisks, just so readers will know that you really are talking about all Federal employees and not just the 535 members of Congress, but let's put that in a little more perspective. There are nearly 3 million Federal employees in the FERS retirement system. I'm one of them. During my 15 1/2 years at the Social Security Administration, I came to work every day and helped my fellow citizens. So did everyone else in my small northwest Wisconsin office. I never met a colleague who was getting rich on his or her wages. Yes, the benefits were good, but I know private-sector lifers whose benefits were as good as, if not better, than ours. We earned our salaries. You, the American taxpayers, hired us to manage a very difficult and complex system. We were there when you called to tell us you'd foolishly given your personal information out to a bogus caller or website and had your check stolen. We were there when you came in to file for Social Security and were surprised when we told you that we could've been paying you benefits for the past three years, but you listened to your brother-in-law or a Facebook post instead and needlessly delayed filing. We were there when your spouse became ill with cancer and couldn't work, and needed to get on disability benefits. Yes, you "contributed" to our pensions and our TSP accounts. You were our employers, and you chose to do that. If you hadn't wanted to do it, you would've told your elected representatives in Congress not to vote for that bill, wouldn't you? If you'd been paying attention, anyway. So, go ahead and rail at Congress members all you want about their supposedly-cushy retirement benefits. Just remember, that's only 535 out of 3 million people who work for you every day. We're the ones who keep your benefits coming (even Chad's "Ponzi scheme" Social Security), who keep the national parks clean and beautiful, who manage the untold number of programs you've voted for, and yes, we're the ones who board the ships and get in the cockpits and pick up the rifles and get in the tanks when the you-know-what hits the fan.
Actually, we the people didn't hire most of you. Most federal employees perform jobs that fall well outside the constitutional powers and responsibilities granted to the federal government, and frankly (no knock at you), those jobs shouldn't even exist. The Social Security system shouldn't exist. Disability benefits shouldn't exist. None of what you mentioned is supposed to exist at the federal level. And this is the problem - most Americans believe this is the way things are supposed to be. Which is why government costs us (and wastes) so much.
So while you rail about keeping "our benefits coming," realize that none of that is even supposed to be within the power of the federal government, and yes, I do tell my representatives that. But our "representatives" (let's be real - none of them truly represent the people) are bought and sold.
By the way, the reason I call Social Security a Ponzi scheme (and it is), is because most people don't even realize what it is. Most Americans think SS is just a government-mandated retirement savings program. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is the preamble from the Social Security Act of 1935:
"The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]
An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes." - https://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html
Money is being taken from people working today (like myself) to pay people who have already retired (like yourself), and to pay for other things for other people (many of whom have NEVER paid into the system). It's a revolving door of robbing Peter to pay Paul's retirement, and Mary's welfare, and James' healthcare, etc. Eventually, there is (hopefully) someone else working from whom the government can take money to pay Peter once he retires, because the money they took from Peter was spent before he worked his last day. That is pretty much the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Perhaps it should have been named after FDR instead.
Why would I not take back as much of my money as I can that the government never should have taken to begin with? I'll never get back all the money I've paid into Social Security. Like anyone else, I'll be lucky to even get back half of what I paid in; never mind the growth I could've earned on it if I'd had it and invested privately.
As for Medicare? No, I don't plan ever to file for Medicare.
You're wrong about so many things, it's hard to know where to start, but let's go with "Ponzi scheme." A simple Google search provides this answer: "Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because it is a transparent, legally mandated social insurance program, not a fraudulent investment scam. While both systems use new contributions to pay current beneficiaries, Social Security operates openly with governmental oversight, creates no fraudulent 'profits,' and is designed to be sustainable via mandatory, long-term participation." I will add (because I had to address this issue frequently with ill-informed citizens), that SS is mandatory, and a Ponzi scheme is voluntary. Now let's go to your claim (also heard frequently) that you'll "be lucky to even get back half of what I paid in." Let's assume you started working at 20 and work 42 years, retiring at 62. Over the course of your working life, let's say you earn an average of $60,000/yr (today's dollars). That means your total FICA tax bill has been $156,240. You file at 62 and your benefit is about $1,800/mo. That means you will recover your "contribution" in 86.8 months. That's a little over 7 years. So, if you live to 68 1/2, you've "broken even." Let's say you live another 20 years. In that time you will have taken in more than $432,000 in benefits. It may not be more than what you would've earned had you never paid a dime in FICA taxes and invested your money wisely for all those years, but it ain't chump change, either. Another claim you make is that SS benefits are going to people who never paid into the system. This is true for surviving spouses (some, not all) and surviving minor and disabled children, but you don't mention those distinctions, I see. Finally, let's take a look at yourclaim that Federal agencies not specifically authorized by the Constitution shouldn't exist. Again, a simple Google search says: "Almost all federal agencies, including the EPA, FBI, CIA, and departments like Education and Energy, are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Instead, Congress creates them using legislative power and the 'Necessary and Proper Clause' to execute federal duties. The Constitution only explicitly mentions offices like ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls."
I’ll come back to the social security bit later (I’m a bit short on time right now), but you clearly have a very limited idea of what moneys are paid out via the social security system, and the fact that even illegal aliens have been able to receive funds from social security, some of which is through social security providing funds to states to subsidize medical care (and illegals are fond of using emergency rooms for their medical care).
That aside, the necessary and proper clause applies to the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. As James Madison said in the Federalist No. 45, “The powers granted to the federal government by the proposed Constitution are few and defined” (they are not many and inferred). Further, in that same paragraph, Madison makes clear that the primary purpose and majority of the powers granted the federal government are external-facing (foreign relations, national defense) - they are not domestic. Domestic issues are left to the states.
If that is not enough, the tenth amendment makes clear that any power not explicitly granted the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the people and the states.
With that in mind, here are pretty much all the powers granted to the federal government (these would be the “federal duties”):
“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;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Article I, Section 8
Now, I’d like you to find in there for me any power or duty to be involved in anything domestic other than coining money, granting patents and copyrights, establishing post offices and post roads, and regulating commerce between the states (which meant to ensure one state didn’t disadvantage another in interstate trade through practices such as charging port fees).
Here are two quotes from James Madison (the father of the Constitution) on the subject:
“If it be asked why the terms "common defence and general welfare," if not meant to convey the comprehensive power which, taken literally, they express, were not qualified and explained by some reference to the particular powers subjoined…The obvious conclusion to which we are brought is, that these terms, copied from the Articles of Confederation, were regarded in the new as in the old instrument, merely as general terms, explained and limited by the subjoined specifications, and therefore requiring no critical attention or studied precaution.”
“…it was not the intention of the general or of the State Coventions to express, by the use of the terms common defence and general welfare, a substantive and indefinite power; or to imply that the general terms were not to be explained and limited by the specified powers succeeding them, in like manner as they were explained and limited in the former Articles of Confederation from which the terms were taken…”
Too bad you were "short on time," otherwise you might've been able to look up some details about your claim that Social Security has been given to illegal aliens, in the form of direct benefits or subsidized healthcare. You provide no citations to prove either of those claims, but swing right into the argument that James Madison never would've approved of Social Security or most of the other myriad Federal programs that have been created (by Congress, our elected representatives) over the centuries. Let's put aside the fact that Madison wrote the Federalist Papers, and later served as President, more than 200 years ago. Let's also put aside Madison's views on other topics like slavery (he owned about 100 slaves), topics where we might very well disagree with him. Would he have approved of Social Security? Maybe, maybe not. When it comes to Madison's views about Social Security, one thing is indisputably true: he had no opinion on it, because something like that was unknown in his time. Bismarck would introduce the first versions of Medicare and Social Security in what is now Germany some fifty years after Madison's death. To speculate that Madison would have disapproved of such programs is like saying that George Washington wouldn't have approved of spending tax money on the Artemis II moon mission. But hey, go ahead and collect those benefits, Chad, no doubt hating the very sight of that money popping into your bank account every month. On your 80th birthday, write another column about how much extra money you've made, without earning a nickel of it, since your break-even date.
Exactly. It was, and still is, intended to be a SERVICE to your state and community. Whatever you do prior to election is STILL your source of income. From my history and Civics lessons many years ago, when the representative went to DC on official business (which was rare and limited) a SMALL stipend was provided by THE CONSTITUENTS if that was part of the STATE'S agreement with them. This was because their regular business was put on hold/suspension and there MAY have been a disruption to their income because of their absence. Again, those funds came from the state and local coffers. There was no federal income tax or direct taxation of the people from the general (federal) government.
Pretty much all of these excessive expenditures we taxpayers are being robbed to pay for are an extension of the GREED and CORRUPTION our elected "officials" are introduced to and eventually addicted to when the actually get to DC and are sucked into the business-as-usual game.
Excellent discussion and analysis!
This is definitely a situation where we should go back to the constitution and enforce that no such provisions were made in the constitution. Serving in such an elected capacity was not supposed to be a *job*! (therefore you shouldn't be able to retire from it)
Certainly this has failed to encourage ancient politicians to retire! Why retire when you can continue to loot the system?
My employer is one of the more generous ones that provides 401k matching up to 4% and for some of us also provides a pension (should end up being a whopping whole $500 a month). However for what used to be an upper middle class career (which now feels like poverty) this is *nothing* compared to the figures you stated for politicians!
I find it interesting how so many scream out against our Founders, calling them "racist slave owners", among other things. Yet, they enjoy the liberty and freedom to speak out like that BECAUSE of those men and the fight they took on, AND WON, for all citizens, including future generations, so they COULD without the governing body chastising them for it. (Think "violent speech" or "misinformation")
And, if we were to TAKE BACK the authority these elected "representatives" have given themselves, and returned to the original blueprint, they could enjoy even MORE freedom. They wish to relinquish there freedom and let government dictate how they should live their own lives. It's beyond sad, it's pitiful.
All I have to say is 😤😠😡🤬
There are many luxuries our "public servants" have bestowed upon themselves at the expense of We the People. "Pension" plans that rival many self-made millionaires; health benefits no blue-collar worker could EVER afford, much less be offered; expense accounts on top of their exorbitant salaries; all of this and more at the taxpayer's expense. They live like royalty (which is what we fought a war for freedom from) while the common folk live like paupers. I think the worst part of it all is that We the People sat back and ALLOWED it to happen. We did not stomp our collective foot and say "NO!" ALL of these luxuries being paid out for jobs that were intended to be PART TIME, and extremely limited in power and scope. The great American experiment went terribly awry many moons ago. I try to stay hopeful that it can be recovered, but I'm not sure at stage of the game.
At this point, how much they get out of the fund doesn’t seem as crucial to me as what we the people pay in. That, IMO, is the travesty here especially when so many struggle just to make ends meet - never mind actually saving for retirement.
Concerning retirement, there are times when savings can and will be wiped out due to unforeseen circumstances. We experienced one of those catastrophic events in our lives, but through it all, Yahweh is faithful. We trust that He will rebuild, and we have seen the start of it. But government officials and bureaucratic bloating living off the backs of Americans will be the eventual undoing of the Republic. And just why is the federal government the largest employer in the nation?
In the beginning, this wasn’t a job - they already had jobs. This was something you did on top of your job. It was a privilege and an honor to serve in Congress, but was treated Almost like a National Guard position.!! a double vocation.
How did we get here from there?
I am a retired Federal employee, and found your column to be, shall we say, somewhat slanted. You add a couple of asterisks, just so readers will know that you really are talking about all Federal employees and not just the 535 members of Congress, but let's put that in a little more perspective. There are nearly 3 million Federal employees in the FERS retirement system. I'm one of them. During my 15 1/2 years at the Social Security Administration, I came to work every day and helped my fellow citizens. So did everyone else in my small northwest Wisconsin office. I never met a colleague who was getting rich on his or her wages. Yes, the benefits were good, but I know private-sector lifers whose benefits were as good as, if not better, than ours. We earned our salaries. You, the American taxpayers, hired us to manage a very difficult and complex system. We were there when you called to tell us you'd foolishly given your personal information out to a bogus caller or website and had your check stolen. We were there when you came in to file for Social Security and were surprised when we told you that we could've been paying you benefits for the past three years, but you listened to your brother-in-law or a Facebook post instead and needlessly delayed filing. We were there when your spouse became ill with cancer and couldn't work, and needed to get on disability benefits. Yes, you "contributed" to our pensions and our TSP accounts. You were our employers, and you chose to do that. If you hadn't wanted to do it, you would've told your elected representatives in Congress not to vote for that bill, wouldn't you? If you'd been paying attention, anyway. So, go ahead and rail at Congress members all you want about their supposedly-cushy retirement benefits. Just remember, that's only 535 out of 3 million people who work for you every day. We're the ones who keep your benefits coming (even Chad's "Ponzi scheme" Social Security), who keep the national parks clean and beautiful, who manage the untold number of programs you've voted for, and yes, we're the ones who board the ships and get in the cockpits and pick up the rifles and get in the tanks when the you-know-what hits the fan.
Actually, we the people didn't hire most of you. Most federal employees perform jobs that fall well outside the constitutional powers and responsibilities granted to the federal government, and frankly (no knock at you), those jobs shouldn't even exist. The Social Security system shouldn't exist. Disability benefits shouldn't exist. None of what you mentioned is supposed to exist at the federal level. And this is the problem - most Americans believe this is the way things are supposed to be. Which is why government costs us (and wastes) so much.
So while you rail about keeping "our benefits coming," realize that none of that is even supposed to be within the power of the federal government, and yes, I do tell my representatives that. But our "representatives" (let's be real - none of them truly represent the people) are bought and sold.
So, we can assume that you have not and never will file for Social Security or Medicare?
By the way, the reason I call Social Security a Ponzi scheme (and it is), is because most people don't even realize what it is. Most Americans think SS is just a government-mandated retirement savings program. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is the preamble from the Social Security Act of 1935:
"The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]
An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes." - https://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html
Money is being taken from people working today (like myself) to pay people who have already retired (like yourself), and to pay for other things for other people (many of whom have NEVER paid into the system). It's a revolving door of robbing Peter to pay Paul's retirement, and Mary's welfare, and James' healthcare, etc. Eventually, there is (hopefully) someone else working from whom the government can take money to pay Peter once he retires, because the money they took from Peter was spent before he worked his last day. That is pretty much the definition of a Ponzi scheme. Perhaps it should have been named after FDR instead.
Why would I not take back as much of my money as I can that the government never should have taken to begin with? I'll never get back all the money I've paid into Social Security. Like anyone else, I'll be lucky to even get back half of what I paid in; never mind the growth I could've earned on it if I'd had it and invested privately.
As for Medicare? No, I don't plan ever to file for Medicare.
You're wrong about so many things, it's hard to know where to start, but let's go with "Ponzi scheme." A simple Google search provides this answer: "Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme because it is a transparent, legally mandated social insurance program, not a fraudulent investment scam. While both systems use new contributions to pay current beneficiaries, Social Security operates openly with governmental oversight, creates no fraudulent 'profits,' and is designed to be sustainable via mandatory, long-term participation." I will add (because I had to address this issue frequently with ill-informed citizens), that SS is mandatory, and a Ponzi scheme is voluntary. Now let's go to your claim (also heard frequently) that you'll "be lucky to even get back half of what I paid in." Let's assume you started working at 20 and work 42 years, retiring at 62. Over the course of your working life, let's say you earn an average of $60,000/yr (today's dollars). That means your total FICA tax bill has been $156,240. You file at 62 and your benefit is about $1,800/mo. That means you will recover your "contribution" in 86.8 months. That's a little over 7 years. So, if you live to 68 1/2, you've "broken even." Let's say you live another 20 years. In that time you will have taken in more than $432,000 in benefits. It may not be more than what you would've earned had you never paid a dime in FICA taxes and invested your money wisely for all those years, but it ain't chump change, either. Another claim you make is that SS benefits are going to people who never paid into the system. This is true for surviving spouses (some, not all) and surviving minor and disabled children, but you don't mention those distinctions, I see. Finally, let's take a look at yourclaim that Federal agencies not specifically authorized by the Constitution shouldn't exist. Again, a simple Google search says: "Almost all federal agencies, including the EPA, FBI, CIA, and departments like Education and Energy, are not mentioned in the US Constitution. Instead, Congress creates them using legislative power and the 'Necessary and Proper Clause' to execute federal duties. The Constitution only explicitly mentions offices like ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls."
Well, if Google says so…
I’ll come back to the social security bit later (I’m a bit short on time right now), but you clearly have a very limited idea of what moneys are paid out via the social security system, and the fact that even illegal aliens have been able to receive funds from social security, some of which is through social security providing funds to states to subsidize medical care (and illegals are fond of using emergency rooms for their medical care).
That aside, the necessary and proper clause applies to the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. As James Madison said in the Federalist No. 45, “The powers granted to the federal government by the proposed Constitution are few and defined” (they are not many and inferred). Further, in that same paragraph, Madison makes clear that the primary purpose and majority of the powers granted the federal government are external-facing (foreign relations, national defense) - they are not domestic. Domestic issues are left to the states.
If that is not enough, the tenth amendment makes clear that any power not explicitly granted the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the people and the states.
With that in mind, here are pretty much all the powers granted to the federal government (these would be the “federal duties”):
“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;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Article I, Section 8
Now, I’d like you to find in there for me any power or duty to be involved in anything domestic other than coining money, granting patents and copyrights, establishing post offices and post roads, and regulating commerce between the states (which meant to ensure one state didn’t disadvantage another in interstate trade through practices such as charging port fees).
If you’re inclined to lean on the “general welfare” clause, again, Madison will stand against you, as he said that the phrase referred to the powers in the following clauses (I have written about that here: https://curetsky.substack.com/p/we-the-peoplein-order-topromote-the?r=xb9l8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web and here where I expanded on it: https://curetsky.substack.com/p/american-government-for-dummies?r=xb9l8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web ).
Here are two quotes from James Madison (the father of the Constitution) on the subject:
“If it be asked why the terms "common defence and general welfare," if not meant to convey the comprehensive power which, taken literally, they express, were not qualified and explained by some reference to the particular powers subjoined…The obvious conclusion to which we are brought is, that these terms, copied from the Articles of Confederation, were regarded in the new as in the old instrument, merely as general terms, explained and limited by the subjoined specifications, and therefore requiring no critical attention or studied precaution.”
“…it was not the intention of the general or of the State Coventions to express, by the use of the terms common defence and general welfare, a substantive and indefinite power; or to imply that the general terms were not to be explained and limited by the specified powers succeeding them, in like manner as they were explained and limited in the former Articles of Confederation from which the terms were taken…”
I’ll take James Madison’s statements over Google.
Too bad you were "short on time," otherwise you might've been able to look up some details about your claim that Social Security has been given to illegal aliens, in the form of direct benefits or subsidized healthcare. You provide no citations to prove either of those claims, but swing right into the argument that James Madison never would've approved of Social Security or most of the other myriad Federal programs that have been created (by Congress, our elected representatives) over the centuries. Let's put aside the fact that Madison wrote the Federalist Papers, and later served as President, more than 200 years ago. Let's also put aside Madison's views on other topics like slavery (he owned about 100 slaves), topics where we might very well disagree with him. Would he have approved of Social Security? Maybe, maybe not. When it comes to Madison's views about Social Security, one thing is indisputably true: he had no opinion on it, because something like that was unknown in his time. Bismarck would introduce the first versions of Medicare and Social Security in what is now Germany some fifty years after Madison's death. To speculate that Madison would have disapproved of such programs is like saying that George Washington wouldn't have approved of spending tax money on the Artemis II moon mission. But hey, go ahead and collect those benefits, Chad, no doubt hating the very sight of that money popping into your bank account every month. On your 80th birthday, write another column about how much extra money you've made, without earning a nickel of it, since your break-even date.
Slight correction: you would "break even" at 69 1/2.
In the beginning, this wasn’t a job they all had jobs. This was something you did on top of your job. Almost like a National Guard position.!!
How did we get here from there?
Exactly. It was, and still is, intended to be a SERVICE to your state and community. Whatever you do prior to election is STILL your source of income. From my history and Civics lessons many years ago, when the representative went to DC on official business (which was rare and limited) a SMALL stipend was provided by THE CONSTITUENTS if that was part of the STATE'S agreement with them. This was because their regular business was put on hold/suspension and there MAY have been a disruption to their income because of their absence. Again, those funds came from the state and local coffers. There was no federal income tax or direct taxation of the people from the general (federal) government.
Pretty much all of these excessive expenditures we taxpayers are being robbed to pay for are an extension of the GREED and CORRUPTION our elected "officials" are introduced to and eventually addicted to when the actually get to DC and are sucked into the business-as-usual game.
Evil is much easier to do than good.