Congress Must Reject the Welfare/Warfare State

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=1832:congress-must-reject-the-
welfarewarfare-state&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

Congress Must Reject the Welfare/Warfare State        

During the past few weeks, Congress has been locked in a battle to pass a 
continuing resolution to fund government operations through September.  Both 
supporters and opponents of the bill, HR 1, claim it is a serious attempt to 
reduce federal spending.  However, an examination of the details of the bill 
call that claim into question.  For one thing, the oft-cited assertion that 
HR 1 reduces spending by $99 billion is misleading.  The $99 billion figure 
merely represents the amount that HR 1 reduces spending from the President’s 
proposed Fiscal Year 2011 budget - not reductions in actual spending.  Trying 
to claim credit for a reduction in spending based on cuts in proposed 
spending is like claiming someone is following a diet because he had only 
five slices of pizza when he intended to have 10 slices!

In fact, HR 1 only reduces real federal spending by $66 billion compared to 
last year’s budget.  This may seem like a lot to the average American but in 
the context of an overwhelming trillion-dollar budget and a national debt 
that could exceed 100 percent of GNP in September, it is barely a drop in the 
bucket.  

One reason that HR 1 does not cut spending enough is that too many fiscal 
conservatives continue to embrace the fallacy that we can balance the budget 
without reducing spending on militarism.  Until Congress realizes the folly 
of spending trillions pretending to impose democracy on the world we will 
never be able to seriously reduce spending. 

Congress must not only reject the warfare state, it must also reject the 
welfare state.  HR 1 is more aggressive in ending domestic spending than 
foreign spending, and does zero out some objectionable federal programs such 
as AmeriCorps.  However, HR 1 leaves most of the current functions of the 
federal government undisturbed.  This bill thus continues the delusion that 
we can have a fiscally responsible and efficient welfare state.

The failure to even attempt to address the serious threat the welfare-warfare 
state poses to American liberty and prosperity is the main reason why 
supporters of limited government and individual liberty ultimately should 
find HR 1 unsatisfactory.  Only a rejection of the view that Congress can run 
the economy, run our lives, and run the world will allow us to make the 
spending reductions necessary to avert a serious financial crisis.  This does 
not mean we should not prioritize and discuss how to gradually transition 
away from the welfare state in a manner that does not harm those currently 
relying on these programs.  However, we must go beyond balancing the budget 
to transitioning back to a free society, and that means eventually placing 
responsibility for social welfare back in the hands of individuals and 
private institutions.  

Despite the overheated rhetoric heard during the debate, HR 1 is a diversion 
from the difficult task of restoring constitutional government and a free 
economy and society.  It is time for Congress to get serious about cutting 
spending, not merely tinkering around the edges of the proposed budget and 
kicking the can down the road for future generations.  If we fail to act 
decisively now, there will soon come a time when both our money and our 
capacity to borrow will run out.  When that happens, our ability to negotiate 
and play political games with spending priorities will be over.  To avoid 
real chaos, the time to start dealing with our bloated government budget is 
right now.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot