For God, Family and Republic

The proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2007 is an astronomical figure of over $2.7 trillion. Since President Bush took office he has yet to veto a spending bill, and over the life his administration by FY2007, federal spending will have increased 45% (under the proposed FY2007 budget.) It seems that almost every annual budget, Bush mutters some duplicitious rhetoric about how it illustrates his party's renewed commitment to fiscal conservatism, cutting spending and balancing the budget by 2009. Likewise, there is a projected $400 billion budget deficit under the new budget. The economy is more sluggish, and big government continues to grow and grow. As Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute surmised, "The deficit problem is caused, not by a shortage of revenues, but by an excess of spending." Over the life of the Bush administration, under the present proposed budget, federal spending will have increased 45%, which doesn't account for supplemental funding for the Iraq War and the military black budget. Edwards notes, "There have been very large spending increases for the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, and Veterans Affairs."

The Tenth Amendment plainly states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Yet, this falls on deaf ears to Congress, who never fathoms that much of their appropriations are unconstitutional anyway. Dealing with budgetary constraints and a commitment to fiscal conservatism should began by 100% cuts in all unconstitutional federal spending. Half of the cabinet-level departments should be dispensed with and scraped, and their functions if at all, should be performed by the several states and localities. Not addressing this in our time, will excacerbate a future economic collapse on the horizon.

I've come up with an impromptu plan to illustrate how one could trim almost $1 trillion dollars off of the federal budget. Most of the cuts are deep, and involve wholesale abolition of cabinet-level departments. But virtually none of the spending is within the federal government's constitutional authority as per the Tenth Amendment or Article One, Section Eight anyway. Other cuts include reducing troop deployments in Europe and Asia by one-quarter, and the privatization of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I believe Postal Service and Social Security privatization is certainly worth considering, but didn't even put that on the table in this proposal. People will say drastic budget cuts will inhibit the states, and guarantee state tax increases. Possibly, but states are far more likely to prudently evaluate their spending priorities and to decide how much they willing to pay for certain government services if at all. With the budget cuts, the savings are over $989 billion and the federal budget is reduced to Clinton administration levels of around $1.7 trillion. Deep spending cuts and eliminating budget deficits would invigorate the economy in the long-run. It is a shame we do not have the political leadership with the resolve to embrace fiscal conservatism in our time.

Related Articles
Cato Institute Tax & Budget Bulletin. No. 31: "Improving on the President's 2007 Budget," by Chris Edwards, Feb. 2006. (Adobe Acrobat PDF, 49kb., 2 pp.)