Oh gasp! How could you be so mean? Well, how could you?

Recently, regarding Robert Reich's frequent "Oh gosh, billions for defense, but not a dime for school lunch in Hackensack" type comments, we posted:

Lex Anteinternet: So Ukraine is fighting a war for democracy against...: 

So Ukraine is fighting a war for democracy against Russia, thereby fighting for all of us. .

and folks like Robert Reich wonder why we aren't providing government housing and free lunches to children all over the country.

A sandwich and a HMARS. These are not the same.

Well, that's fairly easy.  "Provide for a common lunch" is actually not a logical equivalent to providing for the common defense.

Indeed, as hard as it is for people to accept it, that really isn't an obligation of the Federal government,  providing an army to defend the country is, and if we can fund somebody else to fight a war, so we don't have to, all the better.

And if a foreign war is in the national interest, existentially, as it's a contest between our values, and those of something we're deeply opposed to, well, we should support them and only the Federal Government is well situated to do so.

The added part of this is that by and large, social programs tend to become social rights and then social failures.  In much of the country the school districts in fact provide free lunches, which morphed into free breakfasts, which as morphed into a societal right for people to refuse to feed their children, as the districts have to.

And we mean it, too.

Which brings the common response, how could you mean that, let poor little school kids starve?

Well, how could you?

By which we mean that this is a prime example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Before we dive into that, and as part of it, let's take a dose of reality.  The defense portion of the new budget, which is $5.8 trillion in outlay, with $440 billion in interest payments on debt and $3.7 trillion in "mandatory spending" which actually isn't mandatory, but made "mandatory" in part so that politicians in Congress don't have to discuss it every year.  The anticipated deficit is $984 billion.  If you removed all funding for the Department of Defense, you'd still have  $126 billion in deficit.

Yes, that's a lot less deficit, but that's still a big deficit.

Next, let's consider the enabling act, the Constitution.  It's preamble, which is only legislative history not the law, provides:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Okay, that's what it's supposed to do.

Here's what the Congress can do:

Section 8.

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.

Note how limited that really is.  And note that six of the powers deal with war powers, armies, and navies.

None of them deal with education at all, and none of them with lunches for children or housing for anyone.

Now, you could point out that this would be "providing for the general welfare", but that's not a power.  That's a purpose for the following text.

And ignoring all of this is how government spending got so out of control.

Now, I'm not going to argue that all the powers of Congress should be striped away. But I am going to argue that spending that isn't in the enumerated powers needs to be pared back until the budget is balanced.

And frankly, taxes need to be raised as well.

It frankly wouldn't be that difficult.   Cutting spending down by about 20% would do it. Emphasis on the cutting should be on the non enumerated powers.

Raising taxes 10% to 20%, well within the historical norms, would serve to pay down the debt.

This should be done, bore an economic disaster results.

Let's next start with the obvious, or what should be obvious. The government has no business whatsoever extracting money from the Taxpayer because somebody with kids has put themselves in a situation in which they won't feed them.

Gasp!

Notice, what I said.  Won't feed them.  Not can't feed them.

For the most part in the U.S, it's won't, not can't.

And the first move toward fiscal responsibility the country could take, or towards the long awaited and right wing dreamed of restoration of the moral order, wold be to make John and Jane Doe do just that.

You had that kid, you feed the kid.

This used to be the universal human norm, and for the most part.  But with benighted goals, but little consideration of how it would work out, the Federal Government has stepped in to provide funding for this, with the result that a certain percentage of adults have just passed the obligation on to whomever else will take it.

This has, on top of it, ripple effects, the transfer of responsibility reduces responsibility at the adult level, with men in particular dumping it particularly.  Indeed, the entire societal purpose of marriage, rather than being the warm and fuzzies like Justice Kennedy, skipping and dancing while throwing roses through the Supreme Court would have it, was to keep this very thing from happening.  Conversely, when you cut away at the responsibility end of it, you cut away at the purpose of the institution and erode a major societal building block.  While this is only one aspect of it, combined with pharmaceutical birth control (also provided in many cases by governments gratis or near gratis), no-fault divorce, etc., you have the current situation regarding unwed births and erosion of the definition of marriage.

So, the question would be, am I really saying the situation that existed before, in which pregnancy often resulted in an unplanned marriage, was better?

Societally, yes, I am.

Going one step further, I'm further saying that the era in which those in need, in normal times, often had to turn to private institutions was better, as shocking as that may seem.  Private institutions tend to have standards, the government does not, with an overall specific concept of aiding the person, improving their lot, and improving their living situation existentially. The government doesn't go that far, and can't.

And the Federal government is anti-local and anti-subsidiarity.  

If Minnesota, through its legislature, wants to provide lunches for its school kids, I don't care.  Minnesota's voters can deal with Minnesota's problems.  But when the Federal Government provides societal aid, it does it with what is effectively a sledgehammer, hitting everything to address what is often a problem limited to certain cities.  In a rich society, which we are, the problems are likely to be addressed with, comporting with community standards, in any event.  Doing it at a national level doesn't do that.

So am I saying the government should only spend on defense?

No.

I'm not even saying that the government can't spend on social issues or, certainly, on education.  

I am saying, however, that the Warm Fuzzies shouldn't be part of the equation.  I'm also saying that reactions need to be there when things turn to failures.

I'd be very much in favor of increased Federal funding on science education, for example.  While I'm convinced that the current student loan system is causing tuition inflation, I'd also be in favor of student loans based on national need, or even educational grants based on national need.  I.e., where we need a profession or occupation we're lacking, as a matter of national need, I'm okay with funding it.

I'm also okay with funding infrastructure that serves a national purpose, but not in the way we're doing, no.  Federal Interstate Highways?  I'm okay with that, but directly controlled and funded by the payer, the Federal Government, rather than through an intermediary, the states, and paid for by taxes on the users at the actual rate of costs, including societal costs.  Same with airports, I'm perfectly okay with funding them.

I'm not okay with unneeded major rural roads on Federal domain, just because it can be done.

Finally, it should be mentioned that passing on these things to the Federal Government, social programs that is, gives everyone an easy out.  If we think, well, the Government or the Schools will take care of it, we don't really have to.  It makes things really easy to ignore.

Finally, I'm not okay with running deficits every year. When the U.S. runs a budget so far out of whack, and most of that spending isn't due to the defense, which is a legitimate expenditure, looking at Federal monies that deal with local problems, from lunches to infrastructure, not only should be done, it has to be done.