Check out the redesigned ADG Explore

Today's Paper Latest stories Obits Email newsletters Weather Traffic New ADG site Restaurant inspections Manafort trial Puzzles + games

The largest threat to our prosperity is government spending that far exceeds the authority enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Federal spending in 2017 will top $4 trillion. Social Security, at $1 trillion, will take up most of it. Medicare ($582 billion) and Medicaid ($404 billion) are the next-largest expenditures.

Other federal social spending includes food stamps, unemployment compensation, child nutrition, child tax credits, supplemental security income and student loans, all of which total roughly $550 billion. Social spending by Congress consumes about two-thirds of the federal budget.

Where do you think Congress gets the resources for such spending? It's not the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. The only way Congress can give one American a dollar is to use threats, intimidation and coercion to confiscate that dollar from another American. Congress forcibly uses one American to serve the purposes of another American. We might ask ourselves: What standard of morality justifies the forcible use of one American to serve the purposes of another? By the way, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is a fairly good working definition of slavery.

Today's Americans have little appreciation for how their values reflect a contempt for those of our Founding Fathers. You ask, "Williams, what do you mean by such a statement?" In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees who had fled from insurrection in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti). James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the federal Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Most federal spending today is on "objects of benevolence."

Madison also said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

No doubt some congressmen, academics, hustlers and ignorant people will argue that the general welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution authorizes today's spending. That is simply unadulterated nonsense. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Congress [has] not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but [is] restrained to those specifically enumerated." Madison wrote that "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."

In other words, the general welfare clause authorized Congress to spend money only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the infinite needs of the general welfare.

We cannot blame politicians for the spending that places our nation in peril. Politicians are doing precisely what the American people elect them to office to do--use the power of their office to take the rightful property of other Americans and deliver it to them. It would be political suicide for a president or a congressman to argue as Madison did that Congress has no right to expend "on objects of benevolence" the money of its constituents and that "charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

It's unreasonable of us to expect any politician to sabotage his career by living up to his oath of office to uphold and defend our Constitution. That means that if we are to save our nation from the economic and social chaos that awaits us, we the people must have a moral reawakening and eschew what is no less than legalized theft, the taking from one American for the benefit of another.

I know that some people will say, "Williams, I agree with most of what you say, but not when it comes to Social Security. Social Security is my money I had taken out of my pay for retirement." If you think that, you've been duped. The only way you get a Social Security check is for Congress to take the earnings of a worker. Explanation of your duping can be found on my website, in a 2010 article I wrote titled "Washington's Lies."


Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Editorial on 09/14/2017

Print Headline: We're all to blame


You must be signed in to post comments
  • Jfish
    September 14, 2017 at 7:58 a.m.

    Good honest column. I suppose that the Simpson-Bowles report has been trashed since it was also honest and would have required sensible spending.

  • DoubleBlind
    September 14, 2017 at 8:49 a.m.

    I completely agree that there is great deal of bloat, waste and fraud around entitlements. Predictably, defense spending, also a black hole of bloat, waste and fraud is not mentioned.

  • Dontsufferfools
    September 14, 2017 at 9:25 a.m.

    Every question the columnist asks has been answered over the centuries by writers on the social contract, from Jean Rousseau to John Rawls. The bottom line, people in a society give up something to get something.

  • Packman
    September 14, 2017 at 9:46 a.m.

    Hey Pop - The ADG features the opinion of a BLACK person. What's that you say about a lack of diversity?
    Walter Williams continues to be one of the greatest thinkers of modern times. Thanks, Dr. Williams.
    Or, as another great thinker of our time once said, "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

  • WhododueDiligence
    September 14, 2017 at 11:22 a.m.

    This column's third paragraph is a good example of radical libertarian extremism. In typical radical fashion it defines the legislative branch's constitutional power to tax as stealing by using "threats, intimidation and coercion to confiscate that dollar from another person." Wow. Cranking the pedestal for that glorified person with his almighty dollar way up into the clouds, much? Not worried about going a tad overboard? And as if that's not extreme enough, the paragraph ends by defining taxation as slavery!
    Then, from the next paragraph: "In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees who had fled from insurrection in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti)."
    That insurrection was a major slave revolt against slavery and slave owners. The French refugees who received that $15,000 worth of help were slave owners who managed to escape to the US. Should they-the slave-owning refugees--have received that funding. Probably not. Were they American citizens. Definitely not. Did Congress vote on it and pass it? Yes? Did the Supreme Court declare this appropriation unconstitutional? No. Does this obscure early American congressional appropriation of money for foreigners mean that today's Congress can't constitutionally tax and appropriate money for American citizens? No, it doesn't, but radical libertarian extremists would have us believe it does.