creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Walter Williams
Walter E. Williams
23 May 2012
Should Black People Tolerate This?

Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person.… Read More.

16 May 2012
Should We Obey All Laws?

Let's think about whether all acts of Congress deserve our respect and obedience. Suppose Congress enacted a … Read More.

9 May 2012
Leftist Race-baiters

MSNBC's Chris Matthews, in a recent debate with former Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, called … Read More.

Continuing Stubborn Ignorance

Share Comment

Within the past decade, I've written three columns titled "Deception 101," "Stubborn Ignorance," and "Exploiting Public Ignorance," all explaining which branch of the federal government has taxing and spending authority. How can academics, politicians, news media people and ordinary citizens get away with statements such as "Reagan's budget deficits," "Clinton's budget surplus," "Bush's budget deficits and tax cuts" or "Obama's tax increases"? Which branch of government has taxing and spending authority is not a matter of rocket science, but people continue to make these statements. The only explanation that I come up with is incurable ignorance, willful deception or just plain stupidity; if there's another answer, I would like to hear it.

Let's look at the facts. Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." Our Constitution grants the president absolutely no authority to raise or lower taxes. The president is permitted to propose tax measures or veto them. Congress can ignore proposals and override vetoes.

The Constitution grants Congress the final and ultimate say on taxes. The same principle applies to spending. A president cannot spend one dime that Congress does not first appropriate. Therefore, statements such as "Under Barack Obama, government spending has increased 21 percent," and "Under Barack Obama, welfare spending has increased 54 percent" are just plain nonsense, if they are suggesting that Obama has increased spending. Credit or blame, whether it's a balance budget, budget surplus, budget deficit or national debt, lies with the U.S. Congress.

Knowing where constitutional authority for taxing and spending is vital to our nation. No matter how we feel about President Obama, if we buy into the notion that it's he who's doing the taxing and spending, adding to our debt and deficits, we will focus our attention on trying to restrain the president.

That will leave Congress less politically culpable for our deepening quagmire. Of course, if you're a congressman, not being held accountable is what you want.

Adding to the political deception in Washington is the notion that nearly 60 percent of the federal budget is off limits for spending cuts, the so-called non-discretionary spending such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Congress has the constitutional authority, through a simple majority vote, to change whatever laws associated with those "nondiscretionary" spending programs.

As an example, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Flemming vs. Nestor (1960) there are no "accrued property rights" to a Social Security check. That means Congress can do anything it wishes with Social Security and that includes means-testing payments, raising eligibility age, reducing payments, increasing "contributions" or eliminate the program altogether. The same applies to any of the other so-called non-discretionary spending programs.

By the way, thinking about the looming Social Security disaster, I believe that a person who's 65 years old and has been forced into Social Security is owed something. But who owes it to him? Congress has spent every penny of what he put into Social Security. Any check he receives comes out of the hide of young workers in the labor force. I think that's unfair. The young worker has no obligation to that senior citizen, but Congress has.

I have a one-time fix to give us some breathing room to make reforms. The federal government has huge quantities of wasting assets — assets that are not producing anything, 650 million acres of land — almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. It owns 80 percent of the land in Nevada, 70 percent in Alaska, 60 percent in Idaho and 50 percent in California and Oregon. I would be willing, and I suspect many others, to make a deal with Congress whereby I forsake all Social Security and Medicare benefits for, say, 50 acres of land in Alaska.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

9 Comments | Post Comment
I always find your columns most enlightening and interesting to read, although sometimes "over my head" Economics wasn't my best subject. I did find it interesting. I want you to know that I, too, would be interested in trading my SS Benefits for 50 acres of Alaska - minerals rights included.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Katherine Key
Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:42 AM
I always find your columns most enlightening and interesting to read, although sometimes "over my head" Economics wasn't my best subject. I did find it interesting. I want you to know that I, too, would be interested in trading my SS Benefits for 50 acres of Alaska - minerals rights included.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Katherine Key
Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:42 AM
Why not sell the land to foreign entities that hope to destroy us, this way we give them an additional hand??
Comment: #3
Posted by: Stefani Smirnes
Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:41 PM
Dr. Williams,
I agree wholeheartedly with your proposal. This was one of the few things that President Bush proposed domestically that I agreed with. It needs a massive overhaul. It is way past bankrupt. We also need to keep congress' feet to the fire on theses spending cuts.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Eric Jensen
Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:08 AM
Thanks! Sounds mighty good to me! Lots of gold in Nevada and oil in Alaska.
Comment: #5
Posted by: dpearson
Wed Mar 16, 2011 9:38 AM
While there is no way to disagree with the basic Constitutional facts stated by Dr. Williams, I am disappointed that he leaves us with the implication that a President bears no responsibility regarding spending. Does he believe for a moment that Barack Obama had nothing to do with our current economic and political state? Would we need to be fighting Obama-care if Obama hadn't encouraged it? If a fiscally responsible President can stymie a Congress eager to overspend, does he deserve no credit?
Comment: #6
Posted by: Phillip Schearer
Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:10 AM
Another exellent article by Dr. Williams. His proposal to swap Federal Govt liability for public land is an interesting one. I suppose if the land goes to US citizens, it is not so bad, although I still consider that the young folks would be getting the short end of the stick. But here's my purpose for writing: Who is familiar with the "World Conservation Bank?" With IMF, UN, and World Bank ties, they propose to do the exact same thing: swap unservicable debt for public lands to be placed in a "conservation trust." This would be a swindle of epic proportions, and we must keep this possibility on our radar screens. International Bankers have enticed the governments of developing nations into debt on which there is eventual default. No problem, these governments are told. We will relieve you of your obligations in return for claim on your nation's physical assets like land and water. And so goes the continuing consolidation of physical wealth by the top 0.1 % of a banking elite. Research it, and remember that the US has become one of the most indebted nations in the world. This scheme has found traction elsewhere. Are we next?
Comment: #7
Posted by: Elena
Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:04 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that the original intention for SS was the government saving money for you, the person contributing. It was never intended originally to be a fund for the government to use as it see's fit. Later, Congress changed the rules by granting themselves power to use the funds how they wish. So in essence, they do have an obligation to anyone who has paid into the system, by the original laws. They at least should have given people the option to "opt out" of contributing at the same time that they changed the rules of the game.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Patty
Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:59 AM
"Knowing where constitutional authority for taxing and spending is vital to our nation. "

Knowing that the Constitution even HAS authority is beyond most Americans. Ours has become an ignorant, lazy population. We are gladly walking into the clutches of our own executioners through our apathy. Wake up, people! Get educated (which, if you're reading Dr. Williams, you probably already are, and I am currently preaching to the choir...), get active, and FIX THIS MESS!
Comment: #9
Posted by: Ric Crouch
Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:59 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Walter E. Williams
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

20 Feb 2008 Costs vs. Benefits

11 Apr 2012 Media Dishonesty and Race Hustlers

15 Jun 2011 Our Moral Dilemma