House GOP eyeing $1B disaster funds cut to finance wall

[Smokin Joe]

The US government does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.  Because they treat the national debt separately from other spending, whether it be discretionary or not, they spend and spend like crazy. Then they remember they have to borrow more to pay the debt. There is enough revenue taking in by the government that should easily pay normal obligations.  It will never change until they are forced to have a balanced budget to include paying the debt.

From personal experience, there are those times when revenue does not equal outflow, but the outflow can be cut or revenue increased by making an investment, even if that is done on credit.

In the future, through savings, that investment will pay for itself. Some see that as a more reliable vehicle, for some it is the purchase of tools to fix things which would cost far more, A student loan is a common example to obtain the qualifications for a better job or higher pay.
A means, including a physical barrier, of controlling the influx of people who cost the taxpayer in services, criminal activity, drug trafficking, and a host of other ways, is an investment in America's future.
So, too, is the restoration of functionality, not just to the industry of flood affected areas, but to the daily lives of the millions of people who have been affected by this flood, and the restoration of the economic dynamics involved in such a large community.

It isn't a question of which can be paid for, we cannot afford to shirk either.
If cuts must be made elsewhere, so be it.

[RetBobbyMI]

From personal experience, there are those times when revenue does not equal outflow, but the outflow can be cut or revenue increased by making an investment, even if that is done on credit.

In the future, through savings, that investment will pay for itself. Some see that as a more reliable vehicle, for some it is the purchase of tools to fix things which would cost far more, A student loan is a common example to obtain the qualifications for a better job or higher pay.
A means, including a physical barrier, of controlling the influx of people who cost the taxpayer in services, criminal activity, drug trafficking, and a host of other ways, is an investment in America's future.
So, too, is the restoration of functionality, not just to the industry of flood affected areas, but to the daily lives of the millions of people who have been affected by this flood, and the restoration of the economic dynamics involved in such a large community.

It isn't a question of which can be paid for, we cannot afford to shirk either.
If cuts must be made elsewhere, so be it.

I'm for doing both. Cut elsewhere, except national defense because it is the only spending mandated by the constitution. But the congress critters in DC, want to make it look like we're throwing grandma off a cliff if they touch any other program funds. As long as they keep the freebies on the books, the leftist progressives will perpetuate their stranglehold on their seats.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The US government does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem.  Because they treat the national debt separately from other spending, whether it be discretionary or not, they spend and spend like crazy. Then they remember they have to borrow more to pay the debt. There is enough revenue taking in by the government that should easily pay normal obligations.  It will never change until they are forced to have a balanced budget to include paying the debt.

You are not getting any argument on any of that from me.  We are. by definition, broke, however.  A prior poster said we were so broke that we could not afford a wall and hurricane relief, but that is not an argument at all as we proceed to spend money we do not have anyway.

[Oceander]

I'm for doing both. Cut elsewhere, except national defense because it is the only spending mandated by the constitution. But the congress critters in DC, want to make it look like we're throwing grandma off a cliff if they touch any other program funds. As long as they keep the freebies on the books, the leftist progressives will perpetuate their stranglehold on their seats.

Where in the Constitution is military spending mandated?

[Smokin Joe]

Where in the Constitution is military spending mandated?

Preamble: "...to provide for the Common Defense...".  What isn't mandated is 'nation building'.

[Oceander]

Preamble: "...to provide for the Common Defense...".  What isn't mandated is 'nation building'.

That doesn't mandate military spending, it merely permits it.  And if nation building advances the goal of providing for the common defense, then nation-building falls under that rubric too.

[RoosGirl]

Where in the Constitution is military spending mandated?

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

"Shall be" makes the requirement of having at least an Army and Navy.

[Oceander]

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

"Shall be" makes the requirement of having at least an Army and Navy.

No, it doesn't.  It requires only that IF there is an Army and/or Navy, then the president is CinC.  It doesn't mandate that there be an Army or a Navy. 

[LMAO]

Oceander is  right

In fact is there anything in the Constitution  that mandates Congressional spending? I've been unable to find anything in the constitution that says "Congress must fund  X,Y and Z program"

[RoosGirl]

No, it doesn't.  It requires only that IF there is an Army and/or Navy, then the president is CinC.  It doesn't mandate that there be an Army or a Navy.

There is no *if*.  There already was an Army and a Navy.  Is there any indication that they were to be dissolved?  No.  But there is a lot of inference throughout that they were to be continued

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

"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;"

Sounds to me like the idea was to have a permanent Navy, and to raise "an" army as necessary.

[Smokin Joe]

That doesn't mandate military spending, it merely permits it.  And if nation building advances the goal of providing for the common defense, then nation-building falls under that rubric too.

How is the meddling in another country's most seminal affairs "defense". If you want to go down that path, you could justify the assassination of any national leader out there who doesn't toady up to the US.
That ain't it.
If you are going to defend a country, that will cost some money, to train, maintain, and supply forces sufficient to that task. "Provide" means some expenditure will be made. That. by no means gives us a mandate to mess around in Lower Slobovia telling them how to structure their government. If we need to address a threat to our nation, go in, break things and kill people until the threat is neutralized, and go home. A lingering presence implies conquest, and that isn't in the Constitution.

[Smokin Joe]

"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;"

Sounds to me like the idea was to have a permanent Navy, and to raise "an" army as necessary.

A navy was seen as necessary to safeguard commerce and repel invaders. That need was perceived as one which all colonies(States) shared.

One of the big arguments was about having a standing Federal Army, and if so, how large that force was to be.

It was discussed at length in The Federalist Papers, and the decision was to have a Federal Army large enough to settle or intervene in conflicts between States, which had their own armies, called "Militia", (which is defined in Barclay's English Dictionary, (London, mine is ca.1820) as "The army, in its entirety"), but not so large as to present a threat to the Liberty of any State.
The founders had just been engaged in a war to remove an occupying Army (British), and were ever conscious of the threat such power posed to Liberty if concentrated in the wrong hands. As a safeguard, each State had an Army, the Federal Government had its Army, and everyone, together had the Federal Navy.

Beyond that, however, "A well regulated (controlled) Militia being necessary to the security of a Free State,..." [keep the military in check and you stay free], "...the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " provided that the overwhelming remainder of the population would be armed for the purpose of keeping any threat to Liberty posed by internal forces (be those State or Federal militaries) would be able to be countered by the People, thus safeguarding their Liberty for posterity.

[bigheadfred]

A 2013 report by The Heritage Foundation.

In terms of public policy and government deficits, an important figure is the aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households. This equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.

    Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.

    In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.

    At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.

    In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.


So now someone can explain to me how a wall is "unaffordable".

[libertybele]

That doesn't mandate military spending, it merely permits it.  And if nation building advances the goal of providing for the common defense, then nation-building falls under that rubric too.

When Constitutional issues come up, I usually refer to the Heritage Foundation:

...." Most Americans had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution when they were children, so they are aware that one of the purposes of the document was to “provide for the common defense.” But they are not aware of the extent to which the document shows the Founders’ concern for national security.

Providing for the Common Defense

In brief, the Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.

National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense— ...........

http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/constitutional-basis-defense

[bigheadfred]

When Constitutional issues come up, I usually refer to the Heritage Foundation:

...." Most Americans had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution when they were children, so they are aware that one of the purposes of the document was to “provide for the common defense.” But they are not aware of the extent to which the document shows the Founders’ concern for national security.

Providing for the Common Defense

In brief, the Constitution says three things about the responsibility of the federal government for the national defense.

National defense is the priority job of the national government. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution lists 17 separate powers that are granted to the Congress. Six of those powers deal exclusively with the national defense— ...........

http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/constitutional-basis-defense

The info at your link explains it well.