The subject of cutting federal spending isn’t manageable in the abstract. While the “fiscal cliff” and “cutting spending” make for nice sound bites, they convey very little practicable information. Unfortunately the problem is vast, however, it is not impossible. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a great place to start to understand the elements of the spending problem. It takes 38 typed pages just to list the 2,192 Federal Domestic Assistance programs in all their various types:
A: Formula Grants
B: Project Grants
C: Direct Payments for Specified Use
D: Direct Payments with Unrestricted Use
E: Direct Loans
F: Guaranteed/Insured Loans
G: Insurance
H: Sale, Exchange, or Donation of Property and Goods
I: Use of Property, Facilities, and Equipment
J: Provision of Specialized Services
K: Advisory Services and Counseling
L: Dissemination of Technical Information
M: Training
N: Investigation of Complaints
O: Federal Employment
The above 38 page table is extracted from the 3000+ page CFDA 2012 Print Edition.
Let’s be clear, this is not an optional civics matter for an American citizen. The Founders contemplated that our citizenship would entail a functional understanding of what our Federal government does, and whether it acts within the constitutional limits that authorize it to do those things.
Read the list. Imagine if you can, the tortured logic necessary to make a constitutional justification for each line item on the list. Many will require extended powers of fantasy to do so.
In a rational country governed by the rule of law, those programs least connected to constitutional authority should be the first to go.
The U.S. Supreme Court became the arbiter of legislative constitutionality with the 1803 Marbury decision. But the Court only acts on constitutional questions that the judicial system delivers to it. The Court requires a “case in controversy” to hear a constitutional question, let alone make a decision.
We will not see cases in controversy on the question of the constitutionality for most, if not all, of the 2,192 established Federal Domestic Assistance programs. And we know that under Obamacare, thanks to Justice Roberts, the 2012 list is scheduled to grow substantially (see previous post). We have no grounds to expect the Court to save us from totalitarianism.
But the process of the Courts’ deciding constitutionality in no way impedes or prohibits citizens from making their own assessments of what is constitutional, and exercising their political authority at the ballot box to make it so.
To be sure, the media will not enable this detailed citizens’ decision to proceed. It will continue to toss out sound bites and leave the citizens largely in the dark about the real nature of the problem. And those politicians wed to their pork who do not practice statesmanship will, in like manner, act to thwart any efforts to diminish the power of their pork-enabling offices.
We can save our country from financial ruin. It starts with understanding the real problem. It proceeds to finding and electing men and women who will represent us in the dismantling of the Federal Domestic Assistance state.
B_Imperial