The Constitution is not a rough draft. Congress can’t edit, erase or ignore the limits imposed on the government when it hinders their addiction to use taxpayer dollars to expand their political ambitions and pet projects.

“Good” and “bad” spending are the latest buzzwords describing government spending.  Apparently the limited spending authority embedded in the Constitution has been replaced with the idea that government spending should be determined by politicians’ personal opinions, while disregarding our increasing debt.

Instead of determining legal justification from the Constitution, framing the debate of government spending in this manner will never control the government’s reckless spending.  It does, however, guarantee that the status quo of personal opinions, special interests, socialists, utopian dreamers, central planners and numerous other enemies of the Constitution will be protected. Just because spending is considered good doesn’t mean it has justification in the Constitution.

Because most believe the socialist nonsense that the Constitution is a living document, our $17.5 trillion dollar debt is considered good.  As our leaders and most of the public debate good spending vs. bad. Our “good debt” has reached a historic level, which without a reversal will bring about economic collapse.

The original interpretation of the Constitution presumed a fixed meaning. The new approach to constitutional law, labeled as a living Constitution, rejects the presumption that a fixed meaning exists or limits the government.  As a substitute, it argues that the words take on new and different meanings to facilitate progress.  In other words, at any point in time, the Constitution means whatever those in power say it means.  Would you participate in a poker game under these rules?

Following the “Living Constitution” doctrine has resulted in many dangerous changes.  Two examples are smaller government doesn’t mean constitutional government and the label conservative means to reform unconstitutional departments (education) instead of abolishing them.

The following example underscores the insanity of allowing personal opinions to control the power over government spending.   We know that the government spends enormous amounts of our money on individual welfare, housing, food stamps, medical treatment and hundreds of other social programs for both U.S. citizens and millions of illegal aliens. We also know the government spends enormous amounts of our money on corporate welfare such as government contracts for campaign contributions, subsidies, tax breaks and hundreds of other programs of various kinds. Politicians, bureaucrats and social program administrators and much of the public contend that social welfare spending is good because it’s for a good cause.

Politicians, bureaucrats and corporations argue that the direct subsidies, tax breaks, contracts for contributions and other freebies should not be considered corporate welfare because the government receives some good or service for this expenditure. Both corporate and social welfare programs are rampant with corruption from the top (administration) to the bottom (recipients), and are hardly recognized as worthwhile anymore.

So, we have two government programs riddled with theft and corruption operating outside of constitutional limits and the only requirement for approving funding is conformance to the DC crowd’s vague definition of “good spending.”

By Jeff Smith