How to eliminate 18% of the federal budget

[Peter1469]

How to eliminate 18% of the federal budget (http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/01/12/buckleys-modest-proposal-would-erase-18-percent-of-the-federal-budget/)

A good article that beatifies one of the largest causes of out of control federal spending in the US. A 1937 SCOTUS case, Steward Machine v. Davis (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/301/548) along with other cases in that year which became the tool that Congress would use to pass any law it wishes based on its taxing powers and the Commerce Clause, effectively ending the actual concept of federalism in the United States.

Anyway, end all transfers of federal money to the states. 18% of the budget gone.


Regrettably, the Supreme Court demolished the barriers against the federal government overstepping its bounds in a number of New Deal decisions. Buckley (who has served as a federal appellate judge for many years), points especially at Steward Machine v. Davis (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/301/548) as the culprit in this story. That 1937 decision misinterpreted the General Welfare Clause as permitting Congress to spend money on anything it regarded as beneficial, thus eroding the ideas of federalism and limited government.



***


If we could get Congress to break its bad, unconstitutional habit of tossing money to state and local governments, the federal budget would shrink substantially. For FY 2015, those outlays will be $640 billion in grants plus more than $60 billion more in administrative costs. Eliminating that would approximately balance the budget, but we should still enact a balanced budget amendment (http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/12/16/could-compact-for-americas-constitutional-amendment-stop-the-federal-juggernaut/) to restrain spending growth in areas where Congress actually does have authority.

[donttread]

Repeal the 16th

[Blackrook]

Federal transfers of funds to states and localities make them subservient to the federal government, which is the reverse of what the relationship should be.

[Mr. Right]

Peter, we couldn't do that. We need to keep on funding these urban cesspools.

[Cigar]

Peter, we couldn't do that. We need to keep on funding these urban cesspools.

Eastern Kentucky lawyer earned Millions in fees through disability 'scheme'http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2013/10/07/22/31/119zig.AuSt.79.jpeg

An Eastern Kentucky lawyer has earned $22.7 million in attorney's fees from the Social Security Administration since 2001, in part through a lucrative "scheme" to defraud the agency's disability benefits programs, a U.S. Senate committee said in a report released Monday.


Eric C. Conn, 53, a Floyd County lawyer who calls himself "Mr. Social Security" in his colorful billboard and television advertisements, rigged medical records and steered hundreds of his check-seeking clients to an administrative law judge who rushed their cases through the system, according to a two-year investigation by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.


The committee met Monday to hear from Conn and others, including two women who said they tried to blow the whistle on preferential treatment Conn received from Judge David Daugherty at the Social Security Administration's regional Office of Disability Adjudication and Review in Huntington, W.Va.


Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/10/07/2864646/eastern-kentucky-lawyer-earned.html#storylink=cpy


Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/10/07/2864646/eastern-kentucky-lawyer-earned.html#storylink=cpy


http://www.kentucky.com/2013/10/07/2864646/eastern-kentucky-lawyer-earned.html

[Peter1469]

The OP is a difficult sell when much of the younger generation's eyes glaze over when you mention the word federalism.

[Redrose]

Eastern Kentucky lawyer earned Millions in fees through disability 'scheme'

http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2013/10/07/22/31/119zig.AuSt.79.jpeg

An Eastern Kentucky lawyer has earned $22.7 million in attorney's fees from the Social Security Administration since 2001, in part through a lucrative "scheme" to defraud the agency's disability benefits programs, a U.S. Senate committee said in a report released Monday.


Eric C. Conn, 53, a Floyd County lawyer who calls himself "Mr. Social Security" in his colorful billboard and television advertisements, rigged medical records and steered hundreds of his check-seeking clients to an administrative law judge who rushed their cases through the system, according to a two-year investigation by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.


The committee met Monday to hear from Conn and others, including two women who said they tried to blow the whistle on preferential treatment Conn received from Judge David Daugherty at the Social Security Administration's regional Office of Disability Adjudication and Review in Huntington, W.Va.


Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/10/07/2864646/eastern-kentucky-lawyer-earned.html#storylink=cpy


Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/10/07/2864646/eastern-kentucky-lawyer-earned.html#storylink=cpy


http://www.kentucky.com/2013/10/07/2864646/eastern-kentucky-lawyer-earned.html


We have a relative who was severely injured on the job. He was a legitimate disability case. He was 31, fell at his work site, boke his neck and back, and is in a wheelchair today. He applied for SS disability. Tons of paperwork, redundant questions, over and over and over. They lost his paperwork, had to do it all over again. After 18 months they turn him down. More appeals, more paperwork, again they turned him down. So he had to get a SS lawyer. The lawyer told him SS will turn down about 95% of applicants. About 5% get approved first time around. The criteria? Who knows. He said the rest won't even be considered without an attorney, who gets 25% of the retro settlement....automatically. 2 1/2 years later, a total of 4 years, the attorney got him approved for SS Disability. He had to go before a judge for a hearing, with an employment representative to review his work history and education level and training to see if he could still be employed as a paraplegic in a chair or retrained for a new job. They determined, his disabilities were too severe, and ability too limiting and gave him his disability.

Without the attorney he would have been ignored. Why does a system need to be so mired in red tape making it necessary to hire an attorney?

[texan]

How to eliminate 18% of the federal budget (http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/01/12/buckleys-modest-proposal-would-erase-18-percent-of-the-federal-budget/)

A good article that beatifies one of the largest causes of out of control federal spending in the US. A 1937 SCOTUS case, Steward Machine v. Davis (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/301/548) along with other cases in that year which became the tool that Congress would use to pass any law it wishes based on its taxing powers and the Commerce Clause, effectively ending the actual concept of federalism in the United States.

Anyway, end all transfers of federal money to the states. 18% of the budget gone.



***


I am getting to where I dislike the feds more and more. States should be left alone and in competition with each other. You do this the competition will pay off for everyone. This idea that we federally tax people and give it to the states then hold it from you based mostly on ideology and party lines if you don't act like we say you are required to act, is out of control. It is against the basics of what makes us great.

[Blackrook]

Conn isn't guilty of any "scheme". He got the broken SSI system to work for his clients. He is doing his job as an attorney. He should be praised, not condemned.

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - the next political slogan gonna be, 'It's the budget, stupid...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_grandma.gif
Forget Trump’s speech. Look at his budget.
March 2, 2017 - It was a kinder, gentler, somewhat maudlin version of his campaign speech that President Trump delivered to Congress Tuesday. In case you missed it, here’s the 20-second version, which I present as my service to you:


America is reeling and its streets are afire because of foreign countries that take advantage of us and foreigners who sneak into the land, so what we need to do is to slam the doors and close the shutters and worry about doing a bunch of stuff for our own people, just as soon as we figure out what that stuff is. Also, our children will grow up in a nation of miracles, if only we find the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts. These are actual quotes. I was not watching “Moana.”


https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/QAMOd.tIS2Tk0nyMrozeZQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/ec861a80497122fbec695549598ecef2
President Trump on Tuesday after his first address to a joint session of Congress.

Speechifying aside, though, we did learn something significant this week about the president’s governing vision, because he also previewed the budget he will send to Congress. And what’s interesting here is that as much as he talks about breaking with the past and the failure of our political duopoly, Trump seems poised to continue charging down a path that a reckless generation of politicians has already trampled. A president’s budget, as you may know, is really more like a statement of priorities and general direction, which Congress rarely enacts these days in any event. It’s a glimpse into the choices a president intends to make — or avoid.

And there are choices to be made. Something like 60 percent of federal spending goes to entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Almost another quarter goes out the door for military spending and to pay down the interest on the federal debt. That means that the remaining chunk of the budget — roughly a fifth — has to fund all the other programs the federal government administers, from veterans’ affairs to safeguarding the nuclear stockpile to maintaining and staffing embassies around the world. This is what they’re talking about when they use the term “discretionary spending.”

MORE (https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-central-mistake-in-trumps-budget-100052871.html)