Washington's Manipulative Lexicon

Congressman Frelinghuysen recently wrote to his constituents "As I write this, the federal government could be just one week away from a shutdown of 'non-essential services.'"  Now when you consider that the Constitution was written to delegate few & defined powers to the federal government (Federalist Papers #45 - James Madison) & the fact that every Member of Congress takes an oath of loyalty to uphold the Constitution by supporting & defending it you can start to see just how far off track our nation has come by talking let alone worrying about "non-essential services."  Why do we have "non-essential services?"

Thanks to Ann Coulter for providing a list of departments to eliminate in order to start to re-uphold the Constitution.  We should eliminate the Departments of Health & Human Services, Education, Commerce, Agriculture, Transportation, HUD, the National Endowment of the Arts, the National Endowment of Humanities, & of course the progressive income tax system & replace it with the FairTax (the last one is my idea).  More on the Department of Energy below.

But "non-essential services" is just one of the terms that has gotten out of hand in Washington's manipulative lexicon.

With regard to the budget please consider that our elected reps add to this lexicon by talking-up entitlements as "mandatory spending" that can't be touched.  My letter published in The Reporter in June 2005 pointed out that Social Security benefits are not guaranteed for life.  I referenced Susan Lee's WSJ article dated November 23, 2004 – "Social Security benefits are not guaranteed.  Just like all entitlement programs, they can - & have been – changed by Congress.  The Social Security administration itself says so & so did the Supreme Court when it ruled, in Fleming v. Nestor, that workers & retirees have no legal claim to benefits.  Regardless of how much in taxes they have paid into the system." 

Robert Alexander correctly points out more recently when he wrote "that Social Security & Medicare are driven by spending formulas rather than annual appropriations, but those formulas were established by Congress & the president & they can be changed by Congress & the president.  They are just as discretionary as the 'discretionary' or nonformula based spending.  Referring to these programs as 'mandatory' plays right into the hands of big spenders who want to direct the discussion away from spending cuts & toward tax increases.  'Mandatory' spending isn't a force of nature that's out of control.  It is a problem created by politicians & solvable by politicians, & it could be solved this year if they had the will to do it."

The above removes the terms "non-essential services" & "mandatory spending" from our lexicon & shows that Congress has the power but has never had the will to follow their constitutional oath.

The opposite problem of not cutting spending lies in a very dangerous part of the government lexicon - breaking the "tax free" promise concerning Roth IRAs & Roth 401(k)s.  To help fund projected shortages with Social Security & Medicare Roth IRAs & Roth 401(k)s are sitting there like big turkeys waiting to be taxed - especially as their values grow to huge amounts.  Holders of such accounts will likely lose out.  Can you imagine a future politician trying to defend continuation of tax free treatment for money that has never been taxed in the economic environment we are facing - what a large chunk of money Roth IRAs & Roth 401(k)s are to the politicians who will not be able to resist confiscating large amounts of them. 

Also, we don't need any special lexicon term for raising taxes but the raising of tax rates for traditional IRAs & 401(k)s will also provide a government windfall.  One of the best ways to increase the value of your IRA or 401(k) is to contribute when in a high tax bracket & withdraw @ a lower tax bracket.  The opposite principle can make a loser out of these programs, if Congress raises tax rates, as higher income tax brackets in withdrawal wipes out any investment gains over the years.

As promised the Fire The Night Watchman message included an analysis of the Department of Energy - a department I certainly would include in my list of unconstitutional government programs to be eliminated.  Read the note below & see if you agree - not just with the elimination of the Department of Energy but the entire damn mess described herein & how much of it is our fault for letting it happen. 

---Department Of Energy?---

As we quietly go like sheep to slaughter - Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the Department of Energy ..... during the Carter Administration?

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. 

 

And now 34 years later the budget for this "necessary" department is at $24.2 billion a year.  It has 16,000 federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees.  

 

A little over 33 years ago, 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports.  Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.