AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Well, we are highly unlikely to get the information unfavorable to the Administration through the mainstream media, but I am still researching. There are hints such as this:

Quote:

Tucked within the 407-page law is a requirement that laborers and mechanics employed on government stimulus projects be paid "prevailing wages," . . . .

My meaning when I say 'transfer of wealth' is any time the Federal government uses the people's money to benefit a specific individual or group with no direct benefit to others providing the money for the benefit. It is my opinion that there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to dispense any form of charity and that it violates our unalienable rights to force us to work without direct compensation for the benefit of another or targeted others and/or to confiscate property that we legally and ethically acquired for the use of another or targeted others.

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It does seem that 8 out of 10 construction workers will be locked out of Federal projects costing $25 million or more IF the information in that blurb is correct.

If it is true, then it stinks.

If it's true that the federal government is restricting projects to union workers, then how are 8 out of 10 construction workers "locked out" of those projects? After all, they can just join the construction union, can't they?

Yes. Most MACs, however, support right to work laws as a principle of freedom and think any job paying a decent wage is better than no job at all. Americans should have the right to work without subjecting themselves to oppressive union rules, and Americans should have the ability to negotiate wages and costs apart from unions representing 15% or so of the work force.

joefromchicago wrote:

Then you agree that some congressional powers authorized by the constitution are not spelled out in the text of the constitution, correct?

Joe, please define what you mean by the phrase "spelled out."

I alleged: The Constitution Article I. Section 8., first six clauses, CAN BE rationally construed to grant the feds the power to PRINT MONEY.

I also alleged: The Constitution Article I. Section 8., first six clauses, CANNOT BE rationally construed to grant the feds the power to LOAN MONEY.

I also allege: Nothing in the Constitution CAN BE rationally construed to grant the feds the power to LOAN MONEY.

I also allege: The Constitution CANNOT BE rationally construed to grant A POWER TO the feds that the Constitution DOES NOT PROHIBIT.

Congress's powers to spend tax revenue are strictly restricted to those things the Constitution grants Congress.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, some interpreted the clause as granting Congress a broad power to pass any legislation it pleased, so long as its asserted purpose was promotion of the general welfare. One of the Constitution's drafters, James Madison, objected to this reading of the clause, arguing that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. He argued that the General Welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated. Thus, in their view the words themselves served no practical purpose.

In his famous Report on Manufactures (1791), Alexander Hamilton argued that the clause enlarged Congress's power to tax and spend by allowing it to tax and spend for the general welfare as well as for purposes falling within its enumerated powers. Thus, he argued, the General Welfare clause granted a distinct power to Congress to use its taxing and spending powers in ways not falling within its other enumerated powers.

The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare. He also wrote that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of what was in fact in the national welfare. In the Butler decision, however, the Court shed no light on what it considered to be in the national"as opposed to local"interest, because it struck down the statute at issue on Tenth Amendment grounds.

The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.

Tucked within the 407-page law is a requirement that laborers and mechanics employed on government stimulus projects be paid "prevailing wages," which is defined as the salary and fringe benefits for corresponding work on similar projects in the area. The prevailing wage is usually on par with union wages and higher than the average wages for the same category of employees in the same county.

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It does seem that 8 out of 10 construction workers will be locked out of Federal projects costing $25 million or more IF the information in that blurb is correct.

If it is true, then it stinks.

If it's true that the federal government is restricting projects to union workers, then how are 8 out of 10 construction workers "locked out" of those projects? After all, they can just join the construction union, can't they?

Yes. Most MACs, however, support right to work laws as a principle of freedom and think any job paying a decent wage is better than no job at all. Americans should have the right to work without subjecting themselves to oppressive union rules, and Americans should have the ability to negotiate wages and costs apart from unions representing 15% or so of the work force.

And, if in fact the unions will be enriched in every Federal project, that, in my opinion, is an unacceptable/unconstitutional transfer of wealth.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=securities&x=30&y=10
Main Entry: 1se·cu·ri·ty
...
1 : the quality or state of being secure : as a : freedom from danger : SAFETY <security from famine> <security against aggression> <everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person -- U.N. Declaration of Human Rights> <seeking after the illusion of certainty ... in the form of a quest for absolute security -- E.N.Griswold> b archaic : carefree or cocky overconfidence <security is mortals' chiefest enemy -- Shakespeare> c : freedom from fear, anxiety, or care <this need for security dates back into infancy -- K.C.Garrison> <security ... thought of as a harmony between internal needs and the social availability of the means for their satisfaction -- W.C.Olson> <my one chance of security lies in fixing attention solely on the first chapter -- Arnold Bennett> d (1) : freedom from uncertainty or doubt : CONFIDENCE, ASSURANCE <knowing she still had the security of his faithful devotion -- Morley Callaghan> <distinguished by a certain security of judgment -- J.R.Lowell> (2) : sureness of technique <the cellist plays with great security but overlooks opportunities to let the sunlight in -- Arthur Berger> e : basis for confidence : GUARANTEE <our plan gives us no security that we shall get the steam engine -- G.B.Shaw> f : FIRMNESS <security of attachment> : DEPENDABILITY, STABILITY <the security of a knot> <a moral poise, a security of values that is very rare in our age -- Irving Howe & Eliezer Greenberg>
2 a : something given, deposited, or pledged to make certain the fulfillment of an obligation (as the payment of a debt) : property given or serving to make secure the enjoyment or enforcement of a right : GUARANTY, PLEDGE <the security is poor> b : one who becomes surety for another or engages himself for the performance of another's obligation : SURETY <was willing to go security for his friend> <fined and ordered to find securities for good behavior -- Edward Jenks>
3 : a written obligation, evidence, or document of ownership or creditorship (as a stock, bond, note, debenture, or certificate) giving the holder the right to demand and receive property not in his possession <a government security> <negotiable securities>; specifically : one issued to investors to finance a business enterprise
4 : something that secures : DEFENSE, PROTECTION, GUARD <their one source of security in a glowering alien climate -- A.R.Marcus>: as a : measures taken (as by a military unit) to ensure against surprise attack <the battalion ... set up security -- Walter Bernstein> b : measures taken (as by a national government or a governmental unit) to guard against espionage, observation, sabotage, and surprise <security prevents the reporting of actual production figures -- New Republic> c : protection against economic vicissitudes <government guarantees for old age security -- T.W.Arnold> <the very heavy emphasis that younger men are now placing on ... security -- Fortune> d : penal custody <the new prison system ... provides for the care of offenders on the basis of classification as to custody (maximum, medium, and minimum security) -- C.E.Johnson>
5 : the resistance of a cryptogram to cryptanalysis measured usually by the time and effort needed to solve it