Stop spending!

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, government resources have appropriately increased to provide for the defense of the nation. Those attacks, though, should not be used as excuses for careless blank-check spending across the board. President Bush's recent 2003 fiscal year budget proposal contains several fine examples of wasteful spending. In the budget proposal, Bush wants to triple aid to Peru to fight the drug war -- bringing that effort to a price tag of $195 million. According to a recent article in The Washington Times, he also admonished a $5.5 million debt to encourage Peru to "protect biodiversity and tropical forests."\nHere in the U.S., Bush proposes an increase from $100 million to $135 million for abstinence programming among teenagers. Also, there is a new experimental program that will attempt to help welfare mothers find a husband or maintain a marriage for a whopping $300 million. \nI know you're probably thinking, "Vince, our country is fighting terrorism, go easy on Bush." Actually, Bush is not the problem -- government spending is the problem. Our government is the largest, most intrusive government ever, yet few people seem to care. Sadly, too many Americans are so ignorant of U.S. government and history that they are ill-prepared to confront the government as an American citizen.\nA question on a July 1999 Fox News Opinion Dynamics survey stated, "Some people say the government has plenty of money of its own and it should be spent on programs. Other people say that the government has no money except that which it takes from citizens in taxes. Which do you believe?"\nOf course, the correct answer is that government has no money (that it doesn't take from citizens) yet 50 percent of those surveyed believed that government has its very own money. With that type of stupidity coming from the voting public, the gargantuan growth of government is understandable. Just how big is the government?\nIt's the Spending, Stupid! -- A study by Patrick Basham (senior fellow at the Cato Institute) illustrates the shocking growth of government in the 20th century. In 1940, the revenues of the federal government were $6.5 billion (6.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)) and spending at the federal level was $9.5 billion (9.8 percent of the GDP). By 1970, federal revenues grew to $192.8 billion (19 percent of the GDP) and spending reached $195.6 billion (19.3 percent of the GDP). In 1970 at the combined federal and state levels, the government was seizing 28.1 percent of the GDP. In 2000, federal spending had reached $1.79 trillion and government spending at all levels topped $2.75 trillion. But, if you take into account that federal regulation compliance cost taxpayers $1.1 trillion in 2000, the total price of government was an unbelievable $3.86 trillion (a 45.4 percent blow to the national income).\n I'm sure you're thinking, "What's the deal with all these numbers?" These numbers prove that government is growing and it shouldn't be permitted. The problem is that government is exceeding the bounds of the Consti-tution when it comes to spending on things such as health care, welfare, social security and many other things. As James Madison said in The Federalist No.45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." Restricting our government to its Constitutional limits is the most important step to be made and an informed voting public can make that happen. The larger government we create, the less control we have. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "A government that governs least, governs best"