| Did the founders of the constitution of the US favor subsidies under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution? |
|
|
|
Asked 1 year ago
by TheSheep  United States |
|
About
Woolly horned ruminant mammal.
|
9 Points
|
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,... "
http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1296
Well, barring any amendment to the contrary, I'd say subsidising an industry such as farming would definitely constitute regulating commerce with foreign nations. In fact, what with the USA being such a large producer and consumer, subsidies can affect world markets as a whole. Like cotton subsidies for instance.
I got interested in this question because I got into an discussion with another community member about our government's role in stimulating the economy. He is against tax breaks or co-funding of renewable energy sources, and instead favours more drilling. When I asked whether he was in favour of corn, milk, and beef subsidies he said he was "almost a libertarian" and if it wasn't in the constitution, the government had no business doing it.
The libertarian web site shows they are indeed against subsidies. Upon reading the constitution (again) I found the part about regulating commerce with foreign nations. There is quite a bit of argument either way about it; my friend, who is a history teacher, says my position that the framers of the constitution DID mean to include subsidies as part of regulation of commerce was indeed correct given the historical context of how it came to be in the constitution. I was rather curious what my countrymen think of this issue; and am somewhat surprised to learn that nobody appears to have much of an opinion about this issue at all.
Hell, "general Welfare of the United States" is such a broad term too, it could cover all manner of things. I'd think economic strength is very important to the welfare of the country, so stimulation would come under their remit.
Must say I am surprised so many voters have not much opinion too, after all, it is their tax dollars that are being spent.
But we have an appallingly ignorant electorate, who believe that what they see on TV is all there is.
Agreed. They're too busy keeping up with Hollywood than keeping track of what the government is or isn't doing.
I have a NY TImes front page framed here in the office from 1986. Stories above the fold are about Nicaragua, Israel, the MX, and a Senate aides scandal. Below the fold, Israel, the deficit, and NYC taxi problems. I don't read papers anymore, but it seems to me that recent ones don't have anywhere near that much hard news--not even on the front page.
Dauguy--
Not all is lost. Here are a few articles exposing some truth. They may give you an understanding of WHY the news is what it is today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1210878373-MSqz287dqqP0JtEfFtQMBw
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html
A number of factors have contributed to the lack of real news in America:
1. The coverage of the Viet Nam war led directly to widespread and very visible opposition to the war. This convinced many powerful people that news coverage of real issues was a threat to their running of the country.
2. News programs were loss leaders. No one made a profit on the news: contrariwise, they lost a lot. This became unpopular with the media owners, who started substituting things that did not cost money (unlike investigative journalism) and that increased ratings (so they could sell higher-priced commercial time).
3. Media ownership became concentrated in ever-fewer hands, until now 5 companies own 75+% of ALL media in the U.S.--newspapers, magazines, television, movies, books--ALL media. This removed the element of competition from news programming.
4. The successful campaign on the part of broadcast media to move ownership of the airwaves from public to private hands (The Telecommunications Act of 1996) removed the requirement that broadcast media operate in the public interest, thereby putting the kibosh on the requirements for news broadcasts in exchange for a broadcast license.
Lemme try to get in touch with George, Thomas, and John Quincy, and I'll get back with you. Um, may take a spell, my seance skills are a tad rusty ('guess this calls for the Ouija board!) ;)