Socialism's Trajectory: Obama's HHS Bigger Than LBJ's Government

· Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Anyone who doubts the trend toward socialism is pushing America toward ruin should examine the historical tables President Obama published Monday along with his $3.7 trillion budget.

In fiscal 2011, according to these tables, the Department of Health and Human Services will spend $909.7 billion. In fiscal 1965, the entire federal government spent $118.228 billion.

What about inflation? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator, $118.228 billion in 1965 dollars equals $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars. In real terms, the $909.7 billion HHS is spending this year is about $87.1 billion more than the entire federal government spent in 1965.

1965 was a key year in the advancement of socialism in the United States.

From 1776 until 1965, Americans generally did not rely on the federal government for health care unless they served in the military or worked in some other capacity for the federal government.

But in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson and a Democratic Congress enacted two massive federal entitlement programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the federal government by making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care.

Prior to 1937, the Supreme Court correctly understood the Constitution to deny the federal government any power to create and operate social-welfare programs. The Constitution held no such enumerated power, and the 10th Amendment left powers not enumerated to the states and the people.

From George Washington's administration to Franklin Roosevelt's, Americans took care of themselves and their own communities without resorting to federal handouts.

FDR sought to change what he believed was an unrealistic reliance on families in American life.

He used the crisis of the Great Depression to pass the Social Security Act of 1935, compelling Americans to pay a payroll tax in return for the promise of a federal old-age pension. This was blatantly unconstitutional. That same year, in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton, the Supreme Court had justly slapped down a law mandating what amounted to a Social Security program for the railroad industry alone.

FDR attempted to defend the railroad pension law as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce, justifiable under the Commerce Clause -- the same argument the Obama administration has used to defend the individual mandate in Obamacare.

The Court scoffed, suggesting that if the federal government could mandate a federal pension for railroad workers, the next thing it would do would be to mandate health care.

"The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is, in any just sense, a regulation of interstate transportation," the Court said answering FDR's argument. "If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attention and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry."

When Social Security went to the Court in 1937, FDR used a different strategy. He argued that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to levy taxes to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," meant the federal government could do virtually anything it deemed in the "general welfare" of Americans even if it was otherwise outside the scope of the Constitution's other enumerated powers.

FDR's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause effectively rendered the rest of the Constitution meaningless.

To persuade the same court that ruled against him in the railroad case to rule for him in the Social Security case, FDR proposed the Judicial Reorganization Act. This would allow him to pack the court by appointing an additional justice for each sitting justice who had reached age 70 and six months and not retired.

Faced with a potential Democratic takeover of the court, and thus a federal government controlled entirely by FDR's allies, Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts flip-flopped from their position in the railroad case. They quietly voted in favor of Social Security and took the steam off FDR's court-packing plan.

That year, federal spending was 8.6 percent of gross domestic product, according to President Obama's historical tables.

When LBJ enacted Medicare and Medicaid -- and began fulfilling the court's prophecy in the 1935 railroad-pension case -- federal spending was 17.2 percent of GDP.

When George W. Bush expanded Medicare with a prescription drug benefit in 2003, federal spending was 19.7 percent of GDP.

This year, federal spending will be 25.3 percent of GDP.

In 2014, when Obamacare is scheduled to be fully implemented, HHS will become the first $1-trillion-per year federal agency. That year, Medicare and Medicaid will cost $557 billion and $352.1 billion respectively, or a combined $909.1 billion -- about what all of HHS costs this year.

In other words, when Obamacare is just getting started, Medicare and Medicaid will cost more than the $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars than the entire federal government cost in 1965 when LBJ signed Medicare and Medicaid into law.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Eric

And the reason this happened is because the bureaucrats stacked the roles of Medicare and Medicaid - and Social Security - with the same union members, dead beats, criminals, victims, illegal aliens, the dead, and non-existent persons that vote them into office every year.

It's about time we followed Egypt's example before we are left by the "ruling elite" here with an economy just like theirs.

Posted February 16, 2011 at 6:03:58 AM


akaangrywhiteman

This comment is not in defense of Obama by any means, his policies suck. That being said , it appears people would rather blame someone, a single person, than to blame the entire government complex which has been stripping us bare for decades. The propensity to blame one bloated cheek of a huge reeking arse for all our problems is insane. Neither side has our interests at heart, there is no political party of the major two that wants government put in its proper roll of the least intervention in our lives that will ensure we are able to live our lives with liberty and justice. I is apparent that our government wants subjects, not free men, free men have a way of getting in the way of absolute power, and if there is anything government wants most, it is absolute power.

So one beats the drum for the right cheek, and another beats the drum for the left, and we are strapped with a huge half arsed mess.

Posted February 16, 2011 at 9:30:10 AM


Claire W. Solt

If we would push to redefine the general welfare clause as prohibiting favoritism, emphasizing the "general" instead of the "welfare" we would be on the road to reform. One man one vote democratic representation has given way to government of favors by pressure groups. Thus, Obamacare is a study in collusion more than anything else. The fact that the counties around DC are now the richest in the nation proves that the benefits go to the political class, not the general public. And, they are paid for by soaking those who do not have lobbyists, like the small business owners like cosmetologists who have tanning beds in their salons.

Posted February 16, 2011 at 10:16:29 AM


Sammy

"A democracy can exist up to the point that the voters realize that they can vote themselves large sums of money from the treasury." I think we have reached that point.

Posted February 16, 2011 at 10:26:05 AM


W Peterson

The reduction of federal spending is as easy as directing across the board cuts to each operating department, without consideration for line items. All departments would be mandated to cut/reduce spending by a certain percentage. The federal treasury knows just how much money is taken into the department. That number divided by the number of departments would flat line the government to what it takes in, not what it wants to spend. The President and both political parties lack the collective consciences to curb federal spending, believing instead that what the citizens earn is rightly the governments to spend as it chooses. Anyone now standing as an elected representative must be removed by the electoral process. Both parties work to create a voting block of entitlements and former taxpayers who willing receive what has not been earned by them. FDR created this mess, HST promoted it, LBJ enlarged it, GWB added to it and now Obama wants to permanently have a crippled class of people who will not work; but demand all that can be "legislated" away from those who worked for it. The domino theory is working in the Middle East. It should serve as a blueprint for what must take place in this country to correct the path we are now on.

Posted February 16, 2011 at 10:34:34 PM


KN

..."voters realize that they can vote themselves large sums of money from the treasury..."

Especially the roughly 47% who will not owe any federal income tax.

Talk about a free ride - they get to vote on taking money from the 53% who pay. In the old days it was called stealing.

Posted February 17, 2011 at 11:26:49 AM


Frank E.

02/19/11

Back in 1776"ALEXANDER TYLER" a political science

Tescher at EDINBORUGH UNIVERSITY.When he heard the

news of the upstart nation of AMERICA,He said to

his Students,Their DEMOCRACY cannot EXIST!When the

ledgislaters find they have access and control of

the PUBLIC TRUST.."THEY WILL BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY"

Posted February 19, 2011 at 2:45:29 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund