as I have said before, I never have attacked you for your military service. You claiming so is trying to play a faux sympathy card. I let a few things go but since you brought it up again, I did point out some very disturbing things you were doing while still drawing a government check from our military. Soldiers are required to respect their Commander-in-Chief, its a condition of employment and a condition of an oath, to God and country.
That is not attacking your military service, it is directed at your actions outside that.
I have on numerous occasions pointed out your hypocritical statements of shouting for smaller government, reduced spending, when you were pulling a paycheck from the single largest controllable expense driver for our entire government.
You disagree, I get that.
"Again National Defense is a Constitutionally mandated function of the Federal government along with regulating interstate commerce."
I have never disagreed with that.
"Regulating Interstate Commerce means to settle disputes between states and enforce contract between states."
We could argue this, that is not the definition of regulation.
You can not redefine words and concepts to make an argument. Regulation is more establishing standards and rules (contracts) and enforcing them.
"Certainly providing care for Veterans falls under National Defense but not necessarily in the same defense budget."
But today it is not. It is separate and covered under what you define as "entitlement" programs.
If you do your 20 in the Guard, the defense budget will not pay your retirement, an "entitlement" program will. The defense budget does not pay for healthcare for wounded veterans, an "entitlement" program does. when you are on active duty and your family receives medical benefits, the defense budget does not pay for them, an "entitlement" program does. Now don't go all off saying I am attacking your family for your military service, I am making a point,
they are indeed entitled to those benefits, no question about it.
So clearly it does not or it would be that way already.
Should it? I agree with you.
I cant budget a lot of time right now to banter details with you back and forth today, but I do offer for consideration:
Today we have federal organizations overseeing 50 states for various functions. If you break that up and push it out to 50 states to manage, each state will have to establish their own management structure to do basically the same thing the Fed has been doing, are we sure that saying 50 individual states can do things more efficiently than one central group? I would offer that any business or corporation would centralize such functions without even thinking about it, decentralization is the enemy of efficiency in manpower and costs. You use the Dept of SS offices that reside in SC as an example, the state will have to establish management of those offices, and do so in accordance with all Federal level regulations , the Fed will still have to over see it, and now they have to oversee 50 discretely managed organizations.
I agree in principle that there are some functions that can be successfully and efficiently decentralized, but its not all cut-n-dry as it sounds. Anyone that has ever tried to run or manage such situations in a business knows this very well.
And you say SC is pumping all this money to the Fed to support everything, how much money does the Fed supply to SC? What is the net-net ? It is easy to say how money flows from the state to the Fed, but ignore the massive federal subsidies the states get, huge massive federal efforts for natural disasters etc. How many states could exist on their own revenues and budget? Irony is, most of the Right states have very low population densities... they have the least internally generated revenues. They would be the ones that would have the greatest problems supporting themselves. They lobby for the greatest federal subsidies.