Spending money not already in hand is never wise. Spending it anyway is almost always a serious mistake. Repeatedly spending money in such a manner is irresponsible and reckless. 

This reality applies to individuals, families, businesses and government at all levels. 

When any individual or entity spends money they don’t already have, they incur debt. If they continue to spend money this way debt load grows and becomes overwhelming. 

Inevitably – bankruptcy looms.     

Because of such out-of-control behavior, what follows can be described as falling somewhere in the nasty range of severe economic disruption to general collapse. 

Most of our Founders understood this prescient economic example. That’s why they called for responsible self-government by individuals, and for limits on government’s size, scope, and specifically authorized powers.  

It is no wonder those Founders preferred to strengthen the new American government structure by amending the Articles of Confederation.  

Unfortunately – as noted previously in this column – others back then “understood that their personal power would flow with the power inherent in being able to tax and regulate.” 

So, they worked effectively, might some say nefariously, to supplant the Articles of Confederation with a different document, which would enable them to rewrite the structure of the federal level of government and establish pressure points of power in the relationship of a federal government not with, but over the individual states. 

Now, centuries later, out-of-control spending, along with accelerating government usurpations and impingements, are cracking the very meaning of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all Americans. 

Thus, as a result of those early manipulations, the power shifted to the federal level of government to “… tax and regulate” has enabled government today “… to coerce and control.”

After the Constitution was signed by 39 delegates assembled in Philadelphia in Sept. 1787, it was publicly released and sent to the state assemblies for ratification. At that time, most citizens understandably chose to interpret the words in the draft document optimistically.   

But, many perceived the Constitutional document as ceding too much power to a federal government that was too far from the people. 

That perception was correct. 

Wisely, during the process of ratification by the states, they rightly demanded that the new Constitution itself needed amending. 

Consider this historical reality: 

It took 10 amendments to the new Constitution to reassure the people that their individual rights would be both recognized and protected.  That’s why what is called the “Bill of Rights” was added to the draft Constitution. 

Arguably, without a “Bill of Rights,” the new Constitution would not have been ratified by a sufficient number of states.

 If that had been the case, it is likely the Articles of Confederation would have had amendments added to appropriately strengthen the AOC while retaining the powers of the people and the individual states to define, control, and oversee those powers delegated to the federal level of government. 

In retrospect, it is historically unfortunate, that was not the case. 

Instead, those who wanted to install a stronger more dominant federal government shrewdly saw they could get their way by accepting all those amendments, the 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights. 

So they did. And the rest is history. 

As a result – through time and successive political manipulations – Americans today face the quandary of deciding how best to undertake the repair of essential operating limits on government powers.

 It may indeed seem ironic, but the place to begin is with the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Olivastro is president of Olivastro Communications and founder of Citizens for Change. He can be reached at richard.olivastro@gmail.com or 1-888-RICH-SPEAKS.