House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-TX, has come under a lot of fire from Democrats lately for, well, for acting like a politician. Sure, he's taken some trips, he's employed some relatives. None of that is outside the normal realm of what Congressmen do.

But perhaps the most sticky charges I've seen came from the Washington Times. In an interview with the Times, the first question asked had to do with what the hell Republicans are doing up there on the Hill.

Since taking power in 1994, the size of the Imperial Federal Government has doubled. People who used to be identified as fiscal conservatives, have had their hands in the cookie jar for 10 years now and been spending money like there's no tomorrow. What in the hell happened to the "contract with America" and the premise of limited government?

After a bunch of hemming and hawing, DeLay had this to say:

When Bush came here, the Senate was still the lowest common denominator. And we had to deal with them. Now that sounds like an excuse, and I guess it is. But if you look at the real record, sans the effort to fight a war - and we'll spend whatever it takes to win the war on terror - but if you look at the other spending, it's actually been going down.

Bullshit. First of all, Bush didn't come into the picture until 2001 so you can't pin it solely on him. Second, spending bills originate in the House, so you cannot point the finger at the Senate. Third, even if you throw out the War on Terror and Military spending, the federal budget has still increased by leaps and bounds every year. It has not, I say again, it has not been decreasing.

What DeLay is trying to do is use the politician's standard definition of a budget cut. When they want spending to increase by 8%, and they only get a 4% increase, they call that a budget cut. But the truth is that the size of the federal government increases every year, and is twice as big now as it was in 1994. And it didn't all happen after September 11th.

If DeLay and other politicians are thrown out of office for anything, it ought to be for overstepping their Constitutional authority. Article 1 Section 8 clearly outlines what Congress is authorized to do, and Amendment 10 states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Furthermore, Article 6 states that "The Senators and Representatives. . .shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

Thus, by passing social programs that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, every politician (save one*) in Washington is violating their oath of office. If they cannot learn to abide by the Constitution, and stick to doing only those things that the government is supposed to be doing, perhaps they should be thrown out.

* Rep. Ron 'Dr. No' Paul, R-TX, has a habit of only voting yes to bills that are specifically authorized by the Constitution.