Little-Acorn
06-18-2011, 01:29 PM
Mitt Romney recently said something to the effect that Federal assistance to the flood and tornado victims in the Midwest, is "immoral" and should be privatized. Predictably, a few leftists are seizing the opportunity to announce that Romney opposes all disaster relief, and all that usual tripe.
But in fact, the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution apparently agreed with Romney. At least, they wrote a passage into the Fundamental Law of the Land forbidding such relief from the Fed govt.
Article One Section Eight says:
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 highlight some relevant parts without taking them out of context:
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;
And then string them together:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States;
What the so-called "Welfare clause" really says, is that the Fed govt can have the power to collect taxes, but is only authorized to spend them only on certain things. When the country was first founded, the Constitution hadn't been written, and wouldn't be for another dozen years. The country ran under the Artricles of Confederation instead - a document that loosely bound the new states together to act almost like small, independently-functioning cooperating countries. And the AoC gave the central government NO power to levy taxes at all. It could only ask states for contributions - a request the states often wound up shortchanging or ignoring altogether.
The AoC was so weak, that the new Constitution replaced it... including a carefully-worded clause giving the new government the power to collect taxes, but carefully restricting what it could spend them on.
Keep in mind that "general welfare" had a very specific meaning at that time. It referred ONLY to programs that would help everyone in the country the same amount; and specifically excluded programs that helped only partial groups or sections of the country.
Even when it was first written, this clause caused arguments between some of the Founding Fathers themselves, notably between James Madison who advocate small govt, and Alexander Hamilton who wanted bigger govt. But they weren't arguing over whether it gave the Fed govt permission to spend everything on everybody. Both agreed that it did nothing of the kind. They only argued whether it applied solely to the functions explicitly written in the Constitution already, or whether it gave permission for a few extra programs that would help everyone in the nation equally but were not explicitly written in the document.
In fact, they all agreed that this "General Welfare clause" is a RESTRICTION on Fed govt spending, not a broad permission to spend whatever it wants on anything that might help anybody. If it were the kind of broad permission that today's leftist fanatics dream of, then 3/4 of the rest of the Constitution would be irrelevant - the parts that specifically authorize the govt to run the military, courts, post roads, foreign relations etc.
This fact is something the leftist fanatics are desperate to keep people from learning. It takes away their most cherished fib in support of their Government-Uber-Alles agenda.
As I mentioned, Mitt Romney recently said something to the effect that Federal assistance to the flood and tornado victims in the Midwest, is "immoral" and should be privatized. Predictably, the leftist screamers quote the first part, carefully leave out the second, and then lie about it, pretending that Romney opposes all disaster relief. It's a response typical of those who would rather incite hysterical mobs than find solutions.
Who is more "immoral" - Mitt Romney, or the screaming mad leftists who lie about him and try to get government to forcibly take the money people could have donated themselves... and even bind our children and grandchildren to debts they never asked for?
States, of course, are free to donate as much as they like to disaster relief (unlike the Fed govt, which violates the Constitution when it does this)... and so are any and all private relief groups, as Romney advocates. In a country that spends literally billions every year on vacations, lavish cellphone contracts, Presidential campaigns, and Starbucks coffee, clearly programs to help the disaster victims are very possible.
If as much advertising were aimed at such a worthwhile cause as is currently aimed at the fripperies, is there any reason to think it won't be equally (or more) effective? The leftist screamers insist they won't work, against all available evidence... but all that really means, is that the leftist screamers are unable (and perhaps unwilling) to do it.
How much is, in fact, donated privately by normal Americans to help disaster victims, not only here but around the world... even as our government takes more and more from us, leaving us less to donate?
Far from being "immoral", Romney's advocacy of private assistance to disaster victims is (and has always been) the most generous way to help those in need. It is, in fact, moral. And even legal.
Too bad we can't say the same for the leftist fanatics' big-government schemes.
But in fact, the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution apparently agreed with Romney. At least, they wrote a passage into the Fundamental Law of the Land forbidding such relief from the Fed govt.
Article One Section Eight says:
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 highlight some relevant parts without taking them out of context:
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;
And then string them together:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States;
What the so-called "Welfare clause" really says, is that the Fed govt can have the power to collect taxes, but is only authorized to spend them only on certain things. When the country was first founded, the Constitution hadn't been written, and wouldn't be for another dozen years. The country ran under the Artricles of Confederation instead - a document that loosely bound the new states together to act almost like small, independently-functioning cooperating countries. And the AoC gave the central government NO power to levy taxes at all. It could only ask states for contributions - a request the states often wound up shortchanging or ignoring altogether.
The AoC was so weak, that the new Constitution replaced it... including a carefully-worded clause giving the new government the power to collect taxes, but carefully restricting what it could spend them on.
Keep in mind that "general welfare" had a very specific meaning at that time. It referred ONLY to programs that would help everyone in the country the same amount; and specifically excluded programs that helped only partial groups or sections of the country.
Even when it was first written, this clause caused arguments between some of the Founding Fathers themselves, notably between James Madison who advocate small govt, and Alexander Hamilton who wanted bigger govt. But they weren't arguing over whether it gave the Fed govt permission to spend everything on everybody. Both agreed that it did nothing of the kind. They only argued whether it applied solely to the functions explicitly written in the Constitution already, or whether it gave permission for a few extra programs that would help everyone in the nation equally but were not explicitly written in the document.
In fact, they all agreed that this "General Welfare clause" is a RESTRICTION on Fed govt spending, not a broad permission to spend whatever it wants on anything that might help anybody. If it were the kind of broad permission that today's leftist fanatics dream of, then 3/4 of the rest of the Constitution would be irrelevant - the parts that specifically authorize the govt to run the military, courts, post roads, foreign relations etc.
This fact is something the leftist fanatics are desperate to keep people from learning. It takes away their most cherished fib in support of their Government-Uber-Alles agenda.
As I mentioned, Mitt Romney recently said something to the effect that Federal assistance to the flood and tornado victims in the Midwest, is "immoral" and should be privatized. Predictably, the leftist screamers quote the first part, carefully leave out the second, and then lie about it, pretending that Romney opposes all disaster relief. It's a response typical of those who would rather incite hysterical mobs than find solutions.
Who is more "immoral" - Mitt Romney, or the screaming mad leftists who lie about him and try to get government to forcibly take the money people could have donated themselves... and even bind our children and grandchildren to debts they never asked for?
States, of course, are free to donate as much as they like to disaster relief (unlike the Fed govt, which violates the Constitution when it does this)... and so are any and all private relief groups, as Romney advocates. In a country that spends literally billions every year on vacations, lavish cellphone contracts, Presidential campaigns, and Starbucks coffee, clearly programs to help the disaster victims are very possible.
If as much advertising were aimed at such a worthwhile cause as is currently aimed at the fripperies, is there any reason to think it won't be equally (or more) effective? The leftist screamers insist they won't work, against all available evidence... but all that really means, is that the leftist screamers are unable (and perhaps unwilling) to do it.
How much is, in fact, donated privately by normal Americans to help disaster victims, not only here but around the world... even as our government takes more and more from us, leaving us less to donate?
Far from being "immoral", Romney's advocacy of private assistance to disaster victims is (and has always been) the most generous way to help those in need. It is, in fact, moral. And even legal.
Too bad we can't say the same for the leftist fanatics' big-government schemes.