Posted on 01/06/2005 2:59:49 PM PST by GAWnCA
Dear Friends of the Republic,
Reacting to the tsunami disaster from his Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas, President Bush said he and Laura were shocked and saddened by this terrible loss of life. He said: “We pledged an initial $35 million in relief assistance.” He noted, proudly, that in 2004, the U.S. Government had provided $2.4 billion in food, cash, in humanitarian relief, to cover disasters the previous year. He said that providing 40 percent of all the “relief aid” given in the world in 2003 shows “we’re a very generous, kindhearted nation.”
“We?” Did Mr. Bush mean he and Mrs. Bush have pledged $35 million? No. Mr. Bush meant that $35 million worth of your hard-earned Federal tax dollars and mine have been pledged. In an interview on the CBS “Early Show,” Secretary of State Colin Powell said that to deal with the tsunami disaster the U.S. was sending nine P-3 reconnaissance planes and a dozen C-130s. He added: “I think a lot more aid is going to be needed.”
In another interview, on NBC’s “Today” show, Secretary Powell was asked: Is the United States prepared to send aid which might be as much as $1 billion? He replied: “I can’t answer that yet.” In yet one more interview, on the Cable News Network, he said: “The United States is not stingy. We are the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world.”
At the risk of being misunderstood, and being falsely accused of being a cruel, hard-hearted person, I must say what must be said. The issue here is not whether America is “stingy.” And the issue is certainly not whether Americans are a “generous” people. We are.
The real issue here is whether such so-called Federally-funded disaster “relief” is Constitutional. And the answer is very clear: No, it is not. There isn’t the slightest Constitutional authority for Federal tax dollars to be spent for disaster “relief.” Thus, any such expenditure of Federal tax dollars for disaster “relief” --- foreign or domestic --- is illegal, unlawful.
As I pondered what Mr. Bush and Secretary Powell had said, I thought about Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett. In the early 1800s, Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed that everyone in the House of Representatives favored it.
Then Rep. Crockett spoke. He began by expressing his respect for the deceased. But, he insisted, such respect must not lead to an act of injustice against those still alive. He continued:
“I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.
“Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
There was silence on the floor as Rep. Crockett took his seat. When the bill came to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes.
Well, that was then and now is now. President Bush has said what he said and is doing what he’s doing. Mr. Bush, however, is wrong and Rep. Crockett was right. To spend Federal tax dollars on disaster “relief” is the grossest corruption because it is blatantly un-Constitutional. It has not the semblance of any Constitutional authority. We must pray that God raises up more Davy Crocketts to serve in our Congress and all other branches of all our civil governments.
Like Davy Crockett, I admire and appreciate the charity of Americans. But Congress is not authorized to be “charitable” with your money. Only you are.
Michael A. Peroutka
PerOUCHka
Is it unconstitutional, as he says? Maybe.
But this ain't the UN. We can actually get some stuff done, instead of sitting around wringing our hands.
Sure, people are willing to let their representatives allocate our tax monies for some things we didn't expressly approve.
But we most definitely aren't going to subject it to a legistlative process, when the money is needed now. We have more common sense than to do that.
I have to say that I agree. The government has no authority to allocate any money for disaster relief. But what can he do? If he'd taken Rep. Crockett's stand, almost no one- including 90% of those who voted for him- would let him take that podium on Jan. 20.
Is the giving politically motivated? Certainly at some level.
I guarantee that Reagan would have been generous in his aid package as well....
No, the real issue here is whether the fruits of your labor are your 'property'.
Ping to that..........saying "we", he is speaking as the "United States", not as a person........give this author a high colonic and pack and send him hiking
Excuse me...
I thought the people here believed in the Constitution.
I've heard all kinds of griping about judges who don't rule according to the Constitution.
I believe in helping my fellow man just as much as anyone but I, too, don't believe it is the government's responsibility to do so.
Each of us is capable of giving what we deem appropriate.
LOL
you would think this nut would have gotten that this election cycle....ahh well....
Didja leave the sarcasm tag off?
This topic was sure to bring out the more rigid types around here. However, some of us have inquiring minds and believe we have the freedom to ask the common sense question: Where the heck is this money coming from? They had the $35 million on hand in a USAID fund, but would not state where the remaining 315 million will be allocated from. I think we have a right to know. . . since it's apparently un-Constitutional. . .
And, Mike in Iraq, have you noticed how the generous private donations are increasing day by day? If you're truly interested in the welfare of the tsunami victims, there are myriad opportunities to give privately but, more than that, they need help in delivering the aid.
I think it's fine to post Mr. Peroutka's commentary.
Given the overall scope and cost of the very necessary and Constitutional war on Islamic terror, I think it's money well-spent. It will make it much harder for jihadist recruiters to convince the people of these countries that the U.S. (and Australia) need to be destroyed.
you know if you wanted me to see your post you could have put my name in the To: section....
Here is the deal. The money probably came from some projects that the chief executive deemed unnecessary. Ever watch the movie DAVE? Something similar probably happened. Maybe not exactly, but similar.
And the reason we havent upped our giving in the past week now is because it is uncertain that any more money would be useful. Let the Germans and the French fall all over themselves in a bidding war. We were there first. We are always there first. This is no different.
There is that aspect to it too.
Regardless of their religion race or creed we should be giving them aid. We consider ourselves on a higher moral plain, and now we are showing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.