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.
LOL
well guess what, the guy you helped get elected twice has written a $350 million dollar check to help these people. I guess we can count you as off of the bandwagon....
LOL
so lets pull the military out then too!! Woohoo!! We can save money that way!!!
weak really really weak
LOL
ok whatever man....
I tell you what. You get elected President someday and then when a disaster happens (God forbid) and someone is in need of American aid, you stonewall...
I will laugh all the way to the bank.
I don't think I want to live in an American that does not help friendly nations and governments when they have a need for it. hell we give aid to countries that are not in need of it, now someone does need it and you guys are complaining about it like it will break the country or something.
Simply amazing. and I though the idiots on college football boards could come up with some interesting stuff sometimes.....
If you have a problem with it, move to a country that isnt giving aid out....
We are helping, without the assistance of the fed, we have people from this part of the country that have gone to help-without the help of the fed, our military is doing far and above more than any government to government hand out ever will.
Is this where you intended our help to end up?
Re-read the quotes slowly this time - he said that being a presidential sychophant is the wrong thing.
Roosevelt's quote says essentially that it is the duty of Americans to police the president and point-out where his words or actions are not for the good of the Nation.
ROOSEVELT WAS ALL FOR DISCUSSION AND DEBATE AND CONTENTION - IF HE WASN'T DOING THE JOB THE PEOPLE EXPECTED OF HIM HE WANTED THEM TO TELL HIM SO.
Stop fondling your daughter long enough
The Federalist 05-01 Digest
Off subject here...I see from your tagline that you're Out of Baghdad! That's great...So welcome home. Hope that's where you are. I know there could be many stops between getting out of Iraq and getting home.
Nah I am still in Qatar right now....
waiting on my flight back to the states and filling in on mids for the guys here....
Oh great. I should take a guess and say that when you are home, you probably won't be on here for a while. Would I guess right?
well for the first week or so....
it depends on where the job wants me...I could possibly not get to where my wife is living for another two weeks....but I am sure I will find a way to get on here for a few minutes at some point...
No, the real issue here is whether the fruits of your labor are your 'property'.
I agree with you both. Federally-socialized redistribution based on income taxation does not fully respect the rights of states and individuals regarding their charitable giving.
Thanks for posting this.
"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."
Exactly.
I'll not support any candidate who believes otherwise.
The legal way to bypass the legislative process is for you and me to donate to a relief agency or go there and provide relief ourselves.
The unconstitutional way is to have the government redistribute our earnings abroad without passing a constitutional amendment to cancel the reserved powers of the states and the people (Amendment X).
I prefer the former.
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.