Unconstitutional Generosity
As I thought long and hard about the excellent post by "The Delftsman" which can viewed via this blog,many examples in,what has by now become a long train of like abuses came to mind. This one really jumped up,and begged to be front and center for all of the right reasons,so here goes.
In the weeks after a tsunami wreaked havoc along the coast of the Indian Ocean on December26, 2004, President George W. Bush reportedly donated $16,000 from his personal bank account to relief efforts there. Bush should be lauded for this move. Whether his donation was politically motivated, or from a deeply held desire to assist the needy is beside the point. He made a voluntary decision to give his own money to what he felt was a worthy cause, end of statement. What Bush could have, and I believe should have told the American people is:"I hope Americans will be generous in this time of need. I want to do my part, so I've written a check for $16,000 as my contribution to the relief effort. I urge all of you to do what you can to help."
Unfortunately, while in the process of making his own contribution, Bush also was stealing hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to send to the relief effort, thereby forcing Americans to both fund the relief effort, and in the long run, pay more taxes to the tune of three hundred fifty million dollars to fill the hole that was created in the budget by this act of "unconstitutional generosity".
The president had no authority to commit even one dollar of anything that hadn't been approved by Congress,which in turn had no constitutional authority to commit even one penny to even a really good cause such as this one truly is. But the president and Congress are all too often unconcerned with what they are allowed to do by the dictates of the Constitution.
Immediately after the tsunami hit, Bush pledged fifteen million in U.S. taxpayer money to the effort. two days later he added another twenty mil to that figure. On December 31, he succumbed to International pressure, much of it from his so-called "buddy",Tony Blair of Great Britain,and multiplied the pledge by the factor of ten(his idea of a good Christian tithe perhaps?) promising to take(read:steal) three hundred fifty million dollars from Americans for tsunami relief.
"Surely relief efforts such as this are the proper function of government, and we owe it as humans to help our fellow men under these circumstances" was the general sentiment expressed by most journalists who covered thestory. Not so my friends,not so.
The federal government has no right under any circumstance, no matter what the nature of that may be, to give your money to any cause no matter how charitable it may seem.Any pressure from the U.N,and other nations is beside the point, and should be seen just as it is; irrelevant,and without merit. Let them complain if they will that the richest nation on earth hasn't contributed enough. Their complaints don't justify our government officials' non-compliance with the law of the land.
The way I see it, the president provided the perfect lead as to how matters of this kind may be handled both charitably,and constitutionally.
There is an old saying, "the gift without the giver is bare". By not trusting the charity of the American people,Bush violated the Constitution of the United States. And even worse,he has denied the recipients of the relief effort the gift that is perhaps the most desirable, that being the gift of the love from the giver.
The Revolution will not be Televised.
In the weeks after a tsunami wreaked havoc along the coast of the Indian Ocean on December26, 2004, President George W. Bush reportedly donated $16,000 from his personal bank account to relief efforts there. Bush should be lauded for this move. Whether his donation was politically motivated, or from a deeply held desire to assist the needy is beside the point. He made a voluntary decision to give his own money to what he felt was a worthy cause, end of statement. What Bush could have, and I believe should have told the American people is:"I hope Americans will be generous in this time of need. I want to do my part, so I've written a check for $16,000 as my contribution to the relief effort. I urge all of you to do what you can to help."
Unfortunately, while in the process of making his own contribution, Bush also was stealing hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to send to the relief effort, thereby forcing Americans to both fund the relief effort, and in the long run, pay more taxes to the tune of three hundred fifty million dollars to fill the hole that was created in the budget by this act of "unconstitutional generosity".
The president had no authority to commit even one dollar of anything that hadn't been approved by Congress,which in turn had no constitutional authority to commit even one penny to even a really good cause such as this one truly is. But the president and Congress are all too often unconcerned with what they are allowed to do by the dictates of the Constitution.
Immediately after the tsunami hit, Bush pledged fifteen million in U.S. taxpayer money to the effort. two days later he added another twenty mil to that figure. On December 31, he succumbed to International pressure, much of it from his so-called "buddy",Tony Blair of Great Britain,and multiplied the pledge by the factor of ten(his idea of a good Christian tithe perhaps?) promising to take(read:steal) three hundred fifty million dollars from Americans for tsunami relief.
"Surely relief efforts such as this are the proper function of government, and we owe it as humans to help our fellow men under these circumstances" was the general sentiment expressed by most journalists who covered thestory. Not so my friends,not so.
The federal government has no right under any circumstance, no matter what the nature of that may be, to give your money to any cause no matter how charitable it may seem.Any pressure from the U.N,and other nations is beside the point, and should be seen just as it is; irrelevant,and without merit. Let them complain if they will that the richest nation on earth hasn't contributed enough. Their complaints don't justify our government officials' non-compliance with the law of the land.
The way I see it, the president provided the perfect lead as to how matters of this kind may be handled both charitably,and constitutionally.
There is an old saying, "the gift without the giver is bare". By not trusting the charity of the American people,Bush violated the Constitution of the United States. And even worse,he has denied the recipients of the relief effort the gift that is perhaps the most desirable, that being the gift of the love from the giver.
The Revolution will not be Televised.
posted by theoldsage @ 11:32 AM
2 Comments:
At 9:18 PM ,
RightWingRocker said...
President Bush is an inspiring figure. Like him or not, you cannot deny that he inspires people.
Here would have been a perfect opportunity to use his inspirational techniques to inspire Americans to give to the relief effort for the tsunami victims. I would even be willing to wager that the $370 million that came from the US would likely have been a drop in the bucket compared to the incredible charity of the American people. Imagine what would have happened if President Bush had simply called attention to our ludicrously high deficit and national debt and simply asked the American people to meet a goal of $500 million in donations for tsunami relief. Knowing the American people's desire to help out in a time of need and the President's incredible ability to inspire, that $500 mil might have been dwarfed by America's incredible charity.
Of course, sadly, that is not what happened. Like so many of his predecessors, the President, who has done more good for America than any president since Ronald Reagan, the President gave in to the emotion of the situation.
The UN does not decide what the American people spend their tax dollars on. That decision was made in 1787 by a group of geniuses meeting in Philadelphia. The idea was to minimize expenditures so as to only spend on things that were needed to preserve the freedoms of the people, and to make sure that the money wasn't being spent frivolously or on things the taxpayers wouldn't want the money spent on.
The advantage to having charitable giving being reserved to the people (per the 10th Amendment) is that those who believe it is a good expenditure will give, while those who do not are not forced to. Maybe the Founding Fathers had this in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
As far as I'm concerned, the United Nations can go screw themselves. If they want to complain about Americans not wanting to drop a few hundred mil of their tax dollars on a charitable donation, then let's talk about how their own people handled the charity situation with Saddam Hussein. Maybe you disagree with the war, but you cannot deny that the UN's rampant corruption made the situation in Iraq far worse than it had to be. Kofi Annan can blow me.
Sage, your premise is exactly right. Unless the Cosntitution says you can do it, you can't do it. The power resides with the people, not with the President or the Congress.
RWR
At 5:17 AM ,
theoldsage said...
Hear,Hear,so sad but true. The U.N.(read:
the united nations against America) has never supported the goals of a truly free society. We should have left them in our
rear view mirror from the start.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home