Is It The Right Thing To Do?
By Randall Nunn (10/31/03)
Last week, during floor debate on an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill in the U.S. Senate, Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio argued in favor of increasing the amount of funding to help combat the AIDS "crisis" in Africa, saying "It is the right thing to do."
The amount of Senator DeWine's proposed increase was $289 million, which may seem like a small amount to those of us today who hear billions of dollars referred to as if the amount is paltry. Senator DeWine said that the United States has "the ability to do something about this crisis--we must act." The only problem with Senator DeWine's noble sounding do-gooderism is that nothing in the United States Constitution allows the U.S. Congress to spend money on charitable giving such as this and such expenditures are inappropriate and just plain wrong.
President James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution, in opposing spending by the Congress for charitable purposes, said that he could find nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorized Congress to spend the money of their constituents on objects of benevolence. Madison was not opposed to money being spent for charitable purposes, only against Congress spending the money of others for purposes determined by Congress without the consent of their constituents and without any constitutional authorization. Senator DeWine and others of like mind in Congress, as well as President Bush, would do well to read Madison's comments and consider whether they are obeying the requirements and following the limitations of the U.S. Constitution when appropriating and approving the spending of the taxpayers' money on projects which are unconstitutional when funded by federal tax revenues. Those who oppose such government spending do not do so out of mean spiritedness but rather on sound principle. If government can spend the public revenue on such charitable projects, what is to stop similar, or even greater, spending on other charitable projects that are less worthy and opposed by a majority of the voters? Congress could, if it were so inclined, deplete the public treasury over time by spending revenues on politically correct social problems that, in most cases, will never be corrected by the expenditure of any amount of money.
The idea that simply because America has the ability (i.e., money) it therefore "must act" is nonsense. That kind of statement sounds good and will draw words of approval from those who advocate spending for the charity of their choice, but it assumes that the Congress has the power to make charitable expenditures and is authorized to be the judge of what charities our money goes to and in what amounts. When we elected our representatives to Congress, it is doubtful that any of us had in mind the possibility that they would take our tax payments and spend them on the fad charity of the moment whether we agreed with it or not, just so they could look compassionate and caring to the voters when they run for reelection. What gives them the right to use our money to polish their image and obtain plaudits for their high-minded public spirit? The voters should be angered at their grandstanding and use of public money to finance their pet projects or projects that their advisers tell them will win brownie points with the media or various special interest groups. Many of us contribute to charities and help those in need, but we do so with our own money. Maybe Senator DeWine should use his own money for such causes and leave our money in the treasury so it can be spent on those subjects authorized by the U.S. Constitution that all of us can agree are necessary and proper.
There must have been a reason why the founders did not include charitable spending in the list of those things that are the proper objects of Congress. If we can figure out that reason, surely our Senators, Congressmen and President can also. It just might be that they don't oppose such spending because they know no one in the mainstream press will criticize them for such spending and that they will reap the love and adoration of certain segments of the voters that they would like to count in their column in the next election. Maybe these spending bills should have a required clause providing that Congress must report back to the country every year as to whether the particular social ill or problem has been conquered, and if not and if no measurable improvement has occurred, all further spending on such matter is prohibited. I doubt that will ever happen, but a taxpayer can dream. And who knows? Maybe one day the taxpayers of the country will become as angry at tax and spend lawmakers in Washington as the California voters did recently and vote out of office those who pander to special interest constituencies by spending our money for unauthorized and unwise purposes.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Randall Nunn
