What IS "The Government" In Charge Of? (The Wisdom of Horation Bunce)

I was surprised to see that my recent rant on governmental excess and the current Administration ("So You Think You Like The Idea Of National Health Care") reaped a couple of comments. This was just a way for me to express my distaste on several topics, but it seems to have pushed some buttons for some readers.

TheGunGeek responded:

While you listed a whole bunch of things that our government is in charge of, you managed to leave off the most important ones:

- Medicare
- Medicaid
- VA Health care

Nobody but nobody would choose any of these if they had any other choice for their health coverage. What does that tell you about how well the gov would handle national health care? ...

That got me started thinking a bit harder about just what issues The Government (we're talking about the Federal government here) has assumed responsibility to administer ... and to impose.

My thoughts turned to a story about Davy Crockett. No, not the Davy Crockett portrayed by Fess Parker, but the Davy Crockett who was, among his many accomplishment, an elected member of the Federal Government. (He famously said: "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." We should remember this.)

You can read the following story in great detail in Lew Rockwell's article "Davy Crockett vs. Welfare", and if you get nothing more from this I hope you read that illuminative lesson.

A brief summary of the story is that Crockett once voted in favor of a bill to provide Federal money to fund a worthy charitable effort. Later he discussed this allocation with a constituent, one' Horatio Bunce', and he was taken to task for his vote. The gist is that his constituent pointed out that Congress had no constitutional authority to spend tax money on this sort of effort. Certainly it was a worthwhile cause, but the nation did not OWE a debt; further, if the nation owed this debt to designated the recipients, then every other person in similar circumstances was owed the same debt. Finally, the amount of funding was arrived at arbitrarily, setting an unhealthy precedent for similar excesses in the future.

_____________________

Think back again on the list that TheGunGeek provided:

• Medicare
• Medicaid
• VA Health care

Because the Federal Government is constitutionally obligated "... to provide for the common defense ..." (and Congress can "declare war"), it seems reasonable that The Nation should be obligated to pay ALL the costs of War, including providing medical care for military members who are wounded. But should this be accomplished by establishing a Veteran's Health Care system including the construction and administration of hospitals? Or should it be limited to paying the bills for a Veteran who can choose his own physician(s)? This is a question which one might honorably argue either way.

But Medicade and Medicare? Sure, it's "nice" that this is an option for indigent and elderly citizens, but the administration of such is a bureaucratic morass. And besides, does the Constitution authorize it?

In fact, many of the Departments of the Federal Government are not obviously constituted for the purpose of addressing a Constitutional debt. The Department of Education comes to mind.

Besides Defense, there are some other issues for which the Federal Government is Constitutionally obligated. With a few significant exceptions, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America does a fine job of enumerating the powers and obligations of the Federal Government.

Most of the rest of the Constitution (including the Amendments) is generally characterized by enumerating the things which the Federal Government can NOT do! (There are some powers accorded to the individual States. )

Interstate Commerce:
Over the years, many of the Constitutionally assigned Powers and Obligations have been warped re-interpreted by successive Presidential Administrations and Congresses. Not least is The Commerce Clause (also found in Article I, Section 8):

... "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"...

Various administrations and Congresses have interpreted this clause (a subset of a Section, itself as a subset of an Article) to provide them with the power to regulate the interstate transfer of firearms. These are currently in force, as we are 'generally' forbidden to purchase firearms in any state except our state of residence. (We get around this by purchasing by mail or internet, etc.; but the firearms must be shipped to a Local Licensed Dealer who performs the now-necessary function of accomodating the National Instant Check System verification of confirming that the end-user is legally permitted to purchase a firearm.) In fact, there is a declared intention of the Party in Power to re-impose not only restrictions on the purchase of firearms due to "firearm type", but to also require registration and to dis-allow transfer of some firearms across State lines.

(See also commentary by Michael Bane)
_________________________________

Excesses of Government have reached a new high ... or a new low, depending upon your point of view.

The Federal government receives something on the order of 500 billion dollars annually from Income Taxes. Yet this administration has, in the short span of 3 months (and without giving the Legislators sufficient time to properly review the Bills), obligated this nation to accept the fiscal obligation of over TWO TRILLION DOLLARS of new fiscal obligations. These are in excess of the 'normal' issues which must be paid for by our Nation.

And, finally completing the circular route of my reasoning, what are included in the "normal issues"?

• International Disaster Relief. A noble cause, a worthy charity. Not included in our Constitution.
• Foreign Aid. A noble cause, a worthy charity. Not included in our Constitution.
• Educational Grants (eg: "No Child Left Behind"). A noble cause, a worthy charity. Not included in our Constitution.

Note that all of these are described as "Charity". Actually, some of the examples given are not in fact "Charity", but an effort to position our Nation as a "responsible" member of an informal World Power.

Perhaps a good idea. Perhaps to our benefit . Not included in our Constitution.

Education? Used to impose Federal influence on Local and State Educational priorities.

__________________


I'm not saying that all of these allotments of your money aren't a good idea. I'm just saying that the Constitution does not enumerate them among the Powers and Obligations of the Federal Government.

Congress, and Presidential Administrations through the year, have imposed these tax burdens on our Nation for, ultimately, the sake of expediencey.

But they have never addressed these issues in a manner which would make them legal. Namely, a Constitutional Amendment which would permit these bureaucratic entities to decide who gets how much of your tax dollar.

Going back to the Davy Crockett story:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I think we have reached that point. And I think that we should all stop a minute to consider the wisdom of Horatio Bunce.