Generosity With Other People's Money

After the tsunami disaster this week--in which the death toll now has topped 117,000--President Bush assured the media that we're compassionate people, pledging at least $15 million in relief aid. One U.N. official denounced the U.S. as "stingy" for this paltry sum. Isn't that precious? The U.S. provides more foreign aid than any other country in the world, but we are "stingy?" The U.N. conducts its affairs (like the illustrious Oil-for-Food scandal) largely through the financial beneficence of the U.S., yet we are "stingy." A massive collision with a heavenly body almost would be worth it, if U.N. headquarters were struck, first. But I digress with this happy thought.

The issue is not whether we recognize the tragedy in Asia and parts of Africa; nor is it that we are a generous, helpful people. Both of these are givens. The issue is: does the government, without the consent of the American public, have the right to procure taxpayer monies and send them overseas as disaster relief aid? My answer is no. There is no provision for this in the Constitution, so this is yet another usurpation of power not delegated to it on the government's part.

Davy Crockett--legendary hero and congressman from Tennessee--found himself in a similar situation. Early in the 1800s, Congress was mulling over a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a deceased naval officer. Most of the House members agreed with the bill's sentiments.

Here's how Mr. Crockett reacted: He spoke a few words of respect for the dead officer. But he insisted that such respect should not lead to an act of injustice by those still living. He went on:

“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.”

When he finished speaking, silence hung heavy in the air. Crockett seated himself, and when the bill came up for a vote, instead of passing unanimously--as had been expected--only a few representatives voted in favor of the bill.

Would that more people like Crockett served as congressmen.

Being charitable with your own money is a wonderful sacrifice; the government taking your money and being charitable for you without your input is a travesty.