Bailouts: Compassionate Conservatism or Loony Liberalism?

[Flashback to one of my timely and germane columns will apprear each Wednesday depending on how they are received. Most blogs should be (according to experts) less than 600 words. My columns are almost twice that length. Anyway, let me know what you think of these old columns. The following column was published in 2008.]

Well, the Federal Welfare Agents (members of Congress, Bush, Obama, etc.) are at it again—giving away money that is not theirs. Even little children know that it is stealing to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. Do sane people really believe that it is right, by any standard, to take from the producers and give to the parasites? By what logic should taxpayers bailout banks and mortgage companies? After all, the feds don’t rescue a small businessman who doesn’t make it in the food business or a machine shop.

I don’t want to be cruel, condemning, or critical but the people who signed a loan for a home should be held personally accountable. Why must taxpayers who have paid their loans faithfully, often sacrificing to do so, have to come to the rescue of those who did not read the fine print or were caviler in taking the loan?

Moreover, why should American taxpayers go into debt to provide aid to anyone especially in other countries? Senator Obama’s Global Poverty Act, now before the Senate, is a Give-a-Way Program that will cost every U.S. taxpayer at least $2,500.00! Furthermore, the $50 billion AIDS bill (sponsored by Obama and McCain) was passed by the Senate and amendments were rejected that would have forbidden the funding of abortions and sterilization in China! The bill also lifted the ban on HIV infected immigrants entering the U.S.! Have our lawmakers gone mad or are they simply carrying on as usual? Even without a major depression looming in the U.S., such a bill should be shot down in defeat. “Conservatives” who voted for it are dumb as a box of rocks!

It is easy to give away someone else’s money; however it is wrong, evil, wicked, immoral, illegal, etc., to give it away when the owner of the money has not authorized it. While I will be accused of being unchristian, unkind, and uncaring, I cannot be accused of being unconstitutional when I declare that public money (taxpayer’s) should not be used to bail out flood or tornado victims! Or any other victims. Nevertheless, Bush and other politicians are always quick to dip into the pot, using “federal” money for altruistic purposes. It also helps one’s next election or legacy to point to “all I did for the poor victims.”

Many will say my position is cruel, crass, and contemptible. However, no one has convinced me that public money should be used for private bailouts or to support AIDS victims in Africa, or in the U.S.! Federal politicians seem to look for opportunities at home and abroad to send in the cavalry with saddlebags full of money to rescue some needy group.

As horrendous as the nine-eleven attack was, it was not the obligation of the federal government to rush money to those victims and their families. That is what insurance and lawsuits are all about–holding accountable those responsible. The horror of the incident does not justify a generous but illegal reaction. Of course, private contributions are another matter.

My critics cannot stand on the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution to support these efforts. It is a misreading, misinterpretation, or mishandling of that document to suggest otherwise. Thomas Jefferson aptly said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

Many later presidents had the moral courage to stand foursquare on the Constitution and veto welfare benefits for private, yes, even hurting individuals. President Cleveland correctly said of one bill that came to his desk: “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” In fact, he vetoed numerous unconstitutional spending measures during his presidency. George Bush seldom uses his veto pen! Any future Republican politician who talks about “big-government Democrats” or “tax and spend Democrats” should be horsewhipped on the steps of the Capitol.

Bush admirers will suggest that he is only doing what he promised: to be a compassionate conservative. However, I must point out that he does not even come close to being a conservative. No true conservative would support the No Child Left Behind education bill, his prescription drug bill, his many huge spending bills, his outrageous border policy, his appointment of many homosexuals, ad infinitum.

As to being compassionate, I am all for that but he cannot be compassionate with my dollar. He cannot honestly and constitutionally give away money that is not his to give. He is only the president of the United States, not the CEO of a charity organization with unlimited funds. What is different in principle with the federal government giving aid to Africans with AIDS, or mortgage bailout money and giving aid to a local businessman who was attacked and burned out by hoodlums?

When David Crockett was a member of the U.S. Congress from Tennessee, he was asked to vote to provide a financial benefit to a widow of a distinguished naval officer. It seemed everyone was in favor of the bill; however, Crockett rose to the floor and spoke against the bill! He said, “We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.” He pointed out that every member of the House knew there was no constitutional authority to give public money to private individuals. The bill was defeated.

He ended his speech by saying that he was the poorest man in the House but he would be willing to give a week’s salary to the widow and if every member did the same, the amount of money would be more than the bill would have provided. Not one member of the House agreed to give anything to the widow! It seems hypocrisy was a requirement for political office then, and now.

Mr. Bush, it is easy to give away money that belongs to others, but Mr. Bush, the money isn’t yours to give and congress has no right (power yes, right no) to give a dollar to victims of any disaster unless the federal government directly caused the disaster. Moreover, the federal government no matter what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright says did not cause the AIDS plague nor did the feds force the banks to make loans to people without checking their ability to make the payments.

As Daddy always said, “This world is crazy as a bedbug.” Daddy was a philosopher.


Fact, Fraud or Faith?

by Don Boys, Ph.D.


Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Purchase Now from Amazon

Posted in: Politics

Leave a Comment () ↓

Leave a Comment via Facebook