The $300 Million Bribe - A Rant on the Expanse of Federal Redistributive Power

An event materialized last week and over this past weekend that exemplified why I object to any form of federal welfare. The founding fathers objected to the federal government being a redistributor of wealth because they recognized, based on examples of King George III's England, that once a central government has the power to redistribute wealth, it opens the door for rampant bribery and corruption, and ultimately the loss of the liberties of sovereign states. The founding fathers wanted the state to be the most powerful government entity in the country as far as individual liberty is concerned, but when we look at the picture today, it is obvious that the federal government holds a monopoly on deciding who gets what. This is contrary to the intentions of the founders, thus the Constitution.

As the Constitution states, it is the federal government's job to provide for the common defense, to regulate interstate commerce (the elucidation of “regulate” in the 18th century being drastically different than what it is today), and promote the general welfare. Note there is a monumental difference between promoting the general welfare and providing it. The federal government today is the provider of the general welfare. From Social Security, to Katrina relief, to economic stimulus packages that expand jobless benefits to over a year in many states, to USDA/FHA-subsidized housing loans for minorities, there is no doubt that transfer payments in the United States today hinge almost entirely on the existence of federal dollars for their sustenance.

A vintage example of the federal government promoting the general welfare occurred during President Grover Cleveland's administration:
“Although nineteenth-century government now appears remarkably constricted, politicians in those days were no less predatory and corrupt than our own. Our forebears, however, kept the government within tighter bounds because so many of them harbored ideological hostility to big government, and therefore they often refused to tolerate out-of-bounds government programs, regardless of the proffered rationale. Many things were still viewed as 'not the proper business of government,' an attitude that allowed at least some politicians to survive while resisting raids on the public’s purse and incursions on the people’s liberties. Cleveland was one such political survivor.

Cleveland believed in keeping government expenditure at the minimum required to carry out essential constitutional functions. 'When a man in office lays out a dollar in extravagance,' declared Cleveland, 'he acts immorally by the people.' He fought to lower tariffs, which the Republicans had hoisted to punishing levels, and to hold back the flood of phony pensions that congressmen were awarding in order to buy votes and to placate the Grand Army of the Republic, the most powerful political pressure group of the late nineteenth century.”1
It should have surprised no one, therefore, when Cleveland vetoed the Texas Seed Bill early in 1887. This legislation appropriated $10,000—a trifling sum even in those days—to allow the Commissioner of Agriculture to purchase seed grain for distribution to farmers in certain counties of Texas that had suffered from drought. The president’s veto message read in part as follows:

“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.”
Cleveland went on to point out that the private charity can always be relied upon to relieve fellow citizens in misfortune:

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

It turned out President Cleveland was correct in his assessment of the friendliness and charity of our countrymen. While he vetoed the measure introduced by congress, his public announcement promoting the general welfare to the people resulted in a massive private charity drive that raised enough seed and money to outdo congress' welfare bill by ten times the proposed $10,000 federal appropriation. Not only that, but the resources were undoubtedly delivered more efficiently than if government had administered the aid itself, while strengthening the bond between American neighbors - a very noble and American concept if there ever was one; strengthening the bond between neighbors, rather than strengthening the bond between citizens and government.

Fast forward 130 years, and we have a federal government with a budget of nearly $4 trillion this year, and growing. It is the #1 charitable giver in the nation, and growing, with more than 50% of the federal budget being transfer payments (taking from Peter to pay Paul). Every year we are moving further and further away from the federal government we were intended to have.

My gripe with this amount of power is not only that it breaks the bond between American citizens and private charity, therefore making the politicians more successful when they use rhetoric to incite class warfare ("I will make the rich pay their fair share by raising their taxes, while anyone who is not rich will not see their taxes go up a single penny!" and "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody").

My gripe is not only that federal charity creates and solidifies an entitlement class, many of whom are undeserving and simply taking advantage of a large program that is more difficult to operate efficiently.

My real gripe with this amount of charitable power is the political corruption that entails. A prime example occurred this weekend when Senator Harry Reid inserted $300 million in additional Medicare funding to the state of Louisiana, in an attempt to bribe Senator Mary Landrieu into voting in favor of moving the Senate health care bill forward. The Senate was never intended to have such power that they could redistribute federal dollars to a particular state in order to bribe political votes.

Some more wisdom regarding the interpretation of the General Welfare clause of better men past includes:

In a letter to Edmund Pendleton in 1792, James Madison wrote:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
In vetoing a measure to help the mentally ill in 1854, President Franklin Pierce wrote:

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
James Madison elaborated upon the limitation of the General Welfare clause in a letter to James Robertson:

“With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the 'Articles of Confederation,' and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.”
And before any leftist steps in and tries to convince me that we can pass laws to stop politicians from taking part in this massive scheme of political bribery, kindly go jump off a cliff, because it is inherently impossible to give federal government this much money and power, and then dream that we can pass laws to stop them from utilizing it for political malice. It simply can not be accomplished. The founders knew this, and that is why they structured our government to give the federal government limited power. Presidents Grover Cleveland and Franklin Pierce, too, recognized this in their writings and their vetoes. We chose to ignore their advice throughout the 20th century, and today the federal government is larger and more corrupt than ever, with no end in sight.

A formula we all need to remember is: Political corruption is directly correlated to the amount of money and authority they have access to. That means, the more tax dollars they raise, and the more regulations they have the authority to implement and oversee, the more corruption exists. To think otherwise is naive. Recall the massive overhaul of "Congressional Honesty" that took place when the new congress took power in 2007. What good has it done us? Needless spending, travel, and benefits have increased to record highs. We wont even delve into the rational fallacy of expecting a group of individuals at the top of the totem pole to pass and enforce rules that limit their own well being.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


1 Robert Higgs – The Independent Review