The Earthquake and the Constitution
Natural disasters are great opportunities for politicians to gain political points and to look good. That, of course, is one reason the left went after Bush so voraciously after Hurricane Katrina. Bush did nothing wrong, of course, during the storm or the aftermath of one of the worst Hurricanes to strike that area, but the left COULD NOT allow Bush to look good in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Particularly one that they wanted to blame on him.
Today (Saturday), Chile was hit by an earthquake of 8.8 magnitude, one of the strongest ever recorded. Obama couldn't wait to get out on the White House lawn and offer his support to Chile. Of course, we haven't actually DONE anything, yet, but we can't waste the opportunity for Obama to LOOK GOOD doing it.
THe point this brings up is one that I feel particularly strong about, and that is the limited powers of government. I just re-read the constitution (again). I have always felt that the federal government has never been given the constitutional authority to take money from the citizens of the US (in the form of taxes) in order to send that money to foreign governments (many of which are run by dictators and warlords, and are full of citizens who dislike us).
Of course, every president since World War II has done that, and I'm not sure how you challenge the constitutionality of that action. Once the precedent has been established, the Supreme Court seems to simply ignore the constitution and just go with the flow.
While it's very "nice" for the US to help out nations like Haiti and Chile and other nations who are in need. But I don't see that the constitution gives the President or Congress the authority to send our troops and our dollars to those nations, even for humanitarian reasons.
If private citizens want to give money to programs and organizations (such as the Red Cross) to assist these nations in time of need, I think that's entirely proper and appropriate. However, my tax dollars should NOT be used to help or build other nations. Our nation is BROKE. We don't have the money to be sending elsewhere.
Am I wrong? Am I heartless?
5 comments:
You are absolutely right, and you bring up an excellent point. I love your blog. You have a new follower here! Please check us out sometime and follow if you'd like...
http://www.hackwilson.blogspot.com
Not only are you correct, but, the history of the response of The American people in times of need shows how very correct you are.
No other people have been as generous in time, treasure and talents when there has been need as has been The American people.
We do not need government to tell us what is the right thing to do.
You are dead on. I will take it even further, why are we the only country doing it?
We give all of this money and then sit back and take it when other countries that do not help malign the US for the evil we perpetuate around the world.
Some of the countries we help (China)despise us and are actively trying to destroy us yet they are there with a hand out when something happens and we dig deep into our pocket.
Question: where was all of the foreign aid after Katrina? No aid, just criticism.
If we do anything, help our allies only. For those who oppose us, tell them to piss off.
We've been giving money away for a long time. Even during the Depression, when the people of America REALLY needed every cent they could get. We seem to be a more generous people that most other nationalities. Not sure why.
You are 100% correct.
Americans give more no matter what is happening at home.God Bless America
Post a Comment