By PHIL
HAMBY
Almost two years ago I wrote a Straight Talk column about the federal government's involvement in welfare programs. It consisted mainly of Davy Crockett'.s recollection of how he was severely criticized by a farmer named Horatio Bunce after Crockett had cast a congressional vote favoring welfare payments. Since that time, and as recently as last week, I have been asked many times to re-run the column. Since there is currently a lot of talk going on about welfare reform at the state and federal level, I decided it is an appropriate time to re-print the column. I hope you enjoy it.
Opponents of federal welfare programs have long maintained that the entire system is unconstitutional. They claim that although the Constitution gives the federal government the right to levy taxes to pay the nation's debts, it is not autho-rized to take, money from one individual and give it to another. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Opponents contend that "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare" does not mean the federal government can make payments to private citizens who are not employees of the government or that have not provided services or products to the government.
Supporters proclaim that welfare payments to disadvantaged persons are lawful and necessary to "provide for the... general welfare of the United States." Obviously it is a matter of interpretation that can, and probably will, be argued until the end of time. Already the debate has gone on since Davy Crockett served in Congress. While in Congress, Crockett once cast a yes vote to give money to help citizens who had suffered property losses in a Georgetown fire, but later became an opponent of welfare. Crockett claims that his view of wealth distribution changed when he was on the reelection campaign trail and came across a politician's worst nightmare: an informed voter. The voter was a farmer named Horatio Bunce. The following is Crockett's recollection of that meeting as he described it in a book titled In the Life of Colonel David Crockett, published in 1884. "...I know who you are; you are
Col. Crockett. I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.
"Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows either you have no capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it." In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. "I intend by it only to say that your 'understanding of the Constitution is different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest, but an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook because the Constitution, to be worth having, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is. "Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the 'papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. "It's not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collection and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.
"What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see that while you are matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20 million as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you believe, or profess to believe, is charity, and to any amount you may think proper."You will very easily perceive What a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people
contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. "If you had the right to give him anything, the amount was simply a on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. "If twice as many houses had been burned in this district as in George-town, neither you nor any other mem-ber of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. "There are about 240 members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contri-buting each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even one luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably. And the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. "The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Every thing beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. "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."
© 1996 The Knoxville Journal