<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; general welfare</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/general-welfare/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Spending and Morality</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/walter-williams/spending-and-morality/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=spending-and-morality</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/walter-williams/spending-and-morality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2014 04:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Williams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[charity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[general welfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spending]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235828</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The curious practice of government theft for the "common good." ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Government-Money.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235829" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Government-Money-426x350.jpg" alt="Government-Money" width="286" height="235" /></a>During last year&#8217;s budget negotiation meetings, President Barack Obama told House Speaker John Boehner, &#8220;We don&#8217;t have a spending problem.&#8221; When Boehner responded with &#8220;But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem,&#8221; Obama replied, &#8220;I&#8217;m getting tired of hearing you say that.&#8221; In one sense, the president is right. What&#8217;s being called a spending problem is really a symptom of an unappreciated deep-seated national moral rot. Let&#8217;s examine it with a few questions.</p>
<p>Is it moral for Congress to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another? I believe that most Americans would pretend that to do so is offensive. Think about it this way. Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. To help the woman, I ask somebody for a $200 donation to help her out. If the person refuses, I then use intimidation, threats and coercion to take the person&#8217;s money. I then purchase food and shelter for the needy woman. My question to you: Have I committed a crime? I hope that most people would answer yes. It&#8217;s theft to take the property of one person to give to another.</p>
<p>Now comes the hard part. Would it be theft if I managed to get three people to agree that I should take the person&#8217;s money to help the woman? What if I got 100, 1 million or 300 million people to agree to take the person&#8217;s $200? Would it be theft then? What if instead of personally taking the person&#8217;s $200, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take the person&#8217;s $200? The bottom-line question is: Does an act that&#8217;s clearly immoral when done privately become moral when it is done collectively and under the color of law? Put another way, does legality establish morality?</p>
<p>For most of our history, Congress did a far better job of limiting its activities to what was both moral and constitutional. As a result, federal spending was only 3 to 5 percent of the gross domestic product from our founding until the 1920s, in contrast with today&#8217;s 25 percent.</p>
<p>Close to three-quarters of today&#8217;s federal spending can be described as Congress taking the earnings of one American to give to another through thousands of handout programs, such as farm subsidies, business bailouts and welfare.</p>
<p>During earlier times, such spending was deemed unconstitutional and immoral. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, &#8220;Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.&#8221; In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, Madison stood on the floor of the House of Representatives to object, saying, &#8220;I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.&#8221; Today&#8217;s Americans would crucify a politician expressing similar statements.</p>
<p>There may be nitwits out there who&#8217;d assert, &#8220;That James Madison guy forgot about the Constitution&#8217;s general welfare clause.&#8221; Madison had that covered, explaining in a letter, &#8220;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.&#8221; Thomas Jefferson agreed, writing: Members of Congress &#8220;are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare. &#8230; It would reduce the (Constitution) to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.&#8221;</p>
<p>The bottom line is that spending is not our basic problem. We&#8217;ve become an immoral people demanding that Congress forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another. Deficits and runaway national debt are merely symptoms of that larger problem.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/walter-williams/spending-and-morality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>74</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Constitution or Good Ideas?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/walter-williams/the-constitution-or-good-ideas/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-constitution-or-good-ideas</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/walter-williams/the-constitution-or-good-ideas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2014 04:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Walter Williams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[general welfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[welfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=224477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Which should we be ruled by? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/constitution-2-SC.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-224491" alt="Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/constitution-2-SC.jpg" width="341" height="226" /></a>Let me run through a few good ideas. I think it&#8217;s a good idea for children to eat healthful, wholesome foods. In the raising of our daughter, before-dinner treats were fresh vegetables, and after-dinner treats were mostly fruits.</p>
<p>I arrive at my gym sometime between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., at least four times a week, to lift weights and use the treadmill. During the warmer months, the treadmill is substituted by a weekly total of 40 to 60 miles on my bike. My exercise regimen is a good idea. Another good idea is to wear a bike helmet while bike riding and wear a seat belt when driving my car. Among many other good ideas is the enjoyment of two, maybe three, glasses of wine with each evening meal.</p>
<p>You say, &#8220;So what, Williams? What&#8217;s your point?&#8221; There&#8217;s no question that all of those actions, with the possible exception of the last, are indeed good ideas. As evidence that my exercise regimen is a good idea, my doctors tell me that at 78 years of age, I&#8217;m in better health and conditioning than most of their male patients many years my junior. My question to you is whether these commonly agreed-upon good ideas should become the law of the land. To be more explicit, should Congress enact a law requiring every able-bodied American to lift weights four times a week and bike 40 to 60 miles each week? Just look at all the benefits of such a law. Americans would be healthier, and that would mean lower health care costs. People would have a longer working life. Men would have the strength to protect their women and children folk from thugs. In a word, there would be no downside to the fitter population that would come from a congressional law mandating physical fitness programs. We might title such a law the &#8220;Improving American Health Act.&#8221; The law would impose fines and penalties on any able-bodied person not found to be in compliance. What congressman would have the callousness to vote against such a beneficial measure?</p>
<p>Needless to say, there would be attacks against the Improving American Health Act, launched mostly by libertarians, conservatives and some Republicans.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">These people would argue that Congress has no constitutional authority to enact such a liberty-intrusive law. Their arguments would be on weak grounds. Our Constitution&#8217;s Article 1, Section 8 says, &#8220;The Congress shall have Power To &#8230; provide for the &#8230; general Welfare of the United States.&#8221; Our Constitution further empowers Congress to enact the Improving American Health Act by its Article 1, Section 3 — sometimes referred to as the commerce clause — which grants Congress the power &#8220;To regulate Commerce &#8230; among the several States.&#8221; After all, good health lends itself to more efficient interstate commerce and a larger gross domestic product. Sick Americans adversely affect interstate commerce and are a burden on economic activity.</span></p>
<p>I have no doubt that people who don&#8217;t want to see a healthier America — again, mostly libertarians, conservatives and Republicans — will bring suit before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Congress has no such authority under either the general welfare clause or the commerce clause. Would you prefer that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., speaking for a majority, concur by saying, &#8220;This court is guided by the U.S. Constitution, and we find no constitutional authority for the Improving American Health Act, despite Congress&#8217; nonsense claims alleging authority under the general welfare and commerce clauses&#8221;?</p>
<p>Or would you prefer that Justice Roberts, speaking for the majority, engage in mental contortions in which he agrees that forcing people to exercise exceeds congressional authority under both the commerce clause and the general welfare clause but says the Improving American Health Act is indeed constitutional under Congress&#8217; taxing authority?</p>
<p>My bottom line question is: Should we be ruled by what are seen as good ideas or by what&#8217;s permissible by the U.S. Constitution?</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/walter-williams/the-constitution-or-good-ideas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 400/412 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 12:54:05 by W3 Total Cache -->