Congressman Tim Bishop referred to it in his town hall meeting.  If you ask a statist where does the Constitution authorize them to get involved in every detail of our lives, the only place they can point to is Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have the 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; {my emphasis}

So what does the general Welfare mean?  Statists who claim the Constitution is a living breathing document believe that this clause gives them the right to do whatever they please, and whatever gets them reelected.  As conservatives we believe in original intent and therefore we have to go back to what the founders meant when they penned those words.  Why is that an important distinction?  Because the meaning of words change.

Are You Gay?

If you were asked that question in the eighteenth century, the questioner would have been asking you if you were merry; keenly alive and exuberant; having or inducing high spirits.  If asked that question today, the questioner wants to know if you are a homosexual.  So if the founders wanted to emphasize that the Constitution was a serious document and wrote, “nothing contained herein should be construed to be gay,” no one at the time would have raised an eyebrow, other than the dopiness of the clause.  If read in today’s context, it would create an uproar.

Are You Bad?

The band Huey Lewis and the News have a song called “Bad is Bad” and here is part of the lyrics:

“Went uptown to see my cousin
Plays guitar, sounds like a chainsaw buzzin
In the crowd, I see his mom and dad
I said hey, hey uncle, man your son is bad

But sometimes, sometimes bad is bad
Cool is a rule, but, sometimes, bad is bad.”

It plays upon how words change.  Back when the Founders wrote the Constitution and you said someone was bad, you might find yourself choosing dueling pistols.  Today, the response to the statement, “You’re bad,” would probably be, “Thanks, man.”

So if you don’t seek out the orignal meaning of the Constitution and our laws based on when they were written, everything can become meaningless over time.

What Did the Founders Mean by Provide for the General Welfare?

Alexander Hamilton was a proponent of a broad interpretation of the General Welfare and he supported that position during the Constitutional Convention.  However proposals along those lines, such as spending for internal improvements were rejected by the Convention.

“{James} Madison repeatedly argued that the powers to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Jefferson.” — The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p.93

There was another interpretation that fit in the middle that even Hamilton recognized.  That was that the term “general” meant “national” welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit. President James Monroe demonstrated this

“in his 1822 message vetoing a bill to preserve and repair the Cumberland Road.  Monroe contended that Congress’s power to spend is restricted ‘to purposes of common defense, and of general,  national, not local, or state, benefit.” — The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p. 93.

Later President James K. Polk vetoed a bill that looked a lot like today’s runaway earmarks.

“It provided $6,000 for projects in the Wisconsin territory — constitutionally permissible because of Congress’s broader power over federal territories — but it included $500,000 for a myriad of projects in the existing states.  Polk contended that to interpret the Spending Clause to permit such appropriations would allow ‘combinations of individual and local interests [that would be] strong enough to control legislation, absorb the revenues of the country, and plunge the government into hopeless indebtedness.’” – ibid, p. 95

If you changed some of the numbers you could have written that today rather than in 1847.  Where this came off the rails, along with so many other government disasters we are paying for today,was during FDR’s tenure beginning in 1936.  Subsequent Supreme Court decisions left the definition of “General Welfare” up to Congress.  How ridiculous is that?  Justice Sandra Day O’Connor summed it up pretty well in her dissent in South Dakota v. Dole

“If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality….is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress….to become a parliment of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’  This….was not the Framer’s plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”

Out of Control Spending

The outrage demonstrated at the town halls shows that the American people are fed up with Congress ignoring what they are saying and bankrupting the country.  The Supreme Court in the 1930s opened the door to profligate spending by Congress that was kept in check by the Constitution for 140 years prior.  To allow Congress to define general welfare as they want and then spend accordingly, makes no sense logically or otherwise.  If the Supreme Court does not set this right, a Constitutional Amendment may be required, and I am no fan of amending the Constitution at every turn.  As an American I take pride our Constitution that we have only felt a need to amend 28 times in over 200 years.  But if we allow changes in the definitions of words to drag the Constitution along with them, then we need to take measures to put the Constitution back where it was as a beacon to guide us rather than a quaint artifact of our history.

In a previous post I described how I wrote to my Congressman on a particular topic.  He responded with a letter I thought was so flawed with logic that I felt compelled to respond, even as I believed it would have the equivenlent effect of arguing with my dog.  He would politely listen,  cock his head, and then go about his business, but I wrote it anyway.  What I got in response surprised me.  I got the exact same letter as the first time around with only the date changed.

Fool Me Once…

With all the town halls and people finally beginning to find their voice, I tried to communicate with my Representative again.  This time I sent him a short e-mail with two very simple questions:

1. On the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and Health Care, did you read these bills in their entirety before voting on them?
2. Can you help me by directing me to that part of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to get involved with health care.

An honest response would be along the lines of:

1. Yes, Yes, No
2. Article I, Section…

But instead a got a long e-mail telling me that health care was complex, that he wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi requesting a delay in voting, and basically all the statist talking points.  My two simple questions, were simply ignored.

Town Hall Outrage

The outrage being demonstrated in the town halls is not the result of right-wing organizers.  It is the result of being treated by our elected Representatives as children who should be seen but not heard.  They schedule a town hall meeting, read an opening statement of their carefully crafted talking points, and then take questions that they answer by rephrasing the question so that a reply can be given from the talking points.  At the appointed time, they thank the crowd for their input, which they will ignore, wave to the crowd and hurry away from the unwashed masses to marble halls of Congress, their $169,000 salary, their staffs, etc.

The people will not stand for this anymore.  They see these power hungry, career politicians, not representing the people but lecturing them.  Americans have had enough, and they’re not going to take it any more.

Here is Congressman Tim Bishop’s Town Hall experience, in two parts.

Tim Bishop\’s Town Hall Meeting – Part 1

Tim Bishop\’s Town Hall – Part 2

Baby's Not Happy About the Stimulus Bill She's Stuck With

The colorful brochure arrived in the mail today titled, “Fighting For Long Island.”  In it Congressman Tim Bishop extols the virtues of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and how much bacon he brought home for the district.  Inside the folder is a map of the 1st Congressional District with callout balloons showing all the locations where stimulus money will land.  On first blush one is tempted to think, good job Congressman!  But then I reached for the calculator.

By the Numbers

If you take the $787 billion and divide it by the 535 members of Congress (425 Congressman and 100 Senators) the stimulus bill works out to $1.47 billion per member.  That’s a lot of dough.  I then took out my calculator and tallied up all the monies on the map that “CONGRESSMAN TIM BISHOP Delivers Economic Recovery Funds To Long Island.”  Just to be sure, I checked my numbers three times and the projects added up to $274 million. That’s not good.  That means that our Congressman brought home less than 19% of his share, which means that a lot more backslapping members of Congress got more than their share.  Throw into the mix that every Republican voted against the bill and probably were not considered too kindly on the receiving end, then we really got short changed.

Money In vs. Money Out

Although there are many people who like to believe that Uncle Sam is really some independently wealthy tycoon who showers his neices and nephews with his largess, the sad reality is that the money all comes from us.  So I wondered how much do we send to the Treasury?

The federal government does a pretty good job of concealing how taxes are broken down by congressional district, which is understandable as accountability at election time can be problematic.  In 2004 the First Congressional District in New York ranked 60th in the nation in average income tax liability per tax return, at $8,310 per return.  What percentile is that?  Let’s see 60 out of 435 comes out to be about the 14th percentile, well above the midpoint.  How much stimulus did our esteemed representative bring home?  Somewhere around the 81st percentile well below the midpoint.  So the bottom line is that our Congressman voted to have his constituents pay a very large share of stimulus money that will go to every other part of the country, while we spend years working off the debt.  Brilliant!

Historically, New York gets about $0.79 from the federal government for every $1 that New Yorkers pay in taxes.  So why do New Yorkers keep overwhelmingly electing Democrats to Congress who love to increase taxes that ultimately end up being sent to other states?  Who are they working for (perhaps themselves)?

The Stimulus Was Really About Jobs

So let’s not get bogged down in costs when it’s jobs we’re really talking about.  After all, passing the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate at 8% instead of 9% without it.  Oops, it’s already at 9.5% and climbing.

Of all the projects identified on the map of the district, one had an actual figure, in bold, stating that it would create 1,000 jobs.  That’s a nice figure, but let’s put it in perspective.  There are about 233,000 people employed in the district. At a 9.5% unemployment rate that would mean about 22,135 jobs have been lost in this recession.  So creating 1,000 jobs equates to about 0.4% employment.  The particular project that was identifed with creating these 1,000 jobs was getting $184.3 million in stimulus money or two-thirds of all the stimulus in the district.  That works out to us spending $187,300 per job created.  Call me a conservative, but somehow I think that if we cut taxes by $184.3 million we would create a lot more than 1,000 jobs.  But what we will have to do is raise taxes to cover the $184.3 million that we are spending to create these jobs which will probably turn right around and kill them or an equivalent number.

What Federalism Means to Me

Here is a “top ten” list of stimulus projects compiled by Senator Tom Coburn [R-OK]:

1. “Free” Stimulus Money Results in Higher Utility Costs for Residents of Perkins, Oklahoma
2. FutureGen: The Stimulus Earmark that Wasn’t, Becomes the Costliest Pork Project in History
3. Little-Used “Shovel-Ready” Bridges in Rural Wisconsin Given Priority Over Widely Used Structurally Deficient Bridges
4. $800,000 for little-used Johnstown, Pennsylvania airport to repave a back-up runway; the “Airport for Nobody” Has Already Received Tens of Millions in Taxpayer dollars
5. $3.4 Million for Wildlife “Eco-Passage” in Florida; Project Still May Take Years to Finish
6. Nevada Non-Profit Gets Weatherization Contract After Being Fired For Same Work
7. Non-Existent Oklahoma Lake in Line for Over $1 Million To Construct a New Guardrail
8. Taxpayers Taken for a Ride: Nearly $10 Million to be Spent to Renovate a Century Old Train Station that Hasn’t Been Used in 30 Years
9. Ten Thousand Dead People Get Stimulus Checks, Social Security Administration Blames a Tough Deadline
10. Town of Union, New York, Encouraged to Spend Money It Did Not Request For a Homelessness Problem It Does Not Have

Now if someone in Florida (No. 5) want to spend $3.4 million for a wildlife “eco-passsage” (i.e., roadway tunnel for turtles)  project, fine.  The good people of Florida can pay for it.  If the people of John Murtha’s district  want to spend $800,000 (No. 4)  to repave a backup runway in Johnstown, fine.  Let those folks pay for it.

If it doesn’t cross a state line, or have a benefit for ALL Americans, it’s not the federal government’s business.  That is my litmus test for federalism.  There is nothing more idiotic than having me pay for your project while you pay for mine.  Because it comes down to a perpetual power grab where those who stay in the government the longest get everyone to pay for their projects (so their constituents will re-elect them) and everyone else gets the bill.  Just ask yourself how many federal functions have been moved to West Virginia (Robert Byrd 50+ years in the Senate).  How much pork goes in to John Murtha’s district (38 years in Congress).

Spinning it for All it’s Worth

So look for the brightly colored brochure from your Congressman crowing about how many stimulus dollars they brought home, but just remember, if your Congressman hasn’t been serving for 20 years, he or she probably got fleeced and you got screwed.  Enjoy holding the bag.