One Man's Trash

Norman Leahy

Bread and Circuses

Governments dispense money for ends that the Constitution never envisioned. One way or another, we're all on the dole now.

In the run-up to the Fourth of July, I came across a blog post from Tim Wise that led me to an article from the Foundation for Economic Education called “Not Yours to Give.” It tells the tale of how Davy Crockett was transformed from a typical, spend-happy member of Congress into a student of the Constitution and the limits of political power by one of his constituents, a not-so- simple farmer named Mr. Bunce.

Some people are familiar with the story – it’s one of FEE’s most popular offerings after “I, Pencil.” But regrettably, most of them do not hold public office. How different things might be if they had.

The thrust of the piece is a vote Col. Crockett and his congressional colleagues took in favor of offering a pension to the widow of a deceased naval officer. Speeches are made, tears are dabbed and the worthies decide to appropriate $20,000 to the widow in honor of her husband’s service. That is until Crockett arises to tell them they have no legal right to do so.

We then follow the reasons why Crockett opposed the widow’s pension. They turn upon an encounter between Crockett and Horatio Bunce back home. Crockett is stumping for votes and finds in Bunce an opponent. His reasons have nothing to do with the frippery that passes for politics today, but on a matter of principle, having to do with an earlier vote Crockett cast for the financial relief of disaster victims in Georgetown:

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. Everything 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.

Crockett sees the error of his ways, regains Mr. Bunce’s support, and goes on to become a stalwart defender of limited government. Or so we are to believe.

This antebellum parable may warm the hearts of those who still believe limited government is possible. But is it really?

I don’t think so.

Consider the monies from federal grants and contracts Virginia received from the national government in the third quarter of 2008 alone. And because the list is very, very long, let’s just look at the “A’s”.

Uncle Sam is handing out cash for abstinence education, adoption assistance and aging research. There’s also money for alcohol and Alzheimer’s research, assistance to heads of households, army security, education, health and more.

Mr. Bunce would have been apoplectic (but there’s probably a grant for that, too). And Col. Crockett? His speech on the House floor would have played before an empty chamber with only C- SPAN night owls in mute attendance.

With so much money flowing so freely from taxpayers, to Washington and then back to the states, it’s a wonder that the idea of limited government survives at all. We’re all on the dole, in one way or another, so why fiddle with it?

Because we have little choice.

While the national government fiddles over the price of gas, it ignores the entitlement crisis that threatens to make a $100 dollar fill-up look like pocket change. 

Things are no better in Virginia. Real problems loom in Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention the state’s pension funds, but the bulk of our time and attention is absorbed by… the price of asphalt.

Some argue that the solution is more revenue. Of course, that’s often the first, last and only solution some ever have. Others charge that we need no more taxes at all, but simply less spending. That’s often leaves one open to the charge of ignoring the children (or the environment, or the polar bears, or the future, take your pick).

I suggest that the real question isn’t how much or little we ought to spend on this or that problem, but whether, like Mr. Bunce, such matters are within government’s power to address at all.

Should the federal government be sending states like Virginia grants to fund abstinence education? I can’t find that in the Constitution. I also can’t find any reference to education, kids, or sex at all. But the money flows anyway.

Similarly, by what authority does Virginia accept and spend such funds? I can’t find it.

Our problems aren’t with the lack of funds or too much spending. Our problem is that we have, as Mr. Bunce warned, abandoned the security of our founding documents. And we’ve done it for a song.

We’re not the first, of course. As Juvenal wrote: 

Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man,

the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time

handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now

restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:

bread and circuses.

And we can get grants for everything else, right?

-- July 7, 2008