Governement and Charity

Dan Pallotta has been interviewed several times on the airwaves and in print recently with the launch of his new book "Uncharitable." Dan floated a great idea of a charity stock market. What a great idea to be able to invest in companies that excel at charity! One thing is for sure - the government has shown clearly that it is horrible at administering charity (ie the Great Society, the New Deal and so on). That might be in part because government charity is unconstitutional. I was listening to the great economist Walter Williams the other day, and was amazed to find out that the Constitution was never set up to be a charitable organization (as evidenced by the quotes below.) The economist replayed a recent interview with the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the interviewer asked Reid about whether it was appropriate for the government to confiscate money from one individual to give it to the welfare of another. Reid replied when cornered that taxes are voluntary. He wasn't about to admit that yes indeed, he wants a government that requires you to give more for the welfare of another.

Imagine government ceasing all its welfare programs in favor of private for-profit companies in which you can invest. The money you give is tax deductible, and the money you invest brings you a dividend at the same time. The more efficient companies that raise lots of efficient dollars for good causes stay in business. The causes get more money because the free-market system naturally means that the cream rises to the top: Good causes get more money and you get a return on the dollar while getting a good feeling about helping someone.

Bottom line, Dan is right in advocating that we should be welcoming companies who are very good and efficient at raising money for good causes. He says not look at how much of your dollar is directly going to your cause - look at how efficently your dollar is being used for your cause.

The free enterprise system proves that if an individual is given enough incentive to reap the rewards of his or her labor, anything is possible. Dan should know - he's raised $305 million in 9 years for the fight against AIDS and breast cancer.

So as we head into a new government that wants to spread the wealth, remember that is is unconstitutional for a good reason: The framers of the Constitution knew that the people themselves would be better at administering charity. It is not a crime to reap rewards for helping someone else.

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

"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."

-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)'

Read more by going to this New York Time article.

Hillary Threat Advisory, Feb 23, 2009

Cartoon of the day.

My opinion of today's festivities.

Happy President's Day

" I Pray Heaven to Bestow The Best of Blessing on This House, and on All that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but Honest and Wise Men ever rule under This Roof." John Adams,  November 2, 1800

Well, it was answered most of the time.

You Deserve a Stimulus Today

I like Sam Donaldson. He's a flaming liberal, but you know instinctively that he just a likable guy, and he's one of the last real journalists.

Yesterday on "This Week with George Stephanopolous,", Sam replied to George Will regarding the "porkulus" bill, that we needed to do something fast. He referred to Indiana Jones running away from the giant stone ball and that you don't have time to debate - you just jump to the left or right. (I might add that the camera went to George Will and you could see that George looked at Sam as if Sam lost his toupee.)

Sam's analogy is applicable if in fact our economy was getting rolled over by a giant stone ball. But it's not. Things were worse under Carter, and far worse under Roosevelt. (For liberal readers, I am referring to Franklin, not Theodore.) It's just that now, the nation is populated by slightly over 50% of pampered whiners. (You can see the exact percentages of pampered whiners by referring to the election results of 2008. Think blue.)

The big danger of jumping without thinking, is that the area to the left or right might just be a giant cliff that drops a thousand feet. Here's an example you can use on a personal level: If you lose your job tomorrow, do you just do something? Or do you methodically go out and plan for another job of equal pay, in the same town and so on. Or maybe if you are a pampered whiner you just jump to the left and get a job at McDonalds. 

This is result of the jump the Dems made last Friday: The increase in the deficit by over a trillion dollars adds trillions more in the next few years because it establishes a new baseline for future budgets. This also adds to the 10-trillion dollar debt our government owes already - which in the end means higher interest rates on loans and mortgages. More money pumped into the economy also means more inflation. It's not a matter of if - just when.

Therefore, you can thank Pelosi, Reid and their comrades for just doing something and giving you that extra $13 a paycheck. Of course, this is before taxes and will be wiped out entirely when you need to buy a new car.

But you can always get a second job at McDonalds.

Donna Brazile, you are our first turkey.

This past Sunday I happened to watch a portion of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." I usually avoid these shows because of the bias. But at least George's roundtable yesterday consisted of 4 liberals and one token conservative.

If you want to hear an example of bipartisanship and the Democrat's idea of debate, free speech and governing, you need only listen to 'Oh Donna's' comments on the show and I paraphrase them here: "Democrats won and Republicans need to let them govern. If they want to help, fine, but if not, stop complaining."

Because our Republic was founded on lively and vigorous debate, and because there still is as of this writing an amendment (albeit a temporary amendment - hey it was good for over 220 years!) to the Constitution that prohibits the "abridging of free speech," and because there is a little thing called checks and balances, and because bipartisanship means two sides coming together and not one, I must say that is now the Republican's responsibility to ensure that our new socialist government governs as little as possible.

I thank Donna Brazile for one thing - it gives readers to this blog an introduction - an understanding - as to why I want to help fight the turkeys.

Donna - you are our first turkey, because your comment would grant you any prestigious government position - in Cuba.

Spector to Collins to Snowe

Back in the early 1900's Franklin Pierce Adams (for those of you who are liberals, he is not to be confused with our 14th President, and if you are still confused, Franklin Pierce was our 14th President) wrote a poem that immortalized the most famous double-play combination in baseball history - and what would become the model for the classic double play: Tinker to Evers to Chance.

Therefore we salute the three republicans who as of yesterday by their votes for the "porkulus bill" transformed the classic double play into the Specter to Collins to Snowe triple play on America. And that my friends, means were all out.

And so to quote the last 2 lines of Mr. Adams poem with a bit of creative license:

"Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble

'Specter to Collins to Snowe.'"