Friday, September 16, 2005

Davy Crockett, for the win...

Some folks would like to classify me as a Republican. I'm not a Republican. In a nutshell, I'm a fiscal conservative, with Libertarian social leanings. This piece on, pretty well sums up my feelings on how money should be spent by politicians...


Patrick Armstrong said...

It was Aristotle that said something along the lines of 'when people learn they can vote themselves money out of the treasury, the democracy is finished.' I agree with a lot of what was said in principle. Government (Republicans and Democrats) spends other people's money far easier than they would spend their own.

As far as Constitutionality is concerned, one must recall the reasons behind the US House being the one most affected by the people and emotions of the day. It is also the place any budget or expenditure must come from. The framers put that there.

Now, where my disagreement lies is in the definition of 'charity.' There is a far thinner line, I would think, between 'investing' in a nation and 'handouts.'

Radio stations did not build our radio network, the taxpayers did. Satellites weren't invented by private enterprise, they were drawn up from government dollars. The interstates could never have been built by the states alone.

When disaster hits, especially big ones, but even small, local ones to important places, government may need to spend national treasure in order to minimize the effect on other parts of the nation.

For example:

New Orleans is one of the most important focal points of commerce in the Western Hemisphere (and I found that from a Townhall link). Every dollar of national treasure the government spends into that city will be made back.

For example:

A million people forced to stop engaging in commerce and industry because of natural disaster, and even more people affected by a displaced population of such individuals can cause massive ripples that will affect national and international economies as a whole. (Such as gasoline prices) Every dollar of national treasure spent to get these individuals either back to commerce and industry, or engaging in commerce and industry for the first time, is not an example of charity.

That is a matter of investment.

Especially when the nation overwhelmingly supports such action.

Remember, the nation of Davy Crockett was very different from the nation of just twenty years later, when the whole of the South had been burned to the ground.

I think, upon seeing the damage brought to Richmond, Atlanta, Columbia and Vicksburg, or even the sacking of Chattanooga, he may not have thought that charity and investment were so widely seperated.

My humble opinion.

ruby booth said...

A wonderful link, sawb, and I thank you for it. If political discourse were still at such a passionate and articulate pitch, we as individuals and as a nation would be in far better straights.

The crux, for me, was here:
"The man who wields power and misinterprets [the Constitution] is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

I've never heard it better put.