Food for thought – In 1887, certain Texas farmers were victims of a devastating drought. A benevolent Congress passed a bill appropriating public funds to help the farmers through the crisis with a government handout. Then President Grover Cleveland vetoed the bill, responding to Congress as follows: “I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of general suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of common brotherhood” (taken from Arguing with Idiots, Glenn Beck, Threshold Editions-Mercury Radio Arts, 2009, pg. 6-7).
The above quote was, amazingly, written by a Democratic president (must have been a “blue dog”, whatever that means). His feelings were amply justified when contributions from ordinary citizens totaled more than ten times the amount of the appropriation bill. So, do we still want a “nanny” state?
cool stuff
ReplyDelete