h/t
JO
After
listening/viewing a 30 minute interview on C-Span with our retiring
Congressman, Jerry Lewis, and his defense on bringing home the money to the
district for many of those things not set down in our Constitution, I find this
re-read of the “Crockett explanation of why we can’t spend money that isn’t
ours to spend” refreshing. Too bad every Congressman and Senator do not have
this excerpt hanging on their office wall in Washington.
Subject: Re: Senate approves $60.4 billion Sandy
aid bill
Where are the Davy Crocketts when we need them?
What would Davy Crockett say regarding
U.S. government aid to Sandy victims?
An excerpt from the book, "The Life of Colonel David
Crockett", by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884):
Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of
his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found
no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he
seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a
bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a
distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its
support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine
opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it
seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the
question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going
to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He
commenced:
"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of
the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if
suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our
respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into
an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an
argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an
act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as
individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but
as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the
public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground
that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after
the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have
never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe
no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt,
how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a
debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits
examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe
the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same
amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as
ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as
this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor;
but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars
for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes
in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the
one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them.
Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was
alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I
must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot,
without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a
debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.
Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as
we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but
I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will
do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its
passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and
as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of
course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who
had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt
outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett
to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that
night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in
addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had
possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without
turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool
yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all
about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had
finished he turned to me and said:
"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a
tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the
Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted
by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped
into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to
work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours.
But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many
families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes
they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and
children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and
everybody else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for
their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as
it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for,
though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there
were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy
or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the
bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of
them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of
what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain
it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in
favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the
election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my
district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I
did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know
that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too
proud to go to see them.
So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my
saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going
very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was
more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming
toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the
fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I
thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when
I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a
little talk with you, and get better acquainted."
He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to
talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to
say."
I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings
called candidates, and – "
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you
once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you
are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I
shall not vote for you again.'
This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the
matter.
"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or
words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last
winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the
Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by
it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon
for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the
privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose
of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your
understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say
to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to
be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I
cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held
sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power
and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some
mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon
any constitutional question."
"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the
backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read
very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter
you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in
Georgetown. Is that true?"
"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which
anybody in the world would have found fault with."
"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority
to give away the public money in charity?"
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it,
I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I
must take another tack, so I said:
"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me
there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country
like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering
women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if
you had been there, you would have done just as I did."
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the
principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no
more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with
the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the
most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our
system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the
country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in
proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his
knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States
who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while
you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are
even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply
a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000
as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to
all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the
amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe,
or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper.
You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and
corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the
other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give
as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a
dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been
burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of
Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are
about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their
sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have
made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who
could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.
The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some
of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt,
applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what
was not yours to give. 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."
I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before
he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:
"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."
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and
this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that
district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did
not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you
said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be
guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in
Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your
plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever
heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my
head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive
me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I
wish I may be shot."
He laughingly replied:
"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will
trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your
vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you
for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this
vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you,
but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some
little influence in that way."
"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to
convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a
week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make
a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."
"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we
have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for
those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can
then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up
on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I
promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say
good-bye. I must know your name."
"My name is Bunce."
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
"Yes."
"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you
have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very
proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your
hand before I go."
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He
mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable
intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running
over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words
but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame
had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never
met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very
likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very
certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our
conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night
with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me
stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and,
under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up
until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got
more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer
converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very
good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction
of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its
purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no,
that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I
go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if
everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he
does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the
barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good
many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around
until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They
gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"Fellow citizens – I present myself before you today feeling
like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or
prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today
offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been
able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my
error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to
myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your
consideration only."
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation
as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong.
I closed by saying:
"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you
that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was
simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce,
convinced me of my error.
"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is
entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert
and that he will get up here and tell you so."
He came upon the stand and said:
"Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply
with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly
honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has
promised you today."
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for
Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then
and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the
remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty
shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received
and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of
Congress.
"Now, Sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I
made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed
and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention.
You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many
very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen
of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by
it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of
gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid
by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against
the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is
nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great
thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor,
integrity, and justice to obtain it."
And to think…. Over 40 percent of this “bill” is on the
credit card
Senate approves $60.4 billion Sandy aid bill
Published December 28, 2012
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The Senate on Friday
approved a $60.4 billion emergency spending aid package for victims of
Hurricane Sandy that had been backed by Senate Democrats.
Democrats
had to turn back Republican efforts to cut programs such as $150 million in
fisheries aid that Republican lawmakers said was unrelated to the storm that
hammered the East Coast late in October. The measure cleared the Senate on a
62-32 vote, with 12 Republicans supporting the bill. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.,
was the only Democrat to vote against the bill, but he later switched his vote
to support the measure.
The
bill faces uncertain prospects in the House, where GOP leaders appear reluctant
to move quickly on a big spending bill in the final days of a lame duck
session. Congress' attention is focused on talks over the so-called fiscal
cliff of tax hikes and automatic spending cuts.
Sandy was
blamed for at least 120 deaths and battered coastline areas from North Carolina
to Maine. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut were the hardest hit states and
suffered high winds, flooding and storm surges. Sandy damaged or destroyed more
than 72,000 homes and businesses in New Jersey. In New York, 305,000 housing
units were damaged or destroyed and more than 265,000 businesses were affected.
Senate
Republicans failed on an amendment for a smaller package of about $24 billion
in aid for Sandy, which was the most costly natural disaster since Hurricane
Katrina in 2005 and one of the worst storms ever in the Northeast.
House
GOP leaders have not said how they plan to proceed. But House Appropriations
Committee Chairman Hal Rogers of Kentucky has said Congress should probably
begin with a smaller aid package for immediate recovery needs and wait until
more data can be collected about storm damage before approving additional money
next year.
Rep.
Paul Ryan, the 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee and a leading House fiscal
conservative, has criticized the Democratic bill as "packed with funding
for unrelated items, such as commercial fisheries in American Samoa and roof
repair of museums in Washington, D.C."
Sen.
Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., urged House leaders to "put this bill on the
floor quickly and allow a vote." If the House balks, Schumer said, the
Senate bill provides "very good groundwork" for seeking Sandy aid
next year.
The
measure includes $11.5 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
chief disaster relief fund and $17 billion for community development block
grants, much of which would help homeowners repair or replace their homes.
Another $11.7 billion would help repair New York City's subways and other mass
transit damage and protect them from future storms. Some $9.7 billion would go
toward the government's flood insurance program. The Army Corps of Engineers
would receive $5.3 billion to mitigate flood future risks and rebuild damaged
projects.
Senate
Republicans said much of the spending in the Democratic bill was for projects
unrelated to Sandy, such as $150 million for fisheries disasters that could go
to Alaska as well as Gulf Coast and New England states. Sen. Tom Coburn,
R-Okla., sought to strip the fisheries funding, but his amendment failed.
To
court votes, Democrats last week broadened some of their bill's provisions to
cover damage from Hurricane Isaac, which struck the Gulf Coast earlier this
year. A provision was added to the $2.9 billion allotted to Army Corps of
Engineers projects to reduce future flooding risks; the coverage area for that
program will now include areas hit by Isaac in addition to Sandy. Democrats
also shifted $400 million into a community development program for regions
suffering disasters, beyond areas struck by Sandy.
A
Coburn amendment to reduce the federal share of costs for the Army Corps of
Engineer projects to reduce future flooding risks also failed.
Most
of the money in the $60.4 billion bill -- $47.4 billion -- is for immediate
help for victims and other recovery and rebuilding efforts. The aid is intended
to help states rebuild public infrastructure like roads and tunnels, and help
thousands of people displaced from their homes.
"It
will actually put people to work in their own communities, rebuilding their own
communities," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who chairs the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
GOP
Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Coburn, two frequent critics of government
spending, targeted what they called "questionable" spending in the
Democratic bill, including $2 million for roof repairs at Smithsonian
Institution museums and $58 million in subsidies for tree planting on private
properties. A McCain amendment to strip the tree subsidies failed.
Republicans
also criticized $13 billion in the Democratic bill for projects to protect
against future storms, including fortifying mass transit systems in the
Northeast. Republicans said however worthy such projects may be, they are not
urgently needed and should be considered by Congress in the usual appropriations
process next year.
The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only about $9 billion of the
$60.4 billion proposed by Democrats would be spent over the next nine months.
The Democratic bill included many large infrastructure projects that often
require years to complete, but Republicans said the CBO estimate of such
drawn-out spending undercuts the urgency of the Democrats' aid package.
More
than $2 billion in federal funds has been spent so far on relief efforts for 11
states and the District of Columbia. FEMA's disaster relief fund still has
about $4.3 billion, and officials have said that is enough to pay for recovery
efforts into early spring.
New
York, New Jersey, Connecticut, District of Columbia, West Virginia, Virginia,
Maryland, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts
are receiving federal aid.
No comments:
Post a Comment