Our Paternal Government

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” James Madison-1792, in disapproval of Congress appropriating $15,000 to assist some French refugees

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
– President Franklin Pierce’s 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
 
“We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government.”
– James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489
 
” 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 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 individual 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 strengthen the bonds of a common brotherhood.–President Grover Cleveland to the House of Representatives 16 February 1887.

Even before the US Constitution was signed in 1787  there was debate over the use of the phrase “general welfare”.  The anti-federalists argued that this phrase could be used for any number of causes which could  affect the personal rights of the citizens of the states and subject their properties to confiscation etc.   Response to these concerns found in the Federalists papers and elsewhere assured the people that the Federal Government could only provide “…for the general welfare” as applied to the specific powers of the government which are stated in the constitution.  The debate continued after the signing with Alexander Hamilton turning his support to  a loosely defined use of the term and Madison and Jefferson fighting this stance tooth and nail.  For over one hundred years, our Federal government was kept on a short leash and was checked and balanced as  was intended. However in 1932 FDR introduced the New Deal to ease the sufferings of Americans which resulted from the Great Depression.  The programs contained therein began a new era of  government invasion into the lives of the people.  I will not attempt here to link to every source chart on government spending, you may find them readily on the internet and in the library-and they all show the spike of spending since the 1930s quite clearly. 

We are now approaching one hundred years of our Federal Government acting as a charitable dispersement center.   How is it working for us?  Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, Fannie and Freddie etc. (and in recent days banks and automakers)These wealth redistribution programs have had unintentional consequences all in the name of charity and benevolent causes. Not only does the Federal Government fund these programs at the expense of american taxpayers, more importantly, personal responsibility has been excused and divisiveness abounds.  We are now so mired in precedent it would be very difficult  to extract ourselves as our predecessors knew it would be.   But it is not impossible.

Perhaps it is time we look to our roots and the original intent of our Constitution in order to make a future for ourselves and our posterity .