Taxpayers to Pay for Health Care of Those Sickened by Larry Silverstein's Apparent Arson and Insurance Fraud

G, I agree with you about the importance of those affected getting the care needed and deserved. And, I applaud the work that has been done by the individuals and small groups that have organized around seeking contributions for this effort from other generous individuals from around the world.

Your warning of the potential for even more fraud reminded me of an old story that has been retold many times.

There some who support and push passage of the unconstitutional James Zadroga Act because they beleve the federal monies for which Bloomberg is asking are neglible when compared to the estimated cost of the war on terror thus far and/or they are simply ignorant and could care less that CONgress lacks constitutional authority to make such expenditure from a non-existent public treasury. Because I vehemently disagree with them doesn't mean that I don't care about 9/11 first responders. I am firefighter and medical first responder, too.

Furthermore, there is no reason to think that if CONgress were to authorize the printing of billions of more FRNs that the vast majority of them wouldn't be stolen by their blood and pus sucking, parasitic partners. Unlike 430+ members of CONgress and thousands of other federally employeed lawyers, I trust John Feal.

As he has done in the past for other charitable organizations, Mayor Bloomberg would better serve first responders, affected New Yorkers, and all other American citizens in serving instead as an example by ponying up a significant chunk of his own loose change and personally donate to the FealGood Foundation. And, he should challenge the millionaires and billionaires in CONgress whom we employ as public servants (for reasons devoid of all reason) to do the same BEFORE committing to give something that isn't now and never was theirs to give. If Bloomberg won't do this, New Yorkers and all other Americans should follow the example of Horatio Bunce and give he and his ilk their walking papers and a fat lip at the soonest opportunity.

I have taken an article about government "charity" that makes brief mention of this old story and made a few minor edits to make it relavent to your warning. Text that I added is in bold. Credit to the original author and a link to the article are included at the end.

Not Yours To Give

Charity to man's fellow man is praiseworthy, and Americans are the most generous people on Earth. According to a quote by American philanthropist Daniel Rose in "An Exceptional Nation," an article in Philanthropy magazine (November/December 2004), "American private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget; that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Americans contribute six or seven times more than some of our European neighbors.

What about President Bush's $350 million commitment for earthquake and tsunami relief or New York mayor Michael Bloomberg's request to Congress to provide $13 billion over 10 years for long-term care for sick ground zero workers -- is that just as praiseworthy? Let's look at it. Charity is reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need. Reaching into someone else's pocket to assist one's fellow man hardly qualifies as charity. When done privately, we deem it theft, and the individual risks jail time.

What would some of our ancestors say about government "charity"?

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said, in a January 1794 speech in the House of Representatives, "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."

A few years later, Virginia Rep. William Giles condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying it was neither the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."

Unlike President Bush and Mayor Bloomberg, a few of our former presidents understood that charity is not a government function. Franklin Pierce, our 14th president, vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity," adding that to approve such spending "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

In 1887, President Grover Cleveland, our 22nd and 24th president, said, when he vetoed a bill to assist drought-inflicted counties in Texas, "I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Tennessee Rep. Col. Davy Crockett, in a speech before the House of Representatives, said, in protest against a $10,000 appropriation for a widow of a distinguished naval officer, "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 to appropriate a dollar of the public money."

I'd like to ask President Bush, Mayor Bloomberg, and members of the 109th and 110th Congress whether they've discovered the constitutional authority for charitable expenditures undiscovered by James Madison, William Giles, Presidents Franklin Pierce and Grover Cleveland, and Davy Crockett. Major U.S. companies, such as American Express, Pfizer, Exxon Mobil and General Motors donated millions of dollars to tsunami relief efforts. Like those of the Bush administration and Congress, their actions aren't praiseworthy at all.

The CEOs who authorized these "charitable" donations were reaching not into their own pockets but into the pockets of their shareholders.

I get the feeling that the train of constitutional principles has left the station and the recent tsunami episode is simply another symptom of American obliviousness to constitutional government. Today's politicians can't be held fully responsible for our abandonment of constitutional government. While they can be blamed for not being statesmen, the lion's share of the blame rests with 280 million Americans. Elected officials simply mirror public misunderstanding or contempt for constitutional principles. Tragically, adherence to the constitutional values of men like James Madison and Davy Crockett would spell political suicide in today's America.

Not Yours To Give
by Walter Williams (February 9, 2005)

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4130

Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

Selected quotes:

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

"There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one's own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation."

"Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God."

"Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government."

"No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive."

"Government officials, if given power to control us, soon become zealots."