|
Not Yours To Give
by Col. David
Crockett, US Representative from Tennessee
Originally published in "The Life
of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
One day in the House of Representatives 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. The speaker was just about to
put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect
for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the
living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our
respect for the dead or our sympathy for 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 not the power to appropriate this money as an act of
charity. Every member on 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 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 ever
heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"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 charity. Mr. Speaker, I have
said we have the right to give as much money of our own 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.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett
gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol
with some 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. In spite of all that could be done, many houses
were burned and many families made houseless, 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 children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. 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.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about 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. 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 up, I spoke to the
man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.
"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 sockdolger...I begged him 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 the 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 that way. I
did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak
plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you 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 honest he is.'
" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I
live 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 you voted
for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is
that true?
"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 the same 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 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 at 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 country 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 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 necessity of 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.'
"'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 to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not
answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, 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 fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the
powers of Congress, but what you have said here 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 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 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 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.'
"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 for a heart brim-full 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 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 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 every one 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 up
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 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 for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will
get up here and tell you so.'
"He came up to 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 that 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.
"There is one thing 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--and the
insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum
as $20,000 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."
|
|
A professor’s magic pudding
by Gerard Jackson
TNA News with Commentary
No. 332,
Wednesday 10 April 2002
A while back one of my readers sent me a clipping about
Professor Barry Conyngham, Vice-chancellor of the SCU (Southern Cross
University). The professor’s view of economic growth had flummoxed him. Now the
professor had confidently declared that regional universities could become the
“engine rooms” of economic growth. He based this ludicrous proposition on a
report that found that the SCU spent $50 million in wages and directly created
1900 jobs, which in turn generated a further 1380 jobs and an additional $34
million in wages. Presto! Professor Conyngham has now found the magic economic
pudding.
All that governments need do, so the professor evidently
believes, is fund more universities and colleges which will in turn generate
more spending and hence promote economic growth. But why stop there? Clearly,
according to this analysis, if we turned the whole country into one gigantic
university not only would everyone get a degree, even if we have to fudge them a
little, Australia would literally become an economic wonder, an economic
powerhouse that could lead Asia and perhaps even the world through the
twenty-first century. The possibilities are breathtaking
But wait, is there not some vital ingredient missing from the
good professor’s magic recipe? Well blow me down, I just found it. It’s called
the taxpayer. The professor’s magic pudding does not generate growth, it merely
‘distributes’ income, frequently from the poor to the far from poor. Let us, for
example, say that the government takes $100 million dollars from genuine
taxpayers and gives it to the professor’s university which then spends it in a
number of ways, but always in the public interest. From this angle, however, it
is self-evident that the university, worthy or not, has simply received an
additional $100 million because the government forced taxpayers to sacrifice a
slice of their earnings. In short, the government has merely taken money from
the pockets of one group to put it in the pockets of another group.
Clearly, picking the pockets one group in order to fill the
pockets of another group, even if it does consist of professors and sundry
lecturers, cannot generate growth. Real growth comes from investment, not
consumption. Expenditure by Professor Conyngham’s university does not add one
jot to the country’s capital structure. If Conyngham were right then tripling or
even quadrupling the dole would eliminate unemployment by greatly expanding
demand. The classical economists got many things wrong, but they certainly
nailed this fallacy as John Stuart Mill brilliantly demonstrated more than 130
years ago when he wrote:
The utility of a large government expenditure for the purpose
of encouraging industry is no longer maintained. Taxes are not now esteemed to
be like the dews of heaven, which return in prolific showers. It is no longer
supposed that you benefit the producer by taking his money, provided that you
give it to him again in exchange for his goods. There is nothing which impresses
a person of reflection with a strong sense of the shallowness of the political
reasoning of the last two centuries than the general reception so long given to
a doctrine which, if it proves anything, proves that the more you take form the
pockets of the people to spend on your own pleasures, the richer they grow: that
the man who steals money out of a shop, provided that he expends it all again at
the same shop, is a public benefactor to the tradesman whom he robs, and that
the same operation, repeated sufficiently often, would make the tradesman a
fortune.
Conyngham has fallen into the old fallacy of composition, of
confusing the part with the whole, as so many others have done and still do.
While concentrating on the immediate effects of the University’s spending he
missed the reduction in spending that taxpayers were forced to endure, For every
dollar of theirs he spent that was one less dollar for them to spend; by using
their money to raise the university’s demand for goods and services he lowered
their demand for goods and services by the same amount. Still, we must not be
too hard on the professor. After all, the economic report he based his comments
on was penned by two of his economics lecturers.
A good economist looks beyond the immediate effects of an
economic policy, that which only strikes the eye; he carefully follows a chain
of reasoning that not only reveals secondary consequences but also long term
effects. He is not solely concerned with the immediate effects or even long term
effects on one group alone. |
|
Atlantica and Pacifica
Origin
Unknown
A long time ago, there were two countries -
Atlantica and Pacifica. Now, both countries have 10 citizens. In Atlantica and
Pacifica, the people each produce goods and services, the total which they
produce in each country is called the Gross National Product. The combined
output of all the goods and services in each country happens to be exactly the
same - $200000 per year.
We have a lawyer, a doctor, a carpenter, a
painter, a housewife, a banker, a teacher and an entrepreneur, and lets for the
sake of understanding this example say that everyone here makes the same amount
of money - $20000 per year. This times 10 gives us the GNP of $200000. The so
called standard of living is measured by dividing $200000 by the number of
people, 10 - which gives us $20000 per year, this is the amount that the people
have to live on, invest or save.
Now, people in both countries are happy and
things are moving along nicely until one day Mr. Lawyer talks to the other 9
people in the country and he says –
"In my intelligent deliberations and my
heart felt desire, to help the people of this nation, I have decided that I
would like to run for office in our great country" - and the people were moved,
and some even had tears in their eyes. Encouraged, he went on and said,
"This country needs representation, and a
strong leader. We need to assist those that cannot help themselves, we need
social programmes, and above all we need to help the poor", and the people were
happy and they understood, the compassion was enormous and the lawyer had them
in the palm of his hand. So he continued, as if a good thing wasn't enough and
said,
"Now I have decided that I should hold
elections for office of leader, assistant leader, sub leader and secretary", and
the people loved it. Pacifica would be strong now, and the country would be so
much better off. And the lawyer said
"Our government will take care of you and
take care of all the people and create jobs and create love", and that night the
people felt that a new era had begun, and they celebrated.
Meanwhile, in Atlantica, things were as dull
as ever, the people produced and these ignoramus' thought they could do without
professional politicians. They even claimed they could have their own self
government in their spare time - how silly.
So Pacifica meanwhile held elections, and it
came to pass that 4 people became the government of Pacifica. People could not
stop celebrating in Pacifica, it was a big event. But there was something these
good people did not count on. It is called reality.
You see, where Pacifica had a GNP of
$200000, this was about to change, because after all - if you take 4 people out
of the productive cycle of the country, you lose 4 x $20000, and that is a total
of $80000 per year. After all these people no longer contributed to the
production of the country, and instead lived off the producers.
You see, no government in the world is in
the business of making money, it is not the function of government. Governments
must always receive its money from living off those in society who produce.
Government itself never produces anything, that is an economic fact, whether
people agree or disagree.
So now these 4 government people in Pacifica
have to be paid from the production of the other 6 and thus these 6 producers of
the nation have to contribute $80000 no matter what, whether they are doing well
or not, their production had to be taxed $80000.
So Pacifica introduced something called
taxes - under the guise of it being for the good of all, but in essence, they
had created an elite class of people in Pacifica called - government. Elite
because no matter how much producers made or lost or earned in any given year,
they always had to come up with the $80000.
Now meanwhile, the government employees -
the 4 people that worked in the government always got their $80000 - regardless
of whether it was deserved, or not.
So now, let us see how Pacifica not only
lost the production of these 4 people - a loss of $80000 for the economy, but
also had to tax the productive of the nation with a further $80000 which makes
$160000, that was the loss to the country's GNP. Now, with government and minus
$160000, the GNP went down to $40000.
Remember the standard of living. Well for
Pacifica, that had gone down - and unfortunately $40000 divided by 10 is $4000
for each citizen averaged out, for their standard of living. Atlantica however
was still $20000.
Now before we go any further - which country
would you like to live in? It is a rather shocking deduction isn't it?, - and
you know this example is only half as bad as what is happening today.
In most countries, government is not
satisfied with what they take from the producers, and they will therefore
increase the amount, and borrow money from their central banking system which
defrauds its citizens even more.
So, facing disaster, the lawyer and his
cohorts begin to find excuses for the drop in the living standard and said
things like
"We will create more jobs folks, more
programmes to help the elderly and the sick, we'll help everyone and create more
government agencies to see that everyone is taken care of. Our country is number
1", and the people loved it, and they voted for more government, more
programmes, more expenditure, more of everything, and thus nobody produced
anymore in Pacifica, and everyone started working for the government.
And since the country produced very little
now, obviously the government did the only thing they could. They created money
out of thin air, they printed their own currency - not based on the gold
standard because that would give the whole scam away.
They just printed and printed and printed,
useless paper currency, and as a result, the people in Pacifica could no longer
buy foreign products cheaply and were forced to buy the little that was produced
in their own country. Their
government promoted slogans like "Buy only Pacifica products - It's the
patriotic thing to do". The people in Pacifica began to suffer the consequences,
they wanted to get out, they wanted to get to Atlantica where the standard of
living was still $20000, and these people were happy in the pursuit of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, without government.
|
