Fear not for the future, weep not for the past.
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Image of the Day
General Welfare Clause?
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
What is clear is that the responsibilities of the Congress were limited and enumerated. One major restriction was the prohibition of direct taxation. The idea of general welfare clearly does not include personal, state or regional welfare. I'm not going to go into a long discourse here, except to suggest that the general welfare benefits from a robust economy stemming from the principles of free markets and free trade. We could also talk about reconciling shared responsibilities and resources (e.g., the prominence of the Mississippi in shipping to and from the Gulf of Mexico). Incidentally in my judgment, the general welfare includes not getting entangled in foreign alliances, no empire-building, and a sustainable budget. For a more detailed traditional discussion, see here.
There is a very interesting twist on the US Constitution in the Confederate Constitution. Let me excerpt from the cited essay:
One grave weakness in the U.S. Constitution is the "general welfare" clause, which the Confederate Constitution eliminated.,,,The Confederate Constitution gave Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States..." Immediately following that clause in the Confederate Constitution is a clause that has no parallel in the U.S. Constitution. It affirms strong support for free trade and opposition to protectionism: "but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry." ...In many circumstances, Confederate appropriations required a two-thirds majority rather than a simple majority....The Confederate Founders also tried to make sure that there would be no open-ended commitments or entitlement programs in the Confederate States...The Confederate Constitution also eliminated omnibus spending bills by requiring all legislation to "relate to but one subject," which had to be "expressed in the title."
Facebook Corner
(IPI). Natasha was fired from her job in home health care after being “indicated” by DCFS for allowing her children – ages 5,9 and 11 – to play by themselves in a park visible from her apartment window.
The children had been playing for about 30 minutes when a preschool teacher came to the park with her class, assumed the children were completely unsupervised, and placed a hotline call to DCFS.
Natasha explained to DCFS that she could see the children from the window and that her 11-year-old was perfectly capable of looking after his younger brothers.
Unfortunately, DCFS decided to issue an “indicated finding” – an official determination that credible evidence of abuse or neglect exists – against Natasha.
If a parent is “indicated” for abuse or neglect of a child, the government puts his or her name on a registry. As a result, the parent would fail any background check if he or she applied for a job that involved working with children. That means teachers, day care workers and social workers could all lose their jobs, or people looking for work in these areas would not find it.
Natasha was fired from her job in home health care because she was “indicated” and is unable to pursue her career as a licensed practical nurse working with children while she is on the registry.
By the time I was in first grade, I had 4 younger sisters and brother. I remember playing with friends or siblings, bike rides away from home without escort long before middle school. I remember our grandfather giving us a nickel each to go to a variety store selling penny candy across from his grocery store a few blocks away; when we briefly lived with him when I was in the fifth and sixth grades (my Dad was securing family housing at his new military assignments), I walked to parish school several blocks away on my own and frequently brought groceries from the store for that evening's dinner. I'm sure that my story isn't that unique.
I attribute the change to fear-mongering in the mass media, sometimes what I refer to as the Oprah effect: treat every other adult as a potential child predator or kidnapper. This is not to say there isn't a legitimate concern and risk, but it's much like the War on Terror--you are far more likely to die in an auto accident or from slipping in the tub than from a terrorist. It sounds like it's time for the governor to cut the budget of the parasitic busybody bureaucracy.
(Reason). Devastating emotional wreckage from being told no by somebody.
Make no mistake--this was not about a wedding cake but about hypocritically using the law to control other people who do not agree with your belief system or your personal lifestyle. In real life, we all face the indignities of other people leaving our money on the table--e.g., your kid doesn't get into that highly sought private school, the photographer who has other plans for the weekend of our event, the restaurant has a 6-month waiting list, the bartender thinks we've had enough, the recommended family physician isn't taking new patients, the popular nightclub won't squeeze us in. Most of us go with the flow; there are other schools, photographers, bars, doctors, restaurants, nightclubs, etc. It doesn't matter whether or not they give us an "acceptable" reason for rejecting our business. I can personally understand why a Christian baker might specialize in the traditional marriage business, just like there are stores that specialize, say, in big and tall clothing. Even as a never-married straight bachelor, I could find dozens of bakers willing to sell wedding cakes, no questions asked with only casual Internet searches. eBay, the last time I checked, had numerous vendors peddling gay figurines for wedding cakes, there are gay bakers, etc.
(Reason). Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf claims a state monopoly benefits consumers.
It's ironic--when a company becomes dominant in the private sector, the authoritarian "progressives" scream monopoly and anti-trust; when the corrupt state monopoly defines away its competition, thereby gaining at the expense of the consumer and his standard of living, it wants to argue at least it's not an evil "for profit" concern. (Ignore the crony interests of the status quo, like the employees, the beverage distributors, etc.) Anyone who thinks that the government has the know-how of industry veterans, knows better than the dynamic market how to set prices (Mises spoke of this hubris nearly 100 years ago), provides the variety and prices that consumers prefer is simply deluding himself. That Pennsylvania voted into office an economic illiterate who is more worried about losing his corrupt ill-gotten kingdom and span of control than Joe Sixpack tells us volumes about Pennsylvania voters.
Choose Life
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Chip Bok via Reason |
 |
| Courtesy of Chip Bok via Townhall |
Dionne Warwick, " Make It Easy on Yourself"
