Monday, January 03, 2011

Sacred Cows and 911 First Responders Bill

Congress recently passed the “James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act”, otherwise known as the 911 First Responders Bill. The AP article on the Fox News website mentioned how some Republicans originally tried to block the bill but eventually gave in to the $ 4.2 Billion compensation package. Obama signed it while on vacation in Hawaii.

‘“We will never forget the selfless courage demonstrated by the firefighters, police officers and first responders who risked their lives to save others,” Obama said in a statement. “I believe this is a critical step for those who continue to bear the physical scars of those attacks.”’

The Sacred Cow has been acknowledged once more; can’t say no to a spending bill that honors brave men and women who served valiantly on the day we were attacked by Muslim extremists. Anyone voting against such a bill must be cruel and heartless or has no desire to get re-elected; interesting how history repeats itself.

"In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet."

“Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living 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 to so 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. Sir, this is no 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. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

Republicans and Democrats have no idea how to carry out the job of representing the people; believing spending money solves problems. A simple resolution to honor the day of the attack as a national day of remembrance would have been a reasonable measure; but instead, Congress decided, “Let’s throw lots of money away to prove we care”. If only we could get Congress to fund Sacred Cows out of their own pockets instead of dipping into the public treasury, show a little fiscal responsibility and respect for the office they hold; but that reality will have to wait, now won’t it?

“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.”

It’s a shame Congress hasn’t learned from Davy Crockett’s wisdom. Maybe they grew up thinking he was only famous for his coon skin cap and killing a bear when he was only three; never mind, they’re not listening. “Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the wild frontier.”

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.


MK said...

What Davy Crockett said is 100% right, and to add to that, i think that demanding, even whining that politicians do something is the lazy and selfish thing to do.

When we demand that our politicians pilfer from our neighbors for whatever 'good' cause, it seems to absolve us from doing good ourselves.

Ultimately it also means that the amount of money going to good causes is actually less than when people give voluntarily. Which is why Americans give far more to charity than any others in the western world.

The probligo said...

So, I guess that none of the servicemen and women, or the widows and families of those killed in Iraq, should expect recognition of their service?

And here was me thinking it was the lefties who gave those returning from 'Nam a hard time...

T. F. Stern said...

Probligo, I wonder how you made it this far seeing your inability to separate government redistribution of wealth from individual voluntary contributions; but I keep forgetting you're a socialist at heart and consider the act of government redistribution of wealth as necessary in order to make up for individual initiative.

MK said...

Research has shown that those who believe in gubbmint redistribution actually give far less to charity than those who don't.

So don't mind socialist proby, he likes to prattle a lot about caring and all that but his kind are more into giving away more of your money than their own, it's a sort of lazy selfishness.

T. F. Stern said...

MK, Don't mind the Probligo stopping by now and again; he can't help it. At one time he became so obnoxious as to be unwelcome.

David said...

Rewarding returning servicemen out of the public coffers above and beyond what they contracted for when they entered service is illegitimate government "charity" and theft from the public coffers. But Probligo is simply being disingenuous here. He knows as well as anyone else with more active brain cells than a head of cabbage that it's the so-called "liberals" (who are anything but) who seek to constantly cut back on actually delivering to servicemen and women the earned pay and benefits they are contractually owed for their service.

The probligo said...

This really is a hoot.

TF said - "can’t say no to a spending bill that honors brave men and women who served valiantly on the day we were attacked by Muslim extremists. "

The removal of the negative says "...we should/must say no to a spending bill that honors..." That what you meant, TF? The lengthy quote from Davy Crockett would indicate so.

That makes the general case -

"The government should not be spending my money on pensions and invalid allowances for returned servicemen, or anyone for that matter."

Now I put that last little bit on because I just know that you, TF, and the galah would just want it there. It is one of your war-drums.

To get from there to my last statement I don't even need to move my feet.

A man gives his life for your country, and his widow and family do not deserve any financial support. Is that what you mean TF?

The probligo said...

...sorry, make that -

" not deserve any government financial support."

T. F. Stern said...

Probligo, I'm afraid you lack the ability to read or comprehend the English language. You are unable to discern the difference between public money that comes from tax payers and contributions which come from individuals. Anytime someone in office volunteers to contribute to a charity case from the public treasury, at that moment he is in error for spending money in direct conflict with his oath to uphold the constitution.

This is not the same as voting to spend money on retirement programs for those who serve.

If you had read the bill, which you could not have done, then you would realize that the money being voted on was a charity donation, a gift if you will, for those who did something very brave in the line of duty or as volunteers. These acts of bravery cannot be paid for with reward money or charity out of the public treasury.

You are unwilling to see this point and so you should avoid entering this conversation. I know you will want to add one last thought to this thread, please refrain from doing so as it only serves to annoy the rest of us.