Dumb pols won't get elected
Politicians can be progressives, liberals, conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, and right-wingers. They just can't be dumb. The American people will never elect them to office. Let's look at it.
I used to blame politicians for our economic and social mess. That changed during the 1980s as a result of several lunches with Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., which produced an epiphany of sorts.
At the time, I had written several columns critical of farm subsidies and handouts. Helms agreed. Then he asked me whether I could tell him how he could vote against them and remain a senator from North Carolina. My epiphany came when I asked myself whether it was reasonable to expect a politician to commit political suicide — in a word, be dumb.
The Office of Management and Budget calculates that more than 40 percent of federal spending is for entitlements for the elderly in the forms of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing and other assistance programs. Total entitlement spending comes to about 62 percent of federal spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that entitlement spending will consume all federal tax revenue by 2048.
Only a dumb politician would argue that something must be done immediately about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Senior citizens would tell him that they're not receiving entitlements. It's their money that Congress put aside for them. They would attack any politician who told them the only way they get Social Security and Medicare is through taxes levied on current workers. The smart politician would go along with these people's vision. The dumb politician, who is truthful about Social Security and Medicare, would be run out of office.
There are billions upon billions in handouts going to farmers, corporations, poor people and thousands of federal programs that have no constitutional basis whatsoever. But a smart politician reasons that if Congress enables one group of Americans to live at the expense of another, then in fairness, what possible argument can be made for not giving that same right to other groups of Americans?
Let's examine some statements of past Americans whom we've mistakenly called great but would be deemed heartless and dumb if they were around today. In 1794, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, irate over a $15,000 congressional appropriation to assist some French refugees, said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” He added, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, saying, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity” and 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.”
Grover Cleveland vetoed hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often stated veto message was, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.”
If these men were around today, making similar statements, Americans would hold them in contempt and disqualify them from office. That's a sad commentary on how we've trashed our Constitution.
Walter Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Steelers notebook: Ravens DL fined for hit on Roethlisberger
- Letang looks forward to asserting veteran leadership
- Penguins notebook: Crosby practices, feels better
- Inside the glass: Johnston’s opening practice grueling
- Judge lifts order blocking racy state emails
- Floods paralyze Manila
- ‘Voice’ returns Sept. 22 with Stefani, Pharrell
- Crews battling Oakmont church blaze
- In U.S., 1 in 4 say secession favorable
- Botched FBI raid in Bellevue stings feds for $100K
- Police, bloodhound team locate former athletic director, Greensburg official