The Preamble They Should've Written - James L. Payne

About the Authors

Contributing editor James Payne has taught political science at Yale,Wesleyan, Johns Hopkins, and Texas A&M. His latest book is Six Political Illusions: A Primer on Government for Idealists Fed Up with History Repeating Itself. ... See All Posts by This Author

• 
  Tweet This
• 
  Post on Facebook
• 
  Post to Digg
• 
  Reddit!
• 
  Stumble this!

Flag this article [?]

Guest Column | James L. Payne

The Preamble They Should’ve Written

Delete "General Welfare."

Posted April 27, 2011
Print This Post • 13 comments

Did the Founding Fathers get it right? Is the Constitution they drafted a secure basis for limited government? Many conservatives suppose so and believe the drift to big government has simply been a case of not reading the directions on the package. Last January these conservatives ordered that the Constitution be read aloud at the opening session of the House of Representatives, apparently hoping that the reverberation of its words off the marble walls would inspire lawmakers to return to the limited government of yesteryear.

I’m afraid it was an unrealistic hope. You can say many good things about the Founding Fathers, but these gentlemen fell short in one, critical way: The Constitution they drafted contains no significant intellectual impediment to the endless growth of government; that is, it does not explain what’s wrong with too much government. If anything, it goes in the opposite direction, inviting politicians to use the federal government to address everything. This invitation stands in the preamble, where after noting government’s obvious jobs — “establish Justice” (a court system), “insure domestic Tranquility” (armed forces to put down riots), “provide for the common defence” (armed forces to take care of foreign invaders) — the drafters added that government’s function was also “to promote the general Welfare.”

This phraseology may not have had much importance in 1787, when communication about national issues was limited. In modern times, however, the mass media turn every human need into a national problem that can be said to affect the general welfare:  unemployment, wages and working conditions, medical care, education, food production, science, natural disasters, and so on. Following the lead of the preamble, lawmakers feel justified in using government to address every one. The result is a big and ever-growing government.

“What Else Is There?”

What’s the way to stop this drift? For the answer, we need to examine the logic that drives governmental growth. The modern argument for government involvement looks like this:

1. Problem X affects the general welfare;

2. Government is the only institution that can address national problems;

3. Therefore, government has to step in and address X.

Notice how the argument depends on statement 2, that government is the only answer. If you accept that assumption, then you are pretty much bound to agree that government has to be involved. Not to agree makes you look cruel and insensitive, unwilling to fix the nation’s problems. And it doesn’t matter how badly government has performed in the past. Those urging more government concede that government is wasteful, often inept, and corrupted by special interests. But that doesn’t affect their position.  “We’ve got to do something,” they say. “After all, what else is there?”

Well there is something else, but we often overlook it because it’s not big, imposing, and centralized like government. It’s the millions of independent thinkers and doers who each day strive to make the world around them a better place, working individually, and joining together with friends and neighbors, in groups, churches, associations, and businesses. We can call this problem-solving system the private sector, or civil society, or the voluntary sector.

Although we often don’t stop to realize it, this collection of independent actors is working to address just about every national problem you can think of. Take disaster relief. On this subject standard political logic has taken us to a big-government solution. Hurricanes and earthquakes certainly affect the general welfare; therefore, we say, government must step in. So we end up with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Many agree that this massive bureaucracy is inept and wasteful, but if you suggest closing it down people say, “We have to have it. When disaster strikes, we can’t just sit by and do nothing.” That’s the fallacy of assuming only government can solve problems.

When disaster strikes, the fact is that millions of individuals react in constructive ways. The people immediately affected do much to take care of themselves and their families. Neighbors pitch in to help neighbors. Businesses sell — or donate — needed supplies. Churches send aid and volunteers. Voluntary groups in other regions take up collections and send supplies. Businesses rebuild. Philanthropists support reconstruction projects. This vast multitude of helping hands is a disaster-relief system. The same is true for other problems: education, working conditions, medical care, and so on. The private sector can and does address all of these issues.

It’s biggest enemy, the institution standing in the way of this vital, intricate system of private, voluntary action is. . . government! It undermines the private sector in three ways:

1. Resources. Government’s taxation drains wealth from the private sector. Every dollar government puts into its programs comes, directly or indirectly, from individuals, businesses, and groups that would have used their resources to do what the government agencies try to do.

2. Regulations. Government’s rules and regulations are, like taxation, a burden on the private sector. Every minute someone spends filling out a government form is a minute he cannot use to help a neighbor.

3. Motivation. Private action is prompted by the belief that we make a difference. When people assume government is supposed to solve problems, it weakens their motive to help themselves, and it weakens their inclination to reach out and solve problems in their community.

In conclusion, if the Founding Fathers had wanted to block the drift toward big government, they should have written a preamble that extolled the virtue of the private sector, perhaps like this:

We the people of the United States of America, recognizing—

That the general welfare is promoted by individuals, families, neighbors, and societies

freely striving to improve the condition of mankind,

And further recognizing—

That government action often counteracts their independent, creative activities;

Do hereby establish a government which shall establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, and provide for the common defence.

Government Creates Poverty - John Stossel

The U.S. government has "helped" no group more than it has "helped" the American Indians. It stuns me when President Obama appears before Indian groups and says things like, "Few have been ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans."
       
Ignored? Are you kidding me? They should be so lucky. The government has made most Indian tribes wards of the state. Government manages their land, provides their health care, and pays for housing and child care. Twenty different departments and agencies have special "native American" programs. The result? Indians have the highest poverty rate, nearly 25 percent, and the lowest life expectancy of any group in America. Sixty-six percent are born to single mothers.
       
Nevertheless, Indian activists want more government "help."

        
It is intuitive to assume that, when people struggle, government "help" is the answer. The opposite is true. American groups who are helped the most, do the worst.
        
Consider the Lumbees of Robeson County, N.C. -- a tribe not recognized as sovereign by the government and therefore ineligible for most of the "help" given other tribes. The Lumbees do much better than those recognized tribes.
        
Lumbees own their homes and succeed in business. They include real estate developer Jim Thomas, who used to own the Sacramento Kings, and Jack Lowery, who helped start the Cracker Barrel Restaurants. Lumbees started the first Indian-owned bank, which now has 12 branches.
        
The Lumbees' wealth is not from casino money.
        
"We don't have any casinos. We have 12 banks," says Ben Chavis, another successful Lumbee businessman. He also points out that Robeson County looks different from most Indian reservations.
        
"There's mansions. They look like English manors. I can take you to one neighborhood where my people are from and show you nicer homes than the whole Sioux reservation."
        
Despite this success, professional "victims" activists want Congress to make the Lumbees dependent -- like other tribes. U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., has introduced the Lumbee Recognition Act, which would give the Lumbees the same "help" other tribes get -- about $80 million a year. Some members of the tribe support the bill.
        
Of course they do. People like to freeload.
        
Lawyer Elizabeth Homer, who used to be the U.S. Interior Department's director of Indian land trusts, say the Lumbees ought to get federal recognition.
        
"The Lumbees have been neglected and left out of the system, and have been petitioning for 100 years. ... They're entitled, by the way."
        
People like Homer will never get it. Lumbees do well because they've divorced themselves from government handouts. Washington's neglect was a godsend.
        
Some Lumbees don't want the handout.
        
"We shouldn't take it!" Chavis said. He says if federal money comes, members of his tribe "are going to become welfare cases. It's going to stifle creativity. On the reservations, they haven't trained to be capitalists. They've been trained to be communists."
        
Tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs manage most Indian land. Indians compete to serve on tribal councils because they can give out the government's money. Instead of seeking to become entrepreneurs, members of tribes aspire to become bureaucrats.
        
"You can help your girlfriend; you can help your girlfriend's mama. It's a great program!" Chavis said sarcastically.
        
Because a government trust controls most Indian property, individuals rarely build nice homes or businesses. "No individual on the reservation owns the land. So they can't develop it," Chavis added. "Look at my tribe. We have title and deeds to our land. That's the secret. I raise cattle. I can do what I want to because it's my private property."
        
I did a TV segment on the Lumbees that I included in a special called "Freeloaders." That won me the predictable vitriol. Apparently, I'm ignorant of history and a racist.
        
The criticism misses the point. Yes, many years ago white people stole the Indians' land and caused great misery. And yes, the government signed treaties with the tribes that make Indians "special." But that "specialness" has brought the Indians socialism. It's what keeps them dependent and poor.
        
On the other hand, because the U.S. government never signed a treaty with the Lumbees, they aren't so "special" in its eyes. That left them mostly free.
        
Freedom lets them prosper.

Stewardship, Compassion, Justice and the U.S. Budget

Culture Watch Weekly News and Analysis on Family, Religion, and Civil Society

Stewardship, Compassion, Justice and the U.S. Budget

Jennifer Marshall

Stewardship, compassion, and justice have been mentioned frequently in recent Christian commentary on our national fiscal crisis, and rightly so. Budgets are indeed moral documents; for example, it is wrong to pass down $200,000 in public debt to each child born today.

These principles of stewardship, compassion, and justice have been well-established in serious conversation about the budget crisis for some time. That kind of dialogue has been taking place for years through the efforts of The Heritage Foundation and partnerships like the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour. The tour has included more than 40 public forums around the country for about five years, including Heritage experts Stuart Butler and Alison Fraser, along with analysts from the Brookings Institution, through the bipartisan sponsorship of the Concord Coalition.

These expert voices from across the political spectrum have helped explain the reality of unsustainable U.S. deficit levels caused by entitlement spending so that more Americans can discern the values at stake in this massive problem and work together toward tackling it.

Now some on the left are appealing explicitly to biblical argument in the budget debate. Calling on biblical principles is a welcome development, since they can illuminate the values that should inform the conversation. But concluding that Christian concepts like justice, compassion, and stewardship call for preservation of the welfare state status quo is the wrong approach.

Instead, biblical principles should challenge the status quo to see how it measures up on some basic Christian assumptions, including an understanding of:

• The nature and purpose of human beings; 
• What true human flourishing is, and conversely, the real nature of poverty; 
• How various institutions are ordained by God to play different roles in helping human beings to overcome poverty and to flourish in community.

How should a biblical understanding of these ideas shape an approach to the budget crisis? It means starting the conversation on government spending by focusing first on the character of spending, before the quantity of spending.

This means asking of each taxpayer-funded program: Is it a program or activity that government is designed to provide? What is the objective? Is it effective at accomplishing that objective? If the answers are satisfactory, then let’s decide how much to spend on that priority. If not, then we should be asking how to reform or eliminate it.

This line of reasoning was elaborated by Stuart Butler, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Policy Innovation, in a December lecture on how to protect the poor in the midst of the challenging fiscal decisions before us now. Failing to address the crisis will put the poor at risk first, he explains. We must address the crushing growth of entitlement spending, and that means getting our policy priorities straight.
“We cannot and should not provide defined social insurance benefits [like Medicare and Social Security] to people who don’t need them,” says Dr. Butler. Instead, our approach to entitlement reform should put “greater emphasis on true insurance against hard times and much less emphasis on providing benefits for all.” Americans should be free from the fear of poverty in their old age, which is much different from the stream of defined benefits that people have today.

We also need to look at the character of U.S. anti-poverty programs. The number of food stamp recipients has doubled in the last decade to more than 44 million. When one out of seven people depends on the government for food subsidies, can we be satisfied with the state of human flourishing in America?

Success in anti-poverty programs should be measured not in how much we spend, but in how many Americans escape dependence on government funding to lead more productive and satisfying lives. Protecting the status quo of failed anti-poverty programs neither does justice to the poor nor ennobles those who champion those programs without regard to their results.

Current federal anti-poverty programs diagnose human need primarily as a lack of material resources. As we’ve explained in a small group study guide on the subject, Seek Social Justice, that approach diminishes our understanding of compassion for the poor. Poverty in America is often linked to relational breakdown—the absence of fathers, the fracturing of communities. Relational restoration will require the institutions of civil society—especially families and churches—to bring their unique resources to the challenge of overcoming poverty.

The budget crisis is one of the toughest challenges our nation has ever had to face. Discerning the wise application of biblical and constitutional principles is essential for the road ahead.