Charity and Governmental Responsibility

Sitting in the Legislature, we are sometimes asked to provide benefits to folks who suffered great personal loss. Obviously, these people are sympathetic supplicants and the general inclination on the part of the assembled politicians is to dip into the taxpayers’ pockets to help.

Query, though, whether any justification for this official largesse exists.

Consider today’s editorial from The New York Times on the subject of Katrina assistance, and specifically, the following quote:

"(under a plan recently approved) Homeowners would receive up to a maximum of $150,000 based on the pre-Katrina value of their property, with any insurance payments subtracted. The plan required the additional $4.2 billion in block grants. It was less than the Louisiana team had hoped for, but it was a commitment that would allow rebuilding to begin."

Not to minimize, in any way, the suffering of the residents of storm ravaged New Orleans, Louisiana, or Mississippi, but precisely how did such charity work become a federal responsibility?

If asked – personally – most Americans would happily donate to assist disaster victims. And we did, generously. But government doesn’t ASK, it DEMANDS. It takes no account of a taxpayer’s individual circumstances; it elevates the perceived needs of its beneficiaries above the needs of those who pay the bills.

Consider the somewhat perverse incentive created by such programs: the less insurance one bought – that is, the less responsibility one took for one’s own affairs – the greater the resulting taxpayer subsidy.

Would it be such an imposition upon the residents of coastal states to INSIST that they take appropriate precautions against the inevitable hurricanes, purchase appropriate insurance, etc?

Or consider the west coast. California is CERTAIN to get hit with another earthquake – and a big one – in the not too distant future. And, yet, in all likelihood, a substantial number of folks still decline to purchase readily available earthquake insurance. Given the government's recent performance, that’s not a bad gamble; why spend the money when they know, based upon past experience, that the ground will not even finish shaking before their Congressman puts in a bill to reimburse them – at taxpayer expense – for their losses?

Certain disasters simply overwhelm the ability of the states to respond effectively, warranting federal involvement. Rescue efforts, short term disaster relief, etc., these make sense.

But rebuilding homes? Isn’t that why people buy insurance? And, if they don’t, should the government -- let along the FEDERAL government -- step in to relieve them of the consequences of their own folly?

Indeed, should we not, as a society, INSIST that people who live in areas subject to perfectly predictable natural calamities buy appropriate insurance, or suffer the consequences of their own irresponsibility? Why, pray tell, should NJ taxpayers underwrite the cost of reconstructing homes in LA (Los Angeles, that is) when the eminently predictable earthquake hits? Insurance which factors in the risks is readily available; if someone foolishly fails to purchase it, should the government bail him out?

Similarly, as a homeowner in Ocean County, should I expect Morris County residents to underwrite the costs of rebuilding, should that home be damaged in an eminently foreseeable Northeaster or hurricane? I CHOOSE to own a home there, knowing the risks full well. Why should the hard pressed taxpayers subsidize the risks associated with that choice?

Perhaps the huge expense associated with the Katrina rebuilding effort constitutes a good time to raise the issue of personal responsibility. We, the people of the United States, understanding that ANY section of the nation might be struck by disaster, natural or manmade, tomorrow, promise to help the victims with short term survival assistance. When local resources can’t cope, we’ll help keep order, provide short term survival aid, perhaps even offer LOANS – that is to say, money that needs to be paid back – to victims. But if the losses are such that insurance could have been purchased to cover them, and was not, that’s NOT an appropriate subject for a taxpayer subsidy.

Consider, for instance, the story often told about Congressman Davy Crockett. While serving the House of Representatives, a bill came before the House appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several Members apparently gave speeches in support; it appeared that all Members favored it and that it would pass unanimously. Then Crockett stood and offered the following comments:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, 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 so 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 have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. 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 a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money 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."

A pity, is it not, that such courageous representatives appear to be in short supply today?

Government does not exist to bestow charity. Would that more of our representatives understood that.