Freedom From Government
10. Feb, 2009 
7 Comments
by Rep Ron Paul
President Obama signed an executive order last week continuing the faith-based initiatives program created by former President Bush. When the program was created, I warned that giving taxpayer money to private religious organizations would eventually lead to political control and manipulation of them. This week has provided some evidence that this was a justified concern.
The logic behind funding faith-based initiatives seemed reasonable to some. Private organizations are much more effective in charitable endeavors than government programs and bureaucracies. Therefore, why not “outsource” some of the government’s welfare-state activities to these worthy organizations?
This appealed to many conservatives, especially after the follow-up executive order exempting recipients from discriminatory hiring laws, which assured many that taking federal funds would not jeopardize their control over their own operations. But beware the government program started under an administration you like, for it may look a lot different under the one you don’t. Exemptions that Bush gave, Obama can take away.
But now, dependencies on federal money have been set, operations have been expanded accordingly, and many charities are waiting breathlessly for the administration to tell them what new conditions they will have to meet.
With the stroke of a pen, religious charities might not be able to take into consideration a job applicant’s faith, sexual orientation or lifestyle if they wish to remain eligible for that taxpayer money that was so enticing a few years ago. Similarly, if FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) is passed, will Catholic Church hospitals be forced to offer abortion services to retain their federal funding? Can they remain solvent without it?
This is the major problem with basing a private business model on the receipt of government funds. This money does not come without control, or the future possibility of control. We are seeing parallel control grabs in industries that have recently been the recipients of taxpayer largess.
Government officials are now discussing executive compensation on Wall Street, banking, and in the auto industry. How much is too much to pay someone? When is a bonus deserved? But because politicians have bought their way into these industries, these are now political decisions.
It is easy to utilize class envy to whip up public support for these interventions, but government always slides down the slippery slope. Politicians are also discussing other aspects of these businesses in which they are not expert, such as, what should lending standards be? What sort of cars should we direct the auto industry to make? Once government money infiltrates a balance sheet, “taxpayers” meaning “politicians” have a say in how you operate.
Money is the Trojan horse that government uses to infiltrate and infect organizations. Funding that, on the outset, is designed to strengthen and support, will bureaucratize and regulate in the end. It is sad to see charities now having reason to focus on lobbying, regulatory compliance and paper pushing to get and retain money taken by force, rather than beefing up private, voluntary fundraising activities.
Those tempted to join Washington’s ongoing bailout bonanza should instead take the famed advice of former First Lady Nancy Reagan on the acceptance of harmful and addictive substances and “Just Say No” to government money. This is the best protection from government control.
Ron Paul is a republican member of congress from Texas.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
The States and Local governments are all (to my knowledge) on the dole, it’s called “revenue sharing” and just say no is correct but the enforcement of no is the bottom line problem. By what method, how, no can be enforced is very limited.
It is constitutionally incorrect to blame any one person including the President for government unconstitutionality or atrocities. Article I, Section 1, clearly articulates the President cannot make any law, only Congress is delegated the power to legislate (make federal law). Then consider Article I, Section 7, all Bills (purposed legislation) to raise revenue (money) must start in the House.
Unconstitutionality will continue as long as the People (Voters) continue to reelect Lawmakers that dishonor the Constitution’s Oath of Office, especially Lawmakers in the House of Congress every two years.
Allan
While I agree with many of your points. I have to agree with Allan. You guys have been manipulating the document you claim to support. In the true faith and intention of said document, you guys are all in violation, based simply upon tenure. Today people use politics as a career choice. Some say to be of service, but fact is it is one of the cushiest and personally enriching jobs in the good Ole USA.
Did you not just vote or accept a raise? For what? You all are as guilty of mismanagement and looking the other way as any fat-cat on Wall St. or anyone that sits on a board or serves as CEO of the welfare recipient banks and financial institutions.
Jim
Jim, one important thing to keep in mind is the “1″ rule. Usually all of Congress will vote in favor of some unconstitutional legislation, and you’ll see 1 opposed. That’s usually Ron Paul. while not perfect, he’s great on most issues, including the one that you’re referring to – Congressional raises.
In fact, Dr Paul introduced legislation to freeze raises for congress. Would the rest support it? I surely doubt it.
Here’s a link to the story if you’re interested in reading further:
http://www.fortbendnow.com/2009/01/08/34643
Michael, good points; I think Ron Paul has done the best job possible as a Congressmen and would make a good President.
But, seems to me a most important point is missing in political rhetoric – there is no King in the USA, one person cannot make any law. I think all the hoopla about electing a President every four years is purposely misleading Voters away from electing the most important People, Lawmakers and every two years (Congressmen). Voters do not directly elect a President but voters do directly elect Congressmen.
Allan
I couldn’t agree with you folks more about the subjects at hand…. and for those very reasons a grassroots organization called resistnet.com was conceived. At an ever growing state and national level, we hope to do some good. Please visit the site, and get the word out. We don’t have much time to waste.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: ” My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
Ken,
I am most interested in any and every “citizen” discussion about correcting unconstitutionality. I went to the resistent.com site and found talking to or at me rather than a discussion. I am not at all interested in rehashing rehashed News, or discussions about Obama. The President cannot make any law and it is Lawmakers the Citizenry must vote out of office if this Republic is to be reestablished.
However, I will accept an invite to join any group that is talking about “solutions”, real or imagined. ahampton@suddenlink.net
Allan
Too bad you’re disillusioned about the group Allan, I think we all want to go in more or less the same direction, but individually we will have to take alternate avenues to get there!
The countrys’ true patriots need some sort of structure to belong to… everybody is spread out too much with all the different groups.
Ken