- Socialism Comes on Little Cat Feet

Written by Selwyn Duke

Wednesday, 10 September 2008 10:59

Once again injecting itself into the private sector, the federal government has just taken over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie Mae When I ponder the bailout of the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), a move which will cost American taxpayers $200 billion (and who knows how much more tomorrow?), I can’t help but think of some wisdom expressed in an oft-used, apocryphal quotation:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

Unfortunately, voters discovered they can vote themselves largesse – a fancy name for “free stuff” – a very long time ago, and Franklin D. Roosevelt made offering it an art. He created Fannie Mae in 1938 as part of his New Deal, a trove of federal programs that really got the big-government ball rolling and which will ultimately prove to be a raw deal for America.

To illustrate my point, I’ll quote columnist Steve Winn, who, treating the mortgage bailout issue, wrote:

The federal debt is already approaching $9.7 trillion, costing taxpayers huge amounts of money every year in interest payments alone.

What is less understood, however, is that this official debt figure is only a fraction of the government’s total liabilities, notably for Medicare as the population ages.

These liabilities are estimated at $52.7 trillion — or about $175,000 per person, according to the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan budget watchdog group.

This sad state of affairs has many tragic aspects to it. One is, it could be said that every dollar of debt represents a little baby step we once took toward a socialist state, with Uncle Sam going beyond the boundaries the Constitution prescribes for it and using taxpayer money to buy votes and make what is a perversion of charity government business. It’s a perversion because true charity involves giving your fellow man the shirt off your own back, not someone else’s. If the money given was coercively taken, it looks less like charity and more like theft. Or, to use a fashionable euphemism, socialism.

The problem is that many Americans are now socialists, only they don’t know it. They are reflected in Barack Obama, a man who carries their mantle well. Just this week he justified his tax-increase proposals by saying in a Bill O’Reilly interview (I’m paraphrasing):

“If I’m doing well and a waitress isn’t doing so well, what’s wrong with me giving a little more?”

Well, there’s nothing wrong with it, senator. It’s wonderful if you give a little more; that’s called charity. But there’s something very wrong with you making that decision for others.

That’s called something else.

This is where some might say, “But doesn’t the ‘general welfare’ clause of the Constitution allow the central government to undertake works of ‘charity’ (socialism)?” Economics professor Walter Williams refuted this idea very well in this piece. He first cites no less an authority than the father of the Constitution, James Madison, who said:

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Williams continues:

"Thomas Jefferson explained, ‘Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.’ In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, ‘If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?’"

Obviously, keepers of the flame had to fight the desire to indulge end-justifies-the-means interpretations of the Constitution early on. Today, however, we are well-inured to works of socialism, to lobbying for and dispensing largesse. Yet, “lobbying” is the key word, as the pie’s biggest piece is cut for those who can best influence congressmen.

For instance, why do you think Fannie and Freddie can loot the public treasury? Well, consider this: the two firms spent $170 million on lobbying during the past decade and $3.5 million on it in this year’s first quarter alone. I suppose the principle is, from each according to his means, to each according to his lobbying budget.

Yet investors and others cheered when news of the bailout broke. This is no surprise; when you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul will often cheer. The sounds emanating from our shores may be quite different some years hence, however, as debt does come home to roost. This brings us to another problem of statism.

Whether it’s an individual habitually using credit or the collection of individuals called a nation doing so, the principle is the same: separate people from the immediate consequences of purchasing decisions and they become wasteful, buying things they ultimately cannot afford. It’s even worse with government, though, as the separation is greater. The now-common lament is, “we’re leaving the debt for our children,” but even that isn’t entirely accurate. The politicians who get greased to buy votes with largesse and those who receive it are leaving the bill to, primarily, other people’s children. Their own children will receive inheritances.

Yet another problem with a works-of-socialism society is that “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” With authority comes responsibility, and with responsibility, authority. Have you noticed how people will justify seatbelt laws, anti-smoking measures, mandatory health insurance (Massachusetts) and other removals of freedom by saying, “When you act irresponsibly, you cost the system money!”? This is true, but only when you have a certain kind of system, as it’s not a problem of a free economy.

It's a problem of Socialism.

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.