"Not yours to give..."

Student Loan forgiveness is charity, plain and simple

Today, Joe Biden, 46th President of the United States, former Vice President, and former Senator introduced a student loan forgiveness program. I had just heard a speech on government spending that referenced a story and speech by none other than Davey Crockett.

We tend to think of Davey Crockett as the character played by Fess Parker in the Disney movie, “Davie Crockett-King of the Wild Frontier”, or the song by the same name.

Most of us think of this historical figure as someone who “Kilt a ba’r when he was only three”, but he also served in Congress from 1827 to 1831.

Now back in his day, the country was only a few decades old. There was no internet, no YouTube, no TV or radio, and the main source of information about the goings on in Washington DC was through newspapers, pamphlets, and “stumping” for election by candidates who actually spoke to people directly, asking for their votes.

We have accumulated about $30 Trillion dollars in national debt. That is about $88,000 for every single person living in the United States. The dramatic increase in the money supply that comes from spending all of this “borrowed” money has brought us the worst inflation in modern U.S. history.

Someday I will write an article on how the banking system works, how money is created from nothing, as numbers on a ledger, which the Federal Reserve “loans” to the US government, and in turn buys Treasury Bonds, backed by the taxing powers of the government, which they sell or buy to “control” the money supply. When they “buy”, they pay in fiat money. That increases the money supply as it meanders through the economy, but those first in line, direct contractors or employees of the Federal Government, get to spend the “un-inflated dollars” first, while it is still worth something. Buy the time those dollars get to you, they are worth less, and you know that because of the increase in prices caused by inflation of the money supply.

The stewardship of the public treasury has always been an issue of national concern. Even before the founding, while the founders were debating the form of government they would establish, the issue was already on the table.

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee (1747 – 1813) was born in Edinburgh, where later he was a professor of Civil History at the University of Edinburgh. He lectured on the ideas of democratic forms of government, and argued against giving people the vote, as was being contemplated in the U.S. at the time. Here is an excerpt from one of his famous lectures:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates 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. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler

In my view, we are in the “from apathy to dependence” stage. Will we break the cycle? I hope to see that in my lifetime. Hope is a powerful addiction.

Congressman Davey Crocket tells this story in his own words. He explains the Constitutional design perfectly, from which we have strayed so far away, perhaps unrecoverably. After all, as Tytler points out, the average civilization lasts 200 years. We’ve been around for 246. Either our demise is at hand, or we will rise as a Phoenix. History will tell.

I relate Mr. Crockett’s story to you for no other reason than to show you how far we have strayed, even though we have been repeatedly warned. But the tides of history cannot be held back by anyone. By now, the forces that have led us here have been in motion for decades. While some have seen it coming, none have managed to change its course. It must now play out as it will.

One final note. The man who instructs Crockett is a farmer of modest means. Yet he is a scholar of the Constitution and through this understanding, perceives the proper function of his Government in Washington DC.

The literacy rate in the U.S. is ranked 17th in the world. Although I can’t find the statistics to back this up, the Civil War was extremely well documented, because the literacy of soldiers in writing and reading meant letters home were rich sources of documentation of events. We have come a long way since then. Cursive writing is almost a lost skill, and reading is a struggle for many.

As an illustration, ask yourself when was the last time you actually read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Could you explain to a foreigner what either of those documents means? If you do read them, you too will discover that charity is not mentioned anywhere in either of those documents.

I have recently written about the 4th branch of government, the Federal and State bureaucracy, otherwise known as the “deep state.” This is one way to understand how we got here. Enjoy.

“One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Davy Crockett arose:

"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.

"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 money of our own 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.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—'

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager…I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest….But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'

"'No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’”

The story goes on to tell of how Crockett was changed by this man who told him why he would not vote for him. Crockett admits he was wrong before, and he now saw the truth as illuminated by this farmer by the name of Horatio Bunce.

Together they arranged an audience of 1,000 people to hear his confession and his promise to hold the Constitution supreme. Davey Crockett maintained a lifelong friendship with Horatio Bunce. I guess in those days, politicians generally had a sincere respect for the wisdom of the citizens. Ah, those were the days.