If only it were this easy.....

If anyone has any questions about why the federal government has a massive, debt laden albatross around its neck, the image above this story should quickly explain the problem.

The massive "GRANTS" proclamation, in bold, green text, superimposed over a pile of dollar bills, elucidates exactly what too many people want from the federal government: free money.

The story details yet another tale of the feds doling out cash with no Constitutional mandate or sensible economic thought. On the surface, of course, the idea sounds fine. Representative Jerry Costello delivers to his neighborhood some $2,000,000 to employ people (temporarily) to help clean up from recent floods in the region.

I actually applaud Congressman Costello for this success. It is his fellow congressman whom I blame for letting it happen. Constituent services should be the paramount concern of every member of congress. They should fight for as much as they can get for their district, without exaggerating their need (this is a difficult balance). But the other 434 members should weigh these needs against the abilities, authorities, and resources of the Union.

At this point giving jobs to people in need is pretty low on my list of poor federal expenditures. It is certainly better than sending money to the military industrial complex, or flying the First Lady and her entourage to whatever jaunt she has scheduled for the weekend.

But the fundamental problem with our financial mess is that we spend too much. More often than not the intent is good, as in this case. It is a shame this area was flooded. It is unfortunate that unemployment in Illinois is 50% higher than in Mexico. But the solution is not for the federal government to disburse cash like some magnanimous bwana generously doliing out sugar to the masses.

The state cannot create wealth. It can only seize wealth and redistribute it and when it does this it does it very poorly and very inefficiently. There are a few areas where the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to take such action. I am unaware of any provision which allows the USG to take money from one person (via taxing, inflation, or borrowing) and send it to someone else because some flooding took place. It is not that I do not sympathize with those people- there is simply no provision for doing so.

Nor should there be. The best way to help people who need assistance is through local charitable actions. If one insists on using a government to carryout such actions, the states with their varied abilities and structures can best address such concerns at their level.

"GRANTS!" I would prefer "RATS!"