A letter from the U.S. Census Bureau arrived, informing me that in about a week the 2010 Census form will arrive. "When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly."
The second paragraph of the letter explains why responding is so important. The results of the census will ensure my community gets its "fair share" of government funds for "highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs." Then the letter repeats that without a "complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share."
Fair share.
What is a fair share, and why is federal funds going into all those things that the states are supposed to be paying for instead? Since when is it the rest of the country's tax dollar's responsibility to pay for everyone else's highways, schools, health facilities, and other unconstitutionally federally funded programs?
Fair Share.
When I was a kid one of the dominant arguments in the household among us kids, especially between me and my sister, was "that's not fair. . . she got more than me. . . he got a bigger piece of cake," or whatever it was we were hammering each other about.
Fair Share.
Each of us wanted to make sure that the other did not get more.
Finally, one day, dad in his wisdom came up with a great idea. One child would have to cut whatever food item was before us in half, and the other child got to choose which half he or she desired. Because I was older, I was given the grand opportunity to cut the item in such a way that it would ensure that each of us got our "fair share."
It must have taken me half an hour to cut that piece of cake down the middle. I was tempted to break out a ruler to ensure that the two pieces were completely identical in size. But no matter how carefully I cut the piece of cake, after the cutting ceremony reached its completion, I had chosen a favorite piece (because it looked slightly larger, or had more icing on it, I can't remember the exact reason for favoring each piece throughout my life) and sure as the sun rises in the east, my sister would choose the piece of cake I had set my heart on. I couldn't complain, however, because I had agreed to cut the piece, and allow her to choose.
Ultimately, I learned that there is never a "fair share." It was impossible for me to make sure that the piece of cake was perfectly cut in half, with two halves that were of identical in shape, mass, and weight. It was simply impossible.
Once the epiphany slapped me upside the head that life isn't fair, I began to reason with myself, "Okay, so how do I make it more fair for me?"
From that point on I quit messing around in school, and began to apply myself to my studies. It turned out I was a bright kid, and my efforts even prompted one teacher to work with me personally to discover what my limits were, if any. He even made sure I took an IQ test, of which I did quite well at. Sports became fairly important to me too. I wound up running as a varsity long distance runner, and I was turning the heads of a few scouts along the way. Life is a competition, and I was going to make sure that I had the biggest slice of cake, eventually. All I needed was to convince myself to rise above the rest of the crowd, and to learn the lesson that life isn't fair, and things don't fall into your lap. I refused to wait for my "fair share," and instead decided I needed to be personally responsible and self reliant.
I am not saying that we should ignore the census, or that the basic premise of answering the form so that your community can be appropriated the correct amount of funds, is somehow a bad idea. It makes sense on a logical scale. Without the proper data, the government cannot hand out its gifts from the treasury accurately.
As Americans, however, we should have a real problem with the words, "Fair Share." The pair of words is a use of language that is designed to stir the child deep within us that yearns for fairness. The idea is to make you demand that you get what you have coming from the government, otherwise "all hell breaks loose."
Fair Share uses the same language strategy that other "big government" schemes have used in the past. The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need!" This concept is pure socialism, and ultimately, pure Marxism. Nowhere in the United States Constitution, or in any of the writings of the founding fathers who understood the importance of limiting the powers of the federal government, do you find the words "Fair Share."
The United States of America, that little union of sovereign states in the New World that fought for her independence from the mightiest empire of the day, forged itself into the greatest society on the planet by its private initiative work ethic, not by the citizens waiting to receive their "Fair Share." We taught ourselves to be self reliant. The demand to be self sufficient resulted in our populace producing plenty of extra commodities so that if we so desired, we could share our bounty with others who might be "needy." This nation, and the Americans who reside in it, have always "voluntarily" been the most generous and charitable society on the planet. But we did not become that way waiting for our "Fair Share."
Societies teaching the citizens to be ready to receive their "Fair Share" have failed, and now are footnotes in history.
Greece is collapsing because of their socialistic agenda of handing out to the people their "Fair Share."
The Soviet Union Collapsed because of its communist agenda of handing out to the people their "Fair Share."
European nations are currently up against the ropes economically because of their agenda to dole out to the people their "Fair Share."
We are the richest nation of the face of the Earth because we said, "Fair Share be damned. I will work to achieve the success I have the opportunity to pursue because of the freedoms afforded me by the U.S. Constitution."
The United States Constitution is in conflict with the letter I received from the U.S. Census Bureau. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the authority given to the federal government to fund highways, schools, and health facilities. These are state responsibilities. The states, however, overburdened with their own idiotic spending, including the incredibly out of control welfare spending in many states (like California and New York), are going bankrupt - or at least the states that have followed a big government, liberal agenda are.
Federal authorities are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, and in fact, in the case of highways, James Madison was very specific regarding that kind of public works projects, rejecting the Federalist's assumption that it was the federal government's responsibility to build and maintain roadways when he vetoed a public works bill in 1817.
The only roadways the federal government has the authority to have anything to do with is "post roads," and the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 specifically uses the word "establish," not build, create, maintain or fix.
Schools, also, are a state's (and in reality, a community's) responsibility. Once again, nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the federal government given the authority to fund the school system, much less determine its curriculum, or be married to the public employee unions.
Health Care, facilities, programs, or whatever, are also not allowed, according to the U.S. Constitution, to receive federal funding. This is the core of the problem with Obama's health care legislation. The federal government does not have the authority to get into the health care industry's business. Period. If a state desires to have health care programs for the poor, or for folks that don't have coverage, or to run county hospitals, or whatever, as per the U.S. Constitution, and Amendment Ten, the states are more than welcome to have such programs. . . without federal involvement or funding.
So, in short, my letter from the U.S. Census Bureau is not only promoting communism with its usage of the words "Fair Share" (and the words are used twice for emphasis, for God's sake), but it is also unconstitutional for suggesting that my response to the census is for the purpose of my community receiving funds for programs that the federal government has no authority being involved with.
And if this letter is so out of whack, I can only imagine how unconstitutional the form I will be receiving in a week will be.
P.S. And yes, based on my above argument, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Education are both unconstitutional, as well.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
James Madison: Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817 - Constitution dot org
No comments:
Post a Comment