Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Government to the Rescue

I was listening to O’Reilly last night while making dinner and he was talking about how the City of New Orleans acted irresponsibly by issuing an evacuation order and not providing transportation for the upwards of 100,000 persons in the city without an automobile. I realize it’s a tragedy what has happened in New Orleans. But where do we draw the line in expecting the government to take care of its citizens? What is the proper role of the government here? Is it to consistently rescue people from their own choices?

I know a lot of people out there probably already think that I’m a callous, cold-hearted bastard and this will only add fuel to the fire – but I really don’t think that the city of New Orleans should be faulted here.

5 comments:

Janice Phillips said...

"We the People of the United States...insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Seems to me the government SHOULD be helping those who can't help themselves in times of crisis (the poor we will always have with us, to paraphrase the bible) and SHOULDN'T be in the business of fostering an economy and morally bankrupt education system that only adds to the entitled, victimized, selfish, irresponsible culture seemingly exposed by Katrina.

Then again, I'm not an expert in Original Intent, nor have I read my Federalist/Anti Federalist Papers of late. I'm sure Publius has some choice things to say about the role of government in our lives that would apply to this.

Amy K said...

Okay, I figured I would be attacked on this post. :-P While I appreciate people trying to help balance me out I would also like to remind people that a particular post doesn't necessarily represent Amy's entire view on a given matter. This post, for instance, asks a question for purposes of discussion or simply because it's something I've asked myself recently. OKAY?

Tuckster - You can definitely call me if you don't have transportation and need a ride sometime. (Just to let you know.)

Concerning compassion to others ... I think now is the PRIME time that people in the private sector should be stepping up their acts of kindness and compassion towards Katrina victims. I'm NOT addressing the issue of compassion and helping people in need in GENERAL. All I'm talking about here is what is the government's proper role toward Katrina victims. Our society has become so reliant on the government for EVERYTHING it seems ... And, is that a HEALTHY thing??

COMPRENDO? Can we have a discussion within the confines of those questions?

Anonymous said...

Janice:

Congress' spending power is limited to "provid[ing] for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (Art. I, sec. 8.) Federal money shouldn't be spent on the welfare of individuals, or even of individual local and state governments, but it must serve the general welfare of the nation as a whole.

Thus, if Congress spends money on hurricane relief aid in New Orleans, it must serve some national interest, rather than simply for the sake of "helping those who can't help themselves in times of crisis." And it's not that helping those people is inappropriate per se. Of course it's appropriate to help those people, but whether the federal government may constitutionally participate in that relief effort is a different question. If Congress deems New Orleans to be a vital port for national security reasons or for international or interstate trade purposes, then I believe it is entirely appropriate for Congress to spend money on relief efforts, the purpose of which is to restore New Orleans as an important national port.

However, if the only purpose is to provide relief aid to the poor, then the federal government cannot properly and constitutionally spend that relief aid money, though it may be a noble cause. Rather, those efforts should be funded by other sources.


Tuckster:

I won't put words into Amy's mouth, but it appeared to me that the "choice" to which she was referring was people's choice to live in a city entirely located below sea level that is consistently in the path of major hurricanes.

Anonymous said...

"In the mean time, I find nothing wrong with blaming the local government . . ."

Alas, that is what's wrong with American culture; always trying to find someone to take the blame when bad things happen, including Acts of God.

Anonymous said...

"There are some things that are more important to adhering to a strict constructionist theory, such as saving lives."

Under your view, then, it would be OK to suspend your constitutional right to try accusations made against you if it meant saving the life of your next victim.