The Preamble They Should’ve Written

Guest Column
The Preamble They Should've Written
Delete "General Welfare."
James L. Payne
Posted April 27, 2011

Did the Founding Fathers get it right? Is the Constitution they drafted a secure basis for limited government? Many conservatives suppose so and believe the drift to big government has simply been a case of not reading the directions on the package. Last January these conservatives ordered that the Constitution be read aloud at the opening session of the House of Representatives, apparently hoping that the reverberation of its words off the marble walls would inspire lawmakers to return to the limited government of yesteryear.

I'm afraid it was an unrealistic hope. You can say many good things about the Founding Fathers, but these gentlemen fell short in one, critical way: The Constitution they drafted contains no significant intellectual impediment to the endless growth of government; that is, it does not explain what's wrong with too much government. If anything, it goes in the opposite direction, inviting politicians to use the federal government to address everything. This invitation stands in the preamble, where after noting government's obvious jobs -- "establish Justice" (a court system), "insure domestic Tranquility" (armed forces to put down riots), "provide for the common defence" (armed forces to take care of foreign invaders) -- the drafters added that government's function was also "to promote the general Welfare."

This phraseology may not have had much importance in 1787, when communication about national issues was limited. In modern times, however, the mass media turn every human need into a national problem that can be said to affect the general welfare:  unemployment, wages and working conditions, medical care, education, food production, science, natural disasters, and so on. Following the lead of the preamble, lawmakers feel justified in using government to address every one. The result is a big and ever-growing government.


"What Else Is There?"

What's the way to stop this drift? For the answer, we need to examine the logic that drives governmental growth. The modern argument for government involvement looks like this:

1. Problem X affects the general welfare;

2. Government is the only institution that can address national problems;

3. Therefore, government has to step in and address X.

Notice how the argument depends on statement 2, that government is the only answer. If you accept that assumption, then you are pretty much bound to agree that government has to be involved. Not to agree makes you look cruel and insensitive, unwilling to fix the nation's problems. And it doesn't matter how badly government has performed in the past. Those urging more government concede that government is wasteful, often inept, and corrupted by special interests. But that doesn't affect their position.  "We've got to do something," they say. "After all, what else is there?"

Well there is something else, but we often overlook it because it's not big, imposing, and centralized like government. It's the millions of independent thinkers and doers who each day strive to make the world around them a better place, working individually, and joining together with friends and neighbors, in groups, churches, associations, and businesses. We can call this problem-solving system the private sector, or civil society, or the voluntary sector.

Although we often don't stop to realize it, this collection of independent actors is working to address just about every national problem you can think of. Take disaster relief. On this subject standard political logic has taken us to a big-government solution. Hurricanes and earthquakes certainly affect the general welfare; therefore, we say, government must step in. So we end up with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Many agree that this massive bureaucracy is inept and wasteful, but if you suggest closing it down people say, "We have to have it. When disaster strikes, we can't just sit by and do nothing." That's the fallacy of assuming only government can solve problems.

When disaster strikes, the fact is that millions of individuals react in constructive ways. The people immediately affected do much to take care of themselves and their families. Neighbors pitch in to help neighbors. Businesses sell -- or donate -- needed supplies. Churches send aid and volunteers. Voluntary groups in other regions take up collections and send supplies. Businesses rebuild. Philanthropists support reconstruction projects. This vast multitude of helping hands is a disaster-relief system. The same is true for other problems: education, working conditions, medical care, and so on. The private sector can and does address all of these issues.

It's biggest enemy, the institution standing in the way of this vital, intricate system of private, voluntary action is. . . government! It undermines the private sector in three ways:

1. Resources. Government's taxation drains wealth from the private sector. Every dollar government puts into its programs comes, directly or indirectly, from individuals, businesses, and groups that would have used their resources to do what the government agencies try to do.

2. Regulations. Government's rules and regulations are, like taxation, a burden on the private sector. Every minute someone spends filling out a government form is a minute he cannot use to help a neighbor.

3. Motivation. Private action is prompted by the belief that we make a difference. When people assume government is supposed to solve problems, it weakens their motive to help themselves, and it weakens their inclination to reach out and solve problems in their community.

In conclusion, if the Founding Fathers had wanted to block the drift toward big government, they should have written a preamble that extolled the virtue of the private sector, perhaps like this:

We the people of the United States of America, recognizing --

That the general welfare is promoted by individuals, families, neighbors, and societies

freely striving to improve the condition of mankind,

And further recognizing --

That government action often counteracts their independent, creative activities;

Do hereby establish a government which shall establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, and provide for the common defence.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/preamble/

GOP Gets Constituent Flak over Budget Plan

GOP Gets Constituent Flak over Budget Plan
"After 10 days of trying to sell constituents on their plan to overhaul Medicare, House Republicans in multiple districts appear to be increasingly on the defensive, facing worried and angry questions from voters and a barrage of new attacks from Democrats and their allies." ( New York Times)

Does anyone have the stomach for really cutting spending?

Spending Limits Are Not Enough
John Semmens
August 1980 • Volume: 30 • Issue: 8 •

The enormous increase in government expenditures over the last fifty years has inspired efforts to place some sort of control on the expansion of government budgets. One popular approach, favored by the National Taxpayers Union, would enact a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Another approach, favored by economist Milton Friedman, would limit government revenues to a fixed percentage of the national income.

While these ideas have merit as devices for placing some degree of constraint on the government's consumption of resources, they are not enough. In fact, unless such proposals are explicitly recognized as interim measures, they could lay the groundwork for a more serious erosion of property rights later on.

The balanced budget proposal focuses on the government's deficit between receipts and expenditures. Beyond question, the perpetual resort to deficit finance must result in the diversion of resources from the private sector to the government's coffers. This can happen either through the "crowding out" of would be private borrowers when large public debt issues absorb available investment capital, or by inflating the money supply. The "crowding out" phenomenon shifts resources from more productive private purposes to less productive government purposes. Inflation employs legal means to diminish the value of all dollar holdings and fixed income receipts. The havoc wrought in the corporate bond markets, where top-rated bonds issued when interest rates were two and three percent now sell for fractions of their original cost, is a dramatic demonstration of the ill effects of both phenomena.

Stopping these ill effects is a worthy objective, but a balanced budget alone will not achieve it. The government may just as easily balance the budget by raising taxes as by cutting spending. An increase in taxes does not require Congressional action. The government has all the power it needs to increase taxes without going through the trouble of enacting new levies, although the enthusiasm shown for the imposition of a "windfall profits" tax on oil illustrates the willingness of Congress to use manufactured crises as a means of raising taxes. Because the tax system is "progressive," i.e., the rates increase as the taxable resource rises in nominal value, the government can raise taxes by inflating the money supply. The heart of the President's plan to balance the budget is to increase the tax take by pushing taxpayers into higher tax brackets.

While a balanced budget might be an improvement over the current situation, the key weakness of such a device as a control over government spending is that it says nothing about the magnitude of that spending. The primary evil in government spending is not that it is deficit spending, but that it is consuming ever larger proportions of the nation's wealth. In the last 50 years, the government's "take" of the national income has risen from under 15 per cent to over 40 per cent. It is to remedy this situation that we have the proposals to limit government spending as a percentage of the national income.

Spending limitation measures have been discussed and even, in some jurisdictions, passed as a means of controlling the government's appropriation of resources. Without limits, the projected outcome of existing trends is for the government to consume the entire national income within 30 years. A number of proposals have been introduced in Congress. Whether any of these can serve as a real constraint on spending, however, is doubtful. On the one hand, it is a fundamental principle of legislative procedure that a subsequent body of Congress cannot be bound by an action of a prior body of Congress. Any limitations legislated in one session may be overridden by a simple majority vote in a later session. It is obvious, then, that if a spending limit is to be binding, it must come in the form of a Constitutional amendment.

Limiting spending by Constitutional means was the route taken by the Arizona Legislature in 1978. The problem with virtually all of the proposals to use Constitutional means is the overwhelming reluctance to draw a hard line on the spending issue. Such was the case in Arizona. While the Constitution now limits state spending to no more than 7 per cent of the personal income of the inhabitants, the determination of what constitutes state spending is a matter of legislative enactment. Not all state spending is state spending, or so it seems. Certain categories of revenues and outlays are declared exempt from the spending ceiling. Curiously, the rationale for exemptions is that services rendered for fees should be excluded from the spending limit. This says much about the character of the remaining outlays­namely, that they are not services rendered for fees. This is an admission that the bulk of state government expenditures are for activities that would not be purchased on a fee basis.

One should not be surprised to discover attempts at reclassification of which expenditures are to be exempt. It is barely a year since the enactment of the Arizona spending limit and the legislature has already passed a measure designed to exempt additional gasoline taxes from the 7 per cent limit.

The fundamental problem with the spending limits proposed to date is the lack of respect for basic private property rights. The proposals rest on the premise that the government is entitled to take as much of the national income as it needs. This explains the universal provision for loopholes and escape clauses. In essence, the spending limit proposals are concessions to the current taxpayer outrage. The government is willing to reach a temporary compromise and agree to limit itself to a specified percentage­unless it needs more for unforeseen "emergencies."

Valid as a contingency plan might be­the usual example is a conjured vision of world war­it will be abused. The government itself can create the emergency through its own ineptitude or malicious intent. The "emergency" in Arizona is the deterioration of the road system. If the rather drawn out consequences of inadequate highway maintenance can qualify as an "unforeseen emergency" that necessitates a breach of the spending limit, then there is, in fact, no spending limit.

Arbitrary spending limits concede the government too much. The involuntary nature of taxation has enabled government to decide for itself how much it will take from its citizens. Merely fixing a percentage limit does not deal with the valid issue of the purposes of government activity. It is all too likely that spending limits will serve to legitimize a claim to a portion of the national income that is not subject to question. If the government provides some services or encounters "emergencies" it will have little difficulty enlarging its take.

If there are genuine functions to be performed by governments, then the historical experience of man's economic activities quite clearly indicates that the proportion of income consumed in the provision of such services should be declining. No services can be more valuable or necessary than the provision of food, clothing, and shelter. The marketplace has been coping with the provision of these items for years. In the last 50 years, the proportion of the national income consumed in the production of food, clothing, and shelter has declined by 33 per cent, 50 per cent, and 17 per cent respectively.

The efficiency of the free market is responsible for the decline in cost of these fundamentals of life. The pressure of competition drives suppliers to cut costs. The prosperity engendered by the free market enables consumers' real income to rise so that individuals can afford more than just the necessities.

The government is not subject to the forces of the marketplace. As a result, the proportion of the national income consumed in the public sector has risen by 212 per cent during the past half-century. Insulated from competition, government becomes less and less efficient. Bureaus and rules proliferate, consuming more resources to do less. Unable to generate a desirable product, government, via legislation, simply helps itself to larger shares of consumers' income.

Logic and experience warn that entitling the government to a fixed cut of the national income or demanding that its budgets be balanced is not enough. The government acts beyond the beneficial guidance of the market regimen. This has bred a sloppiness that has led to a dangerous obesity of the public sector. For its own good, the government must be put on a more healthy diet. Its intake must be matched by its output. As much as is possible of its activities must be cut free from the tax-fed trough. Services that are conducive to operating on a fee basis should be placed on a fee basis. Services which are not conducive to such an arrangement require an alternative regimen. Since, by definition, such services cannot be marketed, we must simulate the discipline of the marketplace. One apparent means of doing this would be to enforce spending reductions. Just as the shares of national income going to the production of food, clothing, and shelter have been reduced, so too should government's share be reduced. A shrinking spending limit could serve as an artificial simulation for the pressures of competition.

Bloated as it is, the government cannot handle even its traditional responsibilities. It cannot protect its own diplomats. It cannot keep the streets safe. For its own good and for our own good, the government's debilitating obesity must be more than halted, it must be reversed. Spending and taxation must be reduced.

1980 ID: Mr. Semmens is an economist for the Arizona Department of Transportation and is studying for an advanced degree in business administration at Arizona State University.


http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/spending-limits-are-not-enough/

Re: UPDATE!!! Wonder if the NAACP has seen this Video of Obama being called a “N*gger,” “Coon,” and “MotherF*cker”?(

Just got an update to a story I
posted<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/wonder-if-the-
naacp-has...>
entitled:

"This video has been removed by the user"

On Apr 26, 1:07 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>     <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/> UPDATE!!!
> Wonder if the NAACP has seen this Video of Obama being called a "N*gger,"
> "Coon," and "MotherF*cker"?(<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/update-wonder-if-the-na...>
> *Scotty Starnes
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>*| April 25,
> 2011 at 6:03 PM | Tags: Andrew
> Breitbart <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=andrew-breitbart>, Curtis
> Greenwood <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=curtis-greenwood>,
> mainstream
> media <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=mainstream-media>, Martin
> Bashir <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=martin-bashir>,
> MSM<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=msm>,
> MSNBC <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=msnbc>,
> NAACP<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=naacp>,
> President Obama <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=president-obama>,
> racist <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=racist>, tea
> party<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=tea-party>| Categories:
> Political
> Issues <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?cat=35145> | URL:http://wp.me/pvnFC-5am
>
> Just got an update to a story I
> posted<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/wonder-if-the-naacp-has...>
> entitled:
> "Wonder if the NAACP has seen this Video of Obama being called a "N*gger,"
> "Coon," and "MotherF*cker"? The video showed a gathering of NAACP and
> like-minded folk using vulgar language and it was aimed at President Obama.
>
> This hate-fest was put together by the NAACP's very own Rev. Curtis
> Gatewood. The original video was removed from YouTube but a reader of this
> blog sent me an email with an update.
>
> watch?v=BUBumCjabjo&feature=player_embedded
>
> David Stein reports, via
> CounterContempt<http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1757>
> :
>
> Like a great many viewers, I watched MSNBC hack Martin Bashir's recent
> interview with Andrew Breitbart with a mixture of derision and disbelief.
> Bashir seemed hell-bent on portraying Breitbart as a "racist," and, lacking
> any…uh, what's the word for that stuff that proves other stuff…oh, right –
> "evidence," he engaged in a guilt-by-association attack that would have been
> hilarious had Bashir not been so deadly serious. Breitbart has expressed his
> admiration for Rush Limbaugh, who recently did an impression of the
> president of China. This, somehow, makes Breitbart "racist." A GOP nonentity
> in Orange County who Breitbart has no connection to or relationship with
> recently emailed some friends a stupid, photoshopped image of President
> Obama, and somehow Breitbart is responsible for the conduct of a human being
> whose existence on this earth was very likely completely unknown to him.
>
> Watching Bashir struggle so mightily, and with such little success, to find
> a way to tar Breitbart as a racist, I was reminded of the fact that the
> "mainstream" media (MSM) has yet to cover a particular, ongoing story in
> which evidence of racism (real, tangible evidence, of the kind that you get
> when someone is actually, you know, a RACIST) has been uncovered at the
> venerable NAACP.
>
> The MSM certainly considers the NAACP to be an important organization. I'd
> wager that the members of the MSM hold the NAACP in much higher regard than
> they do Breitbart (yes, I know that's an easy bet, but I've never been much
> of a gambler).
>
> If it's so terribly, terribly important to "expose" the fact that
> Breitbart likes a radio host who once did a funny Chinese accent, why is it
> not equally important to confront the NAACP regarding the racist,
> anti-Semitic statements and actions of one of its high-ranking officials?
>
> I first covered the words and deeds of Reverend Curtis Gatewood, the
> 2ndvice president of the NAACP's North Carolina Conference of Branches
> (he was
> also an official organizer of last year's AFL-CIO/NAACP "One Nation Working
> Together" rally), back in August 2010. I meticulously cataloged all of his
> statements attacking Jews, Israel, immigrants, black people with whom he
> disagrees, and America in general. It's too long a list to recap here, so I
> recommend visiting the original
> story<http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/140>(pack a lunch; it's
> not a quick read). Much of my exposé involved Reverend
> Gatewood's work as co-founder and co-organizer of the "Black is Back
> Coalition," a group founded on the principles of violent revolution,
> anti-Semitism, and support for the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and all of
> America and Israel's foes.
>
> I revealed fairly shocking video from the coalition's November 2009 rally in
> Washington DC, and, predictably (another safe wager), the footage (and the
> Gatewood story in general) was ignored by the MSM (even though the footage
> showed participants at the rally repeatedly calling Obama the "n word" and a
> "coon"). The NAACP also steadfastly refused to comment on the story (not for
> lack of trying on my part).
>
> When the coalition held another rally in November 2010, and more unpleasant
> footage surfaced (this time, the footage showed the Black is Back Coalition
> leader making thinly-veiled threats against Obama), I was, at first, tempted
> to simply write another article about it, send it around the conservative
> blogoshpere, and watch once again as the MSM and the NAACP turn their
> collective, customary blind eye.
>
> Speaking of the conservative blogosphere, there is one type of story that is
> such a staple of conservative blogsites, it might as well have its own
> category on standard WordPress templates. It's the "if a conservative said
> that, the left would be in an uproar" story. We all know the drill: A
> liberal (politician, journalist, author, activist, actor) says something
> (racist, bigoted, unintentionally stupid), the MSM doesn't cover it, and we
> sit back trading blog posts about how hypocritical the MSM is. "Harumph…if a
> CONSERVATIVE had said that, the press would be all over it."
>
> It's a legitimate angle for a blog post, but damn, it gets tiring repeating
> the same point, again and again.
>
> So when I saw the footage of the November 2010 Black is Back rally, I
> thought I'd have a little fun with it. I decided to see exactly *how* the
> NAACP would react if they read the words that were spoken at the rally *without
> knowing* that it was a far-left event that their own guy co-organized. How
> would the NAACP react if they were sent a transcript of the remarks under
> the guise that the event was a Tea Party rally?
>
> Continue reading and see what the response was when David contacted the
> NAACP>>> <http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1757>
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/update-wonder-if-the-na...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/scottystarnes.wordpress.com...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/scottystarnes.wordpress.co...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/scottystarnes.wordpress.com...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/19862/>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/scottystarnes.wordpress.com/1...>
>
>   [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Express
> yourself. Start a blog. <http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=email>
>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Comedian gets fined and a life time ban for making a joke....

Pretty scary, man

On Apr 27, 4:33 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for sharing this Bear.....Alarming, to say the least.  I've seen
> other "incidents"  up recently in Canada that are similar.  Hopefully, your
> people will realize what a major mistake this law was, come back to
> reality., and repeal such nonsense.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > HI all
>
> > We here in the Great White North finally got a new news channel that
> > premiered last week.
>
> > The is one of the interviews with a comedian that was hosting the regular
> > Tuesday night open mike at a gay club.
> > A couple of lesbians did like the show and started yelling at him when he
> > heckled back they were insulted and went to the B.C. Human Rights
> > Commission. They Fined him $15,000 and the Club $7,500. That they had to pay
> > the "insulted" dyke. AND he now has a lifetime ban  in B.C. from ever
> > telling another joke.
>
> > Canada has no free speech  anymore.
>
> > Be warned people this sort of PC BS is spreading.
>
> > Bear
>
> >http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/914035361001
>
> >  --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Government Creates Poverty

Government Creates Poverty
By John Stossel
4/27/2011
 
The U.S. government has "helped" no group more than it has "helped" the American Indians. It stuns me when President Obama appears before Indian groups and says things like, "Few have been ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans."

Ignored? Are you kidding me? They should be so lucky. The government has made most Indian tribes wards of the state. Government manages their land, provides their health care, and pays for housing and child care. Twenty different departments and agencies have special "native American" programs. The result? Indians have the highest poverty rate, nearly 25 percent, and the lowest life expectancy of any group in America. Sixty-six percent are born to single mothers.

Nevertheless, Indian activists want more government "help."

It is intuitive to assume that, when people struggle, government "help" is the answer. The opposite is true. American groups who are helped the most, do the worst.

Consider the Lumbees of Robeson County, N.C. -- a tribe not recognized as sovereign by the government and therefore ineligible for most of the "help" given other tribes. The Lumbees do much better than those recognized tribes.

Lumbees own their homes and succeed in business. They include real estate developer Jim Thomas, who used to own the Sacramento Kings, and Jack Lowery, who helped start the Cracker Barrel Restaurants. Lumbees started the first Indian-owned bank, which now has 12 branches.

The Lumbees' wealth is not from casino money.

"We don't have any casinos. We have 12 banks," says Ben Chavis, another successful Lumbee businessman. He also points out that Robeson County looks different from most Indian reservations.

"There's mansions. They look like English manors. I can take you to one neighborhood where my people are from and show you nicer homes than the whole Sioux reservation."

Despite this success, professional "victims" activists want Congress to make the Lumbees dependent -- like other tribes. U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., has introduced the Lumbee Recognition Act, which would give the Lumbees the same "help" other tribes get -- about $80 million a year. Some members of the tribe support the bill.

Of course they do. People like to freeload.

Lawyer Elizabeth Homer, who used to be the U.S. Interior Department's director of Indian land trusts, say the Lumbees ought to get federal recognition.

"The Lumbees have been neglected and left out of the system, and have been petitioning for 100 years. ... They're entitled, by the way."

People like Homer will never get it. Lumbees do well because they've divorced themselves from government handouts. Washington's neglect was a godsend.

Some Lumbees don't want the handout.

"We shouldn't take it!" Chavis said. He says if federal money comes, members of his tribe "are going to become welfare cases. It's going to stifle creativity. On the reservations, they haven't trained to be capitalists. They've been trained to be communists."

Tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian Affairs manage most Indian land. Indians compete to serve on tribal councils because they can give out the government's money. Instead of seeking to become entrepreneurs, members of tribes aspire to become bureaucrats.

"You can help your girlfriend; you can help your girlfriend's mama. It's a great program!" Chavis said sarcastically.

Because a government trust controls most Indian property, individuals rarely build nice homes or businesses. "No individual on the reservation owns the land. So they can't develop it," Chavis added. "Look at my tribe. We have title and deeds to our land. That's the secret. I raise cattle. I can do what I want to because it's my private property."

I did a TV segment on the Lumbees that I included in a special called "Freeloaders." That won me the predictable vitriol. Apparently, I'm ignorant of history and a racist.

The criticism misses the point. Yes, many years ago white people stole the Indians' land and caused great misery. And yes, the government signed treaties with the tribes that make Indians "special." But that "specialness" has brought the Indians socialism. It's what keeps them dependent and poor.

On the other hand, because the U.S. government never signed a treaty with the Lumbees, they aren't so "special" in its eyes. That left them mostly free.

Freedom lets them prosper.


http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2011/04/27/government_creates_poverty