No. We don’t elect people to engage in compassionate conservatism, i.e. wealth redistribution. Where in the US Constitution do you see the authority to take from one citizen to give to another citizen? In this case, W wasn’t even giving our wealth to citizens!
We despise Democrats when they do it. Do you honestly think they aren’t also trying to help people? Of course they are. How is handing a check to a welfare mom fundamentally any different than buying AIDS medicine for Africans? In fact, giving the money to the welfare mom is at least using it for a fellow citizen.
The 16th Amendment notwithstanding, the US Constitution says private property can only be taken for public use if compensation is given. The implication is clear to me. Why bother using the phrase “public use” at all if the founders thought it OK to give money to private entities (by “give” I mean not earned, like a government employee). Public use does NOT mean spending taxpayer money on whatever a public official wants contrary to past abuses.
Finally, you completely ignored my other point. If President Bush wanted to give his own money to Africa, he was clearly entitled to do so. If he had honorably asked for my help to fight AIDS in Africa, I would have almost certainly helped. Who knows how many billions Gates and others would have voluntarily kicked in? I guess we’ll never know.
If you can prove only government is capable of charity, then you might have a point, but everything Bush did with taxpayer money could have been done just as well by private charity...except he didn’t ask. He took!
This is a fundamental issue, because there is no shortage of worthy causes for government spending! If you say it’s OK, then don’t complain when the Democrats do it. Free contraceptives for all! I, on the other hand, prefer to keep government out of the private charity business.
BTW, if you also think AIDS in Africa needs fighting, no one is stopping you from donating, are they?
I’m glad to see a few people here see what’s wrong with government charity, whether its Republican or Democrat. In fact, this article reveals in an indirect way why our Founders made no provision for government charity in the Constitution. Notice that it’s GWB given the credit, not the American citizen or country that was forced to fund his generosity. As you correctly imply, what makes his charitable spending of coerced government funds any more virtuous than that of any Democrat?
Really? I thought Bush was elected.