Robber representatives, raiders of the public funds

The robber barons of today aren’t in executive offices - they’re in government

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

In the late nineteenth century, several corporate leaders the likes of John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and J. P. Morgan became what some called “captains of industry,” consolidating businesses into monopolies and amassing incredible wealth, fortunes that, when adjusted for inflation, would dwarf those of modern moguls. Others, citing some of the ethically questionable business practices of these trailblazers of the “Gilded Age” instead labeled them “robber barons.” Encyclopedia Britannica characterizes the robber barons as follows:

American industrialists and financiers who made fortunes by monopolizing huge industries through the formation of trusts, engaging in unethical business practices, exploiting workers, and paying little heed to their customers or competition.

While this can be said of many of today’s tycoons, the definition is now more aptly applied to those who roam the halls of Congress. The government has been, for more than a couple of decades, ignoring their “customers” (the people they represent), “engaging in unethical business practices,” and “exploiting [we the people],” and to what end? Their own advancement and enrichment.

Take a moment to consider all the things government does that fit as snugly into this description as a manhole cover into a sewer entrance. How many industries is government subsidizing while regulating others into oblivion? How much money do they pour into so-called “green energy” (Solyndra?) while restricting drilling (no new leases!) for and transport of oil (Nordstream II Keystone Pipeline). Does anyone recall the bailouts of the auto makers, or the bank bailouts from 2008? Where in the United States Constitution is it written that taxpayers are responsible for the poor decisions made by corporate management? If you own a small business, and you mismanage your operations or misappropriate your funds, do you think the government taxpayers are going to come running to save you? If you botch your personal budget, would you expect the other millions of Americans to restore your bank balance? Of course not. Yet the modern robber barons, completely disconnected from those they are elected to represent, believe their pet projects and preferred partnerships should be the recipients of our hard-earned wages.

Think of all the money they pour into organizations like Planned Parenthood, pharmaceutical companies (Warp Speed), and public broadcasting (NPR, PBS - both of whom operate as organs of the state). What article and section of the Constitution authorizes the government to pour the people’s money into corporate coffers or to fund and run businesses on behalf of the people? 

What about “charitable” offerings to foreign nations? Natural disaster relief ($5.1 billion to Haiti in earthquake relief from 2010 through 2021), funding foreign border security when they won’t even secure our border (see: Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Oman, et. al.), and financing foreign wars (how much was lost in equipment left behind in Afghanistan? How many tens of billions in money and equipment has been sent to Ukraine? - never mind whether we actually instigated that one), and Biden now pledging $1 billion to the UN Green Climate Fund ( Biden global climate action ) are all examples of exorbitant foreign charitable(?) spending. They are also examples of exorbitant unconstitutional spending. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the government to send money to foreign nations or entities for any purpose. Are we the United States or the United Way?

Then there is domestic charitable spending that may appear innocent and innocuous or even important, but it is still unconstitutional. Hundreds of millions were spent on the “arts” (the Met, the Smithsonian, and others) for “Covid relief.” Wasn’t it the government that shut these down as their (failed) response to the virus? As if to further punish those who bore the brunt of these pernicious policies, the taxpayers are made to pay for the government’s mismanagement, and to provide restitution for venues that the vast majority will never even visit. Medical and scientific research fall into this category as well. The Constitution gives Congress the power to promote the arts and science, but not through use of public funds. Instead, they are called to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 8). All the government is intended to provide are patents and copyrights, and those only for limited time. The founding fathers would be enraged by our government’s spate of spending sprees. As James Madison once stated, “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

Instead of encouraging independent innovation as Jefferson intimated, government is forming de facto monopolies by making these expenditures, infiltrating (infecting?) industry, all while rewarding failure and punishing productivity. Like his former superior’s mission to have some pay for the healthcare of others, Biden is once again plodding down this path by making reliable homeowners pay a premium in order to offset banking losses from risky loans ( Fannie Mae mortgage policies). In addition, the government got in bed with big tech to suppress free speech, tried to force Americans to receive experimental medicine, and to trample our rights in general. For how long will we tolerate this abuse at the hands of those selected to serve us?

The purposes outlined in the Constitution for which government is permitted to raise and spend funds are few, the primary of which are the “common Defence and general welfare of the United States” (U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraph 1 - emphasis mine). I emphasize “United States” here because the government’s responsibility to provide for the “general welfare” is just that - general - it is not to provide for individuals in any way; it is a duty to the union, to the States. This is why social welfare programs like well, welfare, medicare, and social security are unconstitutional. What’s worse is the way our robber representatives raid these programs for other purposes. There is outrage over the insolvency of Social Security, but why is it insolvent? Because, as with so much of our money (never forget, the government is not a business that generates money - they take from others), they spend it where it ought not be spent. Social Security was begun under the pretense of providing retirement savings for Americans (it is/was essentially instituted as a government-forced savings system), yet monies from the Social Security pool (which is little more than a government-run Ponzi scheme) are given to illegal immigrants and others who have never paid into the system. This is theft.

Those now in government are not the robber barons of yesteryear. The robber representatives do anything but represent. They seek only that which promotes themselves and their own interests rather than protecting the rights of we the people and, as the Constitution calls for, the general welfare of the United States. How easy it is for them to call for a $1.2 trillion omnibus to finance their fancies. The socialism of Roosevelt’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society pales in comparison to that of today’s robber representatives.  In light of this, perhaps our “enlightened” era should be termed the “Wanton Age.”