By DAVE HAMRICK
Editor-at-Large

My boss, Cal Beverly, who is even more conservative than I am, tossed my way an editorial that had caught his eye from the Atlanta Constitution.

It got my attention too.

I have been an avid reader of the Atlanta Journal/Constitution my entire adult life, and part of my preadult life. Sadly, the only vestige of the former Journal that remains in the now combined AJC is a slightly more conservative editorial page... very slightly. Except for that, Atlanta has been served for some time now by a single ultra-liberal voice.

That's why in our Friday edition we inundate our readers with conservative columns. There are some great thinkers out there, and you're going to be exposed to only a tiny, select portion of that thought anywhere else.

Back to the editorial. In all the years that I have been a reader of the Constitution, I can not remember a single time when the paper's editorial board expressed concern over too much federal government spending, or the until recently out-of-control national debt... until now.

In this editorial, the Constitution actually uses the word “spendthrift” to describe what the editors feel is a grossly irresponsible use of tax money.

What is the proposed government extravagance that is so great that it has gotten the attention of this longtime defender of the debt?

The Constitution wants to prevent those spendthrift Republicans from letting you keep more of the money you earned, and the editorial comes right out and declares that you are too stupid to be allowed to decide how to spend your own income... the government must do it for you.

Here's the quote: “The Federal Reserve Board, under the leadership of Alan Greenspan, was concerned enough about the overheating economy to raise interest rates Wednesday. Its goal is to take some money out of circulation, and thereby calm things down a bit. The Republican tax-cut proposal, if enacted into law, would more than undo Greenspan's effort at fiscal discipline by putting hundreds of billions of dollars into consumer pockets.”

Heaven help us! What fiendish insanity... what satanic impulse could have given those hate-filled Republicans the idea of putting into consumers' pockets the fruits of their own labors?

To be truthful, I have wondered lately whether the liberal mind set isn't right. Given the amount and depth of corruption that has attended the current administration and the disinterest with which this has been greeted by the American people, I begin to wonder whether perhaps people really are too stupid to handle freedom.

Maybe monarchy, dictatorship, or a fascist state in which the government makes all of our decisions really would be best.

Not that I believe that for an instant, but even if it were true, I would fight with my last breath for a system in which people are free to make their own decisions and spend their own incomes because it's right. It's just right.

The Constitution editorial correctly points out that consumer spending has risen faster than personal income in recent months, indicating that people are spending more than they are making. Maybe we really do need for Uncle Sam to be our Big Brother and handle our money for us.

Or, could it be that this discrepancy between earnings and spending might be attributable to the fact that taxes are snatching away half of what the average family earns?

If we had more money in our pockets, would we do the responsible thing and save more of it, invest it wisely or donate it to charity, or would we be irresponsible and selfish, and use it to buy things we haven't been able to buy before?

The answer is irrelevant. I hope you advocates of big government can follow this difficult logic: It's not up to you to decide how we spend our money. IT'S OUR MONEY!

Having said all of that, I have to back-peddle a little bit. The Constitution advocates paying down the national debt, going slowly on tax cuts until we get it paid off.

That's pretty amazing. For 50 years while Democrat-controlled Congresses have run up the debt, they've never suggested paying off the debt instead of bankrolling yet another group of pork barrel projects, but they have a point, regardless.

We should pay off the debt. Until we do, tax cuts should be modest. It's entirely possible to gradually reduce taxes to a reasonable level while paying off the debt, as long as the good economic times continue... and if we let people keep more of their income, they'll spend some and save some and the economy will do just fine.

Meanwhile, in the long run it will all be meaningless unless we pass a balanced budget amendment. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before some future Congress decides that sending money back to the home state for projects that feed the largest campaign contributors is more important than balancing the budget, and we'll be right back in the soup.

You see, Atlanta Constitution, reality is exactly the opposite of your assertion that the people are too stupid and selfish to handle their own money and the government must do it for them. The government is too stupid and selfish to handle any more of our money than is absolutely necessary to defend us from attack and protect our individual rights.

The people should keep the rest.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page