Writers of letters to Voices, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, either support the nut job and his programs or they oppose his efforts. Those who support him show a critical lack of knowledge of the constitutional government with its listed limits in the Constitution, Article One. Those writers have been raised with the belief that government should provide all things in life for the needy, greedy and the seedy. At times it is difficult to distinguish between the aforementioned three.

However, a writer of a letter in the August 7 column exhibited understanding of the type government we were given by the founders. The writer pointed out that the government [Constitution] doesn’t have any provision for feeding the lazy or anyone else for that matter. Paul wrote, For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11  For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.  (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12) The words neither should he eat literally means ought not to expect to eat. Paul worked for his daily keep as tent maker. It would seem that there are many in Congress that ought to go to work instead of living off of the taxpayers and as the writer wrote, “Why … does the federal government have its nose in our everyday affairs?”

As the writer presented, the poor are always with us as the Bible [Jesus] teaches. The believers are to help the poor and needy. It isn’t the government’s duty to do so no matter how much the politicians and their followers claim it is compassionate; often quoting the Bible to promote government enforced giving though taxes. A “compassionate” government must take from one to give to another and that isn’t constitutional or biblical and that is exactly what the politicians continue to do.

In the same issue, one writer who had been an employee of an insurance company thought that a government public option is necessary to promote competition. The writer claimed that private insurance would not go away and would only force the existing companies to compete on a fair playing field. That writer needs to read the bill since what was written in the letter on that issue is false and the playing field won’t be fair. Private insurance will be gone. The way to promote competition is to get the government’s (politicians) nose out of our business and let the insurance companies compete unhampered by governmental interference.

Notice that the two writers are diametrically opposed, one for constitutional government and the other wanting the government to increase its presence in our lives through the public insurance option. The former understands the role of the government and the constitutional limits, wherein the latter doesn’t have a clue.

The latter’s type of thinking is held by many of the Voices writers and others in every state, including Arkansas. Such notions are indicative of the mind washing that began with FDR and continues to this day that government must provide for every want and need. It is also an indictment of our public schools which haven’t taught true constitutional government to millions of students who have passed through the doors of the various schools throughout the land.

Government must be limited as it once was prior to its growth under FDR. Only then can we have a vibrant economy with each one responsible for their own well being instead of the nanny government programs. One writer understands that issue, the other one obviously doesn’t.

© 08-07-2009 DEC