Whether as a public employee or an elected official, I’ve always thought I should be as careful with public funds as I am with my own wallet. That may not translate – heck, I know it doesn’t translate – the same way I mean it to everyone. Davy Crockett may have described the problem in 1828 – the Congressional records show that he made comments on the topic that year – but a verbatim transcript isn’t available. According to an article accessed at radicalreference, “All evidence points to the Bunce/”Not Yours to Give” story as a fabrication – as are so many tales about Crockett, including many he told himself.”
Despite that, I found Crockett’s excellent, though non-existent, speech at explorersfoundation It’s worth reading, even if Davy Crockett never said it.
Bunce may, or may not have existed. According to the non-existent speech, Bunce said: ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. “’So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’
Crockett’s response – which probably never actually happened – well, click the link and read it for yourself. On one hand, it’s unadulterated BS. On the other hand, it does address how we should spend the funds that are raised through taxes – basically with responsibility and frugality.
I listened to a friend explain that he was going to have to vote against Josh Letcher, since Josh has voted to raise salaries for county employees.
If you look at public employees, I believe they should be highly qualified, well paid, and extremely productive. I was cautioned about one man who worked for me – let’s call him Seamus (only because I’ve never supervised a Seamus, so we can preserve the anonymity). The reports were that Seamus was a terrible drunk and lazy – which would suggest that he didn’t meet the standards I’ve just described.
Still, nobody should be evaluated on rumors. I looked through his work history, and Seamus’ production had been in the top quarter for each of the preceding 10 years. Nothing personal, but if that’s lazy, more of his sort of laziness might be helpful. I found out he didn’t drink in his home county – only at the required state meetings. Having sat through more than my share of faculty and staff meetings, that seemed understandable, even if not praiseworthy. Seamus performed well for me – but a few years later, when I had moved to a different department, he lost his job. The rumors were entrenched. If there’s a moral to this story, you can write it.
It’s easy to spend other people’s money. We can feel good about our kindness- but the challenge is to do it more responsibly than we spend our own dollars. Even if Davy Crockett didn’t make the speech, public money is not mine to spend casually or frivolously. The title of his not-given speech is “Not Yours To Give.” When it comes to the taxpayers funds, I can’t come up with a better argument than the one Davy Crockett never made.
Trego's Mountain Ear 