"Looking out for the Voters"

Today's Springfield News-Leader has an article about the 7th Congressional District Race:

"The strongest case against Roy Blunt is that he has not looked to the interests of 7th District voters," [Democrat challenger Richard] Monroe said. "What the 7th District needs is strong, independent leadership that looks out for all of the voters."

If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and other Founding Fathers said that they were going to "look out for all the voters," what would they mean?

They would not mean what Democrats and Republicans mean: "I'm going to use my political power to take money from other congressional districts and 'bring home the bacon' to voters in my district."

Republicans generally claim to "bring home the bacon" to businesses, Democrats claim to bring it home to "the poor" or "the disenfranchised."

America's Founders would have frowned on both approaches.

They did not trust politicians. The Constitution and the debates that surrounded it were all about protecting the voters' God-given rights from the government.

The government takes over 50% of everything you earn (assuming you work for a living, rather than vote for a living). Sam Adams tossed tea into the harbor over a tax of 3 pence per pound of tea (colonists used only about 10 lbs. of tea per year). What would he think about a tax ten times larger on every gallon of gas?

If you hired a home protection service to guard your home, and the service allowed burglars to control 60% of your home and spend 60% of your income, would you say the security service is "looking out for you?"

To "look out for the voters" means to protect voters from the most dangerous institution most likely to destroy their rights and the fruit of their labor: the government. To "look out for the voters" does not mean to use the government as an offensive weapon against some voters on behalf of a few other voters.

To "look out for all the voters" -- meaning bring home some bacon for all the voters so that all the voters end up with a net gain from Washington -- is an impossible political fantasy. This is for two reasons:

First, all the other Congressmen are promising the same thing. They're telling their constituents that they are going to make us (those fools in Southwest Missouri) pay for their goodies. They're telling their constituents that they are more politically savvy than the other representatives in Congress, and they'll pull strings and negotiate deals in Washington to make sure that their district gets all the goodies without paying the taxes for goodies for other districts.

"Something for nothing." Or at least a net gain.

It's unethical and immoral. Using government this way is a violation of the oath to "support the Constitution."

But, second, there is a way all voters in all Congressional districts can get free goodies with no taxes.

Print up the money.

The Federal Reserve does it every day.

This results in goodies today and less purchasing power tomorrow, but hey, let's let tomorrow take care of itself!

Also immoral and unethical.

Also very dangerous, likely to lead to economic collapse, political instability, riots and chaos, and ultimately tyranny. Your current Congressman has participated in running up the national debt to the point where the government has promised voters over $80 trillion in goodies that cannot be paid for.

Democrat Richard Monroe, by all appearances a good and decent man, is correct to say that our incumbent Congressman has not been looking out for the voters, and America's Founding Fathers would certainly agree. But nothing on the Monroe for Congress website indicates that this Democrat is different from all the other Democrats, or even all the other Republicans, and understands the big issues facing America, and will protect voters from the dangerous armed gang that seizes 60% of everything we earn, and threatens to destroy the America that Washington, Jefferson, and Adams promised themselves "and our posterity."