“Freedom is a system based on courage.”
Charles Peguy
Throughout last year’s presidential campaign, candidates reviled one another for their opponent’s failure to propose viable programs to address the nation’s economic malaise and staggering federal deficit. Promises to eliminate the waste and commit the federal government to an era of fiscal responsibility were commonplace.
Yet, no sooner were the election results apparent than countless special interests began pilgrimages to Washington and Little Rock in hopes of lining up some portion of the incoming administration’s predictable largess. These pros knew the gates to the federal coffers would reopen soon after the inauguration.
Leading the way were nation’s governors and mayors. Each had their carefully prepared agenda of programs “essential” to the economic revitalization of their jurisdiction, and therefore to America … collectively justifying the need for vast increases in federal spending. Left unsaid was the reality that without such assistance from Washington, the expensive promises they made to their constituents were beyond reach.
In fairness, these men and women are a product of their times … reared during an era when people were not concerned about spending if Uncle Sam was picking up all or most of the tab … forgetting he is us! Moreover, too many of them have spent most of their adult lives in the public sector, and subscribe to the philosophy that government is the answer … if only there is enough (of someone else’s) money. Occasional questions concerning the federal government’s inability to balance its books were for years met by smug one-liners from economists who told us the problem wasn’t important, while elected officials advised their constituents they had a right to federal dollars and should focus on seeing their state/city received more money back from Washington than it sent.
This reliance on a predictable flow of federal funds has become so pervasive that states and local communities increasingly rely on receipt of these dollars to fund the operating budgets for many basic community services. This mentality has permitted state and municipal politicians to then use local tax dollars to fund a diverse portfolio of new, frequently nonessential, initiatives with only a marginal impact on tax rates.
Recently, the “Blizzard of ’93” roared up the east coast of the United States. While the devastation was particularly severe in regions which rarely receive any appreciable snowfall, New England cities and towns should be equipped to deals with such natural occurrences.
Nevertheless, immediately after the storm, governors across the northeast joined the “paperwork blizzard of ’93” requesting emergency federal aid to help offset the costs of snow plowing necessitated by the storm. Washington, predictably, rubber stamped nearly all such requests … and monies began to flow.
However, amid this national irresponsibility, three selectmen from the small community of Wakefield, New Hampshire, demonstrated statesmanship and a measure of political courage rarely seen. They simply refused to apply for the federal aid!
Selectman Chris Bancroft said, “It doesn’t make any sense … to take the money unless you have a real need“. This position carries an implicit implication there is a major difference between “nice to haves” and “needs”. Moreover, it rejects the popular justification for accepting such grants, if our town doesn’t take the money, some other community will.
He went on to add, “People have to take responsibility for themselves and not look to the federal government to bail them out.“ If they fail to do so, they risk loosing their independence and ultimately their liberties.
