NH State Rep Barbara French (D-Henniker) had an Op-Ed in the Concord Monitor stating why she was not going to vote for the NH Budget. Certainly and true to the Democrat form whereupon ANY lessening of a proposed budget calls for shrieks of death, damnation, and falsehoods (“Our state agencies have been severely cut over the years” – really, real cuts ma’dam? Only if 1% is considered, f’instance, as severe). Typical “we didn’t everything we wanted so Republicans aren’t just of a different mind, or wrong, but EVIL! The whole thing is after the jump but two things jumped out at me:
- Once again, the phrase “General Welfare” is used in a completely wrongful manner
- Once again, the wealth of Individuals is held to be at the full disposal of the State (and of course, her as a legislator).
To the first:
The U.S. Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution both direct us to promote the general good/welfare.
Constitution of New Hampshire (Part First, Bill of Rights, 1, Equality of Men, Origin, Object of Government): “All men are born equally free and independent. Therefore all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent and instituted for the general good.”
Constitution of the United States: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Really? Actually, no, not from legal perspective are either uses of “general welfare” which shows a lack of knowledge by this long lived solon.
As far as the US Constitution’s use of the phrase “general Welfare”, there is this (and I use Wikipedia not as an exhaustive source but merely to show that the merest bit of research would have shown her her error) (emphasis mine):
The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”[2][3]
Looking up those footers show these:
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) (“Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”).
Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 53.
The “general Welfare” refers to the well-being of the nation and its people. General welfare refers to the welfare of all of the people in the nation, not a select few or even a majority at the expense of a minority. Laws passed by Congress that promote the general welfare might include, for example, laws that provide for clean air and water and other elements of a healthy environment, that provide for health care for all people, that provide for public safety and protection against terrorism or foreign powers, that provide for equal educational opportunity, and that provide for safe highways, bridges, and tunnels
Thus, it is not, as NH State Rep Barbara French (D-Henniker) seems to hold, to use the majority to succor a minority at the expense of the majority. As to the NH Constitution, I have to admit that I cannot find anything quickly as to it’s original meaning but given it was written before the US Constitution, I believe it is in the same vein – our entire State’s best interest instead of the welfare state (given that each town and city is to have its own Welfare department). Thus, I have asked my go to guy on things NH Constitution based, NH State Rep Dan Itse, for his input
She quotes both in the hopes of bolstering her claim that Government is not doing what it should – that revenues should be raised in order to do more (and of course, more after that). Well, the practical problem with this is that based on what Progressives seem to want, absolutely equality of outcome (think life style such that no one would ever be in physical want – THAT is their definition of “Freedom”), there is just not enough money in the country or state to do so (and speaks directly to my second point).
We are not a poor state, we’re a wealthy state. We can do better. I cannot support the present House budget proposal until it meets our constitutional needs.
Once again, we see the evidence of the Collective – what is your’s is mine, and mine to spend on others as I see fit. The wealth of the Individuals is that of the State. Thus, the State is rich – if we only take what we need when we need it and from whom “doesn’t need it” (Shades of Obama: At some point, you‘ve made enough“). Is that a NH Value? Is that what a limited Government is supposed to be? I think to the former, French completely abhors the idea altogether (“what, limited??”) – but the latter is certainly true – that if Government is in need, it is the duty to give it to it.
But that certainly totally upends and turns upside down the relationship between the Citizen and their Government.
Here is her Op-Ed in full:
My Turn: When people are denied services, the state suffers
I am close to 89 years of age; a retired school nurse of 27 years. Nursing is one of the helping, caring professions. I have always believed that I was not put on this earth for my own self-satisfaction but to work for the common good.
I came to the New Hampshire Legislature in 1992. I worked on wellness and primary prevention legislation supporting family resource centers, which in turn help families to be strong and healthy. It took five years to pass the legislation, another five to get some basic support for two terms, and then lost it when the Republican party regained control. This system has proven to keep families out of the welfare system and out of foster care, saving the state thousands of dollars and at the same time giving families an excellent quality of life.
Prevention is cost-effective. Adequate prevention and intervention programs for substance and alcohol abuse, adequate services for mental health and efforts to improve high school graduation rates are cost-effective. All too often, however, we are crisis-reaction oriented. When people’s needs aren’t met they end up in trouble, on the street, in the hospital or the corrections system. We build a new prison and look tough on crime, but our corrections system is not prepared to deal with the mentally ill. Taking a reactive approach costs a lot more. A year in prison is $33,540 as compared to a year at UNH, which is $26,900. People with a mental health concern should be able to work with a community mental health center, which helps to keep them out of the hospital.
Our state agencies have been severely cut over the years, with no backup to help them remain functioning. Cuts to Health and Human Services that Republicans in the Legislature have proposed would be devastating. People are having a difficult time and need services. Government is not a business; it provides services such as highway maintenance, vehicle licensure and registration, water quality and communicable disease control. When we don’t raise enough revenue it keeps the general fund inadequate to meet our needs. The result is a “downshifting” of services to the communities, which means an increase in our property taxes, as these needs don’t go away and the communities are the “last resort” by law. We used to provide revenue sharing, but that has been greatly reduced.
The New Hampshire Health Protection Program, otherwise known as Medicaid expansion, is important and continues to help many people in New Hampshire. We have approximately 39,000 people enrolled. Some are my neighbors and yours, too, and they are pleased and relieved that they have this coverage. I can’t imagine not keeping this program.
The U.S. Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution both direct us to promote the general good/welfare.
Constitution of New Hampshire (Part First, Bill of Rights, 1, Equality of Men, Origin, Object of Government): “All men are born equally free and independent. Therefore all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent and instituted for the general good.”
Constitution of the United States: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We are not a poor state, we’re a wealthy state. We can do better. I cannot support the present House budget proposal until it meets our constitutional needs.
(Rep. Barbara French, a Democrat, lives in Henniker.)
