Column for April 24, 2008

Please, Mr. Etheridge, read the US Constitution!

Politicians often make claims and push agendas that will get them either elected or re-elected. Our local Congressman, Bob Etheridge is no exception. I have watched his career for years, starting when he was State Superintendent of Public Instruction. When he ran for Congress the first time, I interviewed him on several occasions for a broadcast outlet where I was employed at the time.

One thing that should be a pre-requisite for running for federal office is to pass a history and civics exam. Each Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential candidate should have a basic, nay, advanced knowledge of United States history and government. I do not know if that knowledge exists a forehand and it is conveniently forgotten upon entering the Beltway around Washington, D.C., or if there is just plain ignorance on the part of those running for elected office.

Don't get me wrong. Pandering has been going on for centuries, and on many different levels. I have seen candidates here in Selma whose messages were simply, "I am going to lower taxes and utility bills" or a promise of health care for our elderly citizens. Regardless of the level of office, it happens.

One thing about Bob Etheridge is that he is known for bringing back federal dollars for North Carolinians, especially for the special interests of agriculture and civil service. For the past several years, old Bob has been active on farm bills at the federal level. He was responsible for helping with the tobacco buyout a few years back. He has recently been appointed to work on the final draft of a farm bill that will set agricultural policy in the United States for the next five years. Congressman Etheridge was quoted as saying, "I am pleased that I have been appointed to have a seat at the table to fight on behalf of North Carolina’s farm families and consumers."

My major question is simply why the federal government is even involved in setting agricultural policy and will interfere with the free market economy? For years, I have decried the concept of quote programs, farm subsidies, and the like. To pay people to not grow crops is a bit insane to me. To tell people how to, how much to, and how to sell a crop is just antithetical to the concept of a free society.

I know that Bob is revered amongst the farming community. He even claims to be a farmer himself. However, owning farmland does not make one a farmer, any more than owning an automobile makes me a mechanic.

Another issue that Congressman Etheridge has been involved with recently is his support for a bill that will guarantee student loans for college students. In his support, Mr. Etheridge said, "With growing uncertainty about the economy, it is appropriate for Congress to take steps to ensure that students and their families continue to be able to access college loans."

Again, I have the same question about the free market economy and government intervention. Since when is it the job of the federal government to ensure that people have full economic access to a higher education? Sure we as a society may all benefit from someone becoming educated. However, education is not a right, much less the access to borrowing money for such. The guarantee of rights is a function of government. The securing of personal choices that not all can afford or require, however, is not a function of government.

Life itself is not fair. It is not an appropriate function of government to ensure that all have an equal opportunity to attend a higher educational facility. It is their function to guarantee equal access, but not the opportunity to avail one's self of the privilege.

Speaking of schools, Bob Etheridge is also a proponent of spending federal money in the form of grants to fire departments, police departments, and school systems in the name of "homeland security". Perhaps that money would best be left in our own pockets or maybe even at the local governmental level to begin with so that it does not need to be sucked out of our pockets, filtered through Washington, DC, then returned to the region in a diminished capacity.

Why we applaud when money is laundered under the guise of taxation, a hefty cut taken out of it for administration, and then sent back to our region in far smaller quantities than what was sent is beyond my comprehension. Most of the programs upon which we spend such dollars are extra-constitutional. If Congress spent money only on those things specifically enumerated by The Constitution, I believe that your tax burden would be cut to a fraction of its current level.

The only thing that I will grant to Mr. Etheridge in his desire to return tax dollars for schools under the guise of "homeland security" is that the preamble to the Constitution does indeed say, "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence". It is a stretch to spend tax money on improving security at individual primary education facilities at the local level, however.

Another part of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution declares the purpose of the document is to "promote the general Welfare". Note that it is the general welfare of the nation and not that of the individual, farmer, student, or teacher.

When voting for a candidate for elected office, look to see if he or she follows the simple guidelines set forth for their office and exhibits the principles embodied in their official capacity. I do believe that you are going to have an extremely hard time finding men or women who do that this coming election in November, or even this primary election next month. I have not seen a keen Constitutional mindset exhibited by any candidate at the national level this time around. Then again, that is nothing new. It just seems that this year is worse than any time in recent history, Mr. Etheridge especially included.