On Congress spending money so freely

SolitaryRoad.com

Website owner:  James Miller

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Info ] [ Mail ]

The following was written by James Hickman in the October 20, 2025 SchiffSovereign.com newsletter:

_____________________________________________________________________________

October 20, 2025

In 1828, a proposal came before the US House of Representatives to provide some money to the widow of a deceased naval officer.

The woman’s husband had died in service to the country, and tragically she had been left penniless. So the request wasn’t outrageous—just a small pension to help the bereaved widow of an American hero get by.

By modern standards, the request would be a rounding error. But to one Congressman from Tennessee, it was a dangerous precedent.

That Congressman’s name was David Crockett—as in, the war hero, frontiersman, and legend in the coonskin cap who would later die at the Alamo.

Congressman Davy Crockett stood up and agreed that the cause was noble. The poor widow should not be left alone. However, he insisted, her plight was not the taxpayers’ problem and therefore Congress should not give her federal funds.

Davy Crockett didn’t lack compassion. In fact, he offered a solution. He proposed that every Congressman donate one week’s salary from his own pocket. And that would be more than enough to support the widow without violating the Constitution.

According to the story that was written a few decades later, Crockett then passed the hat. And absolutely no one contributed. Apparently the widow’s cause was only worthwhile if Congress was spending other people’s money, and not their own.

If Davy Crockett’s ethos had lived on, America would not be in such dire fiscal circumstances today.

See A Tale of Two Crocketts on “No Kings Day”

_____________________________________________________________________________

I think this little story illustrates a very important truth in this life. Most people are very reluctant to let go of their own money and will only do so if they see real benefit to themselves. If it is their own money they will take some time and think it over carefully before acting. They are selfish and want see something solid for money spent. But if it is someone else’s money, that is a different story. If it is someone else’s money, they will think about it for a minute and if it sounds like a good cause they will say, “Sure! Go ahead!” They have no scruples about spending money that isn’t theirs. This is all about personal integrity. A person with real integrity, like Davy Crockett, understands he has certain responsibilities and doesn’t spend someone else’s money easily. He feels a duty to those that the money belongs to. It is just not right to spend another’s hard-earned money without good justification.

The fact that this country is now $35.8 trillion in debt all comes from this phenomenon of people in positions of power spending other people’s money easily. And also involved is the outlooks of the liberal Left who believe in transferring money from the rich to the poor. So politicians are accustomed to taking people’s money from them for “good causes” — and if the cause is one they think their constituents would like and would provide important votes for the next election, that is a thing well worth considering.

These people don’t really think of things quite this way of course. They think of themselves as spending “government money”, not other people’s money. There are, of course, lots of people who do spend their own money irresponsibly. If a person is unable to stay within budget in his own personal life, do you expect him to stay within budget if he is in public office?

And then there is the problem of congressmen voting so easily for actions that are big consumers of money — like foolish wars. Instead of acting out of thought, reflection, and reason, they act out of emotion and impulse. After all it is just other people who will pay for their foolishness — not they themselves.

21 Oct 2025