Mr. Bunce Says It All

Note to the Reader: This is a long article – longer than I normally would write and post, but please don’t let that stop you from taking the time to read it in full. Thanks- Craig

By a vote of 314 to 117 in the US House of Representative, 63 to 36 in the US Senate, and the stroke of the pen by the resident of the White House, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) became law on June 3, 2023.  If you looked over the details of the law, you might agree with me that is should be named the Fiscal Irresponsibility Act of 2023 instead.

What Lawmakers Told Us the FRA Will Do

The main reason for the FRA was to control spending and to get a grip on America’s debt ceiling.  In short, the bill suspends the debt ceiling until 2025 or after the next Presidential election.  It imposes a cap on non-defense discretionary governmental spending at $704 billion; it rescinds spending $30 billion of money designated for Covid 19 relief and it rescinds $1.4 billion of money set aside for IRS spending in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.  At the end of the next two years, the debt ceiling will return but at whatever debt level the nation accrues by 2025.  The FRA also strengthens work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) welfare program. It sounds good.  Any savings is good, right?  Maybe not!

What the FRA Really Does or Does Not Do

This law is nothing more than a shell game that results in robbing the next generation.  It is supposed to appease the “illiterate” masses but is nothing short of surrender with the Republicans in the House and Senate waving the white flag to save themselves from facing ridicule, bad press, and pressure for shutting down the government.  With a current budget deficit of $31.4 trillion, the FRA only exasperates the problem.  It is another abuse of the general welfare clause found in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution.  It is confiscation, through more taxes, of your money and mine to use for individual welfare.  As John Adams stated,

“The interest of the people is one thing: it is the public interest.  And where the public interest governs, it is a government of laws and not people.  The interest of a king or a party is another thing: it is a private interest.  And where private interest governs, it is a nation of men and not of laws.”¹

Creation of the FRA was not for the public interest.  Lawmakers created this act to cover their own self-interest – being power and longevity in office.  That is not what the Founders envisioned for America.  The Founders called the carryover of debt from one generation to the next “theft”.  Instead of creating a path to reduce our national debt, Congress increased it and covered their actions with smooth talk and sycophant media coverage.  In essence, the FRA gives the Biden administration carte blanche to spend as they wish, which is exactly what they wanted. 

The FRA has no enforcement provisions.  In fact, Senator Jack Reed (D) of Rhode Island and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services openly discussed the best ways to get around the newly agreed upon spending cuts.²  Then we find Republican negotiator Rep. Garret Graves (R) of Louisiana managing to get the Mountain Valley Pipeline permitted in the legislation. This natural gas pipeline is a prized project for Sen. Joe Manchin (D) from West Virginia and the project was stuck in permit limbo for years.  I think, however, we would be within our rights to ask why Rep. Graves did not focus on the Keystone pipeline, the Resolution Copper Mine in Arizona, or the Twin Metals project in Minnesota, which would all benefit the entire nation instead of just West Virginia, or more importantly, Joe Manchin’s re-election efforts in 2024. 

Next, we find Rep. Patrick McHenry (R) of North Carolina, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee making an unusual choice.  In November 2022, Rep. McHenry clearly stated that he agreed with Biden and preferred a “clean” increase in the debt limit, which meant an agreement on the debt limit without any efforts to address the spending addiction from which the federal government suffers with cash it does not have.² 

Therefore, we had one Republican negotiator working to ensure Democrat Joe Manchin wins reelection and another Republican negotiator seeking the same outcome as the Biden administration.  To me, it seems we have a uni-party operating in Washington D.C. and I wonder who represents the conservative American. 

In addition, any savings touted in the FRA is an illusion at best.  The supposed spending caps are only for 2 years in a plan that is supposed to address the next 10 years.  Any spending caps that some would want to apply to the remaining years are unenforceable and easily waived by language included in the bill.  In essence, the bill allows spending to the level of $4 trillion to achieve a savings of $1.5 trillion.³ Wait, what?  Can I do that with my personal budget and get a pass?

How about the part where our representatives rescinded $30 billion in unspent Covid relief funds?  Well, that is $30 billion out of the $5 trillion appropriated.  Most would think $30 billion savings is great until you think about the magnitude of $5 trillion and then it becomes a mere drop in the proverbial bucket.  After all, if we stack one trillion dollar bills one on top of another; we would have a stack to the moon and back to earth… four times!⁴  Let me think a moment – $31.4 trillion in debt… that is almost 126 stacks of $1 dollar bills to the moon and back to earth.  That does not compute with me.  In addition, what about that $1.4 billion rescinded from the IRA money appropriate in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act?  That is $1.4 billion out of $80 billion or .0175% of the total.  I think you get the idea.

What Can We Do

We can do what we have had the power to do since 1789.  The Constitution grants the power for us to vote and to choose who represents us.  The question is, will we?  Will we stand up and vote out those that are robbing our children, our grandchildren, and ourselves? Will we run for office or support those who have conservative values, both social and fiscal, who run for office.  Statistics show too few American Christians vote from a biblical worldview in order to have a godly impact on governmental actions.  That has to change if we want change. It does no good to complain about poor results if we do nothing different in our approach to electing God-fearing and moral leadership. 

Horatio Bunce’s Solution

I found a great story recently, which I believe effectively addresses the concerns expressed in the article above.  In fact, Senator Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky quoted this same story in a speech on the Senate floor last week, but, unfortunately, few heard it. You may already heard this story.  It is quite long, but I include it in this post for your benefit.  In a response to Tennessee Representative Davy Crockett’s request for his vote, Mr. Horatio Bunce addresses the problem with Congress spending other people’s money using power they do not have.  This is the same issue we face now with the FRA and our current representatives and senators who do not understand their limits to power established by Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. 

This true story, taking place in 1827, was published in Harper’s Magazine in 1867:   

Davy Crockett and One Week’s Pay: “Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity.”

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker– I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress, we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began”: Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and——————– ‘

“Yes, I know you, you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager………. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter, which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest……………………………. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the back woods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

“‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve it’s suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to anything and everything, which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud, corruption, and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.  If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.

There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you…’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district, I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head, when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully, I have heard many speeches in congress about the powers of the Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied: “Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I. “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’ “‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

“‘Yes.”

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain; no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths, which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgement is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said:

“‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men– men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificant and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.” ⁵

Mr. Bunce got it right.  He held Davy Crockett responsible for his vote.  Most importantly, Davy Crockett recognized his failure to uphold the spirit of the Constitution.  We must do the same.  “We the People” are in charge and we must become the Mr. Bunce of our generation.  If we do not hold our representatives and senators responsible for their “sockdolagers” and failures to uphold the Constitution, we are the problem.

¹ https://www.azquotes.com/author/90-John_Adams

² https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jun/2/real-test-of-fiscal-responsibility-act-will-be-stu/

³ https://www.lee.senate.gov/2023/5/thirty-two-trillion-dollars-it-s-a-colossal-sum-burdening-every-american-taxpayer

⁴ https://www.wired.com/2011/09/stacking-one-trillion-dollars/

⁵ https://americandigest.org/mt-archives/american_studies/davy_crockett_and_one_wee.php