What insane kind of reasoning could have possessed Grover Cleveland? Luckily, we have the text of his veto which always gave the reasoning for his decisions. In the decision, he admitted that the need was real and the proposal would effectively alleviate the distress. So, why did he choose not "to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment" by appropriating the funds?
Try to follow his reasoning:
- It was not the duty of the government nor within the jurisdiction of its power. There is a prevailing tendency, he wrote, to disregard the limited power of government and he felt it his duty to stand against it. "The people support the government, the government should not support the people."
- Individuals, churches, and civic organizations could be relied upon to answer the distress. "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character," he wrote. "It prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthen the bonds of a common brotherhood."
It is time for us to ask ourselves some serious questions about sacrifice and charity. This fall, vote for the person who recognizes the need to support a sturdy American character.
No comments:
Post a Comment