On November 7th, former governor and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania wrote an excellent article on the national park that is being created in Somerset, PA, to commemorate the heroic efforts of those on Flight 93, who decided to stand and fight against the Islamic terrorists flying their plane to Washington, DC, probably targeting the White House or the Capitol. On that day 40 ordinary Americans found themselves on a battlefield where they fought to save their country and the lives of their fellow citizens. Their deaths are no less heroic than the fallen at Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, or Normandy. In fact, the extraordinary state of affairs gives us greater pause in remembrance.
This country has long celebrated its citizen soldiers, but these warriors were only citizens, who performed magnificently in the most horrifying of circumstances. Their actions will be remembered, as they should be, by millions of Americans for hundreds of years. They remind us that peace, freedom, and harmony with our neighbors and ourselves is precious but fragile, and that they require sacrifice to secure. The governors report that one third of the necessary contributions to complete the 2,220 acre park have been received from the public, and donations are still being accepted.
Excuse me, what? Perhaps I am not acquainted with the way that national memorials and parks are usually funded, but I think that in an age where “trillion” is a common governmental accounting term, Congress can cough up a few million dollars to honor 40 brave Americans who gave their lives to save the very building in which Congress meets. This park will serve as a reminder to all Americans, both present and future, of ordinary citizens, not soldiers, who deserve our gratitude for defending our country. And we can’t find money to pay for that? This project could be the most deserving endeavor this year vying for federal dollars. Instead, the burden is placed on donations from the private sector.
I also learned on November 5th that the city of Grambling just down the road received $300,000 from the federal government through the stimulus fund to upgrade their water system. Now that is good, because Grambling really needed to upgrade their water system. But there is already an entity that exists apart from the federal government to ensure that Grambling has a good water system: the City of Grambling. If the job is too big for the City of Grambling to accomplish on its own, then perhaps Lincoln Parish could pitch in, or the state of Louisiana. As worthy as the project is, I do not think that taxpayers in Seattle, Washington or Bangor, Maine should have to chip in a portion of their federal tax dollars to pay for a water system that they will never see, use, or hear about and which will have no effect on their lives, no connection to their communities, and no impact on their economies.
So what is the right thing to do in these two situations: the worthy cause of our national park and the worthy cause of our water system? To answer this, I would like to propose a new principle of divided government, which is actually not new at all. It is only out of style. The federal government should pay for national interests and things with federal tax dollars. The same goes for state and local governments. Taxes and all public monies should be kept as local as possible, so that citizens can see their effects and decide if they are being used properly and efficiently. Of course Grambling needs its water infrastructure, but certainly there’s a fairer way to pay for it. Completing local projects with local money sounds reasonable, but does it ever happen now?
Not really. Right now the federal government is the conduit through which almost all money flows. Any serious infrastructure, education, research, or economic development project that local government undertakes is funded or heavily assisted by the federal government. This is how research on pig odor in Iowa gets handed down from Washington as an important job-creating, economy-developing federal project. Is it important? I don’t know. I don’t live in Iowa. This begs the question, “How can 535 men in Washington adequately decide how trillions of dollars should be efficiently spent all over the country?” The answer is that they can not decide. The recent “job creating” stimulus spending spree is a wonderful example. Even apart from the opportunities for political favors and payouts, it is just too much for distant representatives to reasonably consider.
Inevitably though, some money will go to somewhere it was needed. Grambling needed money to update its water system, and money got there. But what is the cost of sending federal dollars to solve local problems? Do local governments become inept in their inactivity? Are projects of a national nature, like a national park memorial, overlooked because of a micromanagement of small local problems? What happens when governing officials make decisions on projects that occur hundreds or thousands of miles away from their districts?
I think this instance is the tip of an iceberg of misplaced priorities. Local projects are getting too much inefficiently used attention, while national issues are overlooked due to limited schedules. The federal government needs to recognize its responsibilities and priorities. States need to recognize their governing authority and the system of federal dependence that is now in place. Local governments should not have to reach all the way to Washington, DC, to buy police cars, build local museums, or install new water systems. Can the current state of affairs be reversed? I don’t really know. So it looks like I’ll just have to donate some money to the worthy cause of the Flight 93 National Memorial.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
This article made me think of a beloved anarchist/environmentalist:
“I would like to introduce here an entirely new argument in what has now become a stylized debate: the wilderness should be preserved for political reasons. We may need it someday not only as a refuge from excessive industrialism but also as a refuge from authoritarian government, from political oppression. Grand Canyon, Big Bend, Yellowstone and the High Sierras may be required to function as bases for guerrilla warfare against tyranny. What reason have we Americans to think that our own society will necessarily escape the world-wide drift toward the totalitarian organization of men and institutions?” — Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire, 1968.
I am definitely for the decentralization of power, and money is power. Keeping money and decisions localized is federalism at its best and is truly one of the foundations of our Republic. I would also agree that our current NATIONALISTIC (one size fits all) form of government is inefficient and wasteful to the enth degree, however I think your article misses an excellent opportunity to promote freedom and all that is good about a voluntary society.
I for one think the nobility of a national monument fully funded and maintained by voluntary contributions would be the greatest way to honor those citizens of United Flight 93 who bravely sacrificed thier lives to preserve the lives of others. Frankly I would call on Tom Ridge and Ed Rendell to refuse any (local, state, or federal) “public” funds. You see, to accept funding generated through taxation is to accept money taken by force. We call that theft, albeit legalized theft. Though it may be legal for this money to be stolen from the productive citizenry of this great nation is it not still immoral?
No, I think those brave citizens of US Flight 93 deserve much more than a memorial that is degraded through funding by legal larceny. Through private fundraising efforts to build this monument I think we as a people can begin to re-assert ourselves as a truly FREE and voluntary society. Upon the monuments completion, we could hold forth this shining example as a clarion call to Washington DC saying “Look what we who are FREE have done! Look what we have created pure and void of FORCE and COERCION!” And maybe, with the right and proper motivation that comes from truly GOOD and NOBLE works free of force and coercion, we might begin to ask ourselves “How much more could we do if we were free of our leech the state?”… Read More
As niether a BLUE or RED statist that is the direction I would have taken……
Absolutely. Voluntary monuments can (and should) be established.
But while the government wastes money on national parks, we have places from which to fight when the proletariat unite!
Hm… good point, Caleb, but I still say we should have paid for it.
Part of my thinking is shaped by living around and seeing the monuments in Washington, DC, the most recent of which is the WWII memorial. They are big, they are impressive, they are expensive, they are publicly funded, and I think they are worth every cent. Okay, sure, accepting public funds is accepting money taken by force, but taken by force is almost the only option the government has (government bonds are the only other funds I could think of). And I believe the government has an obligation to recognize pivotal moments in the history of this country, especially when they involve the sacrifice of citizens and especially if they are of the caliber of the passengers of Flight 93. I don’t believe it’s a statist direction for the government to use public funds for a memorial to the heroic actions of citizens. It seems like a break from statism to me.
And after looking at what we’ve already got in marble at our nation’s capitol, I think it’s worth repeating in this instance. That’s why I want a memorial that looks like we take the event seriously, and public funds are not only the pragmatic way to do that but, because of the government’s obligation to recognize the sacrifice of citizens, a fitting way.
Also, in contrast to the spending going on right now, I find it insulting that this project does not have funding. Maybe if the government was spending responsibly and watching where their dollars go carefully, I could get on board with private funding for a public memorial. At this point however, when almost anything can get millions of dollars from Congress, I’ve got to stick up for the obligation of national governments funding national projects like a national memorial, and not have private contributions pick up the tab on something that shouldn’t have to be their job.
Stewart, did you say “when proletariat unite”? I thought were quoting from beloved anarchists/environmentalists, not communists!
And regarding Edward Abbey’s quote: Yes, Americans will have to stand up for their freedom, both now and in the future. Thankfully, reason, good education, and the ballot box are still effective means of achieving that freedom. But if that changes, I don’t think establishing national parks, in which citizens can hide an take refuge, will be the answer. To battle tyranny, I think a firm second amendment along with allowing citizens to own tanks would be much more effective check on government power. Luckily, we’re not even close to that point. But I would buy a tank if I had the chance. That would be too cool to pass up.
Your first sentence implies statism (“we should have paid for it”). The “we” implies the US income tax paying citizens (56.3% of the American population) should pay for it. Because you believe in it, you are willing to use a monopoly on FORCE (aka government) to see it done and not consider the morality or even the rule of law behind it.
Where specifically in the US Constitution did these United States delegate power to the Federal Government to memorialize anything? Your rationale of seeing all these other exsisting monuments and thinking that this new one should be just as impressive is reminiscent of the popular arguements for a public option in our current healthcare debate. “Social Security and Medicare (which are bankrupt BTW) are great, successful programs! Why shouldn’t a Public option be one aswell?” Just because we made immoral decisions in our past does not mean that we should continue to make them.
We have been so trained and conditioned to look toward the Federal Government for everything and essentially never considering that the STATE cannot produce that which it does not first confiscate by FORCE (immediately by taxation and belated thru borrowing and printing). I am not and can not be in favor of building noble memorials with the point of a gun…. Read More
I think a privately funded NPO would do a far better and much more efficient job than the STATE in preserving the memory of those heroic US Flight 93 passengers.
(It is interesting to note that some of the DC monuments were built prior to 1916 and thus prior to the Income Tax)
I was kidding, though communism is technically supposed to end up with a government-free world. Power rarely gives up power. And national parks aren’t a real strategy, but they are a decent perk.
Caleb, come on.
It’s a memorial. When Congress first decided to build the Capitol, they wanted it to be a “Temple of Democracy,” which is more than just the “needful building” that the Constitution states is allowed in Article I section 8. Memorializing things is something so simple, and basically so harmless, that nobody I’ve ever come across (before you) has ever thought to challenge it on Constitutional grounds.
Fine if you want to say that this event is not WORTH memorializing, but to say that all memorializing whatsoever is a statist power grab? What? It’s a piece of granite! It’s an empty piece of land! And you’re comparing this to the creation of Social Security and Medicare!? What? It’s not like we’re creating a memorial bureaucracy! We’re creating a national park so that people will remember private citizens who saved this country from disaster. What is this statism that you keep seeing? Its connection to taxes!? We’ve had taxes since the beginning (with the colonies and states, BEFORE the beginning) of this country! You’re not even complaining about too many taxes, or taxation with representation, you’re attacking the very idea of taxes. What?
But that’s an argument from common sense. Here’s an argument from the Constitution. Article I Section 8 says that Congress may “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Memorializing citizens who gave their lives is not NECESSARY, but it most certainly is PROPER. The Department that this clause references is the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, which takes care of our national park system. The appropriation of money is a LAW, which this section of the Constitution clearly authorizes. BOOM. It’s Constitutional.
Also, side notes: Yes, government has a monopoly on force. That’s a good thing. That way you don’t have to defend your life an your property on a daily basis from competing power seekers. The right thing to do isn’t complain about the fact that the government HAS that monopoly; we’re supposed to make sure it’s using it properly. When government acts properly, it’s doing a good thing. I don’t know if you want the government to do ANYTHING, because now even the things the Constitution authorizes the government to do are off limits due to the indelible connection to statist tax power.
Easy there big fella… I never said that the memorial was not WORTH building. I would even make a small monetary contribution towards its construction. I just said that it was not worth building at the point of a gun. I also made a case for the privatization of such a monument through the use of an NPO being more noble and thus better honoring those HEROS. I never said it was NOT WORTH building. I never said it was a statist power grab. I said it was STATIST. I use the term STATIST in a more SOCIALISTIC context rather than that of its FASCIST origins. (However one could make a case where by both apply). You speak of doing this for ALL Americans by forcing ALL Americans (well 56% of Americans) to pay for it. I am simply asking which is of these is moral, compulsory support of a peice of granite (as you coldly put it) with the point of a gun, or FREE voluntary support absent force and coercion.
My references to taxation have been limited to the Personal Income Tax which didnt come into exsistence until 1916 during the “Progressive Era.” I do believe a compulsory tax upon an individuals Income to be immoral (since 1916 it has been constitutional, but that does not make it moral).
My analogy to people using SS and Medi to support thier case for public option, were in reference to your rationing more legal larceny based upon past uses of legal larceny…. Read More
Your brand of loose interpretation of the Constitution is precisely what has created the Nationalism that we currently find ourselves in. Do you honestly believe that, aside from Hamilton, any of our founding fathers intended for the Federal government to, by cumpulsory force, take the property of private citizens to pay for building a monument?
To me this discussion is not about the monument, but more about the principle behind it. You are okay with theft as long as that theft is spent in reasonable, responsible way on say, your wars or your “Temples of Democracy” while I am not okay with THEFT.
As for Government and its monopoly on FORCE, it should be checked at every level by the States, and bound and constrained by a Constitution (that you see fit to stretch to fit your argument), and tolerated rather than celebrated.
As for my aparent lack of “common sense,” I will leave the personal attacks alone….
My point is that the GOVERNMENT has an obligation to recognize memorialize certain heroic acts of citizens to preserve and defend this society. If the government is not paying for a memorial, then the government is not memorializing. Sure, it would be great if an NPO built one, but that would also be a dereliction of duty on the part of the government. Since it would be immoral for the government to shortchange their duty, it would be more moral for the government to make it than an NPO. That’s why I want the government to pay for it.
I find it funny that everything the government does is “at the point of a gun” and “larceny” and “theft.” You treat the government as one big criminal organization. But the government is the one thing that is SUPPOSED to do things at the point of the gun (In Romans, Paul calls it wielding the sword). Would you rather the government NOT control society? Would you rather have several rival centers of authority all taking things at the point of a gun? If government doesn’t control things, and yes control at the point of a gun, then it is not government. Taxes are a part of government! You can’t have a government without them! When something is paid for with taxes, that doesn’t make it evil! The government is supposed to pay for good things with taxes. This particular memorial park is a good thing, the government has already collected the taxes. Why can’t we put those two things together? I’m also confused as to why one form of taxes is evil while another form (the kind you don’t directly see on April 15th) is not evil. Taxes are taxes.
And as for monuments: Temple of Democracy, man. Pierre L’Enfent. Washington DC was supposed to be an impressive city, not just a functional one. That’s a memorial right there. And that includes almost all the founders…. Read More
Also, I would rather you question my common sense than to connect me with statist socialism. Some things are more insulting than others.
How is the taking from some and giving to “All” not wealth distributing statist socialism?
Where does the state derive this obligation to memorialize people/places/things?
So what you are saying is that you WANT to force other people to pay for something you believe is noble and good rather than letting individuals freely choose what they would like to give to?… Read More
Taxes are taxes. Some are just more sinister than others. A sales tax is generally a flat tax levied equally on all based on consumption. There are excise taxes on specific products and goods, and tariffs. Our income tax is a progressive tax, taking from some and giving to others….”from each according to his ability, to each according to their need” type a thing. Thomas Jefferson once wrote about this type of tax in relationship to the general welfare clause of the constitution:
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
Prior to the ratification of the 16th Ammendment the only income tax that was levied on the people of this nation was done so in order to pay for the enormous debt caused by Lincoln’s war. After the war was over it was quickly repealed. Another income tax was attempted in the 1890s and found to be unconstitutional. Then came the so-called progressive era and the ratification of the 16th Ammendment and the beginings of the modern welfare/warfare state. Then there is the regressive tax generate by the Federal Reserve through inflation that impacts everyone but primarily those on fixed incomes but that is another story.
Income taxation is not voluntary. We do not choose to sanction the government and give them our money: they demand it from us based on where we live, and if we refuse to give it up, they use their own laws and guns against us. No other organization uses such strong-arm tactics, except perhaps the mafia.
The legal definition of extortion: The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. – United States Code, Title 18
If you refuse to pay your taxes, if you do not consent to the government’s claim over you, then the government (more specifically, the IRS) may perform armed raids on your property, and will threaten you with harm to your property through politely-worded letters. Taxation, therefore, seems to fit the definition of extortion approved by the government itself.
Lysander Spooner said it best “The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: ‘Your money, or your life.’ And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.”
Long story short….. If I go around with a gun telling people to surrender part of their income so I can use it to what I consider noble purposes, I would be considered a gangster and a criminal. Now if extortion is evil, and stealing is evil. Since government (however small) cannot exist without some form of taxation, then doesn’t it stand to reason that government is evil.
I use words like “theft”, “point of a gun”, “larceny” to refer to government like it is a criminal organization because held to even the lowest of societal standards GOVERNMENT IS A CRIMINAL ORGINIZATION. Washington would put it this way, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.”
You never answered my question: Which is of these is moral, compulsory support of a peice of granite (as you coldly put it) with the point of a gun, or FREE voluntary support absent force and coercion?
Why should we spend money on a monument, would not the very people who died to defend our countries freedom rather us put the money towards fixing our country. I would much rather see efforts taken towards fixing Louisiana’s faulty education system, matching the ardour and love for humanity that the flight passengers showed. Would that not be the better way to remember them, spending a surplus of money in such harsh economic times for such a frivolous thing as a piece of marble seems more towards the detrement of this great country. Let us not hinder our children with the past but seek to give them a better future.
That sounds nice, but in the end, it means doing nothing in response to Flight 93. I also don’t know why Louisiana’s education system would be picked for the memorial project, but even if it was, such an action should have be taken whether Flight 93 happened or not. No, it wouldn’t be a better way to remember the passengers of flight 93, because no one will remember them more fondly because money is spent in the same way that it was always spent and in the same way that it will be spent in the future. “The Flight 93 Memorial Educational Reform Bill” wouldn’t cut it in my view. And we’re not even memorializing the passengers’ love for humanity. We’re memorializing their bravery and sacrifice, somehow connecting that to an educational reform bill would be playing politics, not honoring the dead.
Stewart: and when the nat’l parks are overrun, maybe Gabi and I will let you stay on the private island we plan to run in the South Pacific. Supposed to keep us busy in our retirement.